Question Two. Whether between Mary and Joseph there was True Matrimony

32. Second [n.2] I ask whether between Mary and Joseph there was true matrimony.

33. That there was not:

Gratian, Decretum, p.2 cause 17 q.1 ch.2, “For those who vow chastity not only marrying but wanting to marry is damnable;” but the Blessed Virgin had vowed chastity; therefore, she did not contract matrimony with Joseph; otherwise she would have mortally sinned.

34. Again, in Numbers 36.7-8 is contained that according to the Law women ought to marry men of their tribe; therefore, Mary was only able to marry a man of her tribe; but Joseph was of the tribe of Judah, Luke 2.4, because he was “of the house of David,” but Mary was of the tribe of Levi, Luke 1.36, because “her kinswoman, Elizabeth.”

35. Again, one who contracts matrimony consents to something; not only to cohabitation, because brother and sister can consent thus;     therefore , to carnal union, because matrimony seems to add nothing else over and above cohabitation; but the Blessed Virgin could not have consented to that union, because she had vowed virginity.

36. To the opposite is the Master in the text [Lombard, Sent. IV d.30 ch.2 n.1], and it is taken from Matthew 1.18, “Since she was betrothed etc     .”

I. To the Question

37. Here two things need looking at: first, that it was so; second, how it could have been so.

A. Between Mary and Joseph there was True Matrimony

38. The first point is plain from the authorities that the Master puts in the text [Lombard, Sent. IV d.30 ch.2 nn.2-5, from Ambrose and Augustine].

39. And there is a fitting reason for this, because either there was a divine precept universal for everyone in the Law about contracting matrimony, not yet revoked at the time when the Blessed Virgin contracted matrimony, since indeed fecundity was held a blessing in the Law and sterility a curse (as is plain in many places of Scripture [Genesis, Deuteronomy, I Kings, Psalms, Proverbs]) - or if there was not a general precept, which is seen from the fact that Jeremiah and John the Baptist remained virgins, and Elijah and perhaps many others (for whom however we do not read that a special dispensation about this was made), then a special command was given to the Blessed Virgin about making a contract with Joseph.

40. There can for this be the fitting reasons assigned by Ambrose [Exposition of Luke II nn.1-13], namely so that her husband would be witness to Mary’s virginity, who would also have been able, were he not to recognize the oath [sacramentum: ?of virginity], to lament injury and avenge scandal. Thus too is greater faith ascribed to the words of Mary, and cause for lying removed. For a pregnant unmarried woman would seem to have wanted to hide her fault with a lie; and a non-betrothed woman had a reason for lying, a betrothed woman did not, since the reward of marriage and the grace of nuptials is women’s offspring. And thus, both from testimony and from presumption, she would be more believed about her virginity and the matrimonial conception of her Son.

41. It was also congruous for her to be believed about her virginity lest she be marked for ill repute, because Christ did not think faith about his own origin needed to be built on injuries to his Mother; for he knew the Virgin’s sense of shame was tender and reputation for modesty fleeting.

42. Another reason too is so that her husband would be of service also to the boy, whether going into Egypt or returning thence; which reason Origen touches on [as quoted by Deacon Winfred homily 17 On the Vigils of the Nativity] in his commentary on Matthew 1.18, “Since she was betrothed.”

43. Another reason is assigned by Ambrose [ibid. n.40], namely so that the devil be deceived. - But this reason seems of little moment; for how could the devil not see the virginity of Mary if she had Joseph as husband than if she did not have him? But it needs to be understood that he could not see this because he was not allowed to, though by the natural power of his intellect he could have seen integrity in her, both of mind and body. But, being prohibited, he was unable to approach her in place or in intellect. This also does Bernard say [On the Praises of the Virgin Mother hom.2 n.13], that he could not approach her; but neither did he care to, because he saw her betrothed to a husband. This reason, therefore, does not seem to be of great moment, because he could have been as equally prohibited if she had not had a husband.

44. But the other reasons do seem well fitting to the issue at hand: that Christ would [otherwise] take his beginning from injury to the Law, that he not give occasion to Jews and to Herod to persecute Christ, since the offspring of an unmarried woman is condemned by the Law; so that too he not leave to virgins living under sinister opinion a veil of excuse, because the Mother of the Lord would also be seen to be defamed.

B. How there Could have been a True Matrimony between Mary and Joseph

1. Opinion of Others

45. On the second main point [n.37], some say [Thomas Aquinas, Sent. IV d.30 q.2 a.1; Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.30 princ. 2 q.1] that the Blessed Virgin vowed virginity under a condition, namely unless God were to dispose differently; and therefore it was licit for her to contract matrimony.

46. On the contrary: in every vow, however absolute, this condition ‘if it please God’ is understood, because no one should offer anything to God regardless of whether God wants it or not; nor would he who intends so intend in ordered manner. Therefore, an absolute vow stands along with this condition, so understood; and if the condition be added, it counts as not added, because in no respect does it diminish the idea of a vow.

