 Question 35 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 35 of Christ's Nativity in 8 Articles. After considering Christ's conception, we must treat of His Nativity. First, as to the Nativity itself. Secondly, as to His manifestation after birth. Concerning the first, there are 8 points of inquiry. First, whether Nativity regards the nature or the person. Second, whether another, besides His eternal birth, should be attributed to Christ. Third, whether the Blessed Virgin is His mother in respect of His temporal birth. Fourth, whether she ought to be called the Mother of God. Fifth, whether Christ is the Son of God, the Father, and of the Virgin Mother in respect of two affiliations. Sixth, of the mode of the Nativity. Seventh, of its place. Eighth, of the time of the Nativity. First article, whether Nativity regards the nature rather than the person. Objection one, it would seem that Nativity regards the nature rather than the person. For Augustine says in On the Faith to Peter, The eternal divine nature could not be conceived and born of human nature, except in a true human nature. Consequently, it becomes the divine nature to be conceived and born by reason of the human nature. Much more, therefore, does it regard human nature itself. Objection two, further. According to the philosopher in Metaphysics Five, nature is so denominated from Nativity. But things are denominated from one another by reason of some likeness. Therefore, it seems that Nativity regards the nature rather than the person. Objection three, further. Properly speaking, that is born which begins to exist by Nativity. But Christ's person did not begin to exist by his Nativity, whereas his human nature did. Therefore, it seems that the Nativity properly regards the nature and not the person. On the contrary, Damascene says in On the True Faith Three, Nativity regards the hypothesis, not the nature. I answer that Nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways. First, as to its subject. Secondly, as to its terminus. To him that is born, it is attributed as to its subject, and this, properly speaking, is the hypothesis, not the nature. For since to be born is to be generated, as a thing is generated in order for it to be, so as a thing born in order for it to be. Now, to be, properly speaking, belongs to that which subsists. Since a form that does not subsist is said to be only in as much as by it something is. And whereas person or hypothesis designates something as subsisting, nature designates form whereby something subsists. Consequently, Nativity is attributed to the person or hypothesis as to the proper subject of being born, but not to the nature. But to the nature, Nativity is attributed as to its terminus. For the terminus of generation and of every Nativity is the form. Now, nature designates something as form, where for Nativity is said to be the road to nature, as the philosopher states in Physics 2. For the purpose of nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species. Reply to Objection 1. On account of the identity of nature and hypothesis in God, nature is sometimes put instead of person or hypothesis. And in this sense, Augustine says that the divine nature was conceived and born in as much as the person of the sun was conceived and born in the human nature. Reply to Objection 2. No movement or change is denominated from the subject moved, but from the terminus of the movement whence the subject has its species. For this reason, Nativity is not denominated from the person born, but from nature, which is the terminus of Nativity. Reply to Objection 3. Nature, properly speaking, does not begin to exist. Rather, it is the person that begins to exist in some nature. Because, as stated above, nature designates that by which something is, whereas person designates something as having subsistent being. Second article. Whether a temporal Nativity should be attributed to Christ? Objection 1. He would seem that temporal Nativity is not to be attributed to Christ. For to be born is a certain movement of a thing that did not exist before it was born, which movement procures for it the benefit of existence. According to Augustine, in On the Unity of the Trinity 12. But Christ was from all eternity. Therefore, He could not be born in time. Objection 2 further. What is perfect in itself needs not to be born. But the person of the Son of God was perfect from eternity. Therefore, He needs not to be born in time. Therefore, it seems that He had no temporal birth. Objection 3. Further, properly speaking, Nativity regards the person. But in Christ there is only one person. Therefore, in Christ there is but one Nativity. Objection 4 further. What is born by two Nativities is born twice. But this proposition is false. Christ was born twice? Because the Nativity whereby He was born of the Father suffers no interruption since it is eternal, whereas interruption is required to warrant the use of the adverb twice. For a man is said to run twice whose running is interrupted. Therefore, it seems that we should not admit a double Nativity in Christ. On the contrary, Damascene says in On the True Faith 3, We confess two Nativities in Christ, one of the Father eternal, and one which occurred in these latter times for our sake. I answer that as stated above in Article 1. Nature is compared to Nativity as the terminus to the movement or change. Now movement is diversified according to the diversity of its termini as the philosopher shows in Physics 5. But in Christ there is a twofold nature, one which He received of the Father from eternity, the other which He received from His mother in time. Therefore, we must needs attribute to Christ a twofold Nativity, one by which He was born of the Father from all eternity, one by which He was born of His mother in time. Reply to Objection 1. This was the argument of a certain heretic, Phylician, and is solved thus by Augustine in Against Phylician 12. Let us suppose, says he, as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul which, by its ineffable movement, so gives life to all seed, that it is not compounded with things begotten, but bestows life that they may be begotten. Without doubt when this soul reaches the womb, being intent on fashioning the passable matter as to its own purpose, it unites itself to the personality thereof, though manifestly it is not of the same substance. And thus, of the active soul and passive matter, one man is made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born out from the womb, but not as though before birth it was nothing at all in itself. Thus then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was born as man, just as the soul is held to be born together with the body. Not as though they both made one substance, but that from both one person results. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to exist, lest it be thought that his divinity is temporal. Nor do we acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity, lest it be thought that he took not a true human body, but some resemblance thereof. Reply to Objection 2. This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is thus solved by Cyril in the Epistle. We do not say that the Son of God had need for his own sake of a second nativity, after that which is from the Father. For it is foolish and a mark of ignorance to say that he who is from all eternity and co-eternal with the Father needs to begin again to exist. But because for us and for our salvation, uniting the human nature to his person, he became the child of a woman. For this reason do we say that he was born in the flesh. Reply to Objection 3. Nativity regards the person as its subject, the nature as its terminus. Now it is possible for several transformations to be in the same subject. Yet must they be diversified in respect of their termini. But we do not say this as though the eternal nativity were a transformation or a movement, but because it is designated by way of a transformation or movement. Reply to Objection 4. Christ can be said to have been born twice in respect of his two nativities. For just as he is said to run twice who runs at two different times, so can he be said to be born twice who is born once from eternity and once in time. Because eternity and time differ much more than two different times, although each signifies a measure of duration. Third article. Whether the Blessed Virgin can be called Christ's mother in respect of his temporal nativity. Objection 1. It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called Christ's mother in respect of his temporal nativity. Voris stated above in Question 32, Article 4, the Blessed Virgin Mary did not cooperate actively in begetting Christ, but merely supplied the matter. But this does not seem sufficient to make her his mother. Otherwise, wood might be called the mother of the bed or bench. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called the mother of Christ. Objection 2 further. Christ was born miraculously of the Blessed Virgin. But a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or a sonship, for we do not speak of Eve as being the daughter of Adam. Therefore, neither should Christ be called the son of the Blessed Virgin. Objection 3 further. Motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the semen. But as Demesine says in On the True Faith of Three, Christ's body was formed not by a seminal process, but by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it seems that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the mother of Christ. On the contrary, it is written in Matthew 1, 18. The generation of Christ was in this wise, when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, et cetera. I answer that the Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature the mother of Christ. For as we have said above in Question 5, Article 2, as well as in Question 31, Article 5. Christ's body was not brought down from heaven as the heretic Valentine maintained, but was taken from the Virgin Mother and formed from her purest blood. And this is all that is required for motherhood as has been made clear above in Question 31, Article 5, as well as in Question 32, Article 4. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is truly Christ's mother. Reply to Objection 1. As stated above in Question 32, Article 3. Not every generation implies fatherhood or motherhood and sonship, but only the generation of living things. Consequently, when inanimate things are made from some matter, the relationship of motherhood and sonship does not follow from this, but only in the generation of living things, which is properly called Nativity. Reply to Objection 2. As Damascene says in On the True Faith 3. The temporal Nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way, natural, since a man was born of a woman and after the due lapse of time from his conception. But it is also supernatural because he was begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin, above the law of conception. Thus then, on the part of the mother, this Nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the Holy Ghost, it was supernatural. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is the true and natural mother of Christ. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above in Question 31, Article 5, Third Reply, as well as in Question 32, Article 4. The resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception. Neither therefore is it required for motherhood. Fourth Article. Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the mother of God. Objection 1. It would seem that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the mother of God. For in the Divine Mysteries we should not make any assertion that is not taken from Holy Scripture. But we read nowhere in Holy Scripture that she is the mother or parent of God, but that she is mother of Christ or of the child, as may be seen from Matthew 1.18. Therefore, we should not say that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of God. Objection 2 further. Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin should not be called the mother of God. Objection 3 further. The word God is predicated in common of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If therefore the Blessed Virgin is mother of God, it seems to follow that she was the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which cannot be allowed. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called mother of God. On the contrary, in the chapters of Cyril approved in the Council of Ephesus we read, if anyone confess not that the Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the word of God made flesh, let him be anathema. I answer that as stated above in question 16, Article 1. Every word that signifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypothesis of that nature. Now since the union of the Incarnation took place in the hypothesis as stated above in question 2, Article 3, it is manifest that this word, God, can stand for the hypothesis, having a human and a divine nature. Therefore, whatever belongs to the divine and to the human nature can be attributed to that person, both when a word is employed to stand for it, signifying the divine nature, and when a word is used signifying the human nature. Now conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypothesis in respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born. Since therefore the human nature was taken by the divine person in the very beginning of the conception as stated above in question 33, Article 3, it follows that it can be truly said that God was conceived and born of the Virgin. Now from this is a woman called a man's mother that she conceived him and gave birth to him. