Chapters 11 through 13 The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

CHAPTER XI: The Birth Of Joseph A Joy In Heaven And In Limbo.

THE birth of the saints is, as St. Ambrose observes, the cause of joy to many. Thus, before John the Baptist came into the world the angel announced to Zachary that many should rejoice at his birth.¹ Now, Joseph was, next to Mary, the most eminent among the saints, and was to be born for the profit of all, since he was destined by God to be the Patron of all Christians. How, then, could it be possible that his nativity should pass unnoticed and not be the cause of joy in Heaven?

The Blessed Trinity rejoiced at the birth of him who by his wisdom and prudence, his virginity and his charity, should veil the admirable mystery of the Incarnation from the eyes of the profane until the day fixed for its revelation; him to whom the Eternal Father was wholly to confide His Only-Begotten Son for well-nigh thirty years; to whom this Only-Begotten Son was to make Himself subject,² regarding him in the place of a father; to whom the Holy Ghost was in full confidence to entrust His Immaculate Spouse; and through whom the Most Holy Trinity would be eternally blessed, as It was afterwards to be in a yet higher degree by the birth of Mary, of whom St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "Through her the Trinity was glorified, Heaven exulted, and the angels were made glad".³ Moreover, as a sign of predilection, the Blessed Trinity was pleased immediately to confirm our saint in grace, so that by a special privilege he should never commit even a venial sin, a privilege which was most fitting in him who was to be in the place of a father to the Son of God and the true spouse of His immaculate and holy Mother. Scripture itself tells us that the glory of fathers rests upon their children ;⁴ and so, too, the honour of a husband is reflected on his wife; wherefore the Blessed Trinity multiplied Its gifts and graces in Joseph, sanctifying him (as we have shown) in his mother's womb. The holy doctor, Alfonso de' Liguori, preaching on the heart of St. Joseph, says, "God having destined Joseph to fill the office of father to the Incarnate Word, it must be held as certain that He conferred upon him all the gifts of wisdom and sanctity befitting such an office". And then he adduces in particular the threefold privilege which Gerson and Suarez attribute to him: that of being sanctified in the womb, confirmed in grace, exempted from the rebellion of concupiscence. "O blessed for ever,'' he exclaims, "be the adorable goodness of God who so nobly exalted Joseph, for our advantage also and that of the whole Church!"

All the angelic hierarchies rejoiced at the birth of Joseph, because they beheld the time arrived when Heaven should be re-opened and the seats which were left vacant by the rebel angels should again be filled. On seeing him raised to an order superior even to the highest angelic choirs, seized with a holy wonder, they sang Glory to God, and joyfully honoured him as the foster-father of their King and the spouse of their glorious Queen. But especially did those heavenly spirits rejoice who were chosen by God to guard him with loving reverence. To every human being, as we know, God appoints at his birth a guardian-angel, who shall faithfully accompany, defend, and protect him in all the necessities and perils of life; and to one who is to hold high offices committed to him by God for the benefit of others, a second angel of a superior order is assigned, that he may he enabled more efficaciously to fulfil the mission with which he has been charged.⁵ "Oh, how high," exclaims the great doctor, St. Jerome, "is the dignity of souls, which from the moment of their birth have each of them an angel appointed by God as guardian!"⁶ But if a soul is glorious which has a single tutelary angel given it, how much more glorious must that soul be which is surrounded by many sublime spirits of Paradise! And such we must fain believe was the case with our great saint.

But it may be asked, if Joseph was confirmed in grace and freed from the solicitations of concupiscence, what need had he of angelic guardianship? If he was thus specially protected by God, nay, was himself appointed to be the faithful guardian of Jesus and Mary, if he was placed in an order superior to that of the angels, does it not seem that these spirits should be given to him rather as attendants than as guardians? In reply to this objection we must repeat that if Joseph, as Doctors of the Church affirm, excelled the angels in dignity, he was not their superior in nature, since the angelic nature is undoubtedly higher than the human; and, indeed, in this was manifest the surpassing goodness of the Son of God towards us, that, when He would redeem the world from the bondage of sin, He humbled Himself to assume our human nature and not that of the angels.

Now, let us see if it was needful that Joseph should have the guardianship of angels, and in what sense it was needful. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas, speaking of man in his state of innocence, says that, although, through his possession of original justice, all within him was well regulated, nevertheless, as he was exposed to dangers from without, he needed the guardianship of angels. And the same great doctor says, speaking of the Blessed Virgin, that, as she was not in statu comprehensorum, but was still in via,⁷ she required while on earth to have angelic guardians. From all which we may infer that Joseph, albeit innocent and confirmed in grace, needed the same loving tutelage. For if it behooved the Blessed Virgin to have this guardianship, who was Mother of God and herself the Queen of Angels, how much more must Joseph, who was far inferior, have required it, both on account of perils from without, and also because he was in the state of viator; for it is precisely to such as are in the way that God appoints the angels as guardians; ⁸ with this difference, however, that, whereas to other men the angels are given as veritable guides, directors, and tutors, as superiors for the government of inferiors, who have actual need of being assisted and ruled in all things, to Mary and to Joseph they were assigned as guards of honour, who, clearing the way before them and removing every external peril, should bring them high massages from Heaven, and form their glorious retinue. A learned doctor, Tostatus Abulensis, thus sums up the purposes for which guardian-angels were assigned to Joseph from his birth.

1. For his solace and comfort in life.

2. To guide him externally, and warn him of impending dangers.

3. To remove every impediment which men or devils should cast in his way.

4. For the fuller enlightenment of his mind.

5. For the increase of his merit.

6. To communicate to him the will of God.

7. To pay him honour as the spouse of Mary and the reputed father of Jesus.

And that not one angel alone but many were assigned to Joseph may be inferred from the fact that, when Divine Goodness elects any individual for a sublime position involving most important offices, It never fails to furnish him with the necessary means of fulfilling his obligations, among which, in addition to interior gifts and graces, must be reckoned the consolations and external advantages which the guardianship of angels affords. St. Bernardine of Siena, quoting the opinion of St. John Chrysostom, St. George of Nicomedia, and St. Bonaventura, affirms that to the Blessed Virgin, already so specially protected by God Himself, many legions of angels were assigned as guardians. How, then, could it be that to Joseph, the spouse of Mary, to him who was honoured by God not, indeed, as highly as was Mary, but, next to her, above all others, only one angel should be given, considering, moreover, the various exalted offices for which he was chosen, for each of which we may believe he had a special angel appointed to assist him? Some would have to serve as a guard to his person, others to pay due honour to his dignity, as the reputed father of Jesus and the spouse of Mary. Whence a pious writer, P. Patrignani, says that " St. Joseph was the most highly favoured of men, being assisted and honoured by angels. He received from them consolation in sufferings, light in perplexities, service and aid in toils and labours ". Then, turning to the saint, he exclaims, " I marvel not, O most glorious St. Joseph, that thou wast so favoured by the angels, since thou wast so like to them in thy own angelic purity. Neither do I marvel that they should be, so to say, ambitious of serving thee, seeing that they regarded thee as superior in dignity to themselves." ⁹ And these very angels, belonging even to the highest among the angelic hierarchies, who afterwards consoled him, accompanied him, and strengthened him in the numerous painful vicissitudes of his life, these same glorious spirits does Joseph now employ to succour so many who mourn, so many afflicted families, and, in fine, the whole Church Catholic placed under his protection; saying to them, in the language of the prophet Isaias, " Go, ye swift angels, to a nation rent and torn in pieces . . . to a nation expecting and trodden under foot ".¹⁰ These angels, not only joyfully fulfil his behests, but vie with each other in forestalling his holy desires; and no wonder, since, seeing that Jesus, their King, the King of angels and of men, made Himself subject and obedient to Joseph, they know not how better to honour so great a saint than by paying him the highest reverence and homage, the humblest and most entire subjection. Here, then, we perceive the reason why at his happy birth they surrounded him with such festal joy.

The joy they felt must have had its echo among the tristful inhabitants of Limbo, to whom angels, doubtless, reported the blessed tidings that the hour of their deliverance was approaching. The birth of Joseph was the first signal of the coming of Christ. Joseph was the morning star announcing the aurora which precedes the day. The rays of this star must have filled that gloomy abode with light. And, oh, with what exceeding complacency the holy Fathers, turning their eyes to Bethlehem, must have contemplated the infant Joseph, seeing how in him all their patriarchal and prophetic dignity was about to bear its promised fruit! How they must have blessed the birth of this child, whose appearance in the world brought with it the assurance that soon their bonds would be broken, their prison opened, their banishment ended, and that they would behold their long-desired Redeemer! The very thought must have caused them unutterable joy.

1 St. Luke i. 14.

2 St. Luke ii. 51.

3 Hom. vi. in Nestor.

4 Prov. xvii. G.

5 A remarkable instance of this is recorded in the Life of M. Olier, the venerable founder of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, who himself relates the singular circumstance under which he was given an angel of his office in addition to his own angel-guardian.—Chap. iii. pp. 43, 44.

