Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de manifestatione resurrectionis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. | We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection: concerning which there are six points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum resurrectio Christi omnibus hominibus manifestari debuerit, an solum quibusdam specialibus hominibus. | (1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all men or only to some special individuals? |
| Secundo, utrum fuisset conveniens quod, eis videntibus, resurgeret. | (2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise? |
| Tertio, utrum post resurrectionem debuerit cum suis discipulis conversari. | (3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the Resurrection? |
| Quarto, utrum fuerit conveniens quod suis discipulis in aliena effigie appareret. | (4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in another shape"? |
| Quinto, utrum resurrectionem suam argumentis manifestare debuerit. | (5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs? |
| Sexto, de sufficientia illorum argumentorum. | (6) Of the cogency of those proofs. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod resurrectio Christi debuerit omnibus manifestari. Sicut enim publico peccato debetur poena publica, secundum illud I Tim. V, peccantem coram omnibus argue; ita merito publico debetur praemium publicum. Sed claritas resurrectionis est praemium humilitatis passionis, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Cum ergo passio Christi fuerit omnibus manifestata, eo publice patiente, videtur quod gloria resurrectionis ipsius omnibus manifestari debuerit. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. For just as a public penalty is due for public sin, according to 1 Tim. 5:20: "Them that sin reprove before all," so is a public reward due for public merit. But, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.), "the glory of the Resurrection is the reward of the humility of the Passion." Therefore, since Christ's Passion was manifested to all while He suffered in public, it seems that the glory of the Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. |
| Praeterea, sicut passio Christi ordinatur ad nostram salutem, ita et eius resurrectio, secundum illud Rom. IV, resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Sed illud quod ad communem utilitatem pertinet, omnibus debet manifestari. Ergo resurrectio Christi omnibus debuit manifestari, et non specialiter quibusdam. | Objection 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation, so also is His Resurrection, according to Rm. 4:25: "He rose again for our justification." But what belongs to the public weal ought to be manifested to all. Therefore Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all, and not to some specially. |
| Praeterea, illi quibus manifestata est resurrectio, fuerunt resurrectionis testes, unde dicitur Act. III, quem Deus suscitavit a mortuis, cuius nos testes sumus. Hoc autem testimonium ferebant publice praedicando. Quod quidem non convenit mulieribus, secundum illud I Cor. XIV, mulieres in Ecclesiis taceant; et I Tim. II, docere mulieri non permitto. Ergo videtur quod inconvenienter resurrectio Christi manifestata fuerit primo mulieribus quam hominibus communiter. | Objection 3: Further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the Resurrection: hence it is said (Acts 3:15): "Whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses." Now they bore witness by preaching in public: and this is unbecoming in women, according to 1 Cor. 14:34: "Let women keep silence in the churches": and 1 Tim. 2:12: "I suffer not a woman to teach." Therefore, it does not seem becoming for Christ's Resurrection to be manifested first of all to the women and afterwards to mankind in general. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Act. X, quem Deus suscitavit tertia die, et dedit eum manifestum fieri, non omni populo, sed testibus praeordinatis a Deo. | On the contrary, It is written (Acts 10:40): "Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod eorum quae cognoscuntur, quaedam cognoscuntur communi lege naturae; quaedam autem cognoscuntur ex speciali munere gratiae, sicut ea quae divinitus revelantur. Quorum quidem, ut Dionysius dicit, in libro Caelest. Hier., haec est lex divinitus instituta, ut a Deo immediate superioribus revelentur, quibus mediantibus deferantur ad inferiores, sicut patet in ordinatione caelestium spirituum. Ea vero quae pertinent ad futuram gloriam, communem hominum cognitionem excedunt, secundum illud Isaiae LXIV, oculus non vidit, Deus, absque te, quae preparasti diligentibus te. Et ideo huiusmodi ab homine non cognoscuntur nisi divinitus revelata, sicut apostolus dicit, I Cor. II, nobis revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. Quia igitur Christus resurrexit gloriosa resurrectione, ideo eius resurrectio non omni populo manifestata est, sed quibusdam, quorum testimonio deferretur in aliorum notitiam. | I answer that, Some things come to our knowledge by nature's common law, others by special favor of grace, as things divinely revealed. Now, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), the divinely established law of such things is that they be revealed immediately by God to higher persons, through whom they are imparted to others, as is evident in the ordering of the heavenly spirits. But such things as concern future glory are beyond the common ken of mankind, according to Is. 64:4: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee." Consequently, such things are not known by man except through Divine revelation, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:10): "God hath revealed them to us by His spirit." Since, then, Christ rose by a glorious Resurrection, consequently His Resurrection was not manifested to everyone, but to some, by whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of others. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod passio Christi peracta est in corpore adhuc habente naturam passibilem, quae communi lege nota est omnibus. Et ideo passio Christi omni populo immediate manifestari potuit. Resurrectio autem Christi facta est per gloriam patris, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. VI. Et ideo immediate manifestata est, non omnibus, sed quibusdam. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ's Passion was consummated in a body that still had a passible nature, which is known to all by general laws: consequently His Passion could be directly manifested to all. But the Resurrection was accomplished "through the glory of the Father," as the Apostle says (Rm. 6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to some, but not to all. |
| Quod autem publice peccantibus publica poena imponitur, intelligendum est de poena praesentis vitae. Et similiter publica merita publice praemiari oportet, ut alii provocentur. Sed poenae et praemia futurae vitae non publice omnibus manifestantur, sed specialiter illis qui ad hoc praeordinati sunt a Deo. | But that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners, is to be understood of the punishment of this present life. And in like manner public merits should be rewarded in public, in order that others may be stirred to emulation. But the punishments and rewards of the future life are not publicly manifested to all, but to those specially who are preordained thereto by God. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod resurrectio Christi, sicut est ad communem omnium salutem, ita in notitiam omnium pervenit, non quidem sic quod immediate omnibus manifestaretur; sed quibusdam, per quorum testimonium deferretur ad omnes. | Reply to Objection 2: Just as Christ's Resurrection is for the common salvation of all, so it came to the knowledge of all; yet not so that it was directly manifested to all, but only to some, through whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of all. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod mulieri non permittitur publice docere in Ecclesia, permittitur autem ei privatim domestica aliquos admonitione instruere. Et ideo, sicut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., ad eos femina mittitur qui domestici sunt, non autem mittitur ad hoc quod resurrectionis testimonium ferat ad populum. Ideo autem primo mulieribus apparuit, ut mulier, quae primo initium mortis ad hominem detulit, primo etiam initia resurgentis Christi in gloria nuntiaret. Unde Cyrillus dicit, femina, quae quondam fuit mortis ministra, venerandum resurrectionis mysterium prima percepit et nuntiat. Adeptum est igitur femineum genus et ignominiae absolutionem, et maledictionis repudium. Simul etiam per hoc ostenditur quod, quantum ad statum gloriae pertinet, nullum detrimentum patietur sexus femineus, sed, si maiori caritate fervebunt, maiori etiam gloria ex visione divina potientur, eo quod mulieres, quae dominum arctius amaverunt, in tantum ut ab eius sepulcro, discipulis etiam recedentibus, non recederent, primo viderunt dominum in gloriam resurgentem. | Reply to Objection 3: A woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in church; but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some privately. And therefore as Ambrose says on Lk. 24:22, "a woman is sent to them who are of her household," but not to the people to bear witness to the Resurrection. But Christ appeared to the woman first, for this reason, that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man, so she might be the first to announce the dawn of Christ's glorious Resurrection. Hence Cyril says on Jn. 20:17: "Woman who formerly was the minister of death, is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery of the Resurrection: thus womankind has procured absolution from ignominy, and removal of the curse." Hereby, moreover, it is shown, so far as the state of glory is concerned, that the female sex shall suffer no hurt; but if women burn with greater charity, they shall also attain greater glory from the Divine vision: because the women whose love for our Lord was more persistent—so much so that "when even the disciples withdrew" from the sepulchre "they did not depart" [*Gregory, Hom. xxv in Evang.]—were the first to see Him rising in glory. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur conveniens fuisse quod discipuli viderent Christum resurgere. Ad discipulos enim pertinebat resurrectionem Christi testificari, secundum illud Act. IV, virtute magna reddebant apostoli testimonium resurrectionis Iesu Christi, domini nostri. Sed certissimum est testimonium de visu. Ergo conveniens fuisset ut ipsam resurrectionem Christi viderent. | Objection 1: It would seem fitting that the disciples should have seen Him rise again, because it was their office to bear witness to the Resurrection, according to Acts 4:33: "With great power did the apostles give testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord." But the surest witness of all is an eye-witness. Therefore it would have been fitting for them to see the very Resurrection of Christ. |
| Praeterea, ad certitudinem fidei habendam, discipuli ascensionem Christi viderunt, secundum illud Act. I, videntibus illis, elevatus est. Sed similiter oporteret de resurrectione Christi certam fidem habere. Ergo videtur quod, discipulis videntibus, debuerit Christus resurgere. | Objection 2: Further, in order to have the certainty of faith the disciples saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to Acts 1:9: "While they looked on, He was raised up." But it was also necessary for them to have faith in the Resurrection. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples. |
| Praeterea, resurrectio Lazari quoddam indicium fuit futurae resurrectionis Christi. Sed, discipulis videntibus, dominus Lazarum suscitavit. Ergo videtur quod etiam Christus resurgere debuerit, discipulis videntibus. | Objection 3: Further, the raising of Lazarus was a sign of Christ's coming Resurrection. But the Lord raised up Lazarus in sight of the disciples. Consequently, it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Marci ult., resurgens dominus mane prima sabbati, apparuit primo Mariae Magdalenae. Sed Maria Magdalena non vidit eum resurgere, sed, cum eum quaereret in sepulcro, audivit ab Angelo, surrexit dominus, non est hic. Ergo nullus vidit eum resurgere. | On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 16:9): The Lord "rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen." Now Mary Magdalen did not see Him rise; but, while searching for Him in the sepulchre, she heard from the angel: "He is risen, He is not here." Therefore no one saw Him rise again. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. Est autem hic ordo divinitus institutus, ut ea quae supra homines sunt, hominibus per Angelos revelentur, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. Cael. Hier. Christus autem resurgens non rediit ad vitam communiter omnibus notam, sed ad vitam quandam immortalem et Deo conformem, secundum illud Rom. VI, quod enim vivit, vivit Deo. Et ideo ipsa Christi resurrectio non debuit immediate ab hominibus videri, sed eis ab Angelis nuntiari. Unde Hilarius dicit, super Matth., quod ideo Angelus prior resurrectionis est index, ut quodam famulatu paternae voluntatis resurrectio nuntiaretur. | I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:1): "Those things that are of God, are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God]." Now the divinely established order is this, that things above men's ken are revealed to them by angels, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). But Christ on rising did not return to the familiar manner of life, but to a kind of immortal and God-like condition, according to Rm. 6:10: "For in that He liveth, He liveth unto God." And therefore it was fitting for Christ's Resurrection not to be witnessed by men directly, but to be proclaimed to them by angels. Accordingly, Hilary (Comment. Matth. cap. ult.) says: "An angel is therefore the first herald of the Resurrection, that it might be declared out of obedience to the Father's will." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostoli potuerunt testificari Christi resurrectionem etiam de visu, quia Christum post resurrectionem viventem oculata fide viderunt, quem mortuum sciverant. Sed sicut ad visionem beatam pervenitur per auditum fidei, ita ad visionem Christi resurgentis pervenerunt homines per ea quae prius ab Angelis audierunt. | Reply to Objection 1: The apostles were able to testify to the Resurrection even by sight, because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw Christ alive, whom they had known to be dead. But just as man comes from the hearing of faith to the beatific vision, so did men come to the sight of the risen Christ through the message already received from angels. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ascensio Christi, quantum ad terminum a quo, non transcendebat hominum communem notitiam, sed solum quantum ad terminum ad quem. Et ideo discipuli potuerunt videre ascensionem Christi quantum ad terminum a quo, idest secundum quod elevabatur a terra. Non autem viderunt ipsam quantum ad terminum ad quem, quia non viderunt quomodo reciperetur in caelo. Sed resurrectio Christi transcendebat communem notitiam et quantum ad terminum a quo, secundum quod anima rediit ab Inferis et corpus de sepulcro clauso exivit; et quantum ad terminum ad quem, secundum quod est adeptus vitam gloriosam. Et ideo non debuit resurrectio fieri sic quod ab homine videretur. | Reply to Objection 2: Christ's Ascension as to its term wherefrom, was not above men's common knowledge, but only as to its term whereunto. Consequently, the disciples were able to behold Christ's Ascension as to the term wherefrom, that is, according as He was uplifted from the earth; but they did not behold Him as to the term whereunto, because they did not see how He was received into heaven. But Christ's Resurrection transcended common knowledge as to the term wherefrom, according as His soul returned from hell and His body from the closed sepulchre; and likewise as to the term whereunto, according as He attained to the life of glory. Consequently, the Resurrection ought not to be accomplished so as to be seen by man. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Lazarus resuscitatus est ut rediret ad vitam qualem prius habuerat, quae communem notitiam hominum non transcendit. Et ideo non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 3: Lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life as before, which life is not beyond man's common ken. Consequently, there is no parity. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus post resurrectionem debuerit continue cum discipulis conversari. Ad hoc enim Christus discipulis post resurrectionem apparuit, ut eos de fide resurrectionis certificaret, et consolationem perturbatis afferret, secundum illud Ioan. XX, gavisi sunt discipuli, viso domino. Sed magis fuissent certificati et consolati si eis continue suam praesentiam exhibuisset. Ergo videtur quod continue cum eis debuerit conversari. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have lived constantly with His Disciples, because He appeared to them after His Resurrection in order to confirm their faith in the Resurrection, and to bring them comfort in their disturbed state, according to Jn. 20:20: "The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord." But they would have been more assured and consoled had He constantly shown them His presence. Therefore it seems that He ought to have lived constantly with them. |
| Praeterea, Christus resurgens a mortuis non statim ascendit in caelum, sed post dies quadraginta, ut habetur Act. I. Illo autem tempore intermedio in nullo alio loco potuit convenientius esse quam ubi discipuli eius erant pariter congregati. Ergo videtur quod continue cum eis conversari debuerit. | Objection 2: Further, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend to heaven, but after forty days, as is narrated in Acts 1:3. But meanwhile He could have been in no more suitable place than where the disciples were met together. Therefore it seems that He ought to have lived with them continually. |
| Praeterea, ipso die resurrectionis dominicae quinquies Christus apparuisse legitur, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu Evang., primo quidem, mulieribus ad monumentum; secundo, eisdem regredientibus a monumento in itinere; tertio, Petro; quarto, duobus euntibus in castellum; quinto, pluribus in Ierusalem, ubi non erat Thomas. Ergo etiam videtur quod et aliis diebus ante suam ascensionem ad minus pluries debuit apparere. | Objection 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), we read how Christ appeared five times on the very day of His Resurrection: first "to the women at the sepulchre; secondly to the same on the way from the sepulchre; thirdly to Peter; fourthly to the two disciples going to the town; fifthly to several of them in Jerusalem when Thomas was not present." Therefore it also seems that He ought to have appeared several times on the other days before the Ascension. |
| Praeterea, dominus ante passionem eis dixerat, Matth. XXVI, postquam resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam. Quod etiam Angelus, et ipsemet dominus, post resurrectionem mulieribus dixit. Et tamen antea in Ierusalem ab eis visus est, et ipsa die resurrectionis, ut dictum est, et etiam die octava, ut legitur Ioan. XX. Non ergo videtur quod convenienti modo post resurrectionem cum discipulis fuerit conversatus. | Objection 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion (Mt. 26:32): "But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee"; moreover an angel and our Lord Himself repeated the same to the women after the Resurrection: nevertheless He was seen by them in Jerusalem on the very day of the Resurrection, as stated above (Objection [3]); also on the eighth day, as we read in Jn. 20:26. It seems, therefore, that He did not live with the disciples in a fitting way after the Resurrection. |
| Sed contra est quod Ioan. XX dicitur, quod post dies octo Christus discipulis apparuit. Non ergo continue conversabatur cum eis. | On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 20:26) that "after eight days" Christ appeared to the disciples. Therefore He did not live constantly with them. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa resurrectionem Christi duo erant discipulis declaranda, scilicet ipsa veritas resurrectionis; et gloria resurgentis. Ad veritatem autem resurrectionis manifestandam, sufficit quod pluries apparuit, et cum eis familiariter est locutus, et comedit et bibit, et se eis palpandum praebuit. Ad gloriam autem resurrectionis manifestandam, noluit continue conversari cum eis, sicut prius fecerat, ne videretur ad talem vitam resurrexisse qualem prius habuerat. Unde Luc. ult. dicit eis, haec sunt verba quae locutus sum ad vos cum adhuc essem vobiscum. Tunc quidem erat cum eis praesentia corporali, sed ante cum eis fuerat, non solum corporali praesentia, sed etiam per similitudinem mortalitatis. Unde Beda, supradicta verba exponens, dicit, cum adhuc essem vobiscum, idest, cum adhuc essem in carne mortali, in qua estis et vos. Tunc quidem in eadem carne resuscitatus erat, sed cum illis in eadem mortalitate non erat. | I answer that, Concerning the Resurrection two things had to be manifested to the disciples, namely, the truth of the Resurrection, and the glory of Him who rose. Now in order to manifest the truth of the Resurrection, it sufficed for Him to appear several times before them, to speak familiarly to them, to eat and drink, and let them touch Him. But in order to manifest the glory of the risen Christ, He was not desirous of living with them constantly as He had done before, lest it might seem that He rose unto the same life as before. Hence (Lk. 24:44) He said to them: "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you." For He was there with them by His bodily presence, but hitherto He had been with them not merely by His bodily presence, but also in mortal semblance. Hence Bede in explaining those words of Luke, "while I was with you," says: "that is, while I was still in mortal flesh, in which you are yet: for He had then risen in the same flesh, but was not in the same state of mortality as they." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod frequens Christi apparitio sufficiebat ad certificandum discipulos de veritate resurrectionis, conversatio autem continua eos potuisset ducere in errorem, si ad similem vitam eum resurrexisse crederent quam prius habuerat. Consolationem autem de continua sui praesentia eis in alia vita repromisit, secundum illud Ioan. XVI, iterum videbo vos, et gaudebit cor vestrum, et gaudium vestrum nemo tollet a vobis. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ's frequent appearing served to assure the disciples of the truth of the Resurrection; but continual intercourse might have led them into the error of believing that He had risen to the same life as was His before. Yet by His constant presence He promised them comfort in another life, according to Jn. 16:22: "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus non ideo non continue conversabatur cum discipulis quia reputaret se alibi convenientius esse, sed quia hoc discipulis instruendis convenientius iudicabat, si non continue conversaretur cum eis, ratione praedicta. Incognitum autem est quibus in locis intermedio tempore corporaliter esset, cum hoc Scriptura non tradat, et in omni loco sit dominatio eius. | Reply to Objection 2: That Christ did not stay continually with the disciples was not because He deemed it more expedient for Him to be elsewhere: but because He judged it to be more suitable for the apostles' instruction that He should not abide continually with them, for the reason given above. But it is quite unknown in what places He was bodily present in the meantime, since Scripture is silent, and His dominion is in every place (Cf. Ps. 102:22). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ideo prima die frequentius apparuit, quia per plura indicia erant admonendi, ut a principio fidem resurrectionis reciperent. Postquam autem iam eam receperant, non oportebat eos, iam certificatos, tam frequentibus apparitionibus instrui. Unde in Evangelio non legitur quod post primum diem eis apparuit nisi quinquies. Ut enim Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu Evang., post primas quinque apparitiones, sexto eis apparuit ubi vidit eum Thomas; septimo, ad mare Tiberiadis, in captione piscium; octavo, in monte Galilaeae, secundum Matthaeum; nono, quod dicit Marcus, novissime recumbentibus, quia iam non erant in terra cum eo convivaturi; decimo, in ipso die, non iam in terra, sed elevatum in nube, cum in caelum ascenderet. Sed non omnia scripta sunt, sicut Ioannes fatetur. Crebra enim erat eius cum illis conversatio, priusquam ascendisset in caelum, et hoc ad consolationem ipsorum. Unde et I Cor. XV dicitur quod visus est plus quam quingentis fratribus simul, deinde visus est Iacobo, de quibus apparitionibus in Evangelio non habetur mentio. | Reply to Objection 3: He appeared oftener on the first day, because the disciples were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in His Resurrection from the very out set: but after they had once accepted it, they had no further need of being instructed by so many apparitions. Accordingly one reads in the Gospel that after the first day He appeared again only five times. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), after the first five apparitions "He came again a sixth time when Thomas saw Him; a seventh time was by the sea of Tiberias at the capture of the fishes; the eighth was on the mountain of Galilee, according to Matthew; the ninth occasion is expressed by Mark, 'at length when they were at table,' because no more were they going to eat with Him upon earth; the tenth was on the very day, when no longer upon the earth, but uplifted into the cloud, He was ascending into heaven. But, as John admits, not all things were written down. And He visited them frequently before He went up to heaven," in order to comfort them. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:6,7) that "He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once . . . after that He was seen by James"; of which apparitions no mention is made in the Gospels. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, exponens illud quod dicitur Matth. XXVI, postquam resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam, non, inquit, in longinquam quandam regionem, ut eis appareat, vadit, sed in ipsa gente, et in ipsis fere regionibus in quibus cum eo plurimum fuerant conversati, ut et hinc crederent quoniam qui crucifixus est, ipse est et qui resurrexit. Propter hoc etiam in Galilaeam se ire dicit, ut a timore Iudaeorum liberarentur. | Reply to Objection 4: Chrysostom in explaining Mt. 26:32—"after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee," says (Hom. lxxxiii in Matth.), "He goes not to some far off region in order to appear to them, but among His own people, and in those very places" in which for the most part they had lived with Him; "in order that they might thereby believe that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose again." And on this account "He said that He would go into Galilee, that they might be delivered from fear of the Jews." |
| Sic ergo, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., dominus mandaverat discipulis ut in Galilaea eum viderent, sed illis ob metum intra conclave residentibus primum ipse se obtulit. Nec hoc est promissi transgressio, sed potius festinata ex benignitate impletio. Postea vero, confirmatis animis, illos Galilaeam petisse. Vel nihil obstat si dicamus pauciores intra conclave, quamplures in monte fuisse. Ut enim Eusebius dicit, duo Evangelistae, scilicet Lucas et Ioannes, solis undecim hunc scribunt apparuisse in Ierusalem, ceteri vero duo in Galilaeam properare non solum undecim, sed universis discipulis et fratribus dixerunt Angelum et salvatorem iussisse. De quibus Paulus meminit, dicens, deinde apparuit plus quam quingentis fratribus simul. Est autem verior solutio quod prius in Ierusalem latitantibus semel aut bis visus est, ad eorum consolationem. In Galilaea vero non clam, aut semel aut bis, sed cum multa potestate ostensionem sui fecit, praebens se eis viventem, post passionem in signis multis, ut Lucas testatur in actibus. Vel, sicut dicit Augustinus, in libro de consensu Evang., quod ab Angelo et domino dictum est, quod praecederet eos in Galilaeam, prophetice accipiendum est. In Galilaea enim, secundum transmigrationis significationem, intelligendum occurrit quia de populo Israel transmigraturi erant ad gentes, quibus apostoli praedicantes non crederentur, nisi ipse viam in cordibus hominum praepararet. Et hoc intelligitur, praecedet vos in Galilaeam. Secundum autem illud quod Galilaea interpretatur revelatio, non iam in forma servi intelligendum est, sed in illa in qua aequalis est patri, quam promisit dilectoribus suis, quo nos praecedens non deseruit. | Consequently, as Ambrose says (Expos. in Luc.), "The Lord had sent word to the disciples that they were to see Him in Galilee; yet He showed Himself first to them when they were assembled together in the room out of fear. (Nor is there any breaking of a promise here, but rather a hastened fulfilling out of kindness)" [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Luc. xxiv, 36]: "afterwards, however, when their minds were comforted, they went into Galilee. Nor is there any reason to prevent us from supposing that there were few in the room, and many more on the mountain." For, as Eusebius [*Of Caesarea; Cf. Migne, P. G., xxii, 1003] says, "Two Evangelists, Luke and John, write that He appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven only; but the other two said that an angel and our Saviour commanded not merely the eleven, but all the disciples and brethren, to go into Galilee. Paul makes mention of them when he says (1 Cor. 15:6): 'Then He appeared to more then five hundred brethren at once.'" The truer solution, however, is this, that while they were in hiding in Jerusalem He appeared to them at first in order to comfort them; but in Galilee it was not secretly, nor once or twice, that He made Himself known to them with great power, "showing Himself to them alive after His Passion, by many proofs," as Luke says (Acts 1:3). Or as Augustine writes (De Consens. Evang. iii): "What was said by the angel and by our Lord—that He would 'go before them into Galilee,' must be taken prophetically. For if we take Galilee as meaning 'a passing,' we must understand that they were going to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless He prepared the way for them in men's hearts: and this is signified by the words 'He shall go before you into Galilee.' But if by Galilee we understand 'revelation,' we are to understand this as applying to Him not in the form of a servant, but in that form wherein He is equal to the Father, and which He has promised to them that love Him. Although He has gone before us in this sense, He has not abandoned us." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debuerit discipulis in alia effigie apparere. Non enim potest apparere secundum veritatem nisi quod est. Sed in Christo non fuit nisi una effigies. Si ergo Christus in alia apparuit, non fuit apparitio vera, sed ficta. Hoc autem est inconveniens, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest., si fallit, veritas non est; est autem veritas Christus. Ergo videtur quod Christus non debuit discipulis in alia effigie apparere. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples "in another shape." For a thing cannot appear in very truth other than it is. But there was only one shape in Christ. Therefore if He appeared under another, it was not a true but a false apparition. Now this is not at all fitting, because as Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 14): "If He deceives He is not the Truth; yet Christ is the Truth." Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples "in another shape." |
| Praeterea, nihil potest in alia effigie apparere quam habeat, nisi oculi intuentium aliquibus praestigiis detineantur. Huiusmodi autem praestigia, cum fiant magicis artibus, non conveniunt Christo, secundum illud II Cor. VI, quae conventio Christi ad Belial? Ergo videtur quod non debuit in alia effigie apparere. | Objection 2: Further, nothing can appear in another shape than the one it has, except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions. But since such illusions are brought about by magical arts, they are unbecoming in Christ, according to what is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared in another shape. |
| Praeterea, sicut per sacram Scripturam nostra fides certificatur, ita discipuli certificati sunt de fide resurrectionis per Christi apparitiones. Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Hieronymum si vel unum mendacium in sacra Scriptura recipiatur, infirmabitur tota sacrae Scripturae auctoritas. Ergo, si vel in una apparitione Christus discipulis apparuit aliter quam esset, infirmabitur quidquid post resurrectionem viderunt in Christo. Quod est inconveniens. Non ergo debuit in alia effigie apparere. | Objection 3: Further, just as our faith receives its surety from Scripture, so were the disciples assured of their faith in the Resurrection by Christ appearing to them. But, as Augustine says in an Epistle to Jerome (xxviii), if but one untruth be admitted into the Sacred Scripture, the whole authority of the Scriptures is weakened. Consequently, if Christ appeared to the disciples, in but one apparition, otherwise than He was, then whatever they saw in Christ after the Resurrection will be of less import, which is not fitting. Therefore He ought not to have appeared in another shape. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Marci ult., post haec, duobus ex eis ambulantibus ostensus est in alia effigie, euntibus in villam. | On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 16:12): "After that He appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, resurrectio Christi manifestanda fuit hominibus per modum quo eis divina revelantur. Innotescunt autem divina hominibus secundum quod diversimode sunt affecti. Nam illi qui habent mentem bene dispositam, secundum veritatem divina percipiunt. Illi autem qui habent mentem non bene dispositam, divina percipiunt cum quadam confusione dubietatis vel erroris, animalis enim homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei, ut dicitur I Cor. II. Et ideo Christus quibusdam, ad credendum dispositis, post resurrectionem apparuit in sua effigie. Illis autem in alia effigie apparuit qui iam videbantur circa fidem tepescere, unde dicebant, nos sperabamus quia ipse esset redempturus Israel. Unde Gregorius dicit, in homilia, quod talem se eis exhibuit in corpore qualis apud illos erat in mente. Quia enim adhuc in eorum cordibus peregrinus erat a fide, ire se longius finxit, scilicet ac si esset peregrinus. | I answer that, As stated above (Articles [1],2), Christ's Resurrection was to be manifested to men in the same way as Divine things are revealed. But Divine things are revealed to men in various ways, according as they are variously disposed. For, those who have minds well disposed, perceive Divine things rightly, whereas those not so disposed perceive them with a certain confusion of doubt or error: "for, the sensual men perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God," as is said in 1 Cor. 2:14. Consequently, after His Resurrection Christ appeared in His own shape to some who were well disposed to belief, while He appeared in another shape to them who seemed to be already growing tepid in their faith: hence these said (Lk. 24:21): "We hoped that it was He that should have redeemed Israel." Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxiii in Evang.), that "He showed Himself to them in body such as He was in their minds: for, because He was as yet a stranger to faith in their hearts, He made pretense of going on farther," that is, as if He were a stranger. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaestionibus Evang., non omne quod fingimus, mendacium est. Sed quando id fingimus quod nihil significat, tunc est mendacium. Cum autem fictio nostra refertur ad aliquam significationem, non est mendacium, sed aliqua figura veritatis. Alioquin omnia quae a sapientibus et sanctis viris, vel etiam ab ipso domino, figurate dicta sunt, mendacia reputabuntur, quia, secundum usitatum intellectum, non consistit veritas in talibus dictis. Sicut autem dicta, ita etiam finguntur facta sine mendacio, ad aliquam rem significandam. Et ita factum est hic, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii), "not everything of which we make pretense is a falsehood; but when what we pretend has no meaning then is it a falsehood. But when our pretense has some signification, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth; otherwise everything said figuratively by wise and holy men, or even by our Lord Himself, would be set down as a falsehood, because it is not customary to take such expressions in the literal sense. And deeds, like words, are feigned without falsehood, in order to denote something else." And so it happened here. as has been said. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu Evang., dominus poterat transformare carnem suam, ut alia re vera esset effigies ab illa quam solebant intueri, quandoquidem et ante passionem suam transformatus est in monte, ut facies eius claresceret sicut sol. Sed non ita nunc factum est. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur Iesus. Unde Luc. ult. dicitur quod oculi eorum tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent. | Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Our Lord could change His flesh so that His shape really was other than they were accustomed to behold; for, before His Passion He was transfigured on the mountain, so that His face shone like the sun. But it did not happen thus now." For not without reason do we "understand this hindrance in their eyes to have been of Satan's doing, lest Jesus might be recognized." Hence Luke says (24:16) that "their eyes were held, that they should not know Him." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa sequeretur si ab alienae effigiei aspectu non fuissent reducti ad vere videndum Christi effigiem. Sicut enim Augustinus ibidem dicit, tantum a Christo facta est permissio, ut scilicet praedicto modo oculi eorum tenerentur, usque ad sacramentum panis, ut, unitate corporis eius participata, removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, ut Christus possit agnosci. Unde ibidem subditur quod aperti sunt oculi eorum et cognoverunt eum, non quod ante clausis oculis ambularent; sed inerat aliquid quo non sinerentur agnoscere quod videbant, quod scilicet caligo et aliquis humor solet efficere. | Reply to Objection 3: Such an argument would prove, if they had not been brought back from the sight of a strange shape to that of Christ's true countenance. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "The permission was granted by Christ," namely, that their eyes should be held fast in the aforesaid way, "until the Sacrament of the bread; that when they had shared in the unity of His body, the enemy's hindrance may be understood to have been taken away, so that Christ might be recognized." Hence he goes on to say that "'their eyes were opened, and they knew Him'; not that they were hitherto walking with their eyes shut; but there was something in them whereby they were not permitted to recognize what they saw. This could be caused by the darkness or by some kind of humor." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Act. I, quod apparuit discipulis Christus per dies quadraginta in multis argumentis, loquens de regno Dei. | 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." |
| 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. | 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" [*Tully, Topic. ii]: and sometimes it means a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth; thus also Aristotle occasionally uses the term in his works [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii; Rhetor. i]. 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. |
| 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. | 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" [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii]. 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." |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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" [*Gregory, Hom. xxvi]: 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. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 55 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod argumenta quae Christus induxit, non sufficienter manifestaverunt veritatem resurrectionis eius. Nihil enim ostendit Christus discipulis post resurrectionem quod etiam Angeli, hominibus apparentes, vel non ostenderint, vel non ostendere potuerint. Nam Angeli frequenter in humana effigie se hominibus ostenderunt, et cum eis loquebantur et conversabantur et comedebant, ac si essent homines veri, sicut patet Gen. XVIII, de Angelis quos Abraham suscepit hospitio; et in libro Tobiae, de Angelo qui eum duxit et reduxit. Et tamen Angeli non habent vera corpora naturaliter sibi unita, quod requiritur ad resurrectionem. Non ergo signa quae Christus discipulis exhibuit, fuerunt sufficientia ad resurrectionem eius manifestandam. | Objection 1: It would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of did not sufficiently manifest the truth of His Resurrection. For after the Resurrection Christ showed nothing to His disciples which angels appearing to men did not or could not show; because angels have frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect, have spoken and lived with them, and eaten with them, just as if they were truly men, as is evident from Genesis 18, of the angels whom Abraham entertained. and in the Book of Tobias, of the angel who "conducted" him "and brought" him back. Nevertheless, angels have not true bodies naturally united to them; which is required for a resurrection. Consequently, the signs which Christ showed His disciples were not sufficient for manifesting His Resurrection. |
| Praeterea, Christus resurrexit resurrectione gloriosa, idest, habens simul humanam naturam cum gloria. Sed quaedam Christus ostendit discipulis quae videntur esse contraria naturae humanae, sicut quod ab oculis eorum evanuit, et quod ad eos ianuis clausis intravit, quaedam autem videntur fuisse contraria gloriae, puta quod manducavit et bibit, quod etiam habuit vulnerum cicatrices. Ergo videtur quod illa argumenta non fuerunt sufficientia, neque convenientia, ad fidem resurrectionis ostendendam. | Objection 2: Further, Christ rose again gloriously, that is, having a human nature with glory. But some of the things which Christ showed to His disciples seem contrary to human nature, as for instance, that "He vanished out of their sight," and entered in among them "when the doors were shut": and some other things seem contrary to glory, as for instance, that He ate and drank, and bore the scars of His wounds. Consequently, it seems that those proofs were neither sufficient nor fitting for establishing faith in the Resurrection. |
| Praeterea, corpus Christi non erat tale post resurrectionem ut tangi deberet ab homine mortali, unde ipse dixit Magdalenae, Ioan. XX, noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum. Non ergo fuit conveniens quod, ad manifestandam veritatem suae resurrectionis, seipsum discipulis palpabile exhibuerit. | Objection 3: Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that it ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen (Jn. 20:17): "Do not touch Me; for I am not yet ascended to My Father." Consequently, it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of His Resurrection, that He should permit Himself to be handled by His disciples. |
| Praeterea, inter dotes glorificati corporis praecipua videtur esse claritas. Quam tamen in resurrectione nullo argumento ostendit. Ergo videtur quod insufficientia fuerint illa argumenta ad manifestandam qualitatem resurrectionis Christi. | Objection 4: Further, clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities of a glorified body: yet He gave no sign thereof in His Resurrection. Therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the quality of Christ's Resurrection. |
| [Angeli in testes resurrectionis inducti ex ista dissonantia Evangelistarum insufficientes videntur. Nam apud Matthaeum angelus super lapidem revolutum, apud Marcum vero, intus angelus describitur visus a mulieribus ingressis monumentum. Et rursus ab istis unus, a Ioanne duo sedentes, a Luca vero duo stantes describuntur. Inconvenientia ergo videntur testimonia resurrectionis.] | Objection 5: [*This objection is wanting in the older codices, and in the text of the Leonine edition, which, however, gives it in a note as taken from one of the more recent codices of the Vatican.] Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the Resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the Evangelists. Because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb; and again, whereas these mention one angel, John says that there were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing. Consequently, the arguments for the Resurrection do not seem to agree. |
