Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the
Epiphany
(cci):
"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a
star.
"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a
star.
Summa Theologica
): "As unskilfulness predominates in the rustic
manners of the shepherd, so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of
the Magi. Yet did this Corner-Stone draw both to Itself; inasmuch as He
came 'to choose the foolish things that He might confound the wise,'
and 'not to call the just, but sinners,'" so that "the proud might not
boast, nor the weak despair. " Nevertheless, there are those who say
that these Magi were not wizards, but wise astronomers, who are called
Magi among the Persians or Chaldees.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says [*Hom. ii in Matth. in the
Opus Imperf. , among the supposititious works of Chrysostom]: "The Magi
came from the east, because the first beginning of faith came from the
land where the day is born; since faith is the light of the soul. " Or,
"because all who come to Christ come from Him and through Him": whence
it is written (Zech. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. "
Now, they are said to come from the east literally, either because, as
some say, they came from the farthest parts of the east, or because
they came from the neighboring parts of Judea that lie to the east of
the region inhabited by the Jews. Yet it is to be believed that certain
signs of Christ's birth appeared also in other parts of the world:
thus, at Rome the river flowed with oil [*Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp.
185]; and in Spain three suns were seen, which gradually merged into
one [*Cf. Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp. 184].
Reply to Objection 4: As Chrysostom observes (Theophylact. , Enarr. in
Luc. ii, 8), the angel who announced Christ's birth did not go to
Jerusalem, nor did he seek the Scribes and Pharisees, for they were
corrupted, and full of ill-will. But the shepherds were single-minded,
and were like the patriarchs and Moses in their mode of life.
Moreover, these shepherds were types of the Doctors of the Church, to
whom are revealed the mysteries of Christ that were hidden from the
Jews.
Reply to Objection 5: As Ambrose says (on Lk. 2:25): "It was right that
our Lord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds, but also
by people advanced in age and virtue": whose testimony is rendered the
more credible by reason of their righteousness.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ Himself should have made His birth know?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have Himself made His
birth known. For "a direct cause is always of greater power than an
indirect cause," as is stated Phys. viii. But Christ made His birth
known through others---for instance, to the shepherds through the
angels, and to the Magi through the star. Much more, therefore, should
He Himself have made His birth known.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 20:32): "Wisdom that is
hid and treasure that is not seen; what profit is there in them both? "
But Christ had, to perfection, the treasure of wisdom and grace from
the beginning of His conception. Therefore, unless He had made the
fulness of these gifts known by words and deeds, wisdom and grace would
have been given Him to no purpose. But this is unreasonable: because
"God and nature do nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo i).
Objection 3: Further, we read in the book De Infantia Salvatoris that
in His infancy Christ worked many miracles. It seems therefore that He
did Himself make His birth known.
On the contrary, Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv) that the Magi found the
"infant Jesus in no way different from the generality of human
infants. " But other infants do not make themselves known. Therefore it
was not fitting that Christ should Himself make His birth known.
I answer that, Christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation, which
is by faith. But saving faith confesses Christ's Godhead and humanity.
It behooved, therefore, Christ's birth to be made known in such a way
that the proof of His Godhead should not be prejudicial to faith in His
human nature. But this took place while Christ presented a likeness of
human weakness, and yet, by means of God's creatures, He showed the
power of the Godhead in Himself. Therefore Christ made His birth known,
not by Himself, but by means of certain other creatures.
Reply to Objection 1: By the way of generation and movement we must of
necessity come to the imperfect before the perfect. And therefore
Christ was made known first through other creatures, and afterwards He
Himself manifested Himself perfectly.
Reply to Objection 2: Although hidden wisdom is useless, yet there is
no need for a wise man to make himself known at all times, but at a
suitable time; for it is written (Ecclus. 20:6): "There is one that
holdeth his peace because he knoweth not what to say: and there is
another that holdeth his peace, knowing the proper time. " Hence the
wisdom given to Christ was not useless, because at a suitable time He
manifested Himself. And the very fact that He was hidden at a suitable
time is a sign of wisdom.
Reply to Objection 3: The book De Infantia Salvatoris is apocryphal.
Moreover, Chrysostom (Hom. xxi super Joan. ) says that Christ worked no
miracles before changing the water into wine, according to Jn. 2:11:
"'This beginning of miracles did Jesus. ' For if He had worked miracles
at an early age, there would have been no need for anyone else to
manifest Him to the Israelites; whereas John the Baptist says (Jn.
1:31): 'That He may be made manifest in Israel; therefore am I come
baptizing with water. ' Moreover, it was fitting that He should not
begin to work miracles at an early age. For people would have thought
the Incarnation to be unreal, and, out of sheer spite, would have
crucified Him before the proper time. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth should have been manifested by means of the angels
and the star?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been
manifested by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual substances,
according to Ps. 103:4: "Who maketh His [Vulg. : 'makest Thy'] angels,
spirits. " But Christ's birth was in the flesh, and not in His spiritual
substance. Therefore it should not have been manifested by means of
angels.
Objection 2: Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to
any other, according to Ps. 33:8: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp
round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them. " But Christ's
birth was not announced to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, through
the angels. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the
shepherds by means of the angels.
Objection 3: Further, it seems that neither ought it to have been
announced to the Magi by means of the star. For this seems to favor the
error of those who think that man's birth is influenced by the stars.
But occasions of sin should be taken away from man. Therefore it was
not fitting that Christ's birth should be announced by a star.
Objection 4: Further, a sign should be certain, in order that something
be made known thereby. But a star does not seem to be a certain sign of
Christ's birth. Therefore Christ's birth was not suitably announced by
a star.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works of God are
perfect. " But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was
accomplished by means of suitable signs.
I answer that, As knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from
something which we know better, so knowledge given by signs must be
conveyed through things which are familiar to those to whom the
knowledge is imparted. Now, it is clear that the righteous have,
through the spirit of prophecy, a certain familiarity with the interior
instinct of the Holy Ghost, and are wont to be taught thereby, without
the guidance of sensible signs. Whereas others, occupied with material
things, are led through the domain of the senses to that of the
intellect. The Jews, however, were accustomed to receive Divine answers
through the angels; through whom they also received the Law, according
to Acts 7:53: "You [Vulg. : 'who'] . . . have received the Law by the
disposition of angels. " And the Gentiles, especially astrologers, were
wont to observe the course of the stars. And therefore Christ's birth
was made known to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, by the interior
instinct of the Holy Ghost, according to Lk. 2:26: "He had received an
answer from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had
seen the Christ of the Lord. " But to the shepherds and Magi, as being
occupied with material things, Christ's birth was made known by means
of visible apparitions. And since this birth was not only earthly, but
also, in a way, heavenly, to both (shepherds and Magi) it is revealed
through heavenly signs: for, as Augustine says in a sermon on the
Epiphany (cciv): "The angels inhabit, and the stars adorn, the heavens:
by both, therefore, do the 'heavens show forth the glory of God. '"
Moreover, it was not without reason that Christ's birth was made known,
by means of angels, to the shepherds, who, being Jews, were accustomed
to frequent apparitions of the angels: whereas it was revealed by means
of a star to the Magi, who were wont to consider the heavenly bodies.
Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth. ): "Our Lord deigned to
call them through things to which they were accustomed. " There is also
another reason. For, as Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang. ): "To the Jews,
as rational beings, it was fitting that a rational animal [*Cf.
[4190]FP, Q[51], A[1], ad 2]," viz. an angel, "should preach. Whereas
the Gentiles, who were unable to come to the knowledge of God through
the reason, were led to God, not by words, but by signs. And as our
Lord, when He was able to speak, was announced by heralds who spoke, so
before He could speak He was manifested by speechless elements. " Again,
there is yet another reason. For, as Augustine [*Pope Leo] says in a
sermon on the Epiphany: "To Abraham was promised an innumerable
progeny, begotten, not of carnal propagation, but of the fruitfulness
of faith. For this reason it is compared to the multitude of stars;
that a heavenly progeny might be hoped for. " Wherefore the Gentiles,
"who are thus designated by the stars, are by the rising of a new star
stimulated" to seek Christ, through whom they are made the seed of
Abraham.
Reply to Objection 1: That which of itself is hidden needs to be
manifested, but not that which in itself is manifest. Now, the flesh of
Him who was born was manifest, whereas the Godhead was hidden. And
therefore it was fitting that this birth should be made known by
angels, who are the ministers of God. Wherefore also a certain
"brightness" (Lk. 2:9) accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate
that He who was just born was the "Brightness of" the Father's "glory. "
Reply to Objection 2: The righteous did not need the visible apparition
of the angel; on account of their perfection the interior instinct of
the Holy Ghost was enough for them.
Reply to Objection 3: The star which manifested Christ's birth removed
all occasion of error. For, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "No
astrologer has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the
time of his birth as to assert that one of the stars, at the birth of
any man, left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born": as
happened in the case of the star which made known the birth of Christ.
Consequently this does not corroborate the error of those who "think
there is a connection between man's birth and the course of the stars,
for they do not hold that the course of the stars can be changed at a
man's birth. "
In the same sense Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth. ): "It is not an
astronomer's business to know from the stars those who are born, but to
tell the future from the hour of a man's birth: whereas the Magi did
not know the time of the birth, so as to conclude therefrom some
knowledge of the future; rather was it the other way about. "
Reply to Objection 4: Chrysostom relates (Hom. ii in Matth. ) that,
according to some apocryphal books, a certain tribe in the far east
near the ocean was in the possession of a document written by Seth,
referring to this star and to the presents to be offered: which tribe
watched attentively for the rising of this star, twelve men being
appointed to take observations, who at stated times repaired to the
summit of a mountain with faithful assiduity: whence they subsequently
perceived the star containing the figure of a small child, and above it
the form of a cross.
Or we may say, as may be read in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. ,
qu. lxiii, that "these Magi followed the tradition of Balaam," who
said, "'A star shall rise out of Jacob. ' Wherefore observing this star
to be a stranger to the system of this world, they gathered that it was
the one foretold by Balaam to indicate the King of the Jews. "
Or again, it may be said with Augustine, in a sermon on the Epiphany
(ccclxxiv), that "the Magi had received a revelation through the
angels" that the star was a sign of the birth of Christ: and he thinks
it probable that these were "good angels; since in adoring Christ they
were seeking for salvation. "
Or with Pope Leo, in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxiv), that "besides
the outward form which aroused the attention of their corporeal eyes, a
more brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth was made known in a becoming order?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth was made known in an
unbecoming order. For Christ's birth should have been made known to
them first who were nearest to Christ, and who longed for Him most;
according to Wis. 6:14: "She preventeth them that covet her, so that
she first showeth herself unto them. " But the righteous were nearest to
Christ by faith, and longed most for His coming; whence it is written
(Lk. 2:25) of Simeon that "he was just and devout, waiting for the
consolation of Israel. " Therefore Christ's birth should have been made
known to Simeon before the shepherds and Magi.
Objection 2: Further, the Magi were the "first-fruits of the Gentiles,"
who were to believe in Christ. But first the "fulness of the Gentiles .
. . come in" unto faith, and afterwards "all Israel" shall "be saved,"
as is written (Rom. 11:25). Therefore Christ's birth should have been
made known to the Magi before the shepherds.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mat. 2:16) that "Herod killed all
the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders
thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he
had diligently inquired from the wise men": so that it seems that the
Magi were two years in coming to Christ after His birth. It was
therefore unbecoming that Christ should be made known to the Gentiles
so long after His birth.
On the contrary, It is written (Dan. 2:21): "He changes time and ages. "
Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth seems to
have been arranged in a suitable order.
I answer that, Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds on
the very day that He was born. For, as it is written (Lk. 2:8, 15, 16):
"There were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the
night-watches over their flock . . . And it came to pass, after the
angels departed from them into heaven they [Vulg. : 'the shepherds']
said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem . . . and they came
with haste. " Second in order were the Magi, who came to Christ on the
thirteenth day after His birth, on which day is kept the feast of the
Epiphany. For if they had come after a year, or even two years, they
would not have found Him in Bethlehem, since it is written (Lk. 2:39)
that "after they had performed all things according to the law of the
Lord"---that is to say, after they had offered up the Child Jesus in
the Temple---"they returned into Galilee, to their city"---namely,
"Nazareth. " In the third place, it was made known in the Temple to the
righteous on the fortieth day after His birth, as related by Luke
(2:22).
The reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles
and other believers of the Jews, to whom the faith of Christ was made
known first; among whom there were "not many mighty, not many noble,"
as we read 1 Cor. 1:26. Secondly, the faith of Christ came to the
"fulness of the Gentiles"; and this is foreshadowed in the Magi.
Thirdly it came to the fulness of the Jews, which is foreshadowed in
the righteous. Wherefore also Christ was manifested to them in the
Jewish Temple.