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is truly called the Mother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God would be either if the humanity were first subject to conception and birth before this man were the Son of God, as Fotenus said, or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of the person or hypothesis of the Word of God as Nestorius maintained. But both of these are erroneous. Therefore, it is heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God. Reply to Objection 1. This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by saying that although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said in Scripture that Jesus Christ is true God, as may be seen in 1st John 5.20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of Jesus Christ, which is clearly expressed in Matthew 1.18. Therefore, from the Words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God. Again, it is written in Romans 9.5 that Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh who is over all things God blessed forever. But he is not of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore, he who is above all things God blessed forever is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as of his Mother. Reply to Objection 2. This was an argument of Nestorius, but Cyril in a letter against Nestorius answers it thus. Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being, and if anyone wished to say that the Mother of the flesh is not the Mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father, but because he took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh he was born of a woman. Consequently, we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is the Mother, according to his human nature, of the person who has both the divine and the human nature. Reply to Objection 3. Although the name God is common to the three persons, yet sometimes it stands for the person of the Father alone, sometimes only for the person of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above in Question 16, Article 1, as well as in the Pars Prima, Question 39, Article 4. So that when we say, The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, this word, God, stands only for the Incarnate Person of the Son. Fifth Article Whether there are two filiations in Christ Objection 1 You would seem that there are two filiations in Christ. For Nativity is the cause of filiation, but in Christ there are two nativities. Therefore, in Christ there are also two filiations. Objection 2 further Filliation, which is said of a man as being the son of someone, his father or his mother, depends in a way on him, because the very being of a relation consists in being referred to another. Wherefore, if one of two relatives be destroyed, the other is destroyed also. But the eternal filiation by which Christ is the son of God the Father depends not on his mother, because nothing eternal depends on what is temporal. Therefore, Christ is not his mother's son by temporal filiation. Either therefore he is not her son at all, which is in contradiction to what has been said above in Articles 3 and 4, or he must needs be her son by some other temporal filiation. Therefore, in Christ there are two filiations. Objection 3 further One of two relatives enters the definition of the other. Hence it is clear that of two relatives, one is specified from the other. But one and the same cannot be in diverse species. Therefore, it seems impossible that one and the same relation be referred to extremes, which are altogether diverse. But Christ is said to be the son of the eternal Father and a temporal mother, who are terms altogether diverse. Therefore, it seems that Christ cannot, by the same relation, be called the son of the Father and of his mother. Therefore, in Christ there are two filiations. On the contrary, as Damascene says in On the True Faith 3, things pertaining to the nature are multiplied in Christ, but not those things that pertain to the person. But filiation belongs especially to the person, since it is a personal property as appears from what has been said in the first part, Question 32, Article 3, and in Question 40, Article 2. Therefore, there is but one filiation in Christ. I answer that, opinions differ on this question. For some, considering only the cause of filiation, which is nativity, put two filiations in Christ, just as there are two nativities. Others, considering only the subject of filiation, which is the person or hypothesis, put only one filiation in Christ, just as there is but one hypothesis or person. Because the unity or plurality of a relation is considered in respect not of its terms, but of its cause or of its subject. For if it were considered in respect of its terms, every man would of necessity have in himself two filiations, one in reference to his father, and another in reference to his mother. But if we consider the question a right, we shall see that every man bears but one relation to both his father and mother on account of the unity of the cause thereof. For man is born by one birth of both father and mother, whence he bears but one relation to both. The same is said of one master who teaches many disciples the same doctrine, and of one Lord who governs many subjects by the same power. But if there be various causes specifically diverse, it seems that in consequence the relations differ in species, wherefore nothing hinders several such relations being in the same subject. Thus if a man teach grammar to some and logic to others, his teaching is of a different kind in one case and in the other, and therefore one and the same man may have different relations as the master of different disciples, or of the same disciples in regard to diverse doctrines. Sometimes, however, it happens that a man bears a relation to several in respect of various causes, but of the same species. Thus a father may have several sons by several acts of generation, wherefore the paternity cannot differ specifically, since the acts of generation are specifically the same. And because several forms of the same species cannot at the same time be in the same subject, it is impossible for several paternities to be in a man who is the father of several sons by natural generation. But it would not be so were he the father of one son by natural generation and of another by adoption. Now, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same nativity of the father from eternity and of his mother in time. Indeed, these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore as to this, we must