Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:

“Otherwise; the Angel seeing the depths of the Divine mercy, the laws of nature broken through and reconciliation made, He who was above all made lower than all; all these wonders, all this he comprises in that one saying, Now all this hath happened; as though he had said, Do not suppose that this is newly devised of God, it was determined of old. And he rightly cites the Prophet not to the Virgin, who as a maiden was untaught in such things, but to Joseph, as to one much versed in the Prophets. And at first he had spoken of Mary as thy wife, but now in the words of the Prophet he brings in the word “Virgin,” that he might hear this from the Prophet, as a thing long before determined. Therefore to confirm what he had said, he introduces Isaiah, or rather God; for he does not say, Which was spoken by Isaiah, but, Which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet.”

“(In loc.) For that which Matthew the Evangelist says, Shall have in her womb, the Prophet who is foretelling something future, writes, shall receive. The Evangelist, not foretelling the future but describing the past, changes shall receive, into shall have; but he who has, cannot after receive that he has. He says, Lo, a Virgin shall hare in her womb, and shall bear a Son.”

“(Cont. Faust. 12. 45, and 13. 7.) Who so mad as to say with Manichæus, that it is a weak faith not to believe in Christ without a witness; whereas the Apostle says, How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14.) That those things which were preached by the Apostles might not be contemned, nor thought to be fables, they are proved to have been foretold by the Prophets. For though attested by miracles, yet there would not have been wanting men to ascribe them all to magical power, had not such suggestions been overcome by the additional testimony of prophecy. For none could suppose that long before He was born, He had raised up by magic prophets to prophesy of Him. For if we say to a Gentile, Believe on Christ that He is God, and he should answer, Whence is it that I should believe on Him? we might allege the authority of the Prophets. Should he refuse assent to this, we establish their credit from their having foretold things to come, and those things having truly come to pass. I suppose he could not but know how great persecutions the Christian religion has formerly suffered from the Kings of this world; let him now behold those very Kings submitting to the kingdom of Christ, and all nations serving the same; all which things the Prophets foretold. He then hearing these things out of the Scriptures of the Prophets, and beholding them accomplished throughout the whole earth, would be moved to faith.”

“(Hom. 1 and 2. in Conc. Eph. ap. Hard. t. i. pp. 1643. 1655.) Inasmuch as Photinus affirms that He that was now born was mere man, not allowing the divine birth, and maintains that He who now issued from the womb was the man separate from the God; let him shew how it was possible that human nature, born of the Virgin’s womb, should have preserved the virginity of that womb uncorrupted; for the mother of no man ever yet remained a virgin. But forasmuch as it was God the Word who was now born in the flesh, He shewed Himself to be the Word, in that He preserved His mother’s virginity. For as our word when it is begot does not destroy the mind, so neither does God the Word in choosing His birth destroy the virginity.”

“It is the custom of the Evangelist to confirm what he says out of the Old Testament, for the sake of those Jews who believed on Christ, that they might recognize as fulfilled in the grace of the Gospel, the things that were foretold in the Old Testament; therefore he adds, Now all this was done. Here we must enquire why he should say all this was done, when above he has only related the conception. It should be known that he says this to shew, that in the presence of God all this was done before it was done among men. Or he says, all this was done, because he is relating past events; for when he wrote, it was all done.”

“(Dial. tit. 7.) For we know not that any man of that day was called Emmanuel. But the Hebrew objects, How can it be that this was said on account of Christ and Mary, when many centuries intervened between Ahaz and Mary? But though the Prophet was speaking to Ahaz, the prophecy was yet not spoken to him only or of his time only; for it is introduced, Hear, O house of David; (Isa. 7:13.) not, ‘Hear, O Ahaz.’ Again, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign; meaning He, and none other; from which we may understand that the Lord Himself should be the sign. And that he says to you, (plur.) and not ‘to thee,’ shews that this was not spoken to Ahaz, or on his account only.”