Reply to Objection 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 9:30,31): "Israel, by
following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of
justice": but the Gentiles, "who followed not after justice,"
forestalled the generality of the Jews in the justice which is of
faith. As a figure of this, Simeon, "who was waiting for the
consolation of Israel," was the last to know Christ born: and he was
preceded by the Magi and the shepherds, who did not await the coming of
Christ with such longing.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the "fulness of the Gentiles came in"
unto faith before the fulness of the Jews, yet the first-fruits of the
Jews preceded the first-fruits of the Gentiles in faith. For this
reason the birth of Christ was made known to the shepherds before the
Magi.
Reply to Objection 3: There are two opinions about the apparition of
the star seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus
Imperf. in Matth. , falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), and Augustine in a
sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by
the Magi during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and
then, having first considered the matter and prepared themselves for
the journey, they came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on
the thirteenth day after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after
the departure of the Magi, "perceiving that He was deluded by them,"
commanded the male children to be killed "from two years old and
under," being doubtful lest Christ were already born when the star
appeared, according as he had heard from the Magi.
But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and
that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a
journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the
Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries. And
I say this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But
others, again, say that they came from a neighboring country, whence
also was Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are said
to have come from the east, because their country was to the east of
the country of the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes, not as
soon as the Magi departed, but two years after: and that either because
he is said to have gone to Rome in the meanwhile on account of an
accusation brought against him, or because he was troubled at some
imminent peril, and for the time being desisted from his anxiety to
slay the child, or because he may have thought that the Magi, "being
deceived by the illusory appearance of the star, and not finding the
child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to return to him": as
Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason why he killed
not only those who were two years old, but also the younger children,
would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Innocents, because he
feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might make himself appear
older or younger.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system?
Objection 1: It would seem that the star which appeared to the Magi
belonged to the heavenly system. For Augustine says in a sermon on the
Epiphany (cxxii): "While God yet clings to the breast, and suffers
Himself to be wrapped in humble swaddling clothes, suddenly a new star
shines forth in the heavens. " Therefore the star which appeared to the
Magi belonged to the heavenly system.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cci):
"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a
star. A heavenly tongue speaks to both, because the tongue of the
prophets spoke no longer. " But the angels who appeared to the shepherds
were really angels from heaven. Therefore also the star which appeared
to the Magi was really a star from the heavens.
Objection 3: Further, stars which are not in the heavens but in the air
are called comets, which do not appear at the birth of kings, but
rather are signs of their approaching death. But this star was a sign
of the King's birth: wherefore the Magi said (Mat. 2:2): "Where is He
that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east. "
Therefore it seems that it was a star from the heavens.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of
those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the
course appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger
to the heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a
virgin in childbirth. "
I answer that, As Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth. ), it is clear, for
many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not belong
to the heavenly system. First, because no other star approaches from
the same quarter as this star, whose course was from north to south,
these being the relative positions of Persia, whence the Magi came, and
Judea. Secondly, from the time [at which it was seen]. For it appeared
not only at night, but also at midday: and no star can do this, not
even the moon. Thirdly, because it was visible at one time and hidden
at another. For when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself: then, when
they had left Herod, it showed itself again. Fourthly, because its
movement was not continuous, but when the Magi had to continue their
journey the star moved on; when they had to stop the star stood still;
as happened to the pillar of a cloud in the desert. Fifthly, because it
indicated the virginal Birth, not by remaining aloft, but by coming
down below. For it is written (Mat. 2:9) that "the star which they had
seen in the east went before them, until it came and stood over where
the child was. " Whence it is evident that the words of the Magi, "We
have seen His star in the east," are to be taken as meaning, not that
when they were in the east the star appeared over the country of Judea,
but that when they saw the star it was in the east, and that it
preceded them into Judea (although this is considered doubtful by
some). But it could not have indicated the house distinctly, unless it
were near the earth. And, as he [Chrysostom] observes, this does not
seem fitting to a star, but "of some power endowed with reason. "
Consequently "it seems that this was some invisible force made visible
under the form of a star. "
Wherefore some say that, as the Holy Ghost, after our Lord's Baptism,
came down on Him under the form of a dove, so did He appear to the Magi
under the form of a star. While others say that the angel who, under a
human form, appeared to the shepherds, under the form of a star,
appeared to the Magi. But it seems more probable that it was a newly
created star, not in the heavens, but in the air near the earth, and
that its movement varied according to God's will. Wherefore Pope Leo
says in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxi): "A star of unusual brightness
appeared to the three Magi in the east, which, through being more
brilliant and more beautiful than the other stars, drew men's gaze and
attention: so that they understood at once that such an unwonted event
could not be devoid of purpose. "
Reply to Objection 1: In Holy Scripture the air is sometimes called the
heavens---for instance, "The birds of the heavens [Douay: 'air'] and
the fishes of the sea. "
Reply to Objection 2: The angels of heaven, by reason of their very
office, come down to us, being "sent to minister. " But the stars of
heaven do not change their position. Wherefore there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: As the star did not follow the course of the
heavenly stars, so neither did it follow the course of the comets,
which neither appear during the daytime nor vary their customary
course. Nevertheless in its signification it has something in common
with the comets. Because the heavenly kingdom of Christ "shall break in
pieces, and shall consume all the kingdoms" of the earth, "and itself
shall stand for ever" (Dan. 2:44).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was becoming that the Magi should come to adore Christ and pay
homage to Him?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming that the Magi should
come to adore Christ and pay homage to Him. For reverence is due to a
king from his subjects. But the Magi did not belong to the kingdom of
the Jews. Therefore, since they knew by seeing the star that He that
was born was the "King of the Jews," it seems unbecoming that they
should come to adore Him.
Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd during the reign of one king to
proclaim a stranger. But in Judea Herod was reigning. Therefore it was
foolish of the Magi to proclaim the birth of a king.
Objection 3: Further, a heavenly sign is more certain than a human
sign. But the Magi had come to Judea from the east, under the guidance
of a heavenly sign. Therefore it was foolish of them to seek human
guidance besides that of the star, saying: "Where is He that is born
King of the Jews? "
Objection 4: Further, the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration
are not due save to kings already reigning. But the Magi did not find
Christ resplendent with kingly grandeur. Therefore it was unbecoming
for them to offer Him gifts and homage.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 60:3): "[The Gentiles] shall walk
in the light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. " But those who
walk in the Divine light do not err. Therefore the Magi were right in
offering homage to Christ.