say that there are various affiliations, one temporal and the other eternal. Since, however, the subject affiliation is neither the nature nor part of the nature, but the person or hypothesis alone, and since in Christ there is no other hypothesis or person than the eternal, there can be no other affiliation in Christ but that which is in the eternal hypothesis. Now, every relation which is predicated of God from time does not put something real in the eternal God, but only something according to our way of thinking, as we have stated in the first part, Question 13, Article 7. Therefore, the affiliation by which Christ is referred to his mother cannot be a real relation, but only a relation of reason. Consequently, each opinion is true to a certain extent. For if we consider the adequate causes of affiliation, we must needs say that there are two affiliations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if we consider the subject of affiliation, which can only be the eternal suppositum, then no other than the eternal affiliation in Christ is a real relation. Nevertheless, he has the relation of Son in regard to his mother, because it is implied in the relation of motherhood to Christ. Thus God is called Lord by a relation which is implied in the real relation by which the creature is subject to God, and although Lordship is not a real relation in God, yet is he really Lord through the real subjection of the creature to him. In the same way, Christ is really the Son of the Virgin Mother through the real relation of her motherhood to Christ. Reply to Objection 1. Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal affiliation in Christ if there were in him a subject capable of such affiliation. But this cannot be, since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive of a temporal relation as stated above. Nor can it be said that it is receptive of temporal affiliation by reason of the human nature, just as it is receptive of the temporal nativity. Because human nature would need in some way to be the subject affiliation, just as in a way it is the subject of nativity. For since an Ethiopian is said to be white by reason of his teeth, it must be that his teeth are the subject of whiteness. But human nature can no wise be the subject affiliation, because this relation regards directly the person. Reply to Objection 2. Eternal affiliation does not depend on a temporal mother, but together with this eternal affiliation we understand a certain temporal relation dependent on the mother, in respect of which relation, Christ is called the Son of his mother. Reply to Objection 3. One and being are mutually consequent, as is said in metaphysics 4. Therefore, just as it happens that in one of the extremes of a relation there is something real, whereas in the other there is not something real, but merely a certain aspect, as the philosopher observes of knowledge and the thing known. So also it happens that on the part of one extreme there is one relation, whereas on the part of the other there are many. Thus in man on the part of his parents there is a twofold relation, the one of paternity, the other of motherhood, which are specifically diverse in as much as the father is the principle of generation in one way, and the mother in another. Whereas if many be the principle of one action and in the same way, for instance if many together draw a ship along, there would be one and the same relation in all of them. But on the part of the child there is but one affiliation in reality, although there be two in aspect, corresponding to the two relations in the parents as considered by the intellect. And thus in one way there is only one real affiliation in Christ, which is in respect of the Eternal Father. Yet there is another temporal relation in regard to his temporal mother. Sixth Article Whether Christ was born without his mother suffering Objection one He would seem that Christ was not born without his mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents according to Genesis 2.17 In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall die? So were the pains of childbirth according to Genesis 3.16 In sorrow shall thou bring forth children But Christ was willing to undergo death? Therefore for the same reason it seems that his birth should have been with pain. Objection two further The end is proportionate to the beginning But Christ ended his life in pain according to Isaiah 53.4 Surely he hath carried our sorrows. Therefore it seems that his nativity was not without the pains of childbirth. Objection three further In the book On the Birth of Our Savior it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth and that 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 in a homily on the nativity, addressing himself to the Virgin Mother, In conceiving thou wasst all pure In giving birth thou wasst 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 in question 28 article 2 the replies to the objections The 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 Isaiah 35.1 and 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, Genesis 3.16 after the words In sorrow shallt thou bring forth children the following are added and thou shalt be under thy husband's power. But as Augustine says in a homily on the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 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 quoting the 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 in Luke 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 where for Jerome says no midwife was there no officious woman 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 7th Article Whether Christ should have been born in Bethlehem Objection 1 He would seem that Christ should not have been born in Bethlehem for it is written in Isaiah 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 in Matthew 2.23 that it is written of Christ that he shall be called a Nazarene which is taken from Isaiah 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 John 1837 For this was I born and for this I came 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 the time ruled the world Wentz Paul writing to the Romans in chapter 1 verse 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 in Micah 5.2 And thou Bethlehem Ephrata Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler of Israel I answer that Christ will 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 in Romans 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 in Homily on the Gospel 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 in a homily 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 Luke 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 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 a 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 