: 'Those that are, are
ordained
of
God].
God].
Summa Theologica
3:21): "He will reform the
body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory. "
I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and
this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His
Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1
Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified
bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it
shall rise in glory. " Hence, since the cause is mightier than the
effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then,
was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He
merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion.
Hence He said (Jn. 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to
the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He
asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated
above ([4302]Q[34], A[4]), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant
of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated
above ([4303]Q[14], A[1], ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy
that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by
the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption.
Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was
finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body
in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received
according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from
the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad
Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is
after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously
colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according
to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a
glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A[1],
ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not.
Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it
was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the
Resurrection.
Reply to Objection 2: We say that a body can be handled not only
because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from
rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and
similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in
elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human
touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists
touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned,
which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body,
then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after
the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible
qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it
could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of
a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something
else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a
heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller
inquiry later ([4304]XP, Q[82], A[1]), but it was glory flowing from a
beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii):
"God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest
beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the
vigor of incorruption. " And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang.
xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of
different glory, after the Resurrection. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the
Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat
with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His
power. " For as Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the
water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the
latter by its power. " Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as
needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body. "
Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of
food.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body rose again entire?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire. For
flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ
seems not to have had both, for it is written (1 Cor. 15:50): "Flesh
and blood can not possess the kingdom of God. " But Christ rose in the
glory of the kingdom of God. Therefore it seems that He did not have
flesh and blood.
Objection 2: Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if
Christ had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, from
which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then,
that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly. Therefore Christ
did not have flesh and blood.
Objection 3: Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to
heaven. But some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches.
Therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its
parts.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:39) while addressing His
disciples after the Resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as
you see Me to have. "
I answer that, As stated above [4305](A[2]), Christ's body in the
Resurrection was "of the same nature, but differed in glory. "
Accordingly, whatever goes with the nature of a human body, was
entirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear that
flesh, bones, blood, and other such things, are of the very nature of
the human body. Consequently, all these things were in Christ's body
when He rose again; and this also integrally, without any diminution;
otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection, if whatever
was lost by death had not been restored. Hence our Lord assured His
faithful ones by saying (Mat. 10:30): "The very hairs of your head are
all numbered": and (Lk. 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish. "
But to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the
other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of Eutyches,
Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that "our body in that glory
of the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle than wind and
air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled
Him were confirmed, brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled
in Him" [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this
in the same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the
Resurrection, according to Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead,
dieth now no more. " Accordingly, the very man who had said these
things, himself retracted them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming
for Christ to take a body of another nature in His conception, a
heavenly one for instance, as Valentine asserted, it is much more
unbecoming for Him at His Resurrection to resume a body of another
nature, because in His Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting
life, the body which in His conception He had assumed to a mortal life.
Reply to Objection 1: Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the
nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and
blood, as Gregory says [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56], or else for
the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad
Consent. , De Resur. Carn. ), "there will be neither corruption there,
nor mortality of flesh and blood. " Therefore flesh according to its
substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Lk. 24:39: "A
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have. " But flesh, if
understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is
straightway added in the words of the Apostle: "Neither shall
corruption possess incorruption. "
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same book: "Perchance by
reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the
blood was" in the body of Christ when He rose, "why not the rheum? "
that is, the phlegm; "why not also the yellow gall? " that is, the gall
proper; "and why not the black gall? " that is, the bile, "with which
four humors the body is tempered, as medical science bears witness. But
whatever anyone may add, let him take heed not to add corruption, lest
he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith; because Divine power
is equal to taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and
tractable body, while allowing others to remain, so that there be no
defilement," i. e. of corruption, "though the features be there; motion
without weariness, the power to eat, without need of food. "
Reply to Objection 3: All the blood which flowed from Christ's body,
belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again with
His body: and the same reason holds good for all the particles which
belong to the truth and integrity of human nature. But the blood
preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from Christ's side,
but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen
with its scars. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:52): "The dead shall rise
incorrupt. " But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect. Therefore
it was not fitting for Christ, the author of the resurrection, to rise
again with scars.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above
[4306](A[3]). But open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since
they interfere with the continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore
seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in Christ's body; although
the traces of the wounds might remain, which would satisfy the
beholder; thus it was that Thomas believed, to whom it was said:
"Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed" (Jn. 20:29).
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "some
things are truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did
not have from nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars,
in order to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that
rose again. " Now when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore it
seems that when the disciples were assured of the Resurrection, He bore
the scars no longer. But it ill became the unchangeableness of His
glory that He should assume anything which was not to remain in Him for
ever. Consequently, it seems that He ought not at His Resurrection to
have resumed a body with scars.