I answer that, As stated above (A[3], ad 1), the Magi are the
"first-fruits of the Gentiles" that believed in Christ; because their
faith was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were
to come to Christ from afar. And therefore, as the devotion and faith
of the nations is without any error through the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, so also we must believe that the Magi, inspired by the Holy
Ghost, did wisely in paying homage to Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(cc. ): "Though many kings of the Jews had been born and died, none of
them did the Magi seek to adore. And so they who came from a distant
foreign land to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them, had no
idea of showing such great homage to such a king as the Jews were wont
to have. But they had learnt that such a King was born that by adoring
Him they might be sure of obtaining from Him the salvation which is of
God. "
Reply to Objection 2: By proclaiming [Christ King] the Magi
foreshadowed the constancy of the Gentiles in confessing Christ even
until death. Whence Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. ) that, while
they thought of the King who was to come, the Magi feared not the king
who was actually present. They had not yet seen Christ, and they were
already prepared to die for Him.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(cc. ): "The star which led the Magi to the place where the Divine
Infant was with His Virgin-Mother could bring them to the town of
Bethlehem, in which Christ was born. Yet it hid itself until the Jews
also bore testimony of the city in which Christ was to be born: so
that, being encouraged by a twofold witness," as Pope Leo says (Serm.
xxxiv), "they might seek with more ardent faith Him, whom both the
brightness of the star and the authority of prophecy revealed. " Thus
they "proclaim" that Christ is born, and "inquire where; they believe
and ask, as it were, betokening those who walk by faith and desire to
see," as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxcix). But the
Jews, by indicating to them the place of Christ's birth, "are like the
carpenters who built the Ark of Noe, who provided others with the means
of escape, and themselves perished in the flood. Those who asked, heard
and went their way: the teachers spoke and stayed where they were; like
the milestones that point out the way but walk not" (Augustine, Serm.
cclxxiii). It was also by God's will that, when they no longer saw the
star, the Magi, by human instinct, went to Jerusalem, to seek in the
royal city the new-born King, in order that Christ's birth might be
publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem, according to Is. 2:3: "The Law
shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem";
and also "in order that by the zeal of the Magi who came from afar, the
indolence of the Jews who lived near at hand, might be proved worthy of
condemnation" (Remig. , Hom. in Matth. ii, 1).
Reply to Objection 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*From the
supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "If the Magi had come in search of
an earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that they
had taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing. Consequently
they would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought
a heavenly King, though they found in Him no signs of royal
pre-eminence, yet, content with the testimony of the star alone, they
adored: for they saw a man, and they acknowledged a God. " Moreover,
they offer gifts in keeping with Christ's greatness: "gold, as to the
great King; they offer up incense as to God, because it is used in the
Divine Sacrifice; and myrrh, which is used in embalming the bodies of
the dead, is offered as to Him who is to die for the salvation of all"
(Gregory, Hom. x in Evang. ). And hereby, as Gregory says (Hom. x in
Evang. ), we are taught to offer gold, "which signifies wisdom, to the
new-born King, by the luster of our wisdom in His sight. " We offer God
incense, "which signifies fervor in prayer, if our constant prayers
mount up to God with an odor of sweetness"; and we offer myrrh, "which
signifies mortification of the flesh, if we mortify the ill-deeds of
the flesh by refraining from them. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES ACCOMPLISHED IN
REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the circumcision
is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I
testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to
do the whole Law," we shall have at the same time to inquire about the
other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ.
Therefore there are four points of inquiry:
(1) His circumcision;
(2) The imposition of His name;
(3) His presentation;
(4) His Mother's purification.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have been circumcised?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been
circumcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But
circumcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant
concerning his posterity, as may be seen from Gn. 17. Now this covenant
was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circumcision should have
ceased at once.
Objection 2: Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us"
[*Innoc. III, Serm. xxii de Temp. ]; wherefore it is written (Jn. 3:15):
"I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do
also. " But we ought not to be circumcised; according to Gal. 5:2: "If
you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. " Therefore it
seems that neither should Christ have been circumcised.
Objection 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of
original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above
([4191]Q[14], A[3];[4192] Q[15], A[1]). Therefore Christ should not
have been circumcised.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were
accomplished, that the child should be circumcised. "
I answer that, For several reasons Christ ought to have been
circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature,
in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary
body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ's body
was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine,
who said that Christ brought His body from heaven. Secondly, in order
to show His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old.
Thirdly, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had
received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him.
Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not
receiving Him, if He were uncircumcised. Fifthly, "in order by His
example to exhort us to be obedient" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang. ].
Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the
prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3). Sixthly, "that He who had come in
the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful
flesh was wont to be healed. " Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the
burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to
Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might
redeem them who were under the Law. "
Reply to Objection 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin
in the member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old
generation" [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis. ]: from the decrepitude
of which we are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure was
not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until
which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore
it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet
of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in
fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time.
Because "there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl
8:6).
Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc. ), "as we died when He
died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we
circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal
circumcision. " And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In
whom," [i. e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by
hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
of" our Lord Jesus "Christ. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our
death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in
order to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto
sin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy
against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order
to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual
circumcision in us---in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon
Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ.
For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling.
But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written
(Is. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His
name shall be called Emmanuel"; and (Is. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten
to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Is.
9:6): "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty,
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zech.
6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. " Thus it was unsuitable
that His name should be called Jesus.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Is. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called
by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg. : 'shall
name']. " But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several
in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Lk.
3:29), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be
called Jesus. "
Objection 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear
from Mat. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His
name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. " But
salvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision,
but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rom.
4:11,12). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His
circumcision.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written
(Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should
be circumcised, His name was called Jesus. "
I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is
clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: "Since
a name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a
thing's proper nature.
Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of
the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are
named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of
some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other
relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him
"by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there"
was "none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related
Lk. 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the
name of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget
all my labors" (Gn. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person
who receives the name; thus it is written (Gn. 25:25) that "he that
came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called
Esau," which is interpreted "red. "
But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift
bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gn. 17:5): "Thou
shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many
nations": and it was said to Peter (Mat. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My Church. " Since, therefore, this
prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him
all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i. e.
Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother,
but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father.