It is also said in 1st Corinthians 1 27 But the weak things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the strong 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 Isaiah 26 verses 5 and 6 The high city he shall lay low The feet of the poor That is of Christ Shall tread it down The steps of the needy That is of the apostles Peter and Paul 8th Article 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 in chapter 2 verse 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 Romans 9.4 To whom belong the promises But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner As appears from Matthew 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 of himself in John 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 callons of January It seems that he was not born at a fitting time On the contrary it is written in Galatians 4.4 When the fullness of 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 birth place And since what is of God is well ordered and becoming 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 he took our mortal nature in order to restore us to life So as Bede says on his commentary on the Gospel of Luke He deigned to take flesh at such a time that Shortly after his birth he would be enrolled in Caesar's senses 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 in Ephesians 2 14 Wherefore Jerome says on Isaiah 2 4 If we search the page of ancient history We shall find that throughout the whole world there was discord until the 28th year of Augustus Caesar But when our Lord was born all war ceased According to Isaiah 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 together into one According to John 11 52 That there might be One fold and one shepherd Conferred John 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 in Genesis 49 10 Deceptor shall not be taken away from Judah nor a ruler from his thigh till he come that is to be sent Because as chrisostom says in a homily on the gospel of Matthew 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 skillful physician Reply to objection 3 As says the author of the book on questions on the old and new testament 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 Luke 179 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 End of question 35 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC Question 36 part 1 of Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Savior This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Savior By St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 36 Of the manifestation of the newly born Christ in eight articles Part 1 Articles 1 through 4 We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ Concerning which there are eight points of inquiry First Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all Second Whether it should have been made known to some Third To whom should it have been made known Fourth Whether he should have made himself known Or should he rather have been manifested by others Fifth By what other means should it have been made known Sixth Of the order of these manifestations Seventh Of the star by means of which his birth was made known Eighth Of the adoration of the Magi Who were informed of Christ's nativity by means of the star First article 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 fulfillment should correspond to promise Now the promise of Christ's coming is thus expressed in Psalm 49 verse 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 in 1 Timothy 1.15 Christ came into this world to save sinners But this is not affected Save in as far as the grace of Christ is made known to them According to Titus 2 verses 11 and 12 The grace of God our Savior 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 Psalm 144 verse 9 His tender mercies are over all his works But in his second coming when he will judge justices according to Psalm 70 verse 3 He will come before the eyes of all According to Matthew 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 in Isaiah 45 15 Thou art a hidden God of Israel the Savior And again in Isaiah 43 verse 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 in 1 Corinthians 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 Romans 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 in Hebrews 11 verse 1 Thirdly because thus the reality of his human nature would have come into doubt Whence Augustine says in his letter to Volusianus 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 one According to the gloss the words quoted must be understood of Christ's coming as judge Reply to objection two All men were to be instructed unto salvation concerning the grace of God our Savior Not at the very time of his birth but afterwards in due time After he had wrought salvation in the midst of the earth as stated in Psalm 73 verse 12 Wherefore after his passion and resurrection he said to his disciples in Matthew 28 verse 19 Going teach ye all the nations Reply to objection three 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 second article Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to some Objection one it would seem that Christ's birth should not have been made known to anyone For as stated above in article one third reply It be fitted the salvation of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden But Christ came to save all according to 1st Timothy 410 Who is the Savior of all men especially of the faithful Therefore Christ's birth should not have been made known to anyone Objection two 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 three 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 in Matthew 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 in Romans 13 1 What is of God is well ordered No, 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 in Acts 10 verses 40 and 41 God gave Christ rising again to be manifest not to all the people but to witnesses preordained 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 one 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 according to Romans 10 17 reply to objection two 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 behoved it to be made known to others whose testimony could not be suspect reply to objection three 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 in a homily on this gospel 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 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 overflow of the devil's kingdom was foreshadowed For as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the epiphany 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 chris hustum 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 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 Third article Whether those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen Objection one It would seem that those to whom a Christ's birth was made known were not suitably chosen For our lord in Matthew 10 verse 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 in Matthew chapter 2 verse 1 Objection 2 further The revelation of divine truth should be made especially to the friends of God according to Job 37 He shooeth his friend concerning it But the Magi seemed to be God's foes For it is written in Leviticus 19 verse 31 Go not aside after wizards Magi neither ask anything of soothed seers 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 in Malachi 1 verse 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 mystery 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 in John 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 in Colossians 3 verse 11 in Christ There is neither male nor female neither Gentile nor Jew Bond nor free and so forth Galatians 3 28 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 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 as 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 in a homily Reply to Objection 2 As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany As unskillfulness predominates in the rustic manners of the shepherd So ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of the Magi Yet did this cornerstone Drop both to itself in as much 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 Chaldeans Reply to Objection 3 As Chrysostom says 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 in Zachariah 612 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 And in Spain three sons were seen which gradually merged into one As Eusebius states in his chronicles Reply to Objection 4 As Chrysostom observes 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 Luke 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 4th Article Whether Christ himself should have made his birth known Objection 1 He 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 in Physics 8 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 in Ecclesiasticus 20 verse 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 fullness of these gifts known by words and deeds Wisdom and grace would have been given to him to no purpose But this is unreasonable because God and nature do nothing without a purpose As is stated in on the heavens one Objection 3 further We read in the book de infancia 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 in a sermon 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 salvation, which is by faith But saving faith confesses Christ's godhead and humanity It behoved 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 one By the way of generation and movement We must have 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 two Although hidden wisdom is useless There is no need for a wise man to make himself known at all times But at a suitable time For it is written in Ecclesiasticus 20 verse 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 three The book De infancia Salvatoreis is apocryphal Moreover, Chrysostom says that Christ worked no miracles before changing the water into wine According to John 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 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 End of question 36 Part 1 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 36, Part 2 This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer Please visit LibriVox.org Treaties on the Savior by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 36 Of the manifestation of the newly born Christ in eight articles Part 2 Articles 5 through 8 Fifth article Whether Christ's birth should have been manifested by means of the angels and the star Objection 1 It would seem the Christ's birth should not have been manifested by means of the angels For angels are spiritual substances according to Psalm 103 verse 4 Who maketh his 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 Psalm 33 verse 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 notably 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 in Deuteronomy 32 verse 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 want 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 verse 53 You have received the law by the disposition of angels And the Gentiles especially astrologers were want to observe the course of the stars And therefore Christ's birth was made known to the righteous Notably Simeon and Anna By the interior instinct of the holy ghost according to Luke 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 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 Whereas it was revealed by means of a star to the Magi who were want to consider the heavenly bodies Because as Chrysostom says in a homily on the gospel of Matthew Our Lord deigned to call them through things to which they were accustomed There is also another reason For as Gregory says in a homily on the same gospel To the Jews as rational beings it was fitting that a rational animal Notably 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 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 is in itself 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 accompanied the angelic apparition As mentioned in Luke 2 9 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 in his letter against Faustus 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 in a homily on the Gospel of Matthew 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 there from some knowledge of the future Rather, it was the other way about Reply to Objection 4 Chrysostom relates in the same homily on the Gospel of Matthew 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 presence 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 acidity Once 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 of Questions on the Old and New Testament Question 63 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 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 also in a sermon on the epiphany 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 Question 64 Whether Christ's birth was made known in a becoming order Objection one, 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 wisdom 614 She prevented 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 in Luke 225 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 two further the Magi were the first fruits of the Gentiles who were to believe in Christ But the fullness of the Gentiles come in unto faith And afterwards all Israel shall be saved as it is written in Romans 11 25 Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known to the Magi before the shepherds Objection three further it is written in Matthew 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 and 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 