Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., si magi regem terrenum quaerentes venissent, fuissent confusi, quia tanti itineris laborem sine causa suscepissent. Unde nec adorassent, nec munera obtulissent. Nunc autem, quia caelestem regem quaerebant, etsi nihil regalis excellentiae in eo viderunt, tamen, solius stellae testimonio contenti, adoraverunt, vident enim hominem, et agnoscunt Deum. Et offerunt munera dignitati Christi congruentia, aurum quidem, quasi regi magno; thus, quod in Dei sacrificio ponitur immolant ut Deo; myrrha, qua mortuorum corpora condiuntur, praebetur tanquam pro salute omnium morituro. Et, ut Gregorius dicit, instruimur ut nato regi aurum, per quod significatur sapientia, offeramus, in conspectu eius sapientiae lumine splendentes; thus autem, per quod exprimitur orationis devotio, offerimus Deo si per orationum studia Deo redolere valeamus; myrrham, quae significat mortificationem carnis, offerimus si carnis vitia per abstinentiam mortificamus. Reply Obj. 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth.): If the Magi had come in search of an earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that they had taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing. Consequently they would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought a heavenly King, though they found in Him no signs of royal pre-eminence, yet, content with the testimony of the star alone, they adored: for they saw a man, and they acknowledged a God. Moreover, they offer gifts in keeping with Christ’s greatness: gold, as to the great King; they offer up incense as to God, because it is used in the Divine Sacrifice; and myrrh, which is used in embalming the bodies of the dead, is offered as to Him who is to die for the salvation of all (Gregory, Hom. x in Evang.). And hereby, as Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.), we are taught to offer gold, which signifies wisdom, to the new-born King, by the luster of our wisdom in His sight. We offer God incense, which signifies fervor in prayer, if our constant prayers mount up to God with an odor of sweetness; and we offer myrrh, which signifies mortification of the flesh, if we mortify the ill-deeds of the flesh by refraining from them. Quaestio 37 Question 37 De circumcisione Christi Christ’s Circumcision Deinde considerandum est de circumcisione Christi. Et quia circumcisio est quaedam professio legis observandae, secundum illud Galat. V, testificor omni homini circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae, simul cum hoc quaerendum est de aliis legalibus circa puerum Christum observatis. Unde quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider Christ’s circumcision. And since the circumcision is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole Law, we shall have at the same time to inquire about the other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ. Wherefore there are four points of inquiry: Primo, de eius circumcisione. (1) His circumcision; Secundo, de nominis impositione. (2) The imposition of His name; Tertio, de eius oblatione. (3) His presentation; Quarto, de matris purgatione. (4) His Mother’s purification. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum Christus debuerit circumcidi Whether Christ should have been circumcised? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debuerit circumcidi. Veniente enim veritate, cessat figura. Sed circumcisio fuit Abrahae praecepta in signum foederis quod erat de semine nascituro, ut patet Gen. XVII. Hoc autem foedus fuit in Christi nativitate completum. Ergo circumcisio statim cessare debuit. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been circumcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But circumcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity, as may be seen from Gen. 17. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ’s birth. Therefore circumcision should have ceased at once. Preaterea, omnis Christi actio nostra est instructio, unde dicitur Ioan. XIII, exemplum dedi vobis, ut, quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis. Sed nos non debemus circumcidi, secundum illud Galat. V, si circumcidimini, Christus vobis nihil proderit. Ergo videtur quod nec Christus debuit circumcidi. Obj. 2: Further, every action of Christ is a lesson to us; wherefore it is written (John 3:15): I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also. But we ought not to be circumcised; according to Gal. 5:2: If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Therefore it seems that neither should Christ have been circumcised. Praeterea, circumcisio est ordinata in remedium originalis peccati. Sed Christus non contraxit originale peccatum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo Christus non debuit circumcidi. Obj. 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 3; Q. 15, A. 1). Therefore Christ should not have been circumcised. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. II, postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur puer. On the contrary, It is written (Luke 2:21): After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised. Respondeo dicendum quod pluribus de causis Christus debuit circumcidi. Primo quidem, ut ostendat veritatem carnis humanae, contra Manichaeum, qui dixit eum habuisse corpus phantasticum; et contra Apollinarium, qui dixit corpus Christi esse divinitati consubstantiale; et contra Valentinum, qui dixit Christum corpus de caelo attulisse. Secundo, ut approbaret circumcisionem, quam olim Deus instituerat. Tertio, ut comprobaret se esse de genere Abrahae, qui circumcisionis mandatum acceperat in signum fidei quam de ipso habuerat. Quarto, ut Iudaeis excusationem tolleret ne eum reciperent, si esset incircumcisus. Quinto, ut obedientiae virtutem nobis suo commendaret exemplo. Unde et octava die circumcisus est, sicut erat in lege praeceptum. Sexto, ut qui in similitudinem carnis peccati advenerat, remedium quo caro peccati consueverat mundari, non respueret. Septimo, ut, legis onus in se sustinens, alios a legis onere liberaret, secundum illud Galat. IV, misit Deus filium suum factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. I answer that, For several reasons Christ ought to have been circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ’s body was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who said that Christ brought His body from heaven. Second, in order to show His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old. Third, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him. Fourth, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if He were uncircumcised. Fifth, in order by His example to exhort us to be obedient. Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Lev 12:3). Sixth, that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed. Seventh, that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circumcisio, per remotionem carnalis pelliculae in membro generationis facta, significabat spoliationem vetustae generationis. A qua quidem vetustate liberamur per passionem Christi. Et ideo veritas huius figurae non fuit plene impleta in Christi nativitate, sed in eius passione, ante quam circumcisio suam virtutem et statum habebat. Et ideo decuit Christum, ante suam passionem, tanquam filium Abrahae, circumcidi. Reply Obj. 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the member of generation, signified the passing away of the old generation: from the decrepitude of which we are freed by Christ’s Passion. Consequently this figure was not completely fulfilled in Christ’s birth, but in His Passion, until which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His Passion. Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus circumcisionem suscepit eo tempore quo erat sub praecepto. Et ideo sua actio in hoc est nobis imitanda, ut observemus ea quae sunt nostro tempore in praecepto. Quia unicuique negotio est tempus et opportunitas, ut dicitur Eccle. VIII. Reply Obj. 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time. Because there is a time and opportunity for every business (Eccl 8:6). Et praeterea, ut Origenes dicit, sicut mortui sumus cum illo moriente, et consurreximus Christo resurgenti, ita circumcisi sumus spirituali circumcisione per Christum. Et ideo carnali circumcisione non indigemus. Et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, Coloss. II, in quo, scilicet Christo, circumcisi estis circumcisione non manu facta in exspoliatione corporis carnis, sed in circumcisione domini nostri Iesu Christi. Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.), as we died when He died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal circumcision. And this is what the Apostle says (Col 2:11): In whom you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Christus propria voluntate mortem nostram suscepit, quae est effectus peccati, nullum in se habens peccatum, ut nos a morte liberaret, et spiritualiter nos faceret mori peccato; ita etiam circumcisionem, quae est remedium originalis peccati, suscepit absque hoc quod haberet originale peccatum, ut nos a legis iugo liberaret, et ut in nobis spiritualem circumcisionem efficeret; ut scilicet, suscipiendo figuram, impleret veritatem. Reply Obj. 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in order to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto sin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual circumcision in us—in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum convenienter fuerit Christo nomen impositum Whether a suitable name was given to Christ? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter fuerit Christo nomen impositum. Veritas enim evangelica debet praenuntiationi propheticae respondere. Sed prophetae aliud nomen de Christo praenuntiaverunt, dicitur enim Isaiae VII, ecce, virgo concipiet et pariet filium, et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel; et VIII, voca nomen eius, accelera, spolia detrahe, festina praedari; et IX, vocabitur nomen eius, admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus, fortis, pater futuri saeculi, princeps pacis; et Zach. VI dicitur, ecce vir, oriens nomen eius. Ergo inconvenienter vocatum est nomen eius Iesus. Objection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written (Isa 7:14): Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel; and (Isa 8:3): Call His name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey; and (Isa 9:6): His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace; and (Zech 6:12): Behold a Man, the Orient is His name. Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus. Praeterea, Isaiae LXII dicitur, vocabitur tibi nomen novum, quod os domini nominavit. Sed hoc nomen Iesus non est nomen novum, sed pluribus fuit in veteri testamento impositum, ut patet etiam ex ipsa genealogia Christi, Luc. III. Ergo videtur quod inconvenienter vocatum est nomen eius Iesus. Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa 62:2): Thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named. But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to several in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:29), Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be called Jesus. Praeterea, hoc nomen Iesus salutem significat, ut patet per id quod dicitur Matth. I, pariet filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum, ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Sed salus per Christum non est facta solum in circumcisione, sed etiam in praeputio, ut patet per apostolum, Rom. IV. Inconvenienter ergo hoc nomen fuit Christo impositum in sua circumcisione. Obj. 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies salvation; as is clear from Matt. 1:21: She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. But salvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision, but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle (Rom 4:11, 12). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His circumcision. Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturae, in qua dicitur, Luc. II, quod, postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur puer, vocatum est nomen eius Iesus. On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written (Luke 2:21): After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, His name was called Jesus. Respondeo dicendum quod nomina debent proprietatibus rerum respondere. Et hoc patet in nominibus generum et specierum, prout dicitur IV Metaphys., ratio enim quam significat nomen, est definitio, quae designat propriam rei naturam. I answer that, A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: Since a name is but an expression of the definition which designates a thing’s proper nature. Nomina autem singularium hominum semper imponuntur ab aliqua proprietate eius cui nomen imponitur. Vel a tempore, sicut imponuntur nomina aliquorum sanctorum his qui in eorum festis nascuntur. Vel a cognatione, sicut cum filio imponitur nomen patris, vel alicuius de cognatione eius; sicut propinqui Ioannis Baptistae volebant eum vocare nomine patris sui Zachariam, non autem Ioannem, quia nullus erat in cognatione eius qui vocaretur hoc nomine, ut dicitur Luc. I. Vel etiam ab eventu, sicut Ioseph vocavit primogenitum suum Manassen, dicens, oblivisci me fecit Deus omnium laborum meorum, Gen. XLI. Vel etiam ex aliqua qualitate eius cui nomen imponitur, sicut Gen. XXV dicitur quod, quia qui primo egressus est de utero matris, rufus erat, et totus in morem pellis hispidus, vocatum est nomen eius Esau, quod interpretatur rubeus. Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him by his father’s name Zachary, not by the name John, because there was none of his kindred that was called by this name, as related Luke 1:59–61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget all my labors (Gen 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is written (Gen 25:25) that he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau, which is interpreted red. Nomina autem quae imponuntur divinitus aliquibus, semper significant aliquod gratuitum donum eis divinitus datum, sicut Gen. XVII dictum est Abrahae, appellaberis Abraham, quia patrem multarum gentium constitui te; et Matth. XVI dictum est Petro, tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Quia igitur homini Christo hoc munus gratiae collatum erat ut per ipsum omnes salvarentur, ideo convenienter vocatum est nomen eius Iesus, idest salvator, Angelo hoc nomen praenuntiante non solum matri, sed etiam Ioseph, quia erat futurus eius nutritius. But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gen 17:5): Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many nations: and it was said to Peter (Matt 16:18): Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. Since, therefore, this prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i.e., Savior: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in omnibus illis nominibus quodammodo significatur hoc nomen Iesus, quod est significativum salutis. Nam in hoc quod dicitur Emmanuel, quod interpretatur, nobiscum Deus, designatur causa salutis, quae est unio divinae et humanae naturae in persona filii Dei, per quam factum est ut Deus esset nobiscum. Reply Obj. 1: All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means salvation. For the name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is ‘God with us,’ designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that God is with us. Per hoc autem quod dicitur, voca nomen eius, accelera, spolia detrahe, etc., designatur a quo nos salvaverit, quia a Diabolo, cuius spolia abstulit, secundum illud Coloss. II, exspolians principatus et potestates, traduxit confidenter. When it was said, Call his name, Hasten to take away, etc., these words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils He took away, according to Col. 2:15: Despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently. In hoc autem quod dicitur, vocabitur nomen eius admirabilis, etc., designatur via et terminus nostrae salutis, inquantum scilicet admirabili divinitatis consilio et virtute, ad haereditatem futuri saeculi perducimur, in quo erit pax perfecta filiorum Dei, sub ipso principe Deo. When it was said, His name shall be called Wonderful, etc., the way and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as by the wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come, in which the children of God will enjoy perfect peace under God their Prince. Quod vero dicitur, ecce vir, oriens nomen eius, ad idem refertur ad quod primum, scilicet ad incarnationis mysterium, secundum quod exortum est in tenebris lumen rectis corde. When it was said, Behold a Man, the Orient is His name, reference is made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the Incarnation, by reason of which to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness (Ps 111:4). Ad secundum dicendum quod his qui fuerunt ante Christum potuit convenire hoc nomen Iesus secundum aliquam aliam rationem, puta quia aliquam particularem et temporalem salutem attulerunt. Sed secundum rationem spiritualis et universalis salutis, hoc nomen est proprium Christo. Et secundum hoc dicitur esse novum. Reply Obj. 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason to those who lived before Christ—for instance, because they were saviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of spiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and thus it is called a new name. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Gen. XVII legitur, simul Abraham suscepit impositionem nominis a Deo, et circumcisionis mandatum. Et ideo apud Iudaeos consuetum erat ut ipso die circumcisionis nomina pueris imponerentur, quasi ante circumcisionem perfectum esse non habuerint, sicut etiam nunc pueris in Baptismo nomina imponuntur. Unde super illud Proverb. IV, ego filius fui patris mei, tenellus et unigenitus coram matre mea, dicit Glossa, quare Salomon se unigenitum coram matre vocat, quem fratrem uterinum praecessisse Scriptura testatur, nisi quia ille mox natus sine nomine, quasi nunquam esset, de vita decessit? Et ideo Christus, simul cum fuit circumcisus, nominis impositionem accepit. Reply Obj. 3: As is related Gen. 17, Abraham received from God and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For this reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the very day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had not as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their names in Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, I was my father’s son, tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother, the gloss says: Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth? Therefore it was that Christ received His name at the time of His circumcision. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum convenienter fuerit Christus in templo oblatus Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the Temple?