“Above, the Evangelist proved that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit from two things, namely from the revelation of the Angel and from the foretelling of the prophet; he intends to show this same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced to the words of the Angel so as to take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known her to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. And concerning this he does two things: first, the obedience of the spouse himself to the Angel is set forth; second, the manner of the obedience is described, there at "and he took." And note that because through the disobedience of the first man we fell into sin — Romans 5:19: "through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" — therefore at the beginning of our reparation obedience is set forth. And we can note four things which are necessary for obedience. The first is that it be ordered. And I say ordered, because first vices must be abandoned, and afterward one must obey unto the operation of the virtues; Jeremiah 4:3: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not upon thorns," and so forth. And therefore here it is said that Joseph, rising up from sleep — namely, from the sleep of sloth and of doubt. Concerning this sleep it is said, Ephesians 5:14: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead." The second, indeed, is that it must be prompt: and this is what is said, Ecclesiasticus 5:8: "Delay not from day to day, be not slow to turn to the Lord; for his wrath will come suddenly." And therefore here it is said that he immediately did as he commanded him. The Gloss: whoever is admonished by God should dissolve delays, rise from sleep, and do what is commanded. The third, indeed, is that it must be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but it is done in the manner in which it is commanded and in the way in which it is enjoined upon them. Hence here it is said "as he had commanded." The Gloss: perfect obedience. Colossians 3:20: "Children, obey your parents in all things." The fourth is that it must be discreet, so that obedience is given to him to whom it is owed, and in that in which it is owed, so that nothing is done against God: hence it says that he did as the Angel commanded him — not an evil spirit, but one of God. 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world," and so forth. "And he took." Here it is shown in what things he obeyed, and three things are set forth: first, the obedience which he showed to the Angel; second, the reverence which he showed to the mother; third, the compliance which he showed to Christ once born. The Angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife." And Joseph did as he commanded, and so forth. Whence it is clear that he found the woman good. But did he not already have her in the house? Why then does it say, rising up... he took? Chrysostom answers: because he had not cast her out from the house, but from his heart. Or because she was first taken in betrothal, but the nuptials were still to be celebrated afterward, and then it is said that she is taken, and that she is a wife. And lest anyone should suspect that carnal union intervened, he adds, "and he did not know her." Here it must be known that this word "to know" is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for recognition, John 14:7: "and henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him"; sometimes for carnal union, as in Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife Eve," etc., namely, carnally. But an objection is raised, because it is not said simply that he did not know her, etc., but "until she brought forth her son." Therefore afterward he knew her; whence also Helvidius said that although as a virgin she conceived Christ, nevertheless afterward she had other sons by Joseph. And therefore Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as if I should say, "I will not come until I eat," because thereby I signify that I am going to come afterward; but sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he must reign, until he puts all his enemies under his feet." Will he then not reign afterward? Indeed he will; but Scripture uses such a manner of speaking because it intends to remove that which could be doubtful. For it could be doubtful whether he would reign, at a time when he had not yet put his enemies under his feet. Likewise it could be doubtful, once the Blessed Virgin had given birth, whether before the birth she had been known by Joseph — since the first point ought to come into doubt for no one, seeing that the Angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will," Luke 2:14. And this, therefore, is what the Evangelist intends. And Jerome argues excellently against Helvidius: "You say, Helvidius, that before this Joseph did not know her, because he had been admonished in his sleep by the Angel. If, then, an admonition in sleep so availed that he did not join himself to Mary, how much more the knowledge of the Angels, the adoration of the shepherds and of the magi?" Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual recognition: that is, he did not know how great her dignity was; but after she gave birth, he came to know it. Others say that it is taken for sensible recognition, and thus the opinion of these is fairly probable as well. For they say that Moses, from the Lord's speaking with him, had such brightness in his face that the children of Israel could not gaze intently upon his face, 2 Corinthians 3:7. Therefore if Moses had this from his fellowship with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who bore him in her womb, have such brightness in her face that Joseph did not recognize her. But the first exposition is more literal. Likewise Helvidius says that the letter states, "until she brought forth her firstborn son." "First" is said with respect to a later one. Therefore she had other children. Jerome answers that it is customary in Sacred Scripture that those are called firstborn whom no others precede: Exodus 13:12 it is said that the firstborn of the Jews were to be offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: was it then necessary to wait, so that they would not be offered until a second one was born? Therefore those are called firstborn whom no others precede; and thus it is to be understood here. The compliance follows. Luke 2:21 carries this out more fully, but Matthew touches on it briefly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills, that what one has said, the other should pass over in silence. "He called his name Jesus"; this name indeed was not a little renowned among the ancients, and desired; Genesis 49:18: "I will look for your salvation, O Lord." And Habakkuk 3:18: "But I will rejoice in the Lord, and I will exult in God my Jesus."”

“Now all this was done,.... These are not the words of the Angel, but of the Evangelist; observing that Mary's being with child of the Holy Ghost, and her conception in such an extraordinary manner, whilst a pure virgin, before she and Joseph came together, who though espoused to him, was untouched by him, were all brought about in this way, and with such circumstances, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet; that is, the Prophet Isaiah, and so some copies read. The passage referred to is in Isa 7:14 what is there spoken was by divine inspiration; it was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet; the Spirit of the Lord spake by him. Prophets and holy men formerly, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; so that what they said is to be looked upon as the word of God. Now between the prophecy of Isaiah referred to, and the fact here recorded by the Evangelist, is an entire agreement: the prophecy shows the will, counsel, and determination of God about this matter; the accomplishment of it, the faithfulness and veracity of God in his word; the prediction declares that the thing would be, and the thing itself was done, that what was spoken might be fulfilled; not merely by way of accommodation, or in a typical and mystical, but in a strict, proper and literal sense.”

“Isai. vii. 14. The prediction here cited was uttered on occasion of the siege of Jerusalem, by the joint forces of the kings of Syria and Israel. Isaiah being sent to Achaz, king of Judah, to assure him that the besieging armies should not prevail, directed the prince to ask from God a sign to that effect ; but Achaz professed an unwillingness to tempt God, by demanding extraordinary manifestations. Then the prophet rel)uking him, said that God himself would give a sign in the birth of Emmanuel from a virgin, adding : " He will eat butter and honey, that he may know how to refuse the evil and to choose the good. For before the child know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good, the land which thou abhorresl shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings." These passages lead Calmet and others to consider the proximate deliverance of”

“(non occ.) Or it may be said, that the word that does not here denote the cause; for the prophecy was not fulfilled merely because it was to be fulfilled. But it is put consecutively, as in Genesis, He hung the other on the gallows, that the truth of the interpreter might be proved; (Gen. 40:22.) since by the weighing of one, truth is established. So also in this place we must understand it as if it were, that which was foretold being done, the prophecy was accomplished.”

“(ap. Anselm.) This error then is barred by the Evangelist saying, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet. Now one kind of prophecy is by the preordination of God, and must needs be fulfilled, and that without any free choice on our part. Such is that of which we now speak; wherefore he says, Lo, to shew the certainty of prophecy. There is another kind of prophecy which is by the foreknowledge of God, and with this our free will is mixed up; wherein by grace working with us we obtain reward, or if justly deserted by it, torment. Another is not of foreknowledge, but is a kind of threat made after the manner of men; as that, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown: (Jonah 3.) understanding, unless the Ninevites amend themselves.”