6 Comment, in Mattheum, cap. xviii.

7 Summa, p. i. q. cxiii. a. 4; p. iii. q. xxx. a. 2. By in statu comprehensorum is meant the state of those who have attained to their end, the beatific vision of God in Heaven ; by in via, the state of those who are still traversing the way of this life.

8 Psalm xe. 11.

9 R Divoto di S. Giuseppe, Novena, Gior. via.

10 Chap, xviii. 2.

CHAPTER XII:  The Birth Of Joseph A Joy On Earth.

WHEN Heaven smiles, there must be responsive joy on earth, at least in some chosen hearts; and among these foremost must have been Joseph's fortunate parents. He was their first-born son, and as such, according to the custom of the Jews, a subject of much rejoicing. But although a veil is cast over his infancy and early years, and no reliable tradition has reached us on the subject, we can scarcely imagine that no wonderful signs preceded it, such as have announced the birth of saints much inferior to him both in office and in sanctity. If so many prodigies ushered in the birth of John the Baptist, who was a great prophet and the precursor of Christ, is it conceivable that no divine intimation preceded that of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, whom he brought up, and by whom he was so tenderly loved? But since nothing of the kind is recorded the matter must be left to the pious conjectures of his devoted clients.

One surmise, however, may be hazarded. On the eighth day the babe must have been circumcised, according to the command given to Abraham and confirmed by the law of Moses. On that occasion a name was always conferred on the child, and it was the father's place to pronounce what it should . be; for we find that when the Baptist received that rite reference was made to Zachary as to how he would have him called, and he wrote "His name is John”.¹  Jesus Himself received His Name on the eighth day, the day of His circumcision. The name of Joseph must, therefore, have been given to our saint on the day of his circumcision; and by whom was it given? Assuredly by Jacob, his father, in virtue of his paternal authority. But whence did the father derive this name? Who suggested it to him? Did he receive it from Heaven? We can hardly imagine that it was bestowed on this elect babe, as we might say, by chance, for in that case Joseph would have been inferior in this inspect to many saints both of the Old and New Testament, who by a special favour received their names from God: as Abraham, Jacob, the Baptist, St. Peter, and others.

Now, since it is the common opinion of the Doctors of the Church that no gift or prerogative bestowed on the other saints, Mary always excepted, was denied to St. Joseph, it has been held by many writers to be most probable that the name of Joseph was revealed by an angel from God to his father Jacob, as was that of John to Zachary. Three reasons, according to Isolano, ought to persuade us that this name was given to Joseph by God Himself. First, its identity with that of the ancient patriarch Joseph, who on account of the wonderful things narrated of him has always been regarded as the type and figure of our saint. Secondly, the very fact that he was truly the spouse of the Mother of God and the foster-father of Jesus; for, if God gave their names to Abraham, Jacob, and Peter, with how much greater reason would He bestow a name on him who was to be brought into such close relations with His Divine Son! Thirdly, the signification of the name itself, which is interpreted as increase, a name most suitable to him in every way.²

The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas, says that the names imposed by God on certain individuals are always significant of some gratuitous gift divinely conceded to them.³ Thus the name given by God to Joseph, not only denotes the various gifts bestowed upon him for the fulfilment of the great offices for which he was designed, but points also to the continual increase of these gifts through his co-operation and perfect correspondence with divine grace. If the name of Mary, according to St. Bonaventura, was extracted from the treasures and jewel-caskets of the Lord, from the same treasures and jewel-caskets was drawn the beautiful name of Joseph. It could not have been selected or imposed by men, because it was to be closely and inseparably associated with the Divine Name of Jesus and the holy name of Mary. It was to be frequently pronounced by the august lips of Jesus and to issue sweetly from the pure lips of His Virgin Mother. It was often to be registered in the Gospel, finding its place sometimes before, sometimes between, sometimes after the blessed Names of Jesus and of Mary. The angels were often to repeat it in their messages, and men often to invoke it in their needs. Many, indeed, of God's people have borne this name, but in them it was a simple appellation, void of special significance, but not so in our saint. In him it is full of meaning, a name of great authority, of singular efficacy, of inestimable value. By interpretation it signifies, as has been said, increase; and so the ancient Jacob said, prophesying, "Joseph is a growing son,"⁴ or, according to the Hebrew, "growing by a well". And what is this life-giving fount near to which Joseph grows and increases? First, it is Jesus the well-spring of eternal life; secondly, it is Mary, who is the fountain conveying all the benedictions of Heaven. Close to these two inexhaustible fountains Joseph grew, he increased in all good; and not for himself alone, but also for us. He not only grew, but flourished and bore fruit.⁵ Hence this name of Joseph imports for us likewise continual increase, being so efficacious and powerful both with Jesus and with Mary.

Joseph, sweet name, name sublime and powerful, name which imparts gladness to the just, consolation to the afflicted, solace to those in tribulation, support to the feeble, courage to the timid, constancy to the wavering, confidence to sinners, and to the penitent the assurance of pardon! Name which is a deliverance in perils, a harbour in tempests, food in hunger, relief in destitution, peace in discords, victory in combats, health in sickness, and refuge in persecutions, a joy amidst tears, a shield, a defence, and a salvation in the last agonies! This name defeats every plot of the infernal foe, dissipates every baleful temptation, puts the devils to flight, and makes Hell itself tremble. Blessed is he who often in life invokes it; blessed he who is able to invoke it devoutly at death. He who has this holy name engraven on his brow and on his heart has a sure pledge of his salvation. St. Bonaventura, speaking of those who are devout to Mary, says that he who is stamped with her character, that is, with the love of her and of her virtues, and with the properties of a true devotion to her, will be registered in the Book of Life. And the same may be said of those who have the character, the love, the virtues of Joseph, and a true devotion to him. Blessed, then, is he who reposes under the safe shadow of the name and patronage of Joseph.

1 St. Luke i. 63.

2 Summa de Donis S. Joseph, p. i. c. i.

3 Summa, p. iil. q. xxxvii. a. 2.

 4 Gen. xlLs. 22.

5 " Joseph est eritquo Alius fructificationis; id est, fceeundus instar arboris sitae et fruetificantis juxta fontem."—Corn. a Lapide (in Ioc.)

CHAPTER XIII:  Joseph's Childhood And Youth.

THE rite of Circumcision being accomplished and the name bestowed, the offering of the first-born in the Temple would next succeed. That Joseph was a firstborn son there can be no doubt. This opinion will hold good whichever of the two views that have been stated concerning his genealogy be the correct one. For if, according to the view with which we do not agree, Jacob married the widow of Heli, who had died without children, Joseph would still be the first-born of this marriage. But we must own to a disinclination to believe that Joseph was the son of a mother who had been the wife of more than one husband. Such a mother scarcely seemed to befit him who was to be the pure spouse of a heavenly virgin and the reputed father of the Son of God Himself. Wherefore, we abide by the opinion that Joseph was the first-born of Jacob and of a young and holy spouse who had never been wedded to any other husband.

That Joseph was a first-born son we desire to establish, because under the ancient law it was esteemed an honour and a privilege to be so; and many advantages were attached to primogeniture. We can, therefore, well understand how when Esau recognised the great loss he had incurred by selling his birthright for such a trifle to his brother, he was filled with consternation and cried aloud for grief.¹ Seeing, then, that primogeniture was an important prerogative, and that Joseph was to sum up in himself all the gifts and privileges of the patriarchs, he must needs have possessed the rights and advantages of a first-born son. This being so, Joseph, as we have said, was taken to Jerusalem to be presented in the Temple, and redeemed according to the prescriptions of the Law.

Jerusalem at that period had already begun to decline. After the profanations, the outrages, and the cruelties perpetrated by the monarchs who inherited the conquests of Alexander the Great in Syria, especially by Antiochus Epiphanes, the heroic resistance of the Machabees had obtained a temporary deliverance, but the Holy City had now virtually fallen under the domination of the Romans, who had appointed as procurator of Judea Antipater, the father of Herod. All who were of the race and family of David would court obscurity and concealment through the fear inspired by their jealous rulers. Nevertheless we may be certain that, although avoiding pomp and display, the pious Jacob and his spouse must have carefully fulfilled all the obligations of the law with respect to the infant Joseph, and have also brought him yearly with them to Jerusalem, as soon as his tender age permitted, for the Paschal solemnity. And with what ecstasy, may we well believe, would this favoured child, when kneeling in the Temple, have joined in the exclamation of the Psalmist: "How lovely are Thy tabernacles, 0 Lord of Hosts! my soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord ";² and with what difficulty he would have torn himself away from the House of God, where willingly, like the young Samuel, he would have remained to spend his childhood and adolescence in the service and under the instruction of God's priests!

