Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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."

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod materia corporis christi non debuit esse assumpta de femina. Sexus enim masculinus est nobilior quam sexus femininus. Sed maxime decuit ut christus assumeret id quod est perfectum in humana natura. Ergo non videtur quod debuerit de femina carnem assumere, sed magis de viro, sicut heva de costa viri formata est.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, quicumque ex femina concipitur, utero feminae includitur.

Sed deo, qui caelum et terram implet, ut dicitur Ierem. XXIII, non competit ut parvo feminae utero includatur.

Ergo videtur quod non debuit concipi de femina.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, illi qui concipiuntur ex femina, quandam immunditiam patiuntur, ut dicitur iob XXV, nunquid iustificari potest homo comparatus deo? aut apparere mundus natus de muliere? sed in christo nulla immunditia esse debuit, ipse enim est dei sapientia, de qua dicitur, Sap. VII, quod nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit.

Ergo non videtur quod debuerit carnem assumpsisse de femina.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. IV, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, licet filius dei carnem humanam assumere potuerit de quacumque materia voluisset, convenientissimum tamen fuit ut de femina carnem acciperet. Primo quidem, quia per hoc tota humana natura nobilitata est.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro octogintatrium quaest., hominis liberatio in utroque sexu debuit apparere. Ergo, quia virum oportebat suscipere, qui sexus honorabilior est, conveniens erat ut feminei sexus liberatio hinc appareret quia ille vir de femina natus est.

Secundo, quia per hoc veritas incarnationis adstruitur.

Unde Ambrosius dicit, in libro de incarnatione, multa secundum naturam invenies, et ultra naturam. Secundum conditionem etenim naturae in utero, feminei scilicet corporis, fuit; sed supra conditionem virgo concepit, virgo generavit, ut crederes quia deus erat qui innovabat naturam; et homo erat, qui secundum naturam nascebatur ex homine.

Et Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad volusianum, si omnipotens deus hominem, ubicumque formatum, non ex materno utero crearet, sed repentinum inferret aspectibus, nonne opinionem confirmaret erroris; nec hominem verum suscepisse ullo modo crederetur; et, dum omnia mirabiliter facit, auferret quod misericorditer fecit? nunc vero ita inter deum et hominem mediator apparuit ut, in unitate personae copulans utramque naturam, et solita sublimaret insolitis, et insolita solitis temperaret.

Tertio, quia per hunc modum completur omnis diversitas generationis humanae. Nam primus homo productus est ex limo terrae sine viro et femina; heva vero producta est ex viro sine femina; ceteri vero homines producuntur ex viro et femina.

Unde hoc quartum quasi christo proprium relinquebatur, ut produceretur ex femina sine viro.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sexus masculinus est nobilior quam femineus, ideo humanam naturam in masculino sexu assumpsit. Ne tamen sexus femininus contemneretur, congruum fuit ut carnem assumeret de femina.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de agone christiano, nolite vos ipsos contemnere, viri, filius dei virum suscepit.

Nolite vos ipsas contemnere, feminae, filius dei natus est ex femina.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXIII libro contra faustum, qui hac obiectione utebatur, non plane, inquit, catholica fides, quae christum, dei filium, natum secundum carnem credit ex virgine ullo modo eundem dei filium sic in utero mulieris includit quasi extra non sit, quasi caeli et terrae administrationem deseruerit, quasi a patre recesserit.

Sed vos, Manichaei, corde illo quo nihil potestis nisi corporalia phantasmata cogitare, ista omnino non capitis.

Ut enim dicit in epistola ad volusianum, hominum iste sensus est nihil nisi corpora valentium cogitare, quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum, quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est. Longe aliud est natura animae quam corporis. Quanto magis dei, qui creator est animae et corporis. Novit ubique totus esse, et nullo contineri loco; novit venire, non recedendo ubi erat; novit abire, non deserendo quo venerat.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in conceptione viri ex femina non est aliquid immundum inquantum est opus dei, unde dicitur Act. X, quod deus creavit, tu ne commune dixeris, idest immundum. Est tamen aliqua ibi immunditia ex peccato proveniens, prout cum libidine aliquis concipitur ex commixtione maris et feminae. Quod tamen in christo non fuit, ut supra ostensum est.

Si tamen aliqua ibi esset immunditia, ex ea non inquinaretur dei verbum, quod nullo modo est mutabile.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro contra quinque haereses, dicit deus, creator hominis, quid est quod te permovet in mea nativitate? non sum libidinis conceptus cupiditate. Ego matrem de qua nascerer, feci. Si solis radius cloacarum sordes siccare novit, eis inquinari non novit multo magis splendor lucis aeternae quocumque radiaverit mundare potest, ipse pollui non potest.