Objection
1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been
made known to anyone.
made known to anyone.
Summa Theologica
But
Christ ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely . . . He
hath carried our sorrows. " Therefore it seems that His nativity was not
without the pains of childbirth.
Objection 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour
[*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were
present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the
mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin
suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [*Supposititious]),
addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all
pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain. "
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening
the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above ([4189]Q[28],
A[2], Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed
womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage.
Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any
corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that
God-Man "was born into the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the
lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and
praise. "
Reply to Objection 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from
the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Gn. 3:16) after the words, "in
sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and
thou shalt be under thy husband's power. " But, as Augustine says (Serm.
de Assumpt. B. Virg. , [*Supposititious]), from this sentence we must
exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ
without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual
mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without
violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of
her maidenhood. " Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own
spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result
of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.
Reply to Objection 2: As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death"
[*Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time], so by His pains He freed us
from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the
mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone
for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer
in giving birth.
Reply to Objection 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin
herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had
brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger. " Consequently the narrative
of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says
(Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women
interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,'
says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger. '" These
words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have been born in Bethlehem?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born in
Bethlehem. For it is written (Is. 2:3): "The law shall come forth from
Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. " But Christ is truly the
Word of God. Therefore He should have come into the world at Jerusalem.
Objection 2: Further, it is said (Mat. 2:23) that it is written of
Christ that "He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from Is.
11:1: "A flower shall rise up out of his root"; for "Nazareth" is
interpreted "a flower. " But a man is named especially from the place of
his birth. Therefore it seems that He should have been born in
Nazareth, where also He was conceived and brought up.
Objection 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that
He might make known the true faith. according to Jn. 18:37: "For this
was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give
testimony to the truth. " But this would have been easier if He had been
born in the city of Rome, which at that time ruled the world; whence
Paul, writing to the Romans (1:8) says: "Your faith is spoken of in the
whole world. " Therefore it seems that He should not have been born in
Bethlehem.
On the contrary, It is written (Mic. 5:2): "And thou, Bethlehem,
Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be
the ruler in Israel. "
I answer that, Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two reasons.
First, because "He was made . . . of the seed of David according to the
flesh," as it is written (Rom. 1:3); to whom also was a special promise
made concerning Christ; according to 2 Kings 23:1: "The man to whom it
was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said. "
Therefore He willed to be born at Bethlehem, where David was born, in
order that by the very birthplace the promise made to David might be
shown to be fulfilled. The Evangelist points this out by saying:
"Because He was of the house and of the family of David. " Secondly,
because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang. ): "Bethlehem is
interpreted 'the house of bread. ' It is Christ Himself who said, 'I am
the living Bread which came down from heaven. '"
Reply to Objection 1: As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he
choose Jerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the
Temple of God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a
priestly city. Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were "consummated"
principally in His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should
choose Bethlehem for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of His
Passion.
At the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who
take pride in being born in great cities, where also they desire
especially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be born
in a mean city, and to suffer reproach in a great city.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished "to flower" by His holy life, not
in His carnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up
at Nazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home;
because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang. ), through the human
nature which He had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign
place---foreign not to His power, but to His Nature. And, again, as
Bede says on Lk. 2:7: "In order that He who found no room at the inn
might prepare many mansions for us in His Father's house. "
Reply to Objection 3: According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus
[*P. iii, cap. ix]: "If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the
change in the world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens.
If He had been the son of the Emperor, His benefits would have been
attributed to the latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the
work of God in the transformation of the whole earth, He chose a poor
mother and a birthplace poorer still. "
"But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound
the strong" (1 Cor. 1:27). And therefore, in order the more to show His
power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself, which was the
head of the world, in sign of His complete victory, in order that from
that city the faith might spread throughout the world; according to Is.
26:5,6: "The high city He shall lay low . . . the feet of the poor,"
i. e. of Christ, "shall tread it down; the steps of the needy," i. e. of
the apostles Peter and Paul.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time.
Because Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But He was
born at a time of subjection---namely, when the whole world, as it
were, tributary to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as Luke
relates (2:1). Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting
time.
Objection 2: Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were
not made to the Gentiles; according to Rom. 9:4: "To whom belong . . .
the promises. " But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as
appears from Mat. 2:1: "When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod. "
Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.
Objection 3: Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is
compared to the day, because He is the "Light of the world"; wherefore
He says Himself (Jn. 9:4): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me,
whilst it is day. " But in summer the days are longer than in winter.
Therefore, since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before
the Kalends of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting
time.
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of the
time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law. "
I answer that, There is this difference between Christ and other men,
that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time,
Christ, as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be
born, just as He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since "what is of
God is well ordered" and becomingly arranged, it follows that Christ
was born at a most fitting time.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ came in order to bring us back from a
state of bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our
mortal nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super
Luc. ii, 4,5), "He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly
after His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus
submit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty. "
Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler,
peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the
birth of Christ, for "He is our peace, who hath made both one," as it
is written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Is. 2:4: "If we search
the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole
world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus
Caesar: but when our Lord was born, all war ceased"; according to Is.
2:4: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. "
Again, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was
governed by one ruler, because "He came to gather His own [Vulg. : 'the
children of God'] together in one" (Jn. 11:52), that there might be
"one fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16).
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished to be born during the reign of a
foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gn. 49:10):
"The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his
thigh, till He come that is to be sent. " Because, as Chrysostom says
(Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf. , falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), as
long as the Jewish "people was governed by Jewish kings, however
wicked, prophets were sent for their healing. But now that the Law of
God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is born; because a
grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful physician. "
Reply to Objection 3: As says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et
Vet. Test. , "Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to
increase in length," so as to show that He came in order that man might
come nearer to the Divine Light, according to Lk. 1:79: "To enlighten
them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. "
In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He
might begin from then to suffer in body for us.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ:
concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
(2) Whether it should have been made known to some?
(3) To whom should it have been made known?
(4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather have
been manifested by others?
(5) By what other means should it have been made known?
(6) Of the order of these manifestations;
(7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known;
(8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's
nativity by means of the star.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made
known to all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now, the
promise of Christ's coming is thus expressed (Ps. 49:3): "God shall
come manifestly. But He came by His birth in the flesh. " Therefore it
seems that His birth should have been made known to the whole world.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "Christ came into
this world to save sinners. " But this is not effected save in as far as
the grace of Christ is made known to them; according to Titus 2:11,12:
"The grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us,
that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly,
and justly, and godly in this world. " Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known to all.
Objection 3: Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy;
according to Ps. 144:9: "His tender mercies are over all His works. "
But in His second coming, when He will "judge justices" (Ps. 70:3), He
will come before the eyes of all; according to Mat. 24:27: "As
lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west, so
shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. " Much more, therefore,
should His first coming, when He was born into the world according to
the flesh, have been made known to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 45:15): "Thou art a hidden God, the
Holy [Vulg. : 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour. " And, again (Is. 43:3):
"His look was, as it were, hidden and despised. "
I answer that, It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made
known to all men without distinction. First, because this would have
been a hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by
means of the Cross; for, as it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had
known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. "
Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which He
came to offer men as the way to righteousness. according to Rom. 3:22:
"The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ. " For if, when Christ was
born, His birth had been made known to all by evident signs, the very
nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it is "the evidence of
things that appear not," as stated, Heb. 11:1.
Thirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come
into doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "If He
had not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to
youth, had neither eaten nor slept, would He not have strengthened an
erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had
become true man? And while He is doing all things wondrously, would He
have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy? "
Reply to Objection 1: According to the gloss, the words quoted must be
understood of Christ's coming as judge.
Reply to Objection 2: All men were to be instructed unto salvation,
concerning the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His
birth, but afterwards, in due time, after He had "wrought salvation in
the midst of the earth" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion and
Resurrection, He said to His disciples (Mat. 28:19): "Going . . . teach
ye all nations. "
Reply to Objection 3: For judgment to be passed, the authority of the
judge needs to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the
coming of Christ unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming
was unto the salvation of all, which is by faith that is of things not
seen. And therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be
hidden.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to some?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been
made known to anyone. For, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), it befitted
the salvation of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden.