As time wore on, we may easily suppose that, when the parents of Joseph came up with their son to keep the feasts at Jerusalem, it would be to the house of Joachim they would repair, who at that period must have been already married to Anne, the sister, as we have already stated there is good reason to believe, of Jacob, and therefore the aunt of Joseph. According to the testimony of St. John Damascene, and of a still living tradition, the house of St. Joachim and St. Anne was near the Probatic Pool.³ Here they dwelt for many years, until civil disturbances, probably, compelled their removal to Nazareth, where they had a small patrimony. Antipater had been succeeded in the post of procurator of Judea by Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, but Herod his son, artful and ambitious, by ingratiating himself with the Romans, had himself named Tetrarch by the Senate, and two years later obtained the title of King of Judea, though some time elapsed before he was able to assume his authority. This Herod was (as we have said) the son of Antipater, an Ascalonite by nation, and an idolater. Although Judea had for some time been dependent on Rome and ruled, in fact, by her representatives, nevertheless the sceptre had not as yet departed from her. No stranger had been set up as king of the chosen people. Now, this was to be the sign of the approaching advent of the Messias, a thought which, under this new calamity, must have afforded consolation to those souls who were looking for the redemption of Israel; and they could not have been few in number, since the near accomplishment of the prophetic term of weeks, announced in vision to Daniel⁴ as to elapse before the coming of Christ, furnished an additional token that the great Deliverer was at hand. And, indeed, we find that this expectation had reached the ears of the Gentiles and prevailed throughout the East, where it was generally known that the Hebrew people were looking for a King who would restore the glories of their nation.

Great consternation seized on the Jews at the news of the elevation of this foreign and idolatrous usurper to the throne of David. Had they not reason to dread the profanation of their temple, as in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the cessation of their sacrifices, the destruction of their altars, the dispersion of their priests, besides all the miseries which the conflict of this new ruler with Antigonus was certain to involve? Prayer was their only resource ; and we may be sure that among the most fervent suppliants were Jacob and his young son, Joseph; nay, may we not piously believe that when, contrary to expectation, Herod subsequently, not only did not destroy the Temple, but largely reconstructed and adorned it, it was to the intercession of this holy child, who of all the dwellers upon earth at that time was dearest and most pleasing to God, that this happy result was mainly due? Two years after Herod's exaltation to the kingship of Judea he, with the assistance of the Romans, whose friendship he had bought, marched against Jerusalem, which during five months had to endure all the horrors of a siege; added to which, when its capture was effected, there ensued a fearful slaughter of the inhabitants by the Roman soldiery, enraged at the resistance they had encountered, and by the partisans of Herod within the walls.

Amidst all these dangers and calamities, Providence threw the shield of Its protection over the family of Joseph. But the early life of this great saint is so completely hidden in God that we must be contented to know that so it was, deprived as we are of details which would have possessed so high an interest for us. All we know for certain is that Joseph had to pass all his childhood and youth under the tyrannical rule of a proud, cruel, and jealous king; and hence always in peril, anxiety, and fear of fresh sufferings. History, so often unjust, has accorded to Herod the appellation of Great, simply because he was fortunate in his vices and in the success which his arrogance, his adroit cunning, and his cruelty won for him. Such an epithet ought to be reserved for those who have excelled in noble and signal virtues, whereas Herod was great only in his follies and in his crimes. The massacre of so many innocent babes in Bethlehem after our Lord's nativity would alone suffice to blacken his memory and render it for ever infamous. But besides this, he was continually staining his hands in blood; priests and laymen alike, princes and high officers in his army, he would order to be executed, sometimes thirty at a time. He murdered his wife, Mariamne, and Alexandra, his sister-in-law, nay, even his own sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, the last of whom he condemned to death only five days before he himself expired. To conciliate the people, however, he gave liberally when the country was desolated by plague and famine; he embellished Jerusalem, and enlarged the Temple; but this did not prevent the Jews from hating him as a tyrant, so that he had to fortify his regal abode and make to himself a citadel of the tower Antonia, which he built and named after his patron, Marcus Antonius. He was frequently accused at Borne both to Antonius and to Augustus, but he knew how to defend himself so dextrously that he returned triumphant to Jerusalem, where he put to death all whom he suspected of having been his accusers.

Under this impious and sanguinary king, then, Joseph had to pass his youth. As a descendant of the royal family of David, he had reason (as we have said) to live in continual apprehension. Jealousy and the fierce thirst of rule stimulated Herod to rid himself of any one who he could so much as suppose might entertain the thought of depriving him of his usurped dominion. But that Divine Providence which had destined Joseph to co-operate in the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God preserved and brought him safe through all the dangers which beset him. His meekness, humility, contempt for all the empty honours of the world, his peaceful temper, his submission to all the requirements of law, and the hidden and obscure life which he led, must have contributed to turn away all suspicion from this scion of the house of David. Accordingly, we do not hear of Herod's persecuting the family of Jacob, as he did all the partisans of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. Jacob had one other son besides Joseph, the same, according to the historian Eusebius and others, who is frequently mentioned in the Gospel as Cleophas, or Alpheus, and whose sons are called the brethren of our Lord,⁵ that is, His cousins. So, too, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, who is also called in the first three Gospels the mother of James and Joseph, is styled by St. John the sister of the Mother of Jesus;⁶ not that she was her sister in the literal sense of the term, but her sister-in-law and, indeed (as it is believed), otherwise nearly related to her.

An ancient Oriental tradition, which Isolano has inserted in his work on the Gifts of St. Joseph, records how our saint, when he must have been about twelve years of age, went to Jerusalem, as other youths were wont to do, there to learn science and wisdom from the Priests of the Lord, who were its sole teachers in those times. But however this may be, to render this science and wisdom truly perfect, God reserved for Joseph far more sublime instructors, the Incarnate Word Himself, and her whom the Church invokes under the title of Sedes Sapientiae, Seat of Wisdom, the Immaculate Virgin. In the school of Jesus and in the society of Mary for some thirty years Joseph must have become eminently perfect in the science of the saints. This consideration may serve to rectify a mistaken notion to be found even among some devout persons who, while esteeming Joseph to have been a very great saint, nevertheless imagine that he was simple and unlettered and endowed with but a slender amount of knowledge. No; Joseph had an exalted intellect, his judgment was profound, his wisdom surpassed that of the wisest among men. "God," says St. Bernard, "had found in Joseph, as in another David, a man after His own heart, to whom He could securely commit His heart's closest and most sacred secret; to whom He could manifest the secret and hidden things of His wisdom,⁷ and communicate that great mystery which none of the princes of this world knew."⁸ How, indeed, could it be otherwise? For, if of the ancient Joseph, who was but the figure of our Joseph, it was said that no one could be found like to him or wiser than he,⁹ what must be said of our saint, who was not merely endowed with wisdom to interpret dreams, but was privileged to learn the secrets of Heaven, and to be admitted to the knowledge of the sublimest truths, revealed to him by angels, nay, taught him by the Son of God Himself and by the august Queen of ail the Doctors of the Church?

1 Gen. xxvii. 34.

2 Psalm lxxxiii. 1.

3 Here was erected in the 6th century a church in honour of St. Anne, which remains to this day.

4 Chap. ix. 21, 25.

5 St. Matthew xiii. 55.

6 St. Matthew xxvii. 56; St. Mark xv. 40, 47; xvi. 1 ; St. Luke xxiv. 10; St. John xix. 25. Mary, the wife of Cleophas, or Alpheus, had five sons and two daughters. The sons were Simon Zelotes, James the Less, and Jude, or Thaddeus, all three Apostles, Joseph surnamed the Just (Acts i. 23), and Simeon, a disciple of Jesus. The two daughters were Mary Salome (St. Mark xv. 40; xvi. 1), wife of Zebedee and mother of James the Greater and John the Evangelist (St. Matt. xx. 20; xxvii. 56), and another Mary who is supposed to have been the mother of John surnamed Mark (Acts xii. 12).

7 Psalm 1. 8.

8 Super Missus est. Hom. ii.

9 Gen. xli. 39.

Chapter 9 and 10 The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

CHAPTER IX:  Joseph The Harbinger Of Redemption—He Belongs To The New More Than To The Old Testament.

AS after a long and deep night we first discern the white light of dawn, to which the rosy aurora succeeds, ushering in the resplendent sun, even so, after the long and dismal night of error and corruption in the Gentile world, Joseph appeared, like the early dawn, and after Joseph came Mary, who is the celestial aurora of whom was born Jesus, the true and eternal Sun of Justice. Thus as the dawn precedes the aurora, and the aurora the sun, so Joseph preceded Mary, and Mary Jesus.