Reply to Objection 1: All these names in some way mean the same as
Jesus, which means "salvation. " For the name "Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is 'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which
is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son
of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us. "
When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc. , these
words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils
He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the principalities
and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. "
When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc. , the way
and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the
wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the
inheritance of the life to come," in which the children of God will
enjoy "perfect peace" under "God their Prince. "
When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is
made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the
Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up
in darkness" (Ps. 111:4).
manners of the shepherd, so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of
the Magi. Yet did this Corner-Stone draw both to Itself; inasmuch as He
came 'to choose the foolish things that He might confound the wise,'
and 'not to call the just, but sinners,'" so that "the proud might not
boast, nor the weak despair. " Nevertheless, there are those who say
that these Magi were not wizards, but wise astronomers, who are called
Magi among the Persians or Chaldees.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says [*Hom. ii in Matth. in the
Opus Imperf. , among the supposititious works of Chrysostom]: "The Magi
came from the east, because the first beginning of faith came from the
land where the day is born; since faith is the light of the soul. " Or,
"because all who come to Christ come from Him and through Him": whence
it is written (Zech. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. "
Now, they are said to come from the east literally, either because, as
some say, they came from the farthest parts of the east, or because
they came from the neighboring parts of Judea that lie to the east of
the region inhabited by the Jews. Yet it is to be believed that certain
signs of Christ's birth appeared also in other parts of the world:
thus, at Rome the river flowed with oil [*Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp.
185]; and in Spain three suns were seen, which gradually merged into
one [*Cf. Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp. 184].
Reply to Objection 4: As Chrysostom observes (Theophylact. , Enarr. in
Luc. ii, 8), the angel who announced Christ's birth did not go to
Jerusalem, nor did he seek the Scribes and Pharisees, for they were
corrupted, and full of ill-will. But the shepherds were single-minded,
and were like the patriarchs and Moses in their mode of life.
Moreover, these shepherds were types of the Doctors of the Church, to
whom are revealed the mysteries of Christ that were hidden from the
Jews.
Reply to Objection 5: As Ambrose says (on Lk. 2:25): "It was right that
our Lord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds, but also
by people advanced in age and virtue": whose testimony is rendered the
more credible by reason of their righteousness.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ Himself should have made His birth know?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have Himself made His
birth known. For "a direct cause is always of greater power than an
indirect cause," as is stated Phys. viii. But Christ made His birth
known through others---for instance, to the shepherds through the
angels, and to the Magi through the star. Much more, therefore, should
He Himself have made His birth known.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 20:32): "Wisdom that is
hid and treasure that is not seen; what profit is there in them both? "
But Christ had, to perfection, the treasure of wisdom and grace from
the beginning of His conception. Therefore, unless He had made the
fulness of these gifts known by words and deeds, wisdom and grace would
have been given Him to no purpose. But this is unreasonable: because
"God and nature do nothing without a purpose" (De Coelo i).
Objection 3: Further, we read in the book De Infantia Salvatoris that
in His infancy Christ worked many miracles. It seems therefore that He
did Himself make His birth known.
On the contrary, Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv) that the Magi found the
"infant Jesus in no way different from the generality of human
infants. " But other infants do not make themselves known. Therefore it
was not fitting that Christ should Himself make His birth known.
I answer that, Christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation, which
is by faith. But saving faith confesses Christ's Godhead and humanity.
It behooved, therefore, Christ's birth to be made known in such a way
that the proof of His Godhead should not be prejudicial to faith in His
human nature. But this took place while Christ presented a likeness of
human weakness, and yet, by means of God's creatures, He showed the
power of the Godhead in Himself. Therefore Christ made His birth known,
not by Himself, but by means of certain other creatures.
Reply to Objection 1: By the way of generation and movement we must of
necessity come to the imperfect before the perfect. And therefore
Christ was made known first through other creatures, and afterwards He
Himself manifested Himself perfectly.
Reply to Objection 2: Although hidden wisdom is useless, yet there is
no need for a wise man to make himself known at all times, but at a
suitable time; for it is written (Ecclus. 20:6): "There is one that
holdeth his peace because he knoweth not what to say: and there is
another that holdeth his peace, knowing the proper time. " Hence the
wisdom given to Christ was not useless, because at a suitable time He
manifested Himself. And the very fact that He was hidden at a suitable
time is a sign of wisdom.
Reply to Objection 3: The book De Infantia Salvatoris is apocryphal.
Moreover, Chrysostom (Hom. xxi super Joan. ) says that Christ worked no
miracles before changing the water into wine, according to Jn. 2:11:
"'This beginning of miracles did Jesus. ' For if He had worked miracles
at an early age, there would have been no need for anyone else to
manifest Him to the Israelites; whereas John the Baptist says (Jn.
1:31): 'That He may be made manifest in Israel; therefore am I come
baptizing with water. ' Moreover, it was fitting that He should not
begin to work miracles at an early age. For people would have thought
the Incarnation to be unreal, and, out of sheer spite, would have
crucified Him before the proper time. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth should have been manifested by means of the angels
and the star?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been
manifested by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual substances,
according to Ps. 103:4: "Who maketh His [Vulg. : 'makest Thy'] angels,
spirits. " But Christ's birth was in the flesh, and not in His spiritual
substance. Therefore it should not have been manifested by means of
angels.
Objection 2: Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to
any other, according to Ps. 33:8: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp
round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them. " But Christ's
birth was not announced to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, through
the angels. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the
shepherds by means of the angels.
Objection 3: Further, it seems that neither ought it to have been
announced to the Magi by means of the star. For this seems to favor the
error of those who think that man's birth is influenced by the stars.
But occasions of sin should be taken away from man. Therefore it was
not fitting that Christ's birth should be announced by a star.
Objection 4: Further, a sign should be certain, in order that something
be made known thereby. But a star does not seem to be a certain sign of
Christ's birth. Therefore Christ's birth was not suitably announced by
a star.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 32:4): "The works of God are
perfect. " But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was
accomplished by means of suitable signs.
I answer that, As knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from
something which we know better, so knowledge given by signs must be
conveyed through things which are familiar to those to whom the
knowledge is imparted. Now, it is clear that the righteous have,
through the spirit of prophecy, a certain familiarity with the interior
instinct of the Holy Ghost, and are wont to be taught thereby, without
the guidance of sensible signs. Whereas others, occupied with material
things, are led through the domain of the senses to that of the
intellect. The Jews, however, were accustomed to receive Divine answers
through the angels; through whom they also received the Law, according
to Acts 7:53: "You [Vulg. : 'who'] . . . have received the Law by the
disposition of angels. " And the Gentiles, especially astrologers, were
wont to observe the course of the stars. And therefore Christ's birth
was made known to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, by the interior
instinct of the Holy Ghost, according to Lk. 2:26: "He had received an
answer from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had
seen the Christ of the Lord. " But to the shepherds and Magi, as being
occupied with material things, Christ's birth was made known by means
of visible apparitions. And since this birth was not only earthly, but
also, in a way, heavenly, to both (shepherds and Magi) it is revealed
through heavenly signs: for, as Augustine says in a sermon on the
Epiphany (cciv): "The angels inhabit, and the stars adorn, the heavens:
by both, therefore, do the 'heavens show forth the glory of God. '"
Moreover, it was not without reason that Christ's birth was made known,
by means of angels, to the shepherds, who, being Jews, were accustomed
to frequent apparitions of the angels: whereas it was revealed by means
of a star to the Magi, who were wont to consider the heavenly bodies.
Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth. ): "Our Lord deigned to
call them through things to which they were accustomed. " There is also
another reason. For, as Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang. ): "To the Jews,
as rational beings, it was fitting that a rational animal [*Cf.
[4190]FP, Q[51], A[1], ad 2]," viz. an angel, "should preach. Whereas
the Gentiles, who were unable to come to the knowledge of God through
the reason, were led to God, not by words, but by signs. And as our
Lord, when He was able to speak, was announced by heralds who spoke, so
before He could speak He was manifested by speechless elements. " Again,
there is yet another reason. For, as Augustine [*Pope Leo] says in a
sermon on the Epiphany: "To Abraham was promised an innumerable
progeny, begotten, not of carnal propagation, but of the fruitfulness
of faith. For this reason it is compared to the multitude of stars;
that a heavenly progeny might be hoped for. " Wherefore the Gentiles,
"who are thus designated by the stars, are by the rising of a new star
stimulated" to seek Christ, through whom they are made the seed of
Abraham.
Reply to Objection 1: That which of itself is hidden needs to be
manifested, but not that which in itself is manifest. Now, the flesh of
Him who was born was manifest, whereas the Godhead was hidden. And
therefore it was fitting that this birth should be made known by
angels, who are the ministers of God. Wherefore also a certain
"brightness" (Lk. 2:9) accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate
that He who was just born was the "Brightness of" the Father's "glory. "
Reply to Objection 2: The righteous did not need the visible apparition
of the angel; on account of their perfection the interior instinct of
the Holy Ghost was enough for them.
Reply to Objection 3: The star which manifested Christ's birth removed
all occasion of error. For, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "No
astrologer has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the
time of his birth as to assert that one of the stars, at the birth of
any man, left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born": as
happened in the case of the star which made known the birth of Christ.
Consequently this does not corroborate the error of those who "think
there is a connection between man's birth and the course of the stars,
for they do not hold that the course of the stars can be changed at a
man's birth. "
In the same sense Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth. ): "It is not an
astronomer's business to know from the stars those who are born, but to
tell the future from the hour of a man's birth: whereas the Magi did
not know the time of the birth, so as to conclude therefrom some
knowledge of the future; rather was it the other way about. "
Reply to Objection 4: Chrysostom relates (Hom. ii in Matth. ) that,
according to some apocryphal books, a certain tribe in the far east
near the ocean was in the possession of a document written by Seth,
referring to this star and to the presents to be offered: which tribe
watched attentively for the rising of this star, twelve men being
appointed to take observations, who at stated times repaired to the
summit of a mountain with faithful assiduity: whence they subsequently
perceived the star containing the figure of a small child, and above it
the form of a cross.
Or we may say, as may be read in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. ,
qu. lxiii, that "these Magi followed the tradition of Balaam," who
said, "'A star shall rise out of Jacob. ' Wherefore observing this star
to be a stranger to the system of this world, they gathered that it was
the one foretold by Balaam to indicate the King of the Jews. "
Or again, it may be said with Augustine, in a sermon on the Epiphany
(ccclxxiv), that "the Magi had received a revelation through the
angels" that the star was a sign of the birth of Christ: and he thinks
it probable that these were "good angels; since in adoring Christ they
were seeking for salvation. "
Or with Pope Leo, in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxiv), that "besides
the outward form which aroused the attention of their corporeal eyes, a
more brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth was made known in a becoming order?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth was made known in an
unbecoming order. For Christ's birth should have been made known to
them first who were nearest to Christ, and who longed for Him most;
according to Wis. 6:14: "She preventeth them that covet her, so that
she first showeth herself unto them. " But the righteous were nearest to
Christ by faith, and longed most for His coming; whence it is written
(Lk. 2:25) of Simeon that "he was just and devout, waiting for the
consolation of Israel. " Therefore Christ's birth should have been made
known to Simeon before the shepherds and Magi.
Objection 2: Further, the Magi were the "first-fruits of the Gentiles,"
who were to believe in Christ. But first the "fulness of the Gentiles .
. . come in" unto faith, and afterwards "all Israel" shall "be saved,"
as is written (Rom. 11:25). Therefore Christ's birth should have been
made known to the Magi before the shepherds.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mat. 2:16) that "Herod killed all
the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders
thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he
had diligently inquired from the wise men": so that it seems that the
Magi were two years in coming to Christ after His birth. It was
therefore unbecoming that Christ should be made known to the Gentiles
so long after His birth.
On the contrary, It is written (Dan. 2:21): "He changes time and ages. "
Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth seems to
have been arranged in a suitable order.
I answer that, Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds on
the very day that He was born. For, as it is written (Lk. 2:8, 15, 16):
"There were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the
night-watches over their flock . . . And it came to pass, after the
angels departed from them into heaven they [Vulg. : 'the shepherds']
said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem . . . and they came
with haste. " Second in order were the Magi, who came to Christ on the
thirteenth day after His birth, on which day is kept the feast of the
Epiphany. For if they had come after a year, or even two years, they
would not have found Him in Bethlehem, since it is written (Lk. 2:39)
that "after they had performed all things according to the law of the
Lord"---that is to say, after they had offered up the Child Jesus in
the Temple---"they returned into Galilee, to their city"---namely,
"Nazareth. " In the third place, it was made known in the Temple to the
righteous on the fortieth day after His birth, as related by Luke
(2:22).
The reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles
and other believers of the Jews, to whom the faith of Christ was made
known first; among whom there were "not many mighty, not many noble,"
as we read 1 Cor. 1:26. Secondly, the faith of Christ came to the
"fulness of the Gentiles"; and this is foreshadowed in the Magi.
Thirdly it came to the fulness of the Jews, which is foreshadowed in
the righteous. Wherefore also Christ was manifested to them in the
Jewish Temple.
