|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have
been made known to anyone. For, as stated above (Article 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 (Mt. 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 (Rm. 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" (Rm. 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]): "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."
|
|