And truly Jesus, the eternal refulgent Sun of Justice, came to illuminate the world, immersed in the thick darkness of false belief and sin, with the light of His doctrines, His examples, and His miracles. "That was the true light," says the Evangelist, "which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world."¹ But before He arose, appeared the glowing and pure aurora, whose roseate light rejoiced heaven and earth, that is, Mary, who in Scripture is compared thereto: "quasi aurora nurgens—as the morning rising "²—and this beautiful aurora was to be preceded by the white light of dawn, giving presage to men that the joyful day was at hand; and this was Joseph. Wherefore it was with reason said that this blessed Triad on earth marks the confines between the ancient law and the beginning of the new, even as the dawn, the aurora, and the sunrise mark the passage from night to day. Of the Blessed Virgin St. Thomas Aquinas says that she formed the transition from the Old to the New Law, as the aurora forms the confine between night and day; and of St. Joseph Isolano writes that he stood midway between the Synagogue and the Church, announcing the close of the one and the commencement of the other.³ Whence we may argue that Joseph in point of time was the first sign of light, the first ray which shone upon the earth to give notice that the aurora was about to arise, from which was to emanate that longed-for Sun which was to dispel all darkness and bring in eternal day. Thus Joseph was the herald of Mary and Jesus; and he may be regarded as standing between the Old and the New Covenant. But to which does he belong? Does he belong to the Synagogue or does he belong to the Church?

The question is not a new one, but it may be considered as now resolved. Some doctors were of opinion that Joseph belonged to the Old Law, simply because when he departed this life there as yet existed neither Church, nor priests, nor sacraments, but this is not altogether true; for, if the Church did not exist in its completed form, it existed in its commencement. The Catholic Church, according to St. Athanasius and other Fathers, began to have a visible existence even in the cave of Bethlehem; and Bethlehem, the House of Bread, received Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and then the shepherds and the Magi, who were the first-fruits of the true believers. Jesus was the Author, the Head of the Church, its comer-stone and its foundation-stone; Jesus was the High Priest by excellence; Jesus was the Giver and the Fountain of that grace which He afterwards lodged in the sacraments. Mary was the first in this Church, nay, its Queen; after Mary, Joseph was the first and the most fervent of all the faithful, its first persecuted just one. It is, therefore, generally held by doctors that St. Joseph undoubtedly belongs more to the Catholic Church than to the Synagogue; and Benedict XIV. himself favours this opinion, where, in answer to the doubt proposed, he says that where it is question of origin, birth, and education in youth, Joseph belongs to the Old Testament, but where it is question of faith, spirit, profession, works, ministry, and co-operation in laying the first foundation of the Church itself, he belongs, without doubt, to the New Law.⁴ For who, indeed, next to Mary, had more faith in the Divine Redeemer and more love for Him? Who had more knowledge of His spirit, and who was more imbued with it from his close and continual association with Him and with His Blessed Mother for thirty years? Who better observed His precepts and counsels? Who better discharged the ministry confided to him? Who, next to Mary, was enabled so immediately and so faithfully to co-operate in the mystery of the Incarnation, and thus, indirectly, in the foundation of the Catholic Church? Indeed, we may well think that, since Joseph saved Jesus from the anger of Herod, in Jesus he saved the whole Church, and from that time therefore merited the title and acquired the right to be the Patron of the same Church. Moreover, the whole Church has always regarded and venerated him as her own, and now more than ever in her sacred rites and feasts she exalts him as her incomparable Protector, her glory, and her defence.⁵

Another reply, both shorter and more simple, is that Joseph up to the time of his espousals with the Blessed Virgin belonged to the Synagogue, but that after his espousals and the most sacred day of the Incarnation of the Word he belonged incontestably to the Catholic Church; so much so as to be comprised with Jesus and Mary in the order of the Hypostatic Union, which is the highest order in the hierarchy of grace. Thus the seraphic St. Bernardine of Siena tells us that Joseph had in his hands the keys to open the gates of the New Law and to close those of the Law of Moses.⁶

1 St. John i. 9.

2 Canticles vi. 9.

3 St. Thomas, Sent. iv. Dist. xxx. q. ii. a. 1; Isolano, Summa de Donis S. Joseph, p. iii. o. xvi.

4 De Canonizatione, lib. iv. p. ii. c. xx. a. 14.

5 Hymn, ad Matut. in Festo S. Joseph.

6 Sermo de S. Joseph.

CHAPTER X:  Joseph's Family And Parentage.

WE will now speak of the family from which Joseph sprang. The history of his ancestors is that of the kings of Juda. No more ancient, noble, or glorious race could be found in the whole world, but this is to say Little; for the genealogy of Joseph is that of the King of kings Himself. St. Matthew, as we have seen, gives as His genealogy that of Joseph, calling it " the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ".¹ On this doctors of the Church have observed that the Evangelist enumerates all the ancestors of Joseph, not so much in order to trace Mary's descent and, consequently, that of her Divine Son as to make us understand that in' Joseph were accomplished all the glories of his forefathers, all their hopes, all their prayers; that in Joseph all their virtues were combined, but in far greater fulness and perfection ; that in Joseph was closed and terminated that line of great patriarchs who were the glory of Israel, but whom Joseph greatly surpassed from his incomparable election to be the destined husband of her of whom, by the operation of Divine power, Jesus was born. Thus, if Abraham was faithful and obedient, Joseph was still more faithful and obedient; if Isaac was solicitous and pious, much more solicitous and pious was Joseph; if Jacob was suffering and laborious, much more suffering and laborious was Joseph. Our saint was more patient than Job, more chaste than the first Joseph, more zealous than Moses; he was meeker than David, more fervent than Elias, more trustful than Ezechias, more courageous and intrepid than Mathathias.²

The Abbot Rupert observes that among the promises of the Messias made by God the fullest was that made to Joseph. God promised Abraham that of his race the Redeemer should be born, and that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed. To David God promised that the Divine Saviour should spring from his family and inherit his throne for ever. To Joseph, finally, who was of the house and lineage of David and a descendant of Abraham, God promised that His Divine Son, who was to be born of his Virgin Spouse, should "save His people from their sins ".³ Thus in Joseph alone were the promises of God accomplished; whence the Abbot concludes that he was the last in time of the order of the Patriarchs, that in him all the ancient promises were summed up and completed. Abraham, David, and the rest beheld them and saluted them from afar; Joseph saw them near to him, verified and fulfilled. The last promise was made to Joseph, but it was the best, the most desired, the fullest, the most complete.⁴ Thus Joseph was the happiest, the most highly privileged, the most exalted, and the last of the patriarchs; last in time, but first in dignity.

In one sole respect did the other patriarchs surpass him; that is, in abundance of the comforts of life, of riches, of titles, of honours. The others were, for the most part, born in the enjoyment of wealth, or amidst the splendour of a court, or even with the regal sceptre in their hands ; but not so Joseph. Joseph was born poor, though not a mendicant, in a humble but not an abject condition. A small house and scanty goods constituted the whole of his earthly possessions. He had a title to the throne of his ancestors, but the regal power had fallen into the hands of greedy procurators and foreign tetrarchs. He had, therefore, neither a royal palace, nor a long train of attendants; he had neither courtiers, nor treasure, nor domains, nor tribute, nor the homage of subject nations. Through the vicissitudes of the Babylonian captivity, the violent deeds of Antiochus, and the avidity of domineering potentates, the legitimate patrimony of his ancestors had been seized and dissipated. But, if Joseph was not born great in the eyes of the world, he was great before God for the abundance of graces with which He had liberally endowed and enriched him above all the kings and patriarchs his progenitors. Jesus, who came into the world to condemn luxury, pride, and the insatiate desire of self-exaltation, was preparing for Himself a father, albeit only putative, who, if, on the one hand, he came of royal blood, so that the great ones of the earth could not be offended in him, was, on the other hand, humble, poor, lowly, that He might raise the miserable from their abjection, and thus fulfil the great end of His divine mission. Of the poor but most holy Joseph Jesus desired to form, as it were, a type, a perfect example, of every Christian virtue, to be afterwards proposed as a model to all the faithful, that they might imitate his piety, his religiousness, his patience, his obedience, his submission to the Divine Will, his fraternal charity, his unwearied activity in the fulfilment of his duties and in the exercise of every private and domestic virtue. God was preparing in Joseph a true friend, a protector, and a patron for those unthinking men of the people who become so often the sport and the prey of designing agitators. Jesus chose Joseph poor, as He subsequently chose His Apostles from among the poor, that the world might understand that He came to convert the whole earth, not by gold or by force, not by the pomp of secular power, but by the humility of the Go3pel, by the poverty of the Cross, and by the admirable virtue of His example, of His word, and of the prodigies which He wrought, in order that the divine mission and divine origin of His Church might be the more manifest.

