Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 58 (2/2)
He hath carried our sorrows.” Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.
Obj. 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.
[*Supposit.i.tious]), 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 pa.s.sage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q. 28, A. 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the pa.s.sage.
Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that G.o.d-Man ”was born into the world,” according to Isa. 35:1, 2: ”Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.”
Reply Obj. 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the s.e.xes. Wherefore (Gen. 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 a.s.sumpt. B. Virg., [*Supposit.i.tious]), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of G.o.d; who, ”because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of s.e.xual 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 Obj. 2: As ”by His death” Christ ”destroyed our death”
[*Preface of the Ma.s.s 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 Obj. 3: We are told (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. 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.
_______________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 7]
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 (Isa. 2:3): ”The law shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” But Christ is truly the Word of G.o.d. Therefore He should have come into the world at Jerusalem.
Obj. 2: Further, it is said (Matt. 2:23) that it is written of Christ that ”He shall be called a Nazarene”; which is taken from Isa. 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.
Obj. 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He might make known the true faith, according to John 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 G.o.d 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly city. Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were ”consummated”
princ.i.p.ally in His Pa.s.sion. Therefore it was becoming that He should choose Bethlehem for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of His Pa.s.sion.
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 Obj. 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 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 Isa. 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.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 8]
<script>