in Daniel 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 in Luke 2 verses 8 15 and 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 the heavens They said to one another let us go over to Bethlehem and they came with haste Second in order were the Magi who came to Christ on the 13th 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 in Luke 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 40th day after his birth As related by luke in chapter 2 verse 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 in 1st Corinthians 126 Secondly the faith of christ came to the fullness of the Gentiles and this is foreshadowed in the magi Thirdly it came to the fullness of the jews which is foreshadowed in the righteous Wherefore also christ was manifested to them in the jewish temple reply to objection one As the apostle says in romans 9 verses 30 and 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 Forstalled the generality of the jews in the justice which is of faith As a figure of this simian 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 two Although the fullness of the Gentiles came in unto faith before the fullness 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 three There are two opinions about the apparition of the stars seen by the magi For chrissostom and augustin in a sermon on the epiphany 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 hered 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 13 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 balam 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 hered 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 roam 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 augustin says in on the consensus of the evangelists, too And the reason why he killed not only those who were two years old But also the younger children would be as augustin says in a sermon on the innocence Because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey might make himself appear older or younger seventh article Whether the star which appeared to the magi belonged to the heavenly system Objection one It would seem that the star which appeared to the magi belonged to the heavenly system For augustin says in a sermon on the epiphany 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 two further augustin says in a sermon on the epiphany 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 three 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 in matthew two two Where is he that is born of the 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 augustin says in against faustus two 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 christostom says 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 once the magi came and judaea 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 the 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 in matthew 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 judaea But that when they saw the star it was in the east and that it preceded them into judaea Although this is considered doubtful by some But it could not have indicated the house distinctly unless it were near the earth And as chrisostom 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 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 unwanted event could not be devoid of purpose Reply to objection one In holy scripture the air is sometimes called the heavens for instance The birds of the heavens and the fishes of the sea Reply to objection two The angels of heaven by reason of their very office come down to us being sent to minister But the stars of heavens do not change their position Wherefore there is no comparison Reply to objection three As the star did not follow the course of the heavenly stars So neither did it follow the course of the comets Which neither appeared 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 forever According to daniel 2 44 eighth article Whether it was becoming that the magi should come to adore christ and pay homage to him Objection one 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 was born the king of the jews It seems unbecoming that they should come to adore him Objection two further It seems absurd during the reign of one king to proclaim a stranger But in judaea herod was reigning Therefore it was foolish of the magi to proclaim the birth of a king Objection three further A heavenly sign is more certain than a human sign But the magi had come to judaea 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 four 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 in isaius 60 verse 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 in article 3 first reply 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 one As Augustine says in a sermon on the epiphany 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 want 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 from god Reply to objection two By proclaiming christ king The magi foreshadowed the constancy of the Gentiles in confessing christ even until death Whence christsostom says in a homily on the gospel of matthew 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 three As Augustine says in a sermon on the epiphany 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 They might seek with more ardent faith in 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 also says But the jews by indicating to them the place of christ's birth are like the carpenters who built the ark of Noah who provided others with the means of escape and themselves perished in the flood Those who asked heard and went their way The teacher spoke and stayed where they were like the milestones that point out the way but walk not 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 newborn king in order that christ's birth might be publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem according to Isaiah 2 3 The law shall come forth from Zion 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 as Remigius states in a homily on the gospel of matthew Reply to objection for As chris ostum says 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 preeminence Yet content with the testimony of the star alone they adored For they saw a man and they acknowledged God Moreover they offer gifts in keeping with christ's greatness Gold as to the great king They offered 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 as gregory states in a homily And hereby as gregory says again We are taught to offer gold Which signifies wisdom to the new born king by the luster of our own wisdom in his sight We offer god incense Which signifies fervor in prayer if our constant prayers mount up to god with an order 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 End of question 36 Read by michael shane greg lambart lc