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.