But Christ came to save all; according to 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the
Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful. " Therefore Christ's
birth should not have been made known to anyone.
Objection 2: Further, before Christ was born, His future birth was made
known to the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Therefore it was not necessary
that it should be made known to others after His birth.
Objection 3: Further, no wise man makes known that from which arise
disturbance and harm to others. But, when Christ's birth was made
known, disturbance arose: for it is written (Mat. 2:3) that "King
Herod, hearing" of Christ's birth, "was troubled, and all Jerusalem
with him. " Moreover, this brought harm to others; because it was the
occasion of Herod's killing "all the male children that were in
Bethlehem . . . from two years old and under. " Therefore it seems
unfitting for Christ's birth to have been made known to anyone.
On the contrary, Christ's birth would have been profitable to none if
it had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be
profitable: else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known to some.
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1) "what is of God is well
ordered. " Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that God's gifts
and the secrets of His wisdom are not bestowed on all equally, but to
some immediately, through whom they are made known to others.
Wherefore, with regard to the mystery of the Resurrection it is written
(Acts 10:40,41): "God . . . gave" Christ rising again "to be made
manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses pre-ordained by God. "
Consequently, that His birth might be consistent with this, it should
have been made known, not to all, but to some, through whom it could be
made known to others.
Reply to Objection 1: As it would have been prejudicial to the
salvation of mankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so
also would it have been if none had been informed of it. Because in
either case faith is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest,
or whether it be entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from
another; for "faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17).
Reply to Objection 2: Mary and Joseph needed to be instructed
concerning Christ's birth before He was born, because it devolved on
them to show reverence to the child conceived in the womb, and to serve
Him even before He was born. But their testimony, being of a domestic
character, would have aroused suspicion in regard to Christ's
greatness: and so it behooved it to be made known to others, whose
testimony could not be suspect.
Reply to Objection 3: The very disturbance that arose when it was known
that Christ was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the
heavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says
(Hom. x in Evang. ): "After the birth of the King of heaven, the earthly
king is troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is covered with
confusion when the heavenly majesty is revealed. "
Secondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus
Augustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp. ) on the Epiphany: "What will He
be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck terror
into the heart of a proud king? "
Thirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was
foreshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm.
v [*Opus Imperfectum in Matth. , Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to St. John
Chrysostom]): "Herod was not so much troubled in himself as the devil
in Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil thought Him
to be God. Each feared a successor to his kingdom: the devil, a
heavenly successor; Herod, an earthly successor. " But their fear was
needless: since Christ had not come to set up an earthly kingdom, as
Pope Leo says, addressing himself to Herod: "Thy palace cannot hold
Christ: nor is the Lord of the world content with the paltry power of
thy scepter. " That the Jews were troubled, who, on the contrary, should
have rejoiced, was either because, as Chrysostom says, "wicked men
could not rejoice at the coming of the Holy one," or because they
wished to court favor with Herod, whom they feared; for "the populace
is inclined to favor too much those whose cruelty it endures. "
And that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them, but
profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (66 de
Diversis): "It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man
free, rewarded those who were slain for Him; since, while hanging on
the cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen?
Objection 1: It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made
known were not suitably chosen. For our Lord (Mat. 10:5) commanded His
disciples, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles," so that He might
be made known to the Jews before the Gentiles. Therefore it seems that
much less should Christ's birth have been at once revealed to the
Gentiles who "came from the east," as stated Mat. 2:1.
Objection 2: Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made
especially to the friends of God, according to Job 37 [Vulg. : Job
36:33]: "He sheweth His friend concerning it. " But the Magi seem to be
God's foes; for it is written (Lev. 19:31): "Go not aside after wizards
[magi], neither ask anything of soothsayers. " Therefore Christ's birth
should not have been made known to the Magi.