2. Scotus’ own Opinion

47. I say, therefore, along with the saints, that she absolutely and simply vowed virginity, which the saints [Augustine, Bede, Bernard] also put together from the words of her question or query to Gabriel [Luke 1.34], “How will this be since I know not man?” For if she had not known man only in act without a firm resolve never to know man, there would have been no question, because she could, being known later, have conceived, since she was not sterile. But for this reason was the question reasonable, and about something beyond marvelous for her, because she had most firmly pledged or vowed that she was never to be known by man. And to this understanding did the angel reply: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you etc.” [Luke 1.35]

48. How then was she able to contract matrimony?

I reply: in a matrimonial contract there is a mutual giving of bodies for carnal union only under a condition, namely if it is asked for. Hence those who contract with the resolve at once to vow chastity do truly contract. Now this condition is not prejudicial to a vow of chastity, even when a contract of matrimony is in place, unless the condition were put into effect; therefore, when there is certitude simply that it would never be put into effect, a contract of matrimony does not at all prejudice a vow of chastity. But here there was such assurance, at least by inspiration or perhaps by revelation; for from the fact we have it in Matthew 1.20 that the Angel instructed Joseph saying, “Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife,” much more indubitably must we believe that she, by an angel or immediately by God (before she was espoused to Joseph), was taught with certitude as follows, ‘Do not be afraid to take Joseph for your spouse; for behold the Holy Spirit will give him as both guardian and witness of your virginity, who is to be continent along with you by equal vow, and who is to serve you in many things that are becoming to the guardianship of your virginity’. Nor is there wonder about this probability, since whatever was done in Joseph by the angelic vision was all done by reason of Mary, who was immediate in that ineffable and admirable conception of the only begotten Son of God. And many things are read in her life about how Mary and Joseph came together with each other [Jacob de Varagine, Golden Legends, ch.6, Jerome, Bernard]

49. An example of this can be taken from Boniface VIII Decretals Book Six V tit.12 ch.3, ‘On the signification of words’, where is read compendiously that ‘to concede to others the use, while retaining the lordship, is not useless; indeed such concession is fruitful to the owner, since it is meritorious for things eternal and opportune for the profession of the poor’. So in the issue at hand, to give to another power over one’s body for such act, if it be asked for, having retained however the use for oneself, because it will not be asked for by the other, is not useless.

50. However this example is subject to evasion, because it does not seem that use could be kept back while ownership is handed over as ownership could be kept while use is handed over, because the latter can more be handed over without the former than conversely. But as far as this is concerned, it seems that one without the other can belong to anyone. However, in the issue at hand neither did she retain the use by her own authority, but she was certain that the Holy Spirit would retain the use, because never would the other, to whom that use was due, demand the use.

51. Another example is: if someone had contracted espousals with an oath and had afterwards vowed virginity, it would seem that she should be advised that she should complete the espousals by contracting matrimony in fact and yet should keep her vow, because immediately before consummation of matrimony she should fly off to Religion; therefore it is licit for her to give power over her body to her spouse, by contracting matrimony truly ratified, and yet the intention of never giving the use, and this on her own part, without knowing that the other person would never ask for the use; therefore much more would it be licit to contract matrimony thus, if she knew with certitude that her spouse would never ask for the aforesaid use.

52. Again, an adulteress has power over her husband’s body, because through matrimony was it given to her indissolubly; and yet she does not have, nor can have, as concerns her own part, the use of his body, because of her sin. Therefore, sin can perpetually prohibit use, while the power given in matrimony stands. Therefore, much more does the Holy Spirit have power for this on account of some honorable cause.

II. To the Initial Arguments

53. To the first argument [n.33] I say that the authority must be understood of those who want to marry according to the common law, for whom, of course, it is not settled with certitude that the use consequent to such act would never be asked for.

54. As to the second [n.34] it can be said that that law was given because of the daughters of Salphaad, and this, it is plain from Numbers 36.6-10, so that property not be transferred from tribe to tribe. Therefore, it only obligates those women on whom the inheritance devolved (as the paternal inheritance had devolved on those women, because their father was dead). But Mary was not an heiress, therefore it was licit for her to marry someone of another tribe.

55. It can also be said in another way that Mary was of both tribes, both Judah and Levi: of the tribe of Judah on the part of her father, of the tribe of Levi on the part of her mother. For indeed Joachim was descended from Nathan, the son of David, as is plain from Damascene Orthodox Faith ch.90, where he sets down the generation of the holy Mother of God. But Anna, the mother of Mary, is presumed to have been of the tribe of Levi, so that Elizabeth through her would be Mary’s kinswoman. The first point, too, that Mary was of the tribe and kinship of Judah, can be proved by the fact that the Gospel deduces that Christ was of the tribe of Judah by deducing that Joseph was of that tribe, which would only be the case if Mary were of that tribe, because Christ was not of the tribe of Judah on account of Joseph but on account of Mary. And this reason Jerome touches on at the beginning of Matthew [Commentary on Matthew 1.1.18]

56. To the final argument [n.35] the answer is plain in the solution of the question, the second article [n.48], that this consent lies in the handing over of the mutual power of bodies for procreating offspring, and consequently for use if it be asked for; but there was certitude here that this use would never be asked for by her spouse, namely Joseph.