Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the angel of the Annunciation should not have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. For "intellectual vision is more excellent than bodily vision," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii), and especially more becoming to an angel: since by intellectual vision an angel is seen in his substance; whereas in a bodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape which he assumes. Now since it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the Divine Conception, so, seemingly, he should have appeared in the most excellent kind of vision. Therefore it seems that the angel of the Annunciation appeared to the Virgin in an intellectual vision.

Objection 2: Further, imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily vision: just as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. But "the angel . . . appeared to Joseph in his sleep" (Mt. 1:20), which was clearly an imaginary vision. Therefore it seems that he should have appeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an imaginary vision.

Objection 3: Further, the bodily vision of a spiritual substance stupefies the beholder; thus we sing of the Virgin herself: "And the Virgin seeing the light was filled with fear" . But it was better that her mind should be preserved from being thus troubled. Therefore it was not fitting that this announcement should be made in a bodily vision.

On the contrary, Augustine in a sermon (De Annunt. iii) pictures the Blessed Virgin as speaking thus: "To me came the archangel Gabriel with glowing countenance, gleaming robe, and wondrous step." But these cannot pertain to other than bodily vision. Therefore the angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin.

I answer that, The angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin. And this indeed was fitting, first in regard to that which was announced. For the angel came to announce the Incarnation of the invisible God. Wherefore it was becoming that, in order to make this known, an invisible creature should assume a form in which to appear visibly: forasmuch as all the apparitions of the Old Testament are ordered to that apparition in which the Son of God appeared in the flesh.

Secondly, it was fitting as regards the dignity of the Mother of God, who was to receive the Son of God not only in her mind, but in her bodily womb. Therefore it behooved not only her mind, but also her bodily senses to be refreshed by the angelic vision.

Thirdly, it is in keeping with the certainty of that which was announced. For we apprehend with greater certainty that which is before our eyes, than what is in our imagination. Thus Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.) that the angel "came to the Virgin not in her sleep, but visibly. For since she was receiving from the angel a message exceeding great, before such an event she needed a vision of great solemnity."

Reply to Objection 1: Intellectual vision excels merely imaginary and merely bodily vision. But Augustine himself says (De Annunt. iii) that prophecy is more excellent if accompanied by intellectual and imaginary vision, than if accompanied by only one of them. Now the Blessed Virgin perceived not only the bodily vision, but also the intellectual illumination. Wherefore this was a more excellent vision. Yet it would have been more excellent if she had perceived the angel himself in his substance by her intellectual vision. But it was incompatible with her state of wayfarer that she should see an angel in his essence.

Reply to Objection 2: The imagination is indeed a higher power than the exterior sense: but because the senses are the principle of human knowledge, the greatest certainty is in them, for the principles of knowledge must needs always be most certain. Consequently Joseph, to whom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not have so excellent a vision as the Blessed Virgin.

Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 1:11: "We are disturbed, and lose our presence of mind, when we are confronted by the presence of a superior power." And this happens not only in bodily, but also in imaginary vision. Wherefore it is written (Gn. 15:12) that "when the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome horror seized upon him." But by being thus disturbed man is not harmed to such an extent that therefore he ought to forego the vision of an angel. First because from the very fact that man is raised above himself, in which matter his dignity is concerned, his inferior powers are weakened; and from this results the aforesaid disturbance: thus, also, when the natural heat is drawn within a body, the exterior parts tremble. Secondly, because, as Origen says (Hom. iv in Luc.): "The angel who appeared, knowing hers was a human nature, first sought to remedy the disturbance of mind to which a man is subject." Wherefore both to Zachary and to Mary, as soon as they were disturbed, he said: "Fear not." For this reason, as we read in the life of Anthony, "it is difficult to discern good from evil spirits. For if joy succeed fear, we should know that the help is from the Lord: because security of soul is a sign of present majesty. But if the fear with which we are stricken persevere, it is an enemy that we see."

Moreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the Virgin should be troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 1:20: "It is the part of a virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink from men's addresses."

But others says that as the Blessed Virgin was accustomed to angelic visions, she was not troubled at seeing this angel, but with wonder at hearing what the angel said to her, for she did not think so highly of herself. Wherefore the evangelist does not say that she was troubled at seeing the angel, but "at his saying."

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus annuntians non debuerit virgini apparere visione corporali.

Dignior enim est intellectualis visio quam corporalis, ut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. Ad litt., et praecipue ipsi Angelo magis conveniens, nam visione intellectuali videtur Angelus in sua substantia; visione autem corporali videtur in assumpta figura corporea. Sed sicut ad annuntiandum conceptum divinum decebat venire summum nuntium, ita etiam videtur quod decuerit esse summum genus visionis. Ergo videtur quod Angelus annuntians apparuit virgini visione intellectuali.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, visio imaginaria videtur etiam esse nobilior quam visio corporalis, sicut imaginatio est altior potentia quam sensus.

