SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 2]

Whether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Made Known to Some?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been

made known to anyone. For, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3), it befitted

the salvation of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden.

But Christ came to save all; according to 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the

Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful." Therefore Christ's

birth should not have been made known to anyone.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 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 (Matt. 2:3) that "King

Herod, hearing" of Christ's birth, "was troubled, and all Jerusalem

with him." Moreover, this brought harm to others; because it was the

occasion of Herod's killing "all the male children that were in

Bethlehem . . . from two years old and under." Therefore it seems

unfitting for Christ's birth to have been made known to anyone.

_On the contrary,_ Christ's birth would have been profitable to none

if it had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be

profitable: else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that

Christ's birth should have been made known to some.

_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1) "what is of God is

well ordered." Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that

God's gifts and the secrets of His wisdom are not bestowed on all

equally, but to some immediately, through whom they are made known to

others. Wherefore, with regard to the mystery of the Resurrection it

is written (Acts 10:40, 41): "God . . . gave" Christ rising again "to

be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses

pre-ordained by God." Consequently, that His birth might be

consistent with this, it should have been made known, not to all, but

to some, through whom it could be made known to others.

Reply Obj. 1: As it would have been prejudicial to the salvation of

mankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so also would

it have been if none had been informed of it. Because in either case

faith is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest, or whether

it be entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from another; for

"faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17).

Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 3: The very disturbance that arose when it was known that

Christ was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the

heavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says

(Hom. x in Evang.): "After the birth of the King of heaven, the

earthly king is troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is

covered with confusion when the heavenly majesty is revealed."

Secondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus

Augustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp.) on the Epiphany: "What will

He be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck

terror into the heart of a proud king?"

Thirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was

foreshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany

(Serm. v [*Opus Imperfectum in Matth., Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to

St. John Chrysostom]): "Herod was not so much troubled in himself as

the devil in Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil

thought Him to be God. Each feared a successor to his kingdom: the

devil, a heavenly successor; Herod, an earthly successor." But their

fear was needless: since Christ had not come to set up an earthly

kingdom, as Pope Leo says, addressing himself to Herod: "Thy palace

cannot hold Christ: nor is the Lord of the world content with the

paltry power of thy scepter." That the Jews were troubled, who, on

the contrary, should have rejoiced, was either because, as Chrysostom

says, "wicked men could not rejoice at the coming of the Holy one,"

or because they wished to court favor with Herod, whom they feared;

for "the populace is inclined to favor too much those whose cruelty

it endures."

And that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them,

but profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (66 de

Diversis): "It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man

free, rewarded those who were slain for Him; since, while hanging on

the cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death."

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 246 / 654 题