Having seen how Joseph was descended from Abraham and from the kings of Juda, and how, in particular, he was of the house and family of King David, we will now speak of his own parents. We are, as already observed, expressly told by the Evangelist St. Matthew the name of his father, for in closing his genealogy he says, "Mathan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ ".⁵ On this point, therefore, no doubt could arise. The difficulty suggested by the text of St. Luke has been already considered. Heli, there is the strongest reason to believe, is the same with Joachim, the father of Mary, and he became, therefore, the father-in-law, or legal father, of Joseph, his father by affinity, and whom, like his Blessed Spouse, he would call by that name. We owe much, therefore, to St. Luke, who, without departing from the custom of the Hebrews, has given in fact the direct genealogy of Mary. And this opinion acquires higher value if we admit—and we have no reason not to admit—the truth of what Menochius, Benedict XIII., and other doctors assert, namely, that St. Anne, the mother of our Blessed Lady and the wife of Joachim, was sister to Jacob, the father of Joseph; whence it would follow that Joseph and Mary were first cousins, and that Mary, as also her Divine Son, was descended from King David by the double line of Solomon and Nathan; from Nathan on the paternal side and from Solomon on the maternal.

While, however, we know with certainty from Holy Scripture itself the names both of the actual and the adopted father of Joseph, it contains no notice of his mother. Tradition has been equally silent on the subject; yet we naturally conceive that she must have been a woman of singular virtue, to be selected by God to be the mother of a saint so highly privileged as was Joseph, who was destined for so exalted a dignity as the reputed father of His Eternal Son. Scripture and tradition are equally silent as to whether any supernatural signs preceded his birth, to foretell, as in the Baptist's case, the high mission for which he was designed, or, as under the Old Law, to announce the appearance of some great deliverer. It has pleased God that, if any such were vouchsafed to his parents, they should, like so much else that concerns the humble Joseph, be veiled in obscurity; one reason of which may be that his mission, although surpassingly great, was not to be of a public character. He did not come to speak to the world, and, in fact, we do not possess one recorded syllable from his lips. Be this as it may, we are left to our devout imaginations as to the character and even the name of the fortunate mother of our glorious saint.

But when did he first see the light of day? What was the date of his birth? What was the year, the month, the day? Waiving the difficulties which have arisen respecting the precise date of the Nativity, and accepting the common opinion of the learned Natalis Alexander⁶ that Jesus was born in the year 4,000 of the creation of the world, there would still remain an uncertainty as to the year of St. Joseph's birth, unless we possessed some assured record of his age at the time of his espousals with the Blessed Virgin, of which more anon. As respects the month, the month of March being throughout the Church dedicated to his honour, and, indeed, commonly called the Month of St. Joseph, some would have it that he was born in this month, and allege as proof that in the most ancient martyrologies the 19th of March, which we keep as his feast, is entered as his birth-day; while the Christians of the East, particularly the Copts, Syrians, and Egyptians, commemorated the glorious death of the saint on the 20th of July. This feast, we are told by Isolano, in his Summary of the Gifts of St. Joseph, the Oriental Christians were in the habit of celebrating with great veneration; whence it would follow that on the 19th of March his birth-day alone was kept. The same opinion has been held in more recent times. Nevertheless, the reasons given would seem insufficient to establish this point; for the Church has always been in the habit of regarding the day when a saint departs from this life as his natal day, since it is then that he is born to glory; and when it desires to signify that the feast celebrates his birth into this world the word nativity is expressly used, as in the case of the Blessed Virgin and of St. John the Baptist. Moreover, it is a question whether there be not a confusion, in respect to this custom of the Orientals, between our patriarch, who in the Gospel of St. Matthew is characterised as "just,"⁷ with another St. Joseph who had also the cognomen of Just and, along with St. Matthias, was proposed by the Apostles as successor to Judas the traitor, the lot falling on Matthias.⁸ Now, the martyrdom of this St. Joseph, or Barsabas, surnamed Justus, is in the Roman martyrology on the 20th of July with these words: "The natal day of St. Joseph, surnamed the Just". Hence it seems more probable, and more in conformity with the tradition of the Church, that it is St. Joseph's happy death and passage to glory which we commemorate on the 19th of March. But, as the Church celebrates another festival in his honour, that of his Patronage, on the third Sunday after Easter, we may well feel that in this feast a memorial of his nativity, which may have occurred about this season of the year, is included; for in the first vespers Holy Church commences her prayers and canticles with these words: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ,"⁹ and then proceeds to congratulate St. Joseph on being constituted as lord over His house and ruler over all His possessions; just as on the Nativity of Mary she says, "To-day is born the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the race of David, through whom has appeared to believers the Salvation of the World".¹⁰

As to the day of the week on which Joseph was born, we have nothing to guide us but the piety of the faithful, by the common consent of whom, and with the Church's approval, all the Wednesdays of the year have been dedicated to St. Joseph; the Roman Pontiffs having, moreover, enriched with indulgences the devout practice of honouring him specially on that day. We may, therefore, piously believe that it was on Wednesday our great patron was either born or died.

Four cities of Judea and of Galilee have disputed the honour of being this great saint's birth-place: Jerusalem, Capharnaum, Nazareth, and Bethlehem. It is urged in favour of the claims of Jerusalem, that his ancestors of the house of David dwelt on the hill of Sion, the city of the Great King, and, even in their depressed fortunes, continued to make it their place of refuge; so that it was here that Joseph was born, and not Joseph only, but Mary herself, the house which St. Joachim and St. Anne inhabited being pointed out to pilgrims and travellers. St. John Damascene confirms this opinion, saying that the Blessed Virgin was born in the house of Joachim near the Probatic Pool. Nevertheless, Jerusalem has not been able to establish its title to be the birth-place of either Joseph or Mary.

The pretensions of Capharnaum, standing on the shores of the Lake of Tiberias, were, according to Calmet, grounded on the familiar acquaintance which, as we learn in St. John's Gospel, the inhabitants claimed to have with Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus. "Is not this Jesus, they said, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How, then, saith He, I came down from heaven?"¹¹ But it does not necessarily follow that, because the people of Capharnaum knew Joseph well, therefore he was born in their city. He may have had frequent intercourse with them, as had Jesus Himself, of whom, as we know, it was not the birth-place. "Bethlehem," says St. John Chrysostom, "gave to Jesus His place of nativity, Nazareth brought Him up, Capharnaum was His continued abode."¹²

In favour of Nazareth higher probabilities may be alleged. St. Luke in his Gospel says that, after the flight into Egypt, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus returned to " their city Nazareth ";¹³ and St. John relates how Philip, having seen Jesus, said to Nathaniel that they had found the Messias foretold by Moses and the prophets, Jesus "the son of Joseph of Nazareth".¹⁴ But, as regards the first text, it would appear that Nazareth was rather Mary's native place than Joseph's, and, if called his city also, it was but as the city of his domicile, where, after his espousals with Mary, he had his fixed abode. From the other text of St. John it is also clear that nothing further can be concluded. We know well that our Lord was born at Bethlehem, and yet He is called "Jesus of Nazareth," and continued to be so called. The same may well apply to St. Joseph. Nazareth was, indeed, the birth-place of the Blessed Virgin, and became the permanent abode of the Holy Family; wherefore Jesus, as well as Joseph, was said to be of Nazareth, although it was the native place of neither.

In this contest Bethlehem must carry off the palm for the following reasons. The descendants of David through Solomon are said to have continued to abide in Bethlehem, where David was born, and to have returned thither after the Babylonian captivity, the site of the house of Iasi, his father, and the cisterns belonging to it being still traditionally pointed out. The Fathers accordingly called Joseph a Bethlehemite, meaning, not only that he was of the house and family of David, but that there also he was born; and Isolano repeats an ancient Oriental legend in which it is expressly said that Joseph was a carpenter, born at Bethlehem, of the house of David. But the most substantial and conclusive reason is the following: that in the census which Caesar Augustus commanded to be made all were to go for registration to their own native place, and Joseph, prompt in his obedience to every law, even human, so as it was not opposed to the divine law, immediately repaired with his holy spouse Mary, not to Jerusalem, nor to Capharnaum, but to Bethlehem. In Bethlehem Christ was to be born, and from little it was to become great, because, as the Prophet Micheas foretold, out of it was to come forth He who was to be the ruler of Israel.¹⁵ But previous to this honour of giving birth to the Messias, the Lord of the universe, it was also to be the native place of His reputed father, constituted by God to be the protector and patron of the Universal Church.

Let us in spirit betake ourselves to the dwelling-place of Jacob, and bend before the cradle of this blessed infant, upon whose serene brow repose the choicest graces of Heaven. Let us bend before him and venerate him, and present to him the devout affections of our hearts. He is already for us our star, our hope, and he will be our guide, our shield, our defence, our tutelary angel. Let us offer to him our congratulations, and, kissing his feet, bless our compassionate God for having been pleased to bestow on the human family, on the Catholic Church, next to Mary, the sweetest, the most holy, the most powerful Patron.