Objection 3: Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world
from the power of the devil; whence it is written (Malachi 1:11): "From
the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among
the Gentiles. " Therefore He should have been made known, not only to
those who dwelt in the east, but also to some from all parts of the
world.
Objection 4: Further, all the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of
Christ. But the sacraments of the Old Law were dispensed through the
ministry of the legal priesthood. Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known rather to the priests in the Temple
than to the shepherds in the fields.
Objection 5: Further, Christ was born of a Virgin-Mother, and was as
yet a little child. It was therefore more suitable that He should be
made known to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to
widows, such as Simeon and Anna.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 13:18): "I know whom I have
chosen. " But what is done by God's wisdom is done becomingly. Therefore
those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen.
I answer that, Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ,
concerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written
(Col. 3:11), in Christ "there is neither male nor female, [*These words
are in reality from Gal. 3:28] neither Gentile nor Jew . . . bond nor
free," and so forth. And in order that this might be foreshadowed in
Christ's birth, He was made known to men of all conditions. Because, as
Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (32 de Temp. ), "the
shepherds were Israelites, the Magi were Gentiles. The former were nigh
to Him, the latter far from Him. Both hastened to Him together as to
the cornerstone. " There was also another point of contrast: for the
Magi were wise and powerful; the shepherds simple and lowly. He was
also made known to the righteous as Simeon and Anna; and to sinners, as
the Magi. He was made known both to men, and to women---namely, to
Anna---so as to show no condition of men to be excluded from Christ's
redemption.
Reply to Objection 1: That manifestation of Christ's birth was a kind
of foretaste of the full manifestation which was to come. And as in the
later manifestation the first announcement of the grace of Christ was
made by Him and His Apostles to the Jews and afterwards to the
Gentiles, so the first to come to Christ were the shepherds, who were
the first-fruits of the Jews, as being near to Him; and afterwards came
the Magi from afar, who were "the first-fruits of the Gentiles," as
Augustine says (Serm. 30 de Temp. cc. ).
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(Serm. 30 de Temp. ): "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.
Christ ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely . . . He
hath carried our sorrows. " Therefore it seems that His nativity was not
without the pains of childbirth.
Objection 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour
[*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were
present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the
mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin
suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [*Supposititious]),
addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all
pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain. "
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening
the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above ([4189]Q[28],
A[2], Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed
womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage.
Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any
corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that
God-Man "was born into the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the
lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and
praise. "
Reply to Objection 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from
the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Gn. 3:16) after the words, "in
sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and
thou shalt be under thy husband's power. " But, as Augustine says (Serm.
de Assumpt. B. Virg. , [*Supposititious]), from this sentence we must
exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ
without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual
mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without
violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of
her maidenhood. " Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own
spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result
of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.
Reply to Objection 2: As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death"
[*Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time], so by His pains He freed us
from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the
mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone
for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer
in giving birth.
Reply to Objection 3: We are told (Lk. 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin
herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had
brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger. " Consequently the narrative
of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says
(Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women
interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,'
says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger. '" These
words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have been born in Bethlehem?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born in
Bethlehem. For it is written (Is. 2:3): "The law shall come forth from
Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. " But Christ is truly the
Word of God. Therefore He should have come into the world at Jerusalem.
Objection 2: Further, it is said (Mat. 2:23) that it is written of
Christ that "He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from Is.
11:1: "A flower shall rise up out of his root"; for "Nazareth" is
interpreted "a flower. " But a man is named especially from the place of
his birth. Therefore it seems that He should have been born in
Nazareth, where also He was conceived and brought up.
Objection 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that
He might make known the true faith. according to Jn. 18:37: "For this
was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give
testimony to the truth. " But this would have been easier if He had been
born in the city of Rome, which at that time ruled the world; whence
Paul, writing to the Romans (1:8) says: "Your faith is spoken of in the
whole world. " Therefore it seems that He should not have been born in
Bethlehem.
On the contrary, It is written (Mic. 5:2): "And thou, Bethlehem,
Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be
the ruler in Israel. "
I answer that, Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two reasons.
