|
Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should
not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than
the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that
which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should
not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was
formed from the rib of a man.
Objection 2: Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in
her womb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as
is written Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of
the womb. Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived
of a woman.
Objection 3: Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a
certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "Can man be
justified compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear
clean?" But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in
Christ: for He is the Wisdom of God, of whom it is written
(Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing cometh into her."
Therefore it does not seem right that He should have taken flesh from
a woman.
On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "God sent His
Son, made of a woman."
I answer that, Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from
whatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He
should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire
human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (Questions.
lxxxiii, qu. 11): "It was suitable that man's liberation should
be made manifest in both sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a
man, being of the nobler sex, to assume, it was becoming that the
liberation of the female sex should be manifested in that man being born
of a woman."
Secondly, because thus the truth of the Incarnation is made evident.
Wherefore Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "Thou shalt find in
Christ many things both natural, and supernatural. In accordance
with nature He was within the womb," viz. of a woman's body: "but
it was above nature that a virgin should conceive and give birth: that
thou mightest believe that He was God, who was renewing nature; and
that He was man who, according to nature, was being born of a man."
And Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): "If Almighty
God had created a man formed otherwise than in a mother's womb, and
had suddenly produced him to sight . . . would He not have
strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to
believe that He had become a true man? And whilst He is doing all
things wondrously, would He have taken away that which He
accomplished in mercy? But now, He, the mediator between God and
man, has so shown Himself, that, uniting both natures in the unity
of one Person, He has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary
things, and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary."
Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished
in every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the
"slime of the earth," without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve
was made of man but not of woman: and other men are made from both man
and woman. So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to
Christ, that He should be made of a woman without the concurrence of
a man.
Reply to Objection 1: The male sex is more noble than the female,
and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest
the female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take
flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi):
"Men, despise not yourselves: the Son of God became a man:
despise not yourselves, women; the Son of God was born of a
woman."
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine thus (Contra Faust. xxiii)
replies to Faustus, who urged this objection; "By no means," says
he, "does the Catholic Faith, which believes that Christ the Son
of God was born of a virgin, according to the flesh, suppose that the
same Son of God was so shut up in His Mother's womb, as to cease
to be elsewhere, as though He no longer continued to govern heaven and
earth, and as though He had withdrawn Himself from the Father. But
you, Manicheans, being of a mind that admits of nought but material
images, are utterly unable to grasp these things." For, as he again
says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii), "it belongs to the sense of man to
form conceptions only through tangible bodies, none of which can be
entire everywhere, because they must of necessity be diffused through
their innumerable parts in various places . . . Far otherwise is the
nature of the soul from that of the body: how much more the nature of
God, the Creator of soul and body! . . . He is able to be entire
everywhere, and to be contained in no place. He is able to come
without moving from the place where He was; and to go without leaving
the spot whence He came."
Reply to Objection 3: There is no uncleanness in the conception of
man from a woman, as far as this is the work of God: wherefore it is
written (Acts 10:15): "That which God hath cleansed do not
thou call common," i.e. unclean. There is, however, a certain
uncleanness therein, resulting from sin, as far as lustful desire
accompanies conception by sexual union. But this was not the case with
Christ, as shown above (Question 28, Article 1). But if
there were any uncleanness therein, the Word of God would not have
been sullied thereby, for He is utterly unchangeable. Wherefore
Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses v): "God saith, the
Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My Birth? I was
not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of whom to be
born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet
not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light cleanse
whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied."
|
|