1 St. Matthew i. 1.

2 P. Patrignani, quoted with such high praise by Benedict XIV., says: "Joseph is the crown of the Patriarchs and progenitors of the promised Divine Messias. He inherited all their benedictions, and beheld their fulfilment. He was the original figured by Joseph, the governor and saviour of Egypt. He was the crown of the saints of the Old Testament; in him all their virtues were combined and perfected; and he was the crown of the saints of the New Testament."—Novena di S. Giuseppe, Gior. vi.

3 St. Matthew i. 21.

4 De Div. Off. lib. iii. c. xix

5 Chap. i. 15,16.

6 Saec. i. diss. ii. q. 1

7 St. Matthew i. 19.

8 Acts i. 23.

9 Antiph. in I. Vesp. Patron. S. Joseph.
10 Resp. pri. Noel, in Off. Nativ. B. Maria: Virginis.

11 St. John vi. 42.

12 Hom. xiii. in Mattheum.

13 St. Luke ii. 39; conf. St. Matthew li. 23.

14 St. John i. 4.5.

15 Micheas v. 2.

Chapter 7 and 8 The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

CHAPTER VII:  Joseph Sanctified BEFORE His Birth

IT is now an article of our faith that the Blessed Virgin by a singular privilege was prevented by grace and preserved in entire immunity from original sin. From Holy Scripture we also learn that some souls through the divine predilection, as those of Jeremias and of the Baptist, were sanctified before they saw the light of day. Now, what shall we say of Joseph? Since in dignity and holiness he is inferior to Mary, we cannot assume with any certainty that God granted to him the same privileges to her; and the Church has never made any utterance on the subject. Still, Joseph surpasses all the other saints in dignity and sanctity; we are, therefore, free to conjecture that, although this is not signified in Scripture, he must have been sanctified before his birth earlier than any of them, for all the holy doctors agree in saying that there was no grace conceded to any other saint, except Mary, which was not granted to Joseph. As Mary, above all, was nearest to Jesus, so Joseph was nearest to Mary; and for the sake of Jesus, and also for Mary's sake, we may justly conclude that to Joseph must have been conceded a privilege second only to hers.

We have shown what a great end God had in view in the creation of St. Joseph, who was to be associated with the mystery of the Incarnation, and was thus comprised in the decree of man's redemption. Hence it is that he was pre-announced in Holy Scripture, and ennobled with so high a genealogy. Now, in order to correspond to so lofty a vocation, which, after that of the Virgin Mother, was superior to all others, whether of angels or saints, Joseph must needs have been sanctified in a most eminent degree, that he might be worthy to take his place in this most sublime order of the Hypostatic Union, in which Jesus held the first place and Mary the second. And, indeed, we find it to be the constant doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as of all the Fathers, that those whom God elects and designs for some great work, He also prepares and disposes so as to fit them for its performance; and the Angelic Doctor adds that God gives to each grace proportioned to the office which he is chosen to fill.¹ St. Bernardine of Siena lays down the same doctrine, and he then proceeds to say that this was verified in the person of St. Joseph, who was the reputed father of Jesus, the true spouse of the Queen of the world and Lady of angels, and was elected by the Eternal Father to be the faithful guardian of His two greatest treasures.² If, then, Joseph was elected to such an office, which, after the divine maternity, has none to equal it in Heaven or on earth, he must have received of God for its discharge a fulness of corresponding grace, superior to that vouchsafed to any other saint.

The election of God is from eternity, but sanctification takes place in time; and this sanctification is not accomplished in all at the same hour. With some it has been late, as with St. Paul. Some have been sanctified at the sixth hour, some at the third, some at the first hour, and some even before birth, as in the cases just mentioned of Jeremias and the Baptist. This is a marvellous effect of the Divine Goodness, loving to communicate Itself to a soul as early as possible and with the greatest abundance of Its gifts. But to whom more than to St. Joseph can It have loved thus to communicate Itself? In his case truly may we apply the words of the Psalmist: "Thou hast prevented him with blessings of sweetness; Thou hast set on his head a crown of precious stones".³ The grace of the Holy Spirit can have tolerated no delay in him, and, since God had prepared for Joseph the greatest grace of sanctification after Mary, He would not have awaited his birth to take possession of his soul, but in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, who was to be his reputed son, would have diffused into his heart such a flood of grace even from his mother's womb as to efface every stain of original sin and array it with the most splendid gifts, fitting it to be the abode of the Divine Majesty.

There are two ways in which this sanctification might be effected. His beautiful soul at the moment of its infusion into the body might have been guarded from contracting the stain of original sin; or at the second moment, that is, when the stain was scarcely contracted, it might have been instantaneously cancelled and purged by the grace of the future Saviour.

With regard- to the first of these opinions, there have not been wanting pious writers who have held that Joseph was entirely exempt from original sin. The seraphic Bernardine de Bustis, a most devout doctor, who flourished about the middle of the 15th century, and therefore previous to the Council of Trent, says that among the fervent clients of St. Joseph some did not hesitate to affirm that solely for the sake of Jesus, of whom he was to be the putative father, and of Mary, of whom he was to be the most pure spouse, he was not only sanctified in his mother's womb but, moreover, preserved from contracting original sin.⁴ The said doctor neither approves nor condemns this opinion, adding that it was known only to God, who from all men chose Joseph for His reputed father and for the spouse of His most holy Mother. A century later, Giacomo Lobbezio, of the Company of Jesus, also relates how some from their devotion to St. Joseph would maintain that the privilege conceded to his Blessed Spouse was also accorded to himself. This accomplished theologian adds that he, too, would willingly subscribe to such a belief in honour of this most holy Patriarch, but that he could not venture to do so unless he had the authority and witness of the holy Fathers and an intimation from the Church and its Sovereign Pontiffs, which as yet we have not had.⁵ In the meantime the immediate rule of our faith is the Church, the infallible mistress of truth; and, however desirous we may be to see all the singular merits and privileges of our saint exalted, we must not extend the range of even pious opinion beyond what tradition or reason warrants.

Coming now to the other way in which Joseph's sanctification in his mother's womb may have been effected, namely, at the second moment after his conception, as theologians would say—the Blessed Virgin having been sanctified at the first—it seems reasonable to believe it; because it was not becoming that the putative father of Him who came to take away the sins of the world should remain for any considerable space of time with the stain of sin upon him ; it was not becoming that he who was to bear in his arms, to tend, and feed Him who came to vanquish Hell, should have himself remained long under the yoke and slavery of Satan. It seems only reasonable to believe that the Divine Saviour prevented him with His grace. The mind of the Doctors of the Church has been so freely expressed on this point that it may be reckoned as a common opinion. Gerson, who was most devout to St. Joseph, and who exerted himself so vigorously for the extinction of the schism which afflicted the Church during his time, used loudly to assert that in order to remove this tribulation it was above all things necessary to honour and glorify in the highest possible degree the great Patriarch, St. Joseph. In the beautiful discourse which he delivered before the Council of Constancy on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin,⁶ he made the most splendid eulogium of her holy spouse, Joseph. In this sermon he openly professed that the Blessed Virgin was by a singular privilege prevented by divine grace in such wise as to preserve her from the least stain of original sin, so that she thus crushed the head of the old serpent, without having ever been trodden under foot by him. Then, referring to Joseph, he uses these words: " As Mary before her birth was sanctified in her mother's womb, so may we believe was also her virginal spouse, Joseph "; from which observation it might have been concluded that he claimed the same immunity from original sin for St. Joseph as for the Blessed Virgin, except for the qualification which he subjoined: "although not in an altogether similar manner—quamvis non omnino similiter ". The similarity and the difference may be noted in this—that Joseph after the contraction of original sin was sanctified in the womb by the baptism of charity, baptismo p.aninis, as was the Baptist and as others have been; for so we read in the Jerusalem Office of St. Joseph. From these expressions we may gather that the learned preacher was persuaded that, if Joseph was 'not, like the Blessed Virgin, entirely preserved from the original stain, he must nevertheless have been speedily withdrawn from the hard slavery of Satan, so that his beautiful soul, enriched with every gift, shone resplendently before God from the first moments of his life. This doctrine was preached by Gerson at the Council of Constance, in presence of the very Fathers who had deputed him to place on record the conciliar decrees; and not only had these Fathers not a word to say in opposition, but they greatly applauded his discourse and ordered it to be published, accompanied by a notice that it had been delivered before them. This commendation served to promote the support of the doctrine by the most learned theologians.