First, because "He was made . . . of the seed of David according to the
flesh," as it is written (Rom. 1:3); to whom also was a special promise
made concerning Christ; according to 2 Kings 23:1: "The man to whom it
was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said. "
Therefore He willed to be born at Bethlehem, where David was born, in
order that by the very birthplace the promise made to David might be
shown to be fulfilled. The Evangelist points this out by saying:
"Because He was of the house and of the family of David. " Secondly,
because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang. ): "Bethlehem is
interpreted 'the house of bread. ' It is Christ Himself who said, 'I am
the living Bread which came down from heaven. '"
Reply to Objection 1: As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he
choose Jerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the
Temple of God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a
priestly city. Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were "consummated"
principally in His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should
choose Bethlehem for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of His
Passion.
At the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who
take pride in being born in great cities, where also they desire
especially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be born
in a mean city, and to suffer reproach in a great city.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished "to flower" by His holy life, not
in His carnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up
at Nazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home;
because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang. ), through the human
nature which He had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign
place---foreign not to His power, but to His Nature. And, again, as
Bede says on Lk. 2:7: "In order that He who found no room at the inn
might prepare many mansions for us in His Father's house. "
Reply to Objection 3: According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus
[*P. iii, cap. ix]: "If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the
change in the world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens.
If He had been the son of the Emperor, His benefits would have been
attributed to the latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the
work of God in the transformation of the whole earth, He chose a poor
mother and a birthplace poorer still. "
"But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound
the strong" (1 Cor. 1:27). And therefore, in order the more to show His
power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself, which was the
head of the world, in sign of His complete victory, in order that from
that city the faith might spread throughout the world; according to Is.
26:5,6: "The high city He shall lay low . . . the feet of the poor,"
i. e. of Christ, "shall tread it down; the steps of the needy," i. e. of
the apostles Peter and Paul.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time.
Because Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But He was
born at a time of subjection---namely, when the whole world, as it
were, tributary to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as Luke
relates (2:1). Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting
time.
Objection 2: Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were
not made to the Gentiles; according to Rom. 9:4: "To whom belong . . .
the promises. " But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as
appears from Mat. 2:1: "When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod. "
Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting time.
Objection 3: Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is
compared to the day, because He is the "Light of the world"; wherefore
He says Himself (Jn. 9:4): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me,
whilst it is day. " But in summer the days are longer than in winter.
Therefore, since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before
the Kalends of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting
time.
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of the
time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law. "
I answer that, There is this difference between Christ and other men,
that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time,
Christ, as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be
born, just as He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since "what is of
God is well ordered" and becomingly arranged, it follows that Christ
was born at a most fitting time.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ came in order to bring us back from a
state of bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our
mortal nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super
Luc. ii, 4,5), "He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly
after His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus
submit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty. "
Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler,
peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the
birth of Christ, for "He is our peace, who hath made both one," as it
is written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Is. 2:4: "If we search
the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole
world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of Augustus
Caesar: but when our Lord was born, all war ceased"; according to Is.
2:4: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. "
Again, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was
governed by one ruler, because "He came to gather His own [Vulg. : 'the
children of God'] together in one" (Jn. 11:52), that there might be
"one fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16).
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished to be born during the reign of a
foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gn. 49:10):
"The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his
thigh, till He come that is to be sent. " Because, as Chrysostom says
(Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf. , falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), as
long as the Jewish "people was governed by Jewish kings, however
wicked, prophets were sent for their healing. But now that the Law of
God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is born; because a
grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful physician. "
Reply to Objection 3: As says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et
Vet. Test. , "Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to
increase in length," so as to show that He came in order that man might
come nearer to the Divine Light, according to Lk. 1:79: "To enlighten
them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. "
In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He
might begin from then to suffer in body for us.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ:
concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
(2) Whether it should have been made known to some?
(3) To whom should it have been made known?
(4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather have
been manifested by others?
(5) By what other means should it have been made known?