Reply to Objection 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 9:30,31): "Israel, by
following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of
justice": but the Gentiles, "who followed not after justice,"
forestalled the generality of the Jews in the justice which is of
faith. As a figure of this, Simeon, "who was waiting for the
consolation of Israel," was the last to know Christ born: and he was
preceded by the Magi and the shepherds, who did not await the coming of
Christ with such longing.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the "fulness of the Gentiles came in"
unto faith before the fulness of the Jews, yet the first-fruits of the
Jews preceded the first-fruits of the Gentiles in faith. For this
reason the birth of Christ was made known to the shepherds before the
Magi.
Reply to Objection 3: There are two opinions about the apparition of
the star seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus
Imperf. in Matth. , falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), and Augustine in a
sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by
the Magi during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and
then, having first considered the matter and prepared themselves for
the journey, they came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on
the thirteenth day after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after
the departure of the Magi, "perceiving that He was deluded by them,"
commanded the male children to be killed "from two years old and
under," being doubtful lest Christ were already born when the star
appeared, according as he had heard from the Magi.
But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and
that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a
journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the
Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries. And
I say this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But
others, again, say that they came from a neighboring country, whence
also was Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are said
to have come from the east, because their country was to the east of
the country of the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes, not as
soon as the Magi departed, but two years after: and that either because
he is said to have gone to Rome in the meanwhile on account of an
accusation brought against him, or because he was troubled at some
imminent peril, and for the time being desisted from his anxiety to
slay the child, or because he may have thought that the Magi, "being
deceived by the illusory appearance of the star, and not finding the
child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to return to him": as
Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason why he killed
not only those who were two years old, but also the younger children,
would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Innocents, because he
feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might make himself appear
older or younger.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system?
Objection 1: It would seem that the star which appeared to the Magi
belonged to the heavenly system. For Augustine says in a sermon on the
Epiphany (cxxii): "While God yet clings to the breast, and suffers
Himself to be wrapped in humble swaddling clothes, suddenly a new star
shines forth in the heavens. " Therefore the star which appeared to the
Magi belonged to the heavenly system.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cci):
"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a
star. A heavenly tongue speaks to both, because the tongue of the
prophets spoke no longer. " But the angels who appeared to the shepherds
were really angels from heaven. Therefore also the star which appeared
to the Magi was really a star from the heavens.
Objection 3: Further, stars which are not in the heavens but in the air
are called comets, which do not appear at the birth of kings, but
rather are signs of their approaching death. But this star was a sign
of the King's birth: wherefore the Magi said (Mat. 2:2): "Where is He
that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east. "
Therefore it seems that it was a star from the heavens.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of
those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the
course appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger
to the heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a
virgin in childbirth. "
I answer that, As Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth. ), it is clear, for
many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not belong
to the heavenly system. First, because no other star approaches from
the same quarter as this star, whose course was from north to south,
these being the relative positions of Persia, whence the Magi came, and
Judea. Secondly, from the time [at which it was seen]. For it appeared
not only at night, but also at midday: and no star can do this, not
even the moon. Thirdly, because it was visible at one time and hidden
at another. For when they entered Jerusalem it hid itself: then, when
they had left Herod, it showed itself again. Fourthly, because its
movement was not continuous, but when the Magi had to continue their
journey the star moved on; when they had to stop the star stood still;
as happened to the pillar of a cloud in the desert. Fifthly, because it
indicated the virginal Birth, not by remaining aloft, but by coming
down below. For it is written (Mat. 2:9) that "the star which they had
seen in the east went before them, until it came and stood over where
the child was. " Whence it is evident that the words of the Magi, "We
have seen His star in the east," are to be taken as meaning, not that
when they were in the east the star appeared over the country of Judea,
but that when they saw the star it was in the east, and that it
preceded them into Judea (although this is considered doubtful by
some). But it could not have indicated the house distinctly, unless it
were near the earth. And, as he [Chrysostom] observes, this does not
seem fitting to a star, but "of some power endowed with reason. "
Consequently "it seems that this was some invisible force made visible
under the form of a star. "
Wherefore some say that, as the Holy Ghost, after our Lord's Baptism,
came down on Him under the form of a dove, so did He appear to the Magi
under the form of a star. While others say that the angel who, under a
human form, appeared to the shepherds, under the form of a star,
appeared to the Magi. But it seems more probable that it was a newly
created star, not in the heavens, but in the air near the earth, and
that its movement varied according to God's will. Wherefore Pope Leo
says in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxi): "A star of unusual brightness
appeared to the three Magi in the east, which, through being more
brilliant and more beautiful than the other stars, drew men's gaze and
attention: so that they understood at once that such an unwonted event
could not be devoid of purpose. "
Reply to Objection 1: In Holy Scripture the air is sometimes called the
heavens---for instance, "The birds of the heavens [Douay: 'air'] and
the fishes of the sea. "
Reply to Objection 2: The angels of heaven, by reason of their very
office, come down to us, being "sent to minister. " But the stars of
heaven do not change their position. Wherefore there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 3: As the star did not follow the course of the
heavenly stars, so neither did it follow the course of the comets,
which neither appear during the daytime nor vary their customary
course. Nevertheless in its signification it has something in common
with the comets. Because the heavenly kingdom of Christ "shall break in
pieces, and shall consume all the kingdoms" of the earth, "and itself
shall stand for ever" (Dan. 2:44).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was becoming that the Magi should come to adore Christ and pay
homage to Him?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming that the Magi should
come to adore Christ and pay homage to Him. For reverence is due to a
king from his subjects. But the Magi did not belong to the kingdom of
the Jews. Therefore, since they knew by seeing the star that He that
was born was the "King of the Jews," it seems unbecoming that they
should come to adore Him.
Objection 2: Further, it seems absurd during the reign of one king to
proclaim a stranger. But in Judea Herod was reigning. Therefore it was
foolish of the Magi to proclaim the birth of a king.
Objection 3: Further, a heavenly sign is more certain than a human
sign. But the Magi had come to Judea from the east, under the guidance
of a heavenly sign. Therefore it was foolish of them to seek human
guidance besides that of the star, saying: "Where is He that is born
King of the Jews? "
Objection 4: Further, the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration
are not due save to kings already reigning. But the Magi did not find
Christ resplendent with kingly grandeur. Therefore it was unbecoming
for them to offer Him gifts and homage.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 60:3): "[The Gentiles] shall walk
in the light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. " But those who
walk in the Divine light do not err. Therefore the Magi were right in
offering homage to Christ.