In 1522 Isidoro Isolano, a Milanese Dominican Father, who had a very great devotion to the Saint, published his Summary of the Gifts of St. Joseph, dedicating it to the Sovereign Pontiff, Adrian VI. In the 9th chapter of this work he demonstrates that the opinion that St. Joseph was sanctified in his mother's womb may be held and piously believed.⁷ Every sanctification of this nature, he says, either is accorded on account of the future exalted dignity of the sanctified, or is ordained with a special reference to the Saint of Saints. Now, both causes eminently existed in St. Joseph, who was to be perfectly just, and was ordained, above all men, to be nearest to the Saint of Saints, Jesus. If Jeremias was sanctified before his birth because he was to prophesy expressly of Jesus, and the Baptist also because he was to point Him out present among men, who can suppose that Joseph, on account of the close knowledge he bad of Jesus above all others, Mary alone excepted, and his paternal education of Him, was not also similarly privileged? If God was pleased thus to sanctify His servants, how much more His putative father, in order that he might be so reputed, and be worthy of the name! Isolano adds that, if all the world believes that the Mother of Jesus was raised to the highest degree of sanctity in the womb on account of the dignity of her Divine Son (and it is now an article of faith that she was preserved from the stain of original sin from the very first moment of her conception), why may we not believe that Joseph was likewise raised to a certain degree of sanctity in his mother's womb, since he was chosen by God to be called His father? This, he adds, was also befitting the parity of the marriage between the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph.

Cornelius a Lapide treats of the same question, and after having noticed that several of the Fathers were of opinion that this privilege was accorded, not only to our saint, but to others whom he names, he comes to this conclusion—that God might concede this privilege to more than one, if He were so pleased, but, if to any of those specified He did in fact grant it, then, assuredly, it would seem that He would not have denied it to St. Joseph, the spouse of His Blessed Mother.⁸

St. Joseph, then, we see, is always, in the opinion of the Doctors of the Church, held to be, next to the Blessed Virgin, the purest and the most holy among creatures, and worthy, for the sake of the Divine Son and His Mother, to be liberated and purged from original sin immediately after his conception. And this doctrine, professed by great doctors, and tacitly approved by the Church—a doctrine become familiar to preachers in their pulpits, to theologians in their academies, and to sacred writers in their works—may be considered as generally held and believed by devout Christians.

CHAPTEB VIII: Concupiscence Subdued In The First Sanctification Of Joseph By The Superabundance Of Grace, Which Was Greater In Him Than In Any Other Saint Except Mary.

ONE of the penalties of original sin is that rebellion of the flesh against the spirit which, according to the Council of Trent, proceeds from sin and inclines to sin.⁹ Hence the Apostle said: "I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin that is in my members ".¹⁰

If it was fitting that Joseph should be speedily cleansed from the original stain, it was also fitting that he should by a special privilege be freed from this rebellion of the flesh which is its consequence. All in him was to be pure and holy; that conflict between the flesh and the spirit, that propensity to evil and difficulty respecting good could find no place in him, but there must be perfect subjection of the inferior powers to reason, perfect tranquillity and order in all his affections and in all the movements of his heart; which is equivalent to saying that the incentive to sin—;fames, as it is called by theologians¹¹—was to be, as it were, extinguished in Joseph or, at any rate, vanquished and bound in such wise that it could not revolt against reason. Since Joseph was to be a pure virgin, in order to make him the worthy companion of the purest among all virgins, so also was it needful that he should be exempt from any movement of concupiscence which might cast a shadow on the white lily of his purity. God, certainly, did not fail to prevent and protect with this singular grace the heart of Joseph, so that the very slightest thought which was not perfectly chaste should never arise to trouble the serenity of his stainless soul.

Gerson, after having asserted Joseph's liberation from original sin, goes on to claim this privilege for him also. If, he says, the Lord would not confide His Mother, then a matron in age, to any but His virgin disciple, the Evangelist St. John, how much more when that Mother was in her tender youth! In like manner, since Jesus would not be born save of perfect virginal purity, that is, of Mary, so also He would not be nurtured save by one whose purity was spotless, that is, by Joseph.¹²

Echius, that eminent and learned doctor, follows and confirms this statement of Gerson in two Sermons which he composed in praise of St. Joseph, and which he dedicated to Pope Clement VII. "Christ," he says, "when hanging on the Cross and about to die, commended His Mother to the Apostle John. Doctors, enquiring why He did not rather commend her to St. Peter, or to some other of His disciples, give this reason: that He, a Virgin, commended His Virgin Mother to a virgin. It is also," he says, "to be considered, not only that Joseph was a virgin, but that God by a special grace had extinguished in him all the carnal fire of concupiscence, so that, free from all temptation, he could dwell with the most holy and most beautiful Virgin Mary." Whence it is just to infer that he was sanctified in his mother's womb, and that the rebellion of concupiscence was either extinguished or repressed in him. Nor should this surprise us, since, next to Mary, he was destined by God for the sublimest ministry, a ministry superior to that of all the angels and saints; and the holy Doctors are unanimous in concluding that there was no grace, gift, or privilege conferred on angel or saint which was not conceded in a much higher degree to Joseph; otherwise he would, doubtless, appear to be in some respect inferior to one or other among them.

Giovanni di Cartagena, who for his doctrine and piety was so dear to Paul V., devoted thirteen of his beautiful Homilies on the mysteries of Christ and of Mary to the praises of our saint. Having set himself to prove that, with the exception of the Blessed Mother of God, Joseph was superior to all the saints, he proceeds to demonstrate the same with respect to the angels. "The office of the angels," he says, "is the guardianship of men; but to Joseph was committed a far higher and more excellent office, since he was chosen to be the guardian, not of a simple man, but of Christ the Lord, God and Man, and to be the most faithful spouse of His Mother."¹³ St. Francis de Sales, the new doctor of the Church, enlarging on the praises of St. Joseph in his Spiritual Conferences, exclaims, "Oh, what a saint is the glorious St. Joseph! Not only is he a patriarch, but he is the corypheus of all the patriarchs; not only is he a confessor, but he is more than a confessor, because in his confession is contained the dignity of bishop, the generosity of martyrs and of all other saints ;" and, later on, he says that the Patriarch St. Joseph surpassed all the saints and angels, and the very cherubim themselves, in the eminent virtue of virginity.¹⁴ The great doctor, Alfonso Maria de' Liguori, pondering those words of the holy Evangelist: "And He was subject to them," ¹⁵ says: "This humility of Jesus in obeying causes us to know that the dignity of St. Joseph is superior to that of all the saints, saving only that of the Virgin Mother ".¹⁶

If, then, it be now the common opinion of doctors that Joseph in his dignity, in his ministry, and in holiness surpassed all the angels and saints, we are led to the legitimate conclusion that from his conception he was immediately enriched with gifts superior to theirs, in order that he might be a fitting spouse for Mary, and worthy to be the reputed father of Jesus. Therefore, if of the angels St. Augustine writes, that " God, in creating the angelic nature, infused grace into it,"¹⁷ so likewise it must be true to say the same of St. Joseph; otherwise the angels would be his superiors, not only in their nature, but in the priority and abundance of their grace. And what it is true to say of St. Joseph as compared to the angels, with still more reason may be affirmed in respect to all the saints. If St. Joseph had not been sanctified more speedily and with a fuller amount of grace, in what respect would he have been more highly favoured than Jeremias or John the Baptist,¹⁸ both of whom were sanctified previous to their birth: of the Baptist it being declared that he was "filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb "? If, therefore, Joseph was superior to the other saints, he must, not only have enjoyed like privileges, but have had them in a much higher degree. We have reason, then, to conclude that not only was he freed without delay from original sin, but that his beautiful soul was also delivered from concupiscence, filled with the Holy Spirit and with the plenitude of His gifts; nay, that he was even confirmed in grace, and endued with the use of reason while yet in his mother's womb, as we believe was the case with Mary from the first moment of her conception.¹⁹

P. Paolo Segneri, a prince among sacred orators and a profound theologian, in a splendid panegyric which he pronounced on St. Joseph, after having demonstrated how distinguished doctors have agreed in affirming that this privilege of sanctification before birth had been granted to our saint, goes on to say how St. Thomas teaches that the nearer anything approaches to its principle the greater and more perfect is its participation in the prerogatives or singular properties of that principle. Thus the brightness of the sun is more resplendent in its vicinity, and heat in proximity of the fire is more fervent; so also, if you draw water from a spring, you will find that it is clearer, more limpid, and more pure in proportion to its nearness to the source. "But, if this be so," he says, "how can any one suspect that Joseph, who by affinity and by office was so closely united to the universal source of all sanctity, was made participant thereof in a lower degree and in less perfection than those who were much further removed from it? For this reason, then, we may well conclude, with very solid grounds of probability, that he was, not only sanctified in his mother's womb, but also confirmed in grace and exempted from all malice, so that no man on earth—let us boldly affirm it—was ever holier than was Joseph." And further on he says: "Have I erred in saying that no one ever exceeded Joseph in sanctity, always, of course, excepting, as she ever must be excepted, his Spouse? If such an assertion is to be esteemed temerity, then call Gerson, the famous Parisian Chancellor, temerarious, temerarious a Bernardine de Bustis, a Giovanni di Cartagena, an Isidoro surnamed Isolano, and, finally, a Suarez, whose judgment is equivalent to that of an entire university. And is it in ambiguous or obscure terms that Suarez expresses himself? Listen to his words: 'I do not see how it is a temerarious or improbable but, rather, a pious and probable opinion should any hold that St. Joseph in grace and glory surpassed all the other saints, for there is nothing in Holy Scripture repugnant to such a belief'."²⁰

If the venerable P. Segneri could thus speak in praise of St. Joseph two hundred years ago, and that eminent doctor and great theologian, Suarez, a hundred years before him, what would they not have said, what would they not have written, in this our time, when the glories of Joseph are more and more manifesting themselves in the whole world, and when from the sublime throne of the Vatican he has been declared the Patron of the Universal Church!