(6) Of the order of these manifestations;
(7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known;
(8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's
nativity by means of the star.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made
known to all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now, the
promise of Christ's coming is thus expressed (Ps. 49:3): "God shall
come manifestly. But He came by His birth in the flesh. " Therefore it
seems that His birth should have been made known to the whole world.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "Christ came into
this world to save sinners. " But this is not effected save in as far as
the grace of Christ is made known to them; according to Titus 2:11,12:
"The grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us,
that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly,
and justly, and godly in this world. " Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known to all.
Objection 3: Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy;
according to Ps. 144:9: "His tender mercies are over all His works. "
But in His second coming, when He will "judge justices" (Ps. 70:3), He
will come before the eyes of all; according to Mat. 24:27: "As
lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west, so
shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. " Much more, therefore,
should His first coming, when He was born into the world according to
the flesh, have been made known to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 45:15): "Thou art a hidden God, the
Holy [Vulg. : 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour. " And, again (Is. 43:3):
"His look was, as it were, hidden and despised. "
I answer that, It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made
known to all men without distinction. First, because this would have
been a hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by
means of the Cross; for, as it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had
known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. "
Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which He
came to offer men as the way to righteousness. according to Rom. 3:22:
"The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ. " For if, when Christ was
born, His birth had been made known to all by evident signs, the very
nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it is "the evidence of
things that appear not," as stated, Heb. 11:1.
Thirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come
into doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "If He
had not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to
youth, had neither eaten nor slept, would He not have strengthened an
erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had
become true man? And while He is doing all things wondrously, would He
have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy? "
Reply to Objection 1: According to the gloss, the words quoted must be
understood of Christ's coming as judge.
Reply to Objection 2: All men were to be instructed unto salvation,
concerning the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His
birth, but afterwards, in due time, after He had "wrought salvation in
the midst of the earth" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion and
Resurrection, He said to His disciples (Mat. 28:19): "Going . . . teach
ye all nations. "
Reply to Objection 3: For judgment to be passed, the authority of the
judge needs to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the
coming of Christ unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming
was unto the salvation of all, which is by faith that is of things not
seen. And therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be
hidden.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to some?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been
made known to anyone. For, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), it befitted
the salvation of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden.
But Christ came to save all; according to 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the
Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful. " Therefore Christ's
birth should not have been made known to anyone.
Objection 2: Further, before Christ was born, His future birth was made
known to the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Therefore it was not necessary
that it should be made known to others after His birth.
Objection 3: Further, no wise man makes known that from which arise
disturbance and harm to others. But, when Christ's birth was made
known, disturbance arose: for it is written (Mat. 2:3) that "King
Herod, hearing" of Christ's birth, "was troubled, and all Jerusalem
with him. " Moreover, this brought harm to others; because it was the
occasion of Herod's killing "all the male children that were in
Bethlehem . . . from two years old and under. " Therefore it seems
unfitting for Christ's birth to have been made known to anyone.
On the contrary, Christ's birth would have been profitable to none if
it had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be
profitable: else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known to some.
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1) "what is of God is well
ordered. " Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that God's gifts
and the secrets of His wisdom are not bestowed on all equally, but to
some immediately, through whom they are made known to others.
Wherefore, with regard to the mystery of the Resurrection it is written
(Acts 10:40,41): "God . . . gave" Christ rising again "to be made
manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses pre-ordained by God. "
Consequently, that His birth might be consistent with this, it should
have been made known, not to all, but to some, through whom it could be
made known to others.
Reply to Objection 1: As it would have been prejudicial to the
salvation of mankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so
also would it have been if none had been informed of it. Because in
either case faith is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest,
or whether it be entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from
another; for "faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17).
Reply to Objection 2: Mary and Joseph needed to be instructed
concerning Christ's birth before He was born, because it devolved on
them to show reverence to the child conceived in the womb, and to serve
Him even before He was born. But their testimony, being of a domestic
character, would have aroused suspicion in regard to Christ's
greatness: and so it behooved it to be made known to others, whose
testimony could not be suspect.