I answer that, As stated above (A[3], ad 1), the Magi are the
"first-fruits of the Gentiles" that believed in Christ; because their
faith was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were
to come to Christ from afar. And therefore, as the devotion and faith
of the nations is without any error through the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, so also we must believe that the Magi, inspired by the Holy
Ghost, did wisely in paying homage to Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(cc. ): "Though many kings of the Jews had been born and died, none of
them did the Magi seek to adore. And so they who came from a distant
foreign land to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them, had no
idea of showing such great homage to such a king as the Jews were wont
to have. But they had learnt that such a King was born that by adoring
Him they might be sure of obtaining from Him the salvation which is of
God. "
Reply to Objection 2: By proclaiming [Christ King] the Magi
foreshadowed the constancy of the Gentiles in confessing Christ even
until death. Whence Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. ) that, while
they thought of the King who was to come, the Magi feared not the king
who was actually present. They had not yet seen Christ, and they were
already prepared to die for Him.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(cc. ): "The star which led the Magi to the place where the Divine
Infant was with His Virgin-Mother could bring them to the town of
Bethlehem, in which Christ was born. Yet it hid itself until the Jews
also bore testimony of the city in which Christ was to be born: so
that, being encouraged by a twofold witness," as Pope Leo says (Serm.
xxxiv), "they might seek with more ardent faith Him, whom both the
brightness of the star and the authority of prophecy revealed. " Thus
they "proclaim" that Christ is born, and "inquire where; they believe
and ask, as it were, betokening those who walk by faith and desire to
see," as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxcix). But the
Jews, by indicating to them the place of Christ's birth, "are like the
carpenters who built the Ark of Noe, who provided others with the means
of escape, and themselves perished in the flood. Those who asked, heard
and went their way: the teachers spoke and stayed where they were; like
the milestones that point out the way but walk not" (Augustine, Serm.
cclxxiii). It was also by God's will that, when they no longer saw the
star, the Magi, by human instinct, went to Jerusalem, to seek in the
royal city the new-born King, in order that Christ's birth might be
publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem, according to Is. 2:3: "The Law
shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem";
and also "in order that by the zeal of the Magi who came from afar, the
indolence of the Jews who lived near at hand, might be proved worthy of
condemnation" (Remig. , Hom. in Matth. ii, 1).
Reply to Objection 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*From the
supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "If the Magi had come in search of
an earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that they
had taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing. Consequently
they would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought
a heavenly King, though they found in Him no signs of royal
pre-eminence, yet, content with the testimony of the star alone, they
adored: for they saw a man, and they acknowledged a God. " Moreover,
they offer gifts in keeping with Christ's greatness: "gold, as to the
great King; they offer up incense as to God, because it is used in the
Divine Sacrifice; and myrrh, which is used in embalming the bodies of
the dead, is offered as to Him who is to die for the salvation of all"
(Gregory, Hom. x in Evang. ). And hereby, as Gregory says (Hom. x in
Evang. ), we are taught to offer gold, "which signifies wisdom, to the
new-born King, by the luster of our wisdom in His sight. " We offer God
incense, "which signifies fervor in prayer, if our constant prayers
mount up to God with an odor of sweetness"; and we offer myrrh, "which
signifies mortification of the flesh, if we mortify the ill-deeds of
the flesh by refraining from them. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES ACCOMPLISHED IN
REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the circumcision
is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I
testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to
do the whole Law," we shall have at the same time to inquire about the
other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ.
Therefore there are four points of inquiry:
(1) His circumcision;
(2) The imposition of His name;
(3) His presentation;
(4) His Mother's purification.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have been circumcised?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been
circumcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But
circumcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant
concerning his posterity, as may be seen from Gn. 17. Now this covenant
was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circumcision should have
ceased at once.
Objection 2: Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us"
[*Innoc. III, Serm. xxii de Temp. ]; wherefore it is written (Jn. 3:15):
"I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do
also. " But we ought not to be circumcised; according to Gal. 5:2: "If
you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. " Therefore it
seems that neither should Christ have been circumcised.
Objection 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of
original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above
([4191]Q[14], A[3];[4192] Q[15], A[1]). Therefore Christ should not
have been circumcised.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were
accomplished, that the child should be circumcised. "
I answer that, For several reasons Christ ought to have been
circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature,
in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary
body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ's body
was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine,
who said that Christ brought His body from heaven. Secondly, in order
to show His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old.
Thirdly, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had
received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him.
Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not
receiving Him, if He were uncircumcised. Fifthly, "in order by His
example to exhort us to be obedient" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang. ].
Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the
prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3). Sixthly, "that He who had come in
the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful
flesh was wont to be healed. " Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the
burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to
Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might
redeem them who were under the Law. "
Reply to Objection 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin
in the member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old
generation" [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis. ]: from the decrepitude
of which we are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure was
not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until
which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore
it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His
Passion.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet
of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in
fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time.
Because "there is a time and opportunity for every business" (Eccl
8:6).
Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc. ), "as we died when He
died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we
circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal
circumcision. " And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): "In
whom," [i. e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by
hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
of" our Lord Jesus "Christ. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our
death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in
order to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto
sin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy
against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order
to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual
circumcision in us---in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon
Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ.
For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling.
But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written
(Is. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His
name shall be called Emmanuel"; and (Is. 8:3): "Call His name, Hasten
to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and (Is.
9:6): "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty,
the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and (Zech.
6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. " Thus it was unsuitable
that His name should be called Jesus.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Is. 62:2): "Thou shalt be called
by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg. : 'shall
name']. " But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several
in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Lk.
3:29), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be
called Jesus. "
Objection 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear
from Mat. 1:21: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His
name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. " But
salvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision,
but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rom.
4:11,12). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His
circumcision.
On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written
(Lk. 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should
be circumcised, His name was called Jesus. "
I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is
clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: "Since
a name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a
thing's proper nature.
Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of
the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are
named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of
some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other
relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him
"by his father's name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there"
was "none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this name," as related
Lk. 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the
name of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget
all my labors" (Gn. 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person
who receives the name; thus it is written (Gn. 25:25) that "he that
came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called
Esau," which is interpreted "red. "
But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift
bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gn. 17:5): "Thou
shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many
nations": and it was said to Peter (Mat. 16:18): "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My Church. " Since, therefore, this
prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him
all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i. e.
Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother,
but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father.
Reply to Objection 1: All these names in some way mean the same as
Jesus, which means "salvation. " For the name "Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is 'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which
is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son
of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us. "
When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc. , these
words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils
He took away, according to Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the principalities
and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. "
When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc. , the way
and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as "by the
wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the
inheritance of the life to come," in which the children of God will
enjoy "perfect peace" under "God their Prince. "
When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is
made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the
Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up
in darkness" (Ps. 111:4).