On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (Jn. 20:27): "Put in thy
finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it
into My side, and be not faithless but believing. "
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to
resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own
glory. For Bede says on Lk. 24:40 that He kept His scars not from
inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of
His victory. " Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that
kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the
wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a
deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will
shine in them, in the body, though not of the body. " Secondly, to
confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His
Resurrection" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Thirdly, "that when He pleads for
us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured
for us" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Fourthly, "that He may convince those
redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He
exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just
condemnation" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb.
ii): "Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed
them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so
will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may
convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the
wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was
opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter. '"
Reply to Objection 1: The scars that remained in Christ's body belong
neither to corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory,
inasmuch as they are the trophies of His power; and a special
comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds.
Reply to Objection 2: Although those openings of the wounds break the
continuity of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory compensates
for all this, so that the body is not less entire, but more perfected.
Thomas, however, not only saw, but handled the wounds, because as Pope
Leo [*Cf. Append. Opp. August. , Serm. clxii] says: "It sufficed for his
personal faith for him to have seen what he saw; but it was on our
behalf that he touched what he beheld. "
Reply to Objection 3: Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain
on His body, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for
other reasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always
remain on His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent. , De Resurr.
Carn. ): "I believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was when
He ascended into heaven. " And Gregory (Moral. xiv) says that "if aught
could be changed in Christ's body after His Resurrection, contrary to
Paul's truthful teaching, then the Lord after His Resurrection returned
to death; and what fool would dare to say this, save he that denies the
true resurrection of the flesh? " Accordingly, it is evident that the
scars which Christ showed on His body after His Resurrection, have
never since been removed from His body.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE RESURRECTION (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection:
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all
men or only to some special individuals?
(2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise?
(3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the
Resurrection?
(4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in
another shape"?
(5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs?
(6) Of the cogency of those proofs.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all?
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.
Objection 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our
salvation, so also is His Resurrection, according to Rom. 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.
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.
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. "
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.
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 (Rom. 6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to some,
but not to all.
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that the disciples should see Him rise again?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 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
Rom. 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. "
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ ought to have lived constantly with His disciples after the
Resurrection?
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.
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.
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.
Objection 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion
(Mat. 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
(OBJ[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.
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.
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. "
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. "
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).
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.
Reply to Objection 4: Chrysostom in explaining Mat. 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. "
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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have appeared to the disciples "in another shape"?
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
(QQ. 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. "
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.
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.
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. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4307]AA[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.
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.
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. "
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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have demonstrated the truth of His Resurrection by
proofs?
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" [*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.
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. "
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" [*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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the proofs which Christ made use of manifested sufficiently the
truth of His Resurrection?
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.
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.
body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory. "
I answer that, Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and
this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His
Resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in 1
Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified
bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, it
shall rise in glory. " Hence, since the cause is mightier than the
effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious, then,
was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He
merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His Passion.
Hence He said (Jn. 12:27): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to
the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He
asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated
above ([4302]Q[34], A[4]), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant
of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated
above ([4303]Q[14], A[1], ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy
that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by
the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption.
Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was
finished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body
in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received
according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from
the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad
Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is
after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously
colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance, according
to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power of a
glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A[1],
ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not.
Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it
was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples after the
Resurrection.
Reply to Objection 2: We say that a body can be handled not only
because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from
rarity and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and
similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in
elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human
touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists
touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned,
which are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body,
then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after
the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible
qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore it
could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of
a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had something
else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a
heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall make fuller
inquiry later ([4304]XP, Q[82], A[1]), but it was glory flowing from a
beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii):
"God made the soul of such powerful nature, that from its fullest
beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the
vigor of incorruption. " And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang.
xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but of
different glory, after the Resurrection. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the
Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat
with the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His
power. " For as Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "The thirsty earth sucks in the
water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the
latter by its power. " Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as
needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His risen body. "
Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of
food.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body rose again entire?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire. For
flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ
seems not to have had both, for it is written (1 Cor. 15:50): "Flesh
and blood can not possess the kingdom of God. " But Christ rose in the
glory of the kingdom of God. Therefore it seems that He did not have
flesh and blood.
Objection 2: Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if
Christ had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, from
which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then,
that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly. Therefore Christ
did not have flesh and blood.
Objection 3: Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to
heaven. But some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches.
Therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its
parts.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:39) while addressing His
disciples after the Resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as
you see Me to have. "
I answer that, As stated above [4305](A[2]), Christ's body in the
Resurrection was "of the same nature, but differed in glory. "
Accordingly, whatever goes with the nature of a human body, was
entirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear that
flesh, bones, blood, and other such things, are of the very nature of
the human body. Consequently, all these things were in Christ's body
when He rose again; and this also integrally, without any diminution;
otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection, if whatever
was lost by death had not been restored. Hence our Lord assured His
faithful ones by saying (Mat. 10:30): "The very hairs of your head are
all numbered": and (Lk. 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish. "
But to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the
other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of Eutyches,
Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that "our body in that glory
of the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle than wind and
air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled
Him were confirmed, brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled
in Him" [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this
in the same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the
Resurrection, according to Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead,
dieth now no more. " Accordingly, the very man who had said these
things, himself retracted them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming
for Christ to take a body of another nature in His conception, a
heavenly one for instance, as Valentine asserted, it is much more
unbecoming for Him at His Resurrection to resume a body of another
nature, because in His Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting
life, the body which in His conception He had assumed to a mortal life.