Reply to Objection 3: The very disturbance that arose when it was known
that Christ was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the
heavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says
(Hom. x in Evang. ): "After the birth of the King of heaven, the earthly
king is troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is covered with
confusion when the heavenly majesty is revealed. "
Secondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus
Augustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp. ) on the Epiphany: "What will He
be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck terror
into the heart of a proud king? "
Thirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was
foreshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm.
v [*Opus Imperfectum in Matth. , Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to St. John
Chrysostom]): "Herod was not so much troubled in himself as the devil
in Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil thought Him
to be God. Each feared a successor to his kingdom: the devil, a
heavenly successor; Herod, an earthly successor. " But their fear was
needless: since Christ had not come to set up an earthly kingdom, as
Pope Leo says, addressing himself to Herod: "Thy palace cannot hold
Christ: nor is the Lord of the world content with the paltry power of
thy scepter. " That the Jews were troubled, who, on the contrary, should
have rejoiced, was either because, as Chrysostom says, "wicked men
could not rejoice at the coming of the Holy one," or because they
wished to court favor with Herod, whom they feared; for "the populace
is inclined to favor too much those whose cruelty it endures. "
And that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them, but
profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (66 de
Diversis): "It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man
free, rewarded those who were slain for Him; since, while hanging on
the cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen?
Objection 1: It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made
known were not suitably chosen. For our Lord (Mat. 10:5) commanded His
disciples, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles," so that He might
be made known to the Jews before the Gentiles. Therefore it seems that
much less should Christ's birth have been at once revealed to the
Gentiles who "came from the east," as stated Mat. 2:1.
Objection 2: Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made
especially to the friends of God, according to Job 37 [Vulg. : Job
36:33]: "He sheweth His friend concerning it. " But the Magi seem to be
God's foes; for it is written (Lev. 19:31): "Go not aside after wizards
[magi], neither ask anything of soothsayers. " Therefore Christ's birth
should not have been made known to the Magi.
Objection 3: Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world
from the power of the devil; whence it is written (Malachi 1:11): "From
the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among
the Gentiles. " Therefore He should have been made known, not only to
those who dwelt in the east, but also to some from all parts of the
world.
Objection 4: Further, all the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of
Christ. But the sacraments of the Old Law were dispensed through the
ministry of the legal priesthood. Therefore it seems that Christ's
birth should have been made known rather to the priests in the Temple
than to the shepherds in the fields.
Objection 5: Further, Christ was born of a Virgin-Mother, and was as
yet a little child. It was therefore more suitable that He should be
made known to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to
widows, such as Simeon and Anna.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 13:18): "I know whom I have
chosen. " But what is done by God's wisdom is done becomingly. Therefore
those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen.
I answer that, Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ,
concerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written
(Col. 3:11), in Christ "there is neither male nor female, [*These words
are in reality from Gal. 3:28] neither Gentile nor Jew . . . bond nor
free," and so forth. And in order that this might be foreshadowed in
Christ's birth, He was made known to men of all conditions. Because, as
Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (32 de Temp. ), "the
shepherds were Israelites, the Magi were Gentiles. The former were nigh
to Him, the latter far from Him. Both hastened to Him together as to
the cornerstone. " There was also another point of contrast: for the
Magi were wise and powerful; the shepherds simple and lowly. He was
also made known to the righteous as Simeon and Anna; and to sinners, as
the Magi. He was made known both to men, and to women---namely, to
Anna---so as to show no condition of men to be excluded from Christ's
redemption.
Reply to Objection 1: That manifestation of Christ's birth was a kind
of foretaste of the full manifestation which was to come. And as in the
later manifestation the first announcement of the grace of Christ was
made by Him and His Apostles to the Jews and afterwards to the
Gentiles, so the first to come to Christ were the shepherds, who were
the first-fruits of the Jews, as being near to Him; and afterwards came
the Magi from afar, who were "the first-fruits of the Gentiles," as
Augustine says (Serm. 30 de Temp. cc. ).
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany
(Serm. 30 de Temp. ): "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.