| Sed contra est quod Christus, qui est Dei sapientia, suaviter et convenienter disponit omnia, ut dicitur Sap. VIII. | On the contrary, Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, "ordereth all things sweetly" and in a fitting manner, according to Wis. 8:1. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christus resurrectionem suam dupliciter manifestavit, scilicet testimonio; et argumento seu signo. Et utraque manifestatio in suo genere fuit sufficiens. Est enim usus duplici testimonio ad manifestandam suam resurrectionem discipulis, quorum neutrum potest refelli. Quorum primum est testimonium Angelorum, qui mulieribus resurrectionem annuntiaverunt, ut patet per omnes Evangelistas. Aliud autem est testimonium Scripturarum, quas ipse proposuit ad ostensionem suae resurrectionis, ut dicitur Luc. ult. | I answer that, Christ manifested His Resurrection in two ways: namely, by testimony; and by proof or sign: and each manifestation was sufficient in its own class. For in order to manifest His Resurrection He made use of a double testimony, neither of which can be rebutted. The first of these was the angels' testimony, who announced the Resurrection to the women, as is seen in all the Evangelists: the other was the testimony of the Scriptures, which He set before them to show the truth of the Resurrection, as is narrated in the last chapter of Luke. |
| Argumenta etiam fuerunt sufficientia ad ostendendam veram resurrectionem, et etiam gloriosam. Quod autem fuerit vera resurrectio, ostendit uno modo ex parte corporis. Circa quod tria ostendit. Primo quidem, quod esset corpus verum et solidum, non corpus phantasticum, vel rarum, sicut est aer. Et hoc ostendit per hoc quod corpus suum palpabile praebuit. Unde ipse dicit, Luc. ult., palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Secundo, ostendit quod esset corpus humanum, ostendendo eis veram effigiem, quam oculis intuerentur. Tertio, ostendit eis quod esset idem numero corpus quod prius habuerat, ostendendo eis vulnerum cicatrices. Unde legitur Luc. ult., dixit eis, videte manus meas et pedes meos, quia ego ipse sum. | Again, the proofs were sufficient for showing that the Resurrection was both true and glorious. That it was a true Resurrection He shows first on the part of the body; and this He shows in three respects; first of all, that it was a true and solid body, and not phantastic or rarefied, like the air. And He establishes this by offering His body to be handled; hence He says in the last chapter of Luke (39): "Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Secondly, He shows that it was a human body, by presenting His true features for them to behold. Thirdly, He shows that it was identically the same body which He had before, by showing them the scars of the wounds; hence, as we read in the last chapter of Luke (39) he said to them: "See My hands and feet, that it is I Myself." |
| Alio modo ostendit eis veritatem suae resurrectionis ex parte animae iterato corpori unitae. Et hoc ostendit per opera triplicis vitae. Primo quidem, per opus vitae nutritivae, in hoc quod cum discipulis manducavit et bibit, ut legitur Luc. ult. Secundo, per opera vitae sensitivae, in hoc quod discipulis ad interrogata respondebat, et praesentes salutabat, in quo ostendebat se et videre et audire. Tertio, per opera vitae intellectivae, in hoc quod cum eo loquebantur, et de Scripturis disserebant. Et ne quid deesset ad perfectionem manifestationis, ostendit etiam se habere divinam naturam, per miraculum quod fecit in piscibus capiendis; et ulterius per hoc quod, eis videntibus, ascendit in caelum; quia, ut dicitur Ioan. III, nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis, qui est in caelo. | Secondly, He showed them the truth of His Resurrection on the part of His soul reunited with His body: and He showed this by the works of the threefold life. First of all, in the operations of the nutritive life, by eating and drinking with His disciples, as we read in the last chapter of Luke. Secondly, in the works of the sensitive life, by replying to His disciples' questions, and by greeting them when they were in His presence, showing thereby that He both saw and heard; thirdly, in the works of the intellective life by their conversing with Him, and discoursing on the Scriptures. And, in order that nothing might be wanting to make the manifestation complete, He also showed that He had the Divine Nature, by working the miracle of the draught of fishes, and further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding Him: because, according to Jn. 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." |
| Gloriam etiam suae resurrectionis ostendit discipulis, per hoc quod ad eos ianuis clausis intravit, secundum quod Gregorius dicit, in homilia, palpandam carnem dominus praebuit, quam clausis ianuis introduxit, ut esse post resurrectionem ostenderet corpus suum et eiusdem naturae, et alterius gloriae. Similiter etiam ad proprietatem gloriae pertinebat quod subito ab oculis discipulorum evanuit, ut dicitur Lucae ultimo, quia per hoc ostendebatur quod in potestate eius erat videri et non videri quod pertinet ad conditionem corporis gloriosi, ut supra dictum est. | He also showed His disciples the glory of His Resurrection by entering in among them when the doors were closed: as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "Our Lord allowed them to handle His flesh which He had brought through closed doors, to show that His body was of the same nature but of different glory." It likewise was part of the property of glory that "He vanished suddenly from their eyes," as related in the last chapter of Luke; because thereby it was shown that it lay in His power to be seen or not seen; and this belongs to a glorified body, as stated above (Question [54], Article [1], ad 2, Article [2], ad 1). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod singula argumentorum non sufficerent ad manifestandam Christi resurrectionem, omnia tamen simul accepta perfecte Christi resurrectionem manifestant; maxime propter Scripturae testimonium, et Angelorum dicta, et ipsius Christi assertionem miraculis confirmatam. Angeli autem apparentes non asserebant se homines esse, sicut asseruit Christus vere se hominem esse. Et tamen aliter Christus manducavit, et aliter Angeli. Nam quia corpora ab Angelis assumpta non erant corpora viva vel animata, non erat vera comestio, licet esset vera cibi contritio et traiectio in interiorem partem corporis assumpti, unde et Angelus dixit, Tobiae XII, cum essem vobiscum, videbar quidem manducare et bibere vobiscum, sed ego cibo invisibili utor. Sed quia corpus Christi vere fuit animatum, vera fuit eius comestio. Ut enim Augustinus dicit, XIII de Civ. Dei, non potestas, sed egestas edendi corporibus resurgentium aufertur. Unde, sicut Beda dicit, Christus manducavit potestate, non egestate. | Reply to Objection 1: Each separate argument would not suffice of itself for showing perfectly Christ's Resurrection, yet all taken collectively establish it completely, especially owing to the testimonies of the Scriptures, the sayings of the angels, and even Christ's own assertion supported by miracles. As to the angels who appeared, they did not say they were men, as Christ asserted that He was truly a man. Moreover, the manner of eating was different in Christ and the angels: for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated, there was no true eating, although the food was really masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body: hence the angels said to Tobias (12:18,19): "When I was with you . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use an invisible meat." But since Christ's body was truly animated, His eating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xiii), "it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken away from the bodies of them who rise again." Hence Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, argumenta quaedam inducebantur a Christo ad probandum veritatem humanae naturae; quaedam vero ad probandum gloriam resurgentis. Conditio autem naturae humanae, secundum quod in se consideratur, quantum scilicet ad statum praesentem, contrariatur conditioni gloriae, secundum illud I Cor. XV, seminatur in infirmitate, et surget in virtute. Et ideo ea quae inducuntur ad ostendendam conditionem gloriae, videntur habere contrarietatem ad naturam, non simpliciter, sed secundum statum praesentem; et e converso. Unde Gregorius dicit, in homilia, quod duo mira, et iuxta humanam rationem sibi valde contraria, dominus ostendit, dum post resurrectionem corpus suum et incorruptibile, et tamen palpabile demonstravit. | Reply to Objection 2: As was observed above, some proofs were employed by Christ to prove the truth of His human nature, and others to show forth His glory in rising again. But the condition of human nature, as considered in itself, namely, as to its present state, is opposite to the condition of glory, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:43: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power." Consequently, the proofs brought forward for showing the condition of glory, seem to be in opposition to nature, not absolutely, but according to the present state, and conversely. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "The Lord manifested two wonders, which are mutually contrary according to human reason, when after the Resurrection He showed His body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod hoc dominus dixit, noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad patrem meum, ut in illa femina figuraretur Ecclesia de gentibus, quae in Christum non credidit nisi cum ascendisset ad patrem. Aut sic in se credi voluit Iesus, hoc est, sic se spiritualiter tangi, quod ipse et pater unum sunt. Eius quippe intimis sensibus quodammodo ascendit ad patrem, qui sic in eo profecerit ut patri agnoscat aequalem. Haec autem carnaliter adhuc in eum credebat, quem sicut hominem flebat. Quod autem Maria alibi legitur Christum tetigisse, quando simul cum aliis mulieribus accessit et tenuit pedes, quaestionem non facit, ut Severianus dicit. Siquidem illud de figura est, hoc de sexu, illud de divina gratia, hoc de humana natura. Vel, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, volebat haec mulier adhuc cum Christo conversari sicut et ante passionem. Prae gaudio nihil magnum cogitabat, quamvis caro Christi multo melior fuerit facta resurgendo. Et ideo dixit, nondum ascendi ad patrem meum, quasi dicat, non aestimes me iam terrenam vitam agere. Quod enim in terris me vides, hoc est quia nondum ascendi ad patrem meum, sed in promptu est quod ascendam. Unde subdit, ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum. | Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxxi super Joan.), "these words of our Lord, 'Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father,'" show "that in that woman there is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles, which did not believe in Christ until He was ascended to the Father. Or Jesus would have men to believe in Him, i.e. to touch Him spiritually, as being Himself one with the Father. For to that man's innermost perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended unto the Father, who has become so far proficient in Him, as to recognize in Him the equal with the Father . . . whereas she as yet believed in Him but carnally, since she wept for Him as for a man." But when one reads elsewhere of Mary having touched Him, when with the other women, she "'came up and took hold of His feet,' that matters little," as Severianus says [*Chrysologus, Serm. lxxvi], "for, the first act relates to figure, the other to sex; the former is of Divine grace, the latter of human nature." Or as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): "This woman wanted to converse with Christ just as before the Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing great, although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again." And therefore He said: "I have not yet ascended to My Father"; as if to say: "Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life; for if you see Me upon earth, it is because I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I am going to ascend shortly." Hence He goes on to say: "I ascend to My Father, and to your Father." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, ad Orosium, clarificata carne dominus resurrexit, sed noluit in ea clarificatione discipulis suis apparere, quia non possent oculis talem claritatem perspicere. Si enim, antequam moreretur pro nobis et resurgeret, quando transfiguratus est in monte, discipuli sui eum videre non potuerunt; quanto magis, clarificata carne domini, eum videre non potuerunt. Est etiam considerandum quod post resurrectionem dominus hoc praecipue volebat ostendere, quod idem ipse esset qui mortuus fuerat. Quod multum poterat impedire si eis sui corporis claritatem ostenderet. Nam immutatio quae fit secundum aspectum, maxime ostendit diversitatem eius quod videtur, quia sensibilia communia, inter quae est unum et multa, vel idem et diversum, maxime diiudicat visus. Sed ante passionem, ne infirmitatem passionis eius discipuli despicerent, maxime intendebat Christus eis gloriam maiestatis suae ostendere, quam maxime demonstrat claritas corporis. Et ideo, ante passionem, gloriam suam praemonstravit discipulis per claritatem, post resurrectionem autem, per alia indicia. | Reply to Objection 4: As Augustine says ad Orosium (Dial. lxv, Qq.): "Our Lord rose in clarified flesh; yet He did not wish to appear before the disciples in that condition of clarity, because their eyes could not gaze upon that brilliancy. For if before He died for us and rose again the disciples could not look upon Him when He was transfigured upon the mountain, how much less were they able to gaze upon Him when our Lord's flesh was glorified." It must also be borne in mind that after His Resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that He was the same as had died; which the manifestation of His brightness would have hindered considerably: because change of features shows more than anything else the difference in the person seen: and this is because sight specially judges of the common sensibles, among which is one and many, or the same and different. But before the Passion, lest His disciples might despise its weakness, Christ meant to show them the glory of His majesty; and this the brightness of the body specially indicates. Consequently, before the Passion He showed the disciples His glory by brightness, but after the Resurrection by other tokens. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu Evang., possumus intelligere unum Angelum visum a mulieribus, et secundum Matthaeum et secundum Marcum, ut eas ingressas in monumentum accipiamus, in aliquod scilicet spatium quod erat aliqua maceria communitum, atque ibi vidisse Angelum sedentem supra lapidem revolutum a monumento, sicut dicit Matthaeus; ut hoc sit sedentem a dextris, quod dicit Marcus. Deinde, dum introspicerent locum in quo iacebat corpus domini, visos ab eis duos Angelos, primo quidem sedentes, ut dicit Ioannes; et post eis assurrexisse, ut stantes viderentur, ut dicit Lucas. | Reply to Objection 5: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "We can understand one angel to have been seen by the women, according to both Matthew and Mark, if we take them as having entered the sepulchre, that is, into some sort of walled enclosure, and that there they saw an angel sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument, as Matthew says; and that this is Mark's expression—'sitting on the right side'; afterwards when they scanned the spot where the Lord's body had lain, they beheld two angels, who were at first seated, as John says, and who afterwards rose so as to be seen standing, as Luke relates." |