Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have demonstrated the truth of His Resurrection by proofs. For Ambrose says (De Fide, ad Gratian. i): "Let there be no proofs where faith is required." But faith is required regarding the Resurrection. Therefore proofs are out of place there.

Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxvi): "Faith has no merit where human reason supplies the test." But it was no part of Christ's office to void the merit of faith. Consequently, it was not for Him to confirm the Resurrection by proofs.

Objection 3: Further, Christ came into the world in order that men might attain beatitude through Him, according to Jn. 10:10: "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But supplying proofs seems to be a hindrance in the way of man's beatitude; because our Lord Himself said (Jn. 20:29): "Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to manifest His Resurrection by any proofs.

On the contrary, It is related in Acts 1:3, that Christ appeared to His disciples "for forty days by many proofs, speaking of the Kingdom of God."

I answer that, The word "proof" is susceptible of a twofold meaning: sometimes it is employed to designate any sort "of reason in confirmation of what is a matter of doubt" : and sometimes it means a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth; thus also Aristotle occasionally uses the term in his works . Taking "proof" in the first sense, Christ did not demonstrate His Resurrection to the disciples by proofs, because such argumentative proof would have to be grounded on some principles: and if these were not known to the disciples, nothing would thereby be demonstrated to them, because nothing can be known from the unknown. And if such principles were known to them, they would not go beyond human reason, and consequently would not be efficacious for establishing faith in the Resurrection, which is beyond human reason, since principles must be assumed which are of the same order, according to 1 Poster. But it was from the authority of the Sacred Scriptures that He proved to them the truth of His Resurrection, which authority is the basis of faith, when He said: "All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me": as is set forth Lk. 24:44.

But if the term "proof" be taken in the second sense, then Christ is said to have demonstrated His Resurrection by proofs, inasmuch as by most evident signs He showed that He was truly risen. Hence where our version has "by many proofs," the Greek text, instead of proof has {tekmerion}, i.e. "an evident sign affording positive proof" . Now Christ showed these signs of the Resurrection to His disciples, for two reasons. First, because their hearts were not disposed so as to accept readily the faith in the Resurrection. Hence He says Himself (Lk. 24:25): "O foolish and slow of heart to believe": and (Mk. 16:14): "He upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart." Secondly, that their testimony might be rendered more efficacious through the signs shown them, according to 1 Jn. 1:1,3: "That which we have seen, and have heard, and our hands have handled . . . we declare."

Reply to Objection 1: Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human reason, which are useless for demonstrating things of faith, as was shown above.

Reply to Objection 2: The merit of faith arises from this, that at God's bidding man believes what he does not see. Accordingly, only that reason debars merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge what is proposed for belief: and this is demonstrative argument. But Christ did not make use of any such argument for demonstrating His Resurrection.

Reply to Objection 3: As stated already (ad 2), the merit of beatitude, which comes of faith, is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to believe only such things as he can see. But for a man to believe from visible signs the things he does not see, does not entirely deprive him of faith nor of the merit of faith: just as Thomas, to whom it was said (Jn. 20:29): "'Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed,' saw one thing and believed another" : the wounds were what he saw, God was the object of His belief. But his is the more perfect faith who does not require such helps for belief. Hence, to put to shame the faith of some men, our Lord said (Jn. 4:48): "Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not." From this one can learn how they who are so ready to believe God, even without beholding signs, are blessed in comparison with them who do not believe except they see the like.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod christus veritatem resurrectionis non debuerit argumentis declarare.

Dicit enim Ambrosius, tolle argumenta ubi fides quaeritur.

Sed circa resurrectionem christi quaeritur fides.

Non ergo habent locum argumenta.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, fides non habet meritum cui humana ratio praebet experimentum.

Sed ad christum non pertinebat meritum fidei evacuare. Ergo ad eum non pertinebat resurrectionem per argumenta confirmare.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, christus in mundum venit ut per eum homines beatitudinem adipiscantur, secundum illud Ioan. X, ego veni ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant.

Sed per huiusmodi ostensiones argumentorum videtur humanae beatitudini impedimentum praestari, dicitur enim Ioan. XX, ex ore ipsius domini, beati qui non viderunt, et crediderunt.

Ergo videtur quod christus non debuerit per aliqua argumenta resurrectionem suam manifestare.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Act. I, quod apparuit discipulis christus per dies quadraginta in multis argumentis, loquens de regno dei.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod argumentum dupliciter dicitur. Quandoque dicitur argumentum quaecumque ratio rei dubiae faciens fidem.

Quandoque autem dicitur argumentum aliquod sensibile signum quod inducitur ad alicuius veritatis manifestationem, sicut etiam Aristoteles aliquando in libris suis utitur nomine argumenti.

Primo igitur modo accipiendo argumentum, christus non probavit discipulis suam resurrectionem per argumenta. Quia talis probatio argumentativa procedit ex aliquibus principiis, quae si non essent nota discipulis, nihil per ea eis manifestaretur, quia ex ignotis non potest aliquod fieri notum; si autem essent eis nota, non transcenderent rationem humanam, et ideo non essent efficacia ad fidem resurrectionis adstruendam, quae rationem humanam excedit; oportet enim principia ex eodem genere assumi, ut dicitur in I posteriorum.

Probavit autem eis resurrectionem suam per auctoritatem sacrae Scripturae, quae est fidei fundamentum, cum dixit, oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege et Psalmis et prophetis de me, ut habetur Luc. Ult..

Si autem accipiatur secundo modo argumentum, sic christus dicitur suam resurrectionem argumentis declarasse, inquantum per quaedam evidentissima signa se vere resurrexisse ostendit.

Unde et in Graeco, ubi nos habemus in multis argumentis, loco argumenti ponitur tekmerium, quod est signum evidens ad probandum.

Quae quidem signa resurrectionis christus ostendit discipulis propter duo. Primo quidem, quia non erant corda eorum disposita ad hoc quod de facili fidem resurrectionis acciperent.

Unde ipse dicit eis, Luc. Ult., o stulti, et tardi corde ad credendum.

Et marci ult., exprobravit incredulitatem eorum et duritiam cordis.

Secundo, ut per huiusmodi signa eis ostensa efficacius eorum testimonium redderetur, secundum illud I Ioan. I, quod vidimus et audivimus, et manus nostrae contractaverunt, hoc testamur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ambrosius ibi loquitur de argumentis secundum rationem humanam procedentibus, quae invalida sunt ad ea quae sunt fidei ostendenda, sicut ostensum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod meritum fidei est ex hoc quod homo ex mandato dei credit quod non videt. Unde illa sola ratio meritum excludit quae facit videri per scientiam id quod credendum proponitur. Et talis est ratio demonstrativa. Huiusmodi autem rationes christus non induxit ad resurrectionem suam declarandam.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, meritum beatitudinis quod causat fides, non totaliter excluditur nisi homo nollet credere nisi ea quae videt, sed quod aliquis ea quae non videt, credat per aliqua signa visa, non totaliter fidem evacuat nec meritum eius. Sicut et thomas, cui dictum est, quia vidisti me, credidisti, aliud vidit, et aliud credidit, vidit vulnera, et credidit deum. Est autem perfectioris fidei qui non requirit huiusmodi auxilia ad credendum. Unde, ad arguendum defectum fidei in quibusdam, dominus dicit, Ioan. IV, nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis.

Et secundum hoc, potest intelligi quod illi qui sunt tam prompti animi ut credant deo etiam signis non visis, sunt beati per comparationem ad illos qui non crederent nisi talia viderent.