_On the contrary,_ In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council of Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: "If anyone confess not that the Emmanuel is truly G.o.d, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the Mother of G.o.d, since she begot of her flesh the Word of G.o.d made flesh, let him be anathema."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 16, A. 1), every word that signifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature. Now, since the union of the Incarnation took place in the hypostasis, as above stated (Q. 2, A. 3), it is manifest that this word "G.o.d" can stand for the hypostasis, 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 hypostasis 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 (Q. 33, A. 3), it follows that it can be truly said that G.o.d 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 G.o.d. For the only way in which it could be denied that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of G.o.d would be either if the humanity were first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the Son of G.o.d, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not a.s.sumed unto unity of the Person or hypostasis of the Word of G.o.d, as Nestorius maintained. But both of these are erroneous. Therefore it is heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 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 G.o.d, yet we do find it expressly said in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true G.o.d," as may be seen 1 John 5:20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is clearly expressed Matt. 1:18. Therefore, from the words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother of G.o.d.
Again, it is written (Rom. 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews "according to the flesh, who is over all things, G.o.d blessed for ever." But He is not of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above all things, G.o.d blessed for ever," is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as of His Mother.
Reply Obj. 2: This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter against Nestorius [*Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii], answers it thus: "Just as when a man"s soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being: and if anyone wish 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 G.o.d was born of the substance of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, not as though she were the Mother of the G.o.dhead, but because she is the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the name "G.o.d" 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 (Q. 16, A. 1; First Part, Q. 39, A. 4). So that when we say, "The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of G.o.d," this word "G.o.d" stands only for the incarnate Person of the Son.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 5]
Whether There Are Two Filiations in Christ?
Objection 1: It 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.
Obj. 2: Further, filiation, 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 G.o.d 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 (AA. 3, 4), or He must needs be her Son by some other temporal filiation. Therefore in Christ there are two filiations.
Obj. 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 (De Fide Orth. iii), things pertaining to the nature are multiple 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 was said in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3; Q. 40, A. 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. _On the contrary,_ others, considering only the subject of filiation, which is the person or hypostasis, put only one filiation in Christ, just as there is but one hypostasis 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 aright, we shall see that every man bears but one relation to both his father and his 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 filiations, one temporal and the other eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is neither the nature nor part of the nature, but the person or hypostasis alone; and since in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person than the eternal, there can be no other filiation in Christ but that which is in the eternal hypostasis. Now, every relation which is predicated of G.o.d from time does not put something real in the eternal G.o.d, but only something according to our way of thinking, as we have said in the First Part (Q. 13, A. 7). Therefore the filiation 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 filiation, we must needs say that there are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if we consider the subject of filiation, which can only be the eternal suppositum, then no other than the eternal filiation 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 G.o.d is called Lord by a relation which is implied in the real relation by which the creature is subject to G.o.d. And although lordship is not a real relation in G.o.d, 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 Obj. 1: Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal filiation in Christ if there were in Him a subject capable of such filiation.
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 filiation 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 of filiation, 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 nowise be the subject of filiation, because this relation regards directly the person.
Reply Obj. 2: Eternal filiation does not depend on a temporal mother, but together with this eternal filiation we understand a certain temporal relation dependent on the mother, in respect of which relation Christ is called the Son of His Mother.
Reply Obj. 3: One and being are mutually consequent, as is said _Metaph._ iv. 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, inasmuch 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 filiation in reality, though 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 filiation in Christ, which is in respect of the Eternal Father: yet there is another temporal relation in regard to His temporal mother.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 6]
Whether Christ Was Born Without His Mother Suffering?
Objection 1: It 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 Gen. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulg.: "thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Gen. 3:16: "In sorrow shalt 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.
Obj. 2: Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isa. 53:4: "Surely ...
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]