Sed Angelus apparuit ioseph in somnis, secundum imaginariam visionem, ut patet Matth. I et II.

Ergo videtur quod etiam apparere debuerit beatae virgini imaginaria visione, et non corporali.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, corporalis visio spiritualis substantiae videntes stupefacit, unde etiam de ipsa virgine cantatur, et expavescit virgo de lumine.

Sed melius fuisset quod a tali turbatione mens eius esset praeservata. Non ergo fuit conveniens quod huiusmodi Annuntiatio fieret per visionem corporalem.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in quodam sermone, inducit beatam virginem sic dicentem, venit ad me gabriel Archangelus facie rutilans, veste coruscans, incessu mirabilis.

Sed haec non possunt pertinere nisi ad corpoream visionem.

Ergo corporea visione Angelus annuntians beatae virgini apparuit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod Angelus annuntians apparuit matri dei corporea visione. Et hoc conveniens fuit, primo quidem, quantum ad id quod annuntiabatur. Venerat enim Angelus annuntiare incarnationem invisibilis dei. Unde etiam conveniens fuit ut ad huius rei declarationem invisibilis creatura formam assumeret in qua visibiliter appareret, cum etiam omnes apparitiones veteris testamenti ad hanc apparitionem ordinentur, qua filius dei in carne apparuit. Secundo, congruum fuit dignitati matris dei, quae non solum in mente, sed in corporeo ventre erat dei filium receptura. Et ideo non solum mens eius, sed etiam sensus corporei erant visione angelica refovendi. Tertio, congruit certitudini eius quod annuntiabatur. Ea enim quae sunt oculis subiecta, certius apprehendimus quam ea quae imaginamur.

Unde chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quod Angelus non in somnis, immo visibiliter virgini astitit.

Nam quia magnam valde relationem ab Angelo accipiebat, egebat ante tantae rei eventum visione solemni.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectualis visio est potior quam visio imaginaria vel corporalis si sit sola.

Sed ipse Augustinus dicit quod est excellentior prophetia quae habet simul intellectualem et imaginariam visionem, quam illa quae habet alterum tantum.

Beata autem virgo non solum percepit visionem corporalem, sed etiam intellectualem illuminationem. Unde talis apparitio nobilior fuit. Fuisset tamen nobilior si ipsum Angelum intellectuali visione in sua substantia vidisset. Sed hoc non patiebatur status hominis viatoris, quod Angelum per essentiam videret.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod imaginatio quidem est altior potentia quam sensus exterior, quia tamen principium humanae cognitionis est sensus, in eo consistit maxima certitudo; quia semper oportet quod principia cognitionis sint certiora.

Et ideo ioseph, cui Angelus in somnis apparuit, non ita excellentem apparitionem habuit sicut beata virgo.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., perturbamur et a nostro alienamur affectu, quando restringimur alicuius superioris potestatis occursu.

Et hoc non solum contingit in visione corporali, sed etiam in visione imaginaria.

Unde Gen. XV dicitur quod, cum sol occubuisset, sopor irruit super Abraham, et horror magnus et tenebrosus invasit eum.

Talis tamen perturbatio hominis non tantum homini nocet ut propter eam debeat angelica apparitio praetermitti. Primo quidem, quia ex hoc ipso quod homo supra seipsum elevatur, quod ad eius pertinet dignitatem, pars eius inferior debilitatur, ex quo provenit perturbatio praedicta, sicut etiam, calore naturali ad interiora reducto, exteriora tremunt. Secundo quia, sicut Origenes dicit, super Luc., Angelus apparens, sciens hanc esse humanam naturam, primum perturbationi humanae medetur.

Unde tam zachariae quam mariae, post turbationem, dixit, ne timeas.

Et propter hoc, ut legitur in vita Antonii, non difficilis est bonorum spirituum malorumque discretio. Si enim post timorem successerit gaudium, a domino venisse sciamus auxilium, quia securitas animae praesentis maiestatis indicium est. Si autem incussa formido permanserit hostis est qui videtur.

Ipsa etiam turbatio virginis conveniens fuit verecundiae virginali.

Quia, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., trepidare virginum est, et ad omnes viri ingressus pavere, omnes viri affatus vereri.

Quidam tamen dicunt quod, cum beata virgo assueta esset visionibus Angelorum, non fuit turbata in visione Angeli, sed in admiratione eorum quae ei ab Angelo dicebantur, quia de se tam magnifica non cogitabat.

Unde et evangelista non dicit quod turbata fuerit in visione Angeli, sed, in sermone eius.