But Suarez goes further still. After having enumerate! the various ministries in the order of grace, and said that the Apostolic ministry occupies the first rank, he adds, "There are other ministries which belong to the order of the Hypostatic Union, which in its kind is more perfect, as is apparent from the divine maternity of Mary; and in this order is the ministry of St. Joseph, which, therefore, surpasses the former, that of the Apostles ".²¹ If, then, according to Suarez, the ministry of St. Joseph belongs to the order of the Hypostatic Union, and this order is superior to the Apostolic, which is the first of all the rest, clearly Joseph, although he holds the third rank in the order of the Hypostatic Union, is superior even to Peter, who is first in the Apostolic hierarchy. Between the ministry of the Apostles and that of Joseph there exists this difference: the former is immediately for men, to conduct them to Christ; that of Joseph is immediately directed to Christ Himself, in order to preserve Him for men, and is therefore so much the more noble and sublime. "The ministry of Joseph," says Giovanni di Cartagena, " both as spouse of the Blessed Virgin and as adopted father of Jesus, was closely conjoined with the very Person of Jesus Christ, in such wise that its dignity appears, more than any other whatsoever, to approach the most sublime dignity of the Mother of God."²²  Benedict XIV. himself thus concludes:  "These graces, these spiritual prerogatives, of Joseph are great, are eminent, are most certain, and are so exclusively his that they have not been given to any other saint".²³

Upon the authority, then, of such celebrated doctors, we may safely hold that Joseph, being, next to Mary, superior in dignity and holiness to all the other saints, must therefore have received from God privileges proportionately greater, and was consequently speedily cleansed from original sin, filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and even confirmed in grace, with concupiscence subdued, if not extinguished, from the first moments of his existence, that thus he might be worthy of being associated with Jesus and Mary, and form with them that august Triad upon earth which is the joy of the whole universe.

Some, however, would allege as an objection the declaration of Christ, who said, " There hath not arisen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist";²⁴ whence they infer that Joseph might, indeed, be equal to the Baptist, but could not surpass him. Nevertheless, we have the secure authority of Benedict XIV. for considering that this praise of John detracts nothing from the pre-eminent glories of Joseph, since Jesus, in asserting that none had arisen greater than John the Baptist, was not speaking absolutely, but comparatively. He was speaking of him as compared to the saints and prophets of the Old Testament, and, moreover, was excluding from His general assertion those who ought to be excluded, and excepting those who ought to be excepted, as is the case in all general assertions. Thus from this declaration Jesus naturally excluded Himself and excluded Mary; and so also He excluded Joseph, as belonging to an order much superior to that of the Baptist. Hence Maldonatus, a very learned commentator, speaking of this declaration of Christ, wrote, " I answer briefly and easily that here the Baptist, as St. Jerome affirms, is compared by Jesus, not to all the saints, but only to those of the Old Testament".²⁵ Now, Joseph certainly belongs to the New Testament, and is the first after Mary. Therefore he is excluded. Moreover, St. Jerome, commenting on the words of Christ, observes that Jesus did not in this declaration prefer John to all the prophets and patriarchs, but only made him equal to them.

Others, indeed, and with much reason, maintain that John is not here compared by Jesus with all the saints, but only with the prophets, he being, in fact, the Precursor Prophet; and that it is clearly in this sense that He must be understood would appear from the context in St. Matthew's Gospel, where, speaking of John to the multitude, Jesus asked, "What went you out into the desert to see? A prophet? Yea, I tell you, and more than a prophet;" adding afterwards, "And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come".²⁶ The meaning, therefore, of what Jesus proceeded to say was that among those who were born of women there had not risen a greater prophet than John the Baptist; and he was greater in this respect, that the other prophets beheld the Messias in spirit and announced Him long before, but John saw Him and announced Him as present. The words of our Lord, as given in St. Luke's Gospel, confirm this view: "Amongst those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist ".²⁷ Zachary had foretold that his child should be called " the prophet of the Highest";²⁸ and Holy Church herself styles him the greatest of the prophets, and in her hymns declares the reason, namely, that the prophets who preceded him prophesied of Jesus from afar, but John pointed him out with his finger as present, and as the Lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world.²⁹ Besides, in the very declaration which Jesus made He expresses a limitation of John's superiority, adding, "Yet he that is the lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he"; by which we may understand he that is most profoundly humble; Jesus in these words alluding in a special sense to Himself, next to Mary, and then to St. Joseph, who for the greatness of his humility was, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, unsurpassed by any saint. So, too, when His disciples asked our Lord who was the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven He called unto Him a little child and, setting him in the midst of them, He said, "Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven ".³⁰ Therefore, since Joseph next to Mary excels in humility, it follows that he is greater than all the other saints, including the Baptist. Thus the superiority of St. Joseph is confirmed also by these words of Christ."³¹

Nothing in what has been said can be viewed as any derogation of the high titles and sublime sanctity of John the Baptist, who attained even to meriting the praises of a God; the sole object being to remove all doubt of the pre-eminence of Joseph, and to prove that in his greatness and glory he must be reckoned, after Jesus and Mary, as excelling all the saints and angels.

1 Summa, p. iii. q. xxvii. a. 4.

2 .Sermo  de St. Joseph.

3 Psalm xx. 4.

4 Mariale, p. iv. Serm, xii. de Despons. Virg.

5 Quocst. Theolog. tom. iii.

6 Serm, de Nativ. B. V. Mariae, Consid. ii.

7  In this work of the Milanese Dominican we find (p. iii. cap. iii.) the following passage, which is very striking, partaking as it does of the nature of a prophecy, or, at least, furnishing an instance of prescience bearing a close resemblance to prophecy. "The mysterious action of the Holy Spirit will not cease to move and inflame the hearts of the faithful, until the whole army of the Church militant shall pay fresh homage to Joseph, raising monasteries, temples, and altars dedicated to his name. Yes, new and magnificent feasts will be celebrated in his honour, vows will be offered under his invocation, and those whose petitions have been granted will gladly fulfil them at his altar. God will give deeper penetration to human intellects; and learned men, meditating on the interior and hidden gifts in Joseph, will be fain to acknowledge that no one ever possessed similar superheavenly riches. Others are called the friends of Christ, but Joseph is called His father. The saints invoke Mary by the title of Queen, and this Queen is the spouse of St. Joseph."

8 Comment, in Mattheum, i. 16.

9 Sessio v. Decretum do Peccato Originali.

10 Rom. vii. 23.
11 St. Thomas, Summa, p. iii. q. xxvii. a. 3.

12 Serm. de Nativ. B. V. Maria.

13 Lib. iv. Hom. ix.

14 Entretien, xix.

15 St. Luke ii. 51.

16 Esort. alia Divoz. di S. Giuseppe.

17 De Civitate Dei, c. ix.  

18  Jeremias i. 5; St. Luke i. 15.

19 St. Bernardine of Siena, tom. i. cap. i. serm. li.

20 Suarez, tom. ii. disp. viii. sec. i.

21 P. iii. q. xxix. sec. i.

22 Lib. iv. Hom. viii.

23 De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonisatione, lib. iv. p. ii. c. xx. n. 3S.

24 St. Matthew xi. 11.

25 In Mattheum, cap. xi.

26 St. Matthew xi. 14.

27 St. Luke vii. 20.

28 Chap. i. 76.

29 St. John i. 29, 36.

30 St. Matthew xviii. 1-4.

31 We have given Vitali's comment in his own words; but it may be well to cite a contrary opinion. P. Coleridge writes: "This mode of explanation does not fully meet the difficulty; for our Lord says, not the lesser simply, but the lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven. The words which presently follow upon these serve to confirm the supposition that our Lord is here drawing a contrast between the greatest of the Prophets of the Old Law and the lowest offices of the New Kingdom; and that this is the true explanation of these words about St. John. Great, indeed, he was, as compared to the very greatest of the old Prophets, and yet he belonged, with them, to the Old, and therefore greatly inferior, Dispensation, and thus it is that his greatness is almost as nothing in comparison to the powers and dignities of the ministers of that New Dispensation to which, indeed, he opened the door, but to which he nevertheless did not by his office belong."—The Training of the Apostles, part ii. p. 271.