Reply to Objection 1: Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the
nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and
blood, as Gregory says [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56], or else for
the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad
Consent. , De Resur. Carn. ), "there will be neither corruption there,
nor mortality of flesh and blood. " Therefore flesh according to its
substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Lk. 24:39: "A
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have. " But flesh, if
understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is
straightway added in the words of the Apostle: "Neither shall
corruption possess incorruption. "
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in the same book: "Perchance by
reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the
blood was" in the body of Christ when He rose, "why not the rheum? "
that is, the phlegm; "why not also the yellow gall? " that is, the gall
proper; "and why not the black gall? " that is, the bile, "with which
four humors the body is tempered, as medical science bears witness. But
whatever anyone may add, let him take heed not to add corruption, lest
he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith; because Divine power
is equal to taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and
tractable body, while allowing others to remain, so that there be no
defilement," i. e. of corruption, "though the features be there; motion
without weariness, the power to eat, without need of food. "
Reply to Objection 3: All the blood which flowed from Christ's body,
belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again with
His body: and the same reason holds good for all the particles which
belong to the truth and integrity of human nature. But the blood
preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from Christ's side,
but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen
with its scars. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:52): "The dead shall rise
incorrupt. " But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect. Therefore
it was not fitting for Christ, the author of the resurrection, to rise
again with scars.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above
[4306](A[3]). But open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since
they interfere with the continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore
seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in Christ's body; although
the traces of the wounds might remain, which would satisfy the
beholder; thus it was that Thomas believed, to whom it was said:
"Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed" (Jn. 20:29).
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "some
things are truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did
not have from nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars,
in order to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that
rose again. " Now when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore it
seems that when the disciples were assured of the Resurrection, He bore
the scars no longer. But it ill became the unchangeableness of His
glory that He should assume anything which was not to remain in Him for
ever. Consequently, it seems that He ought not at His Resurrection to
have resumed a body with scars.
On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (Jn. 20:27): "Put in thy
finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it
into My side, and be not faithless but believing. "
I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to
resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own
glory. For Bede says on Lk. 24:40 that He kept His scars not from
inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of
His victory. " Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that
kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the
wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a
deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will
shine in them, in the body, though not of the body. " Secondly, to
confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His
Resurrection" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Thirdly, "that when He pleads for
us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured
for us" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Fourthly, "that He may convince those
redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He
exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just
condemnation" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb.
ii): "Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed
them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so
will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may
convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the
wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was
opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter. '"
Reply to Objection 1: The scars that remained in Christ's body belong
neither to corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory,
inasmuch as they are the trophies of His power; and a special
comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds.
Reply to Objection 2: Although those openings of the wounds break the
continuity of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory compensates
for all this, so that the body is not less entire, but more perfected.
Thomas, however, not only saw, but handled the wounds, because as Pope
Leo [*Cf. Append. Opp. August. , Serm. clxii] says: "It sufficed for his
personal faith for him to have seen what he saw; but it was on our
behalf that he touched what he beheld. "
Reply to Objection 3: Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain
on His body, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for
other reasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always
remain on His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent. , De Resurr.
Carn. ): "I believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was when
He ascended into heaven. " And Gregory (Moral. xiv) says that "if aught
could be changed in Christ's body after His Resurrection, contrary to
Paul's truthful teaching, then the Lord after His Resurrection returned
to death; and what fool would dare to say this, save he that denies the
true resurrection of the flesh? " Accordingly, it is evident that the
scars which Christ showed on His body after His Resurrection, have
never since been removed from His body.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE RESURRECTION (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection:
concerning which there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all
men or only to some special individuals?
(2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise?
(3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the
Resurrection?
(4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in
another shape"?
(5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs?
(6) Of the cogency of those proofs.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all?
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.
Objection 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our
salvation, so also is His Resurrection, according to Rom. 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.
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.
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. "
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.
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 (Rom. 6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to some,
but not to all.
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that the disciples should see Him rise again?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. 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
Rom. 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. "
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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ ought to have lived constantly with His disciples after the
Resurrection?
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.
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.
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.
Objection 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion
(Mat. 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
(OBJ[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.
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.
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. "
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. "
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).
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.
Reply to Objection 4: Chrysostom in explaining Mat. 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. "
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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have appeared to the disciples "in another shape"?
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
(QQ. 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. "
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.
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.
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. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4307]AA[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.
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.
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. "
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. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have demonstrated the truth of His Resurrection by
proofs?
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" [*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.
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. "
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" [*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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the proofs which Christ made use of manifested sufficiently the
truth of His Resurrection?
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.
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.
