|
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 [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"
[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.
|
|