Sed contra est quod dominus dicit Thomae, Ioan. XX, infer digitum tuum huc, et vide manus meas, et affer manum tuam et mitte in latus meum. On the contrary, Our Lord said to Thomas (John 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. Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit animam Christi in resurrectione corpus cum cicatricibus resumere. Primo quidem, propter gloriam ipsius Christi. Dicit enim Beda, super Luc., quod non ex impotentia curandi cicatrices servavit, sed ut in perpetuum victoriae suae circumferat triumphum. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in XXII de Civ. Dei, quod fortassis in illo regno in corporibus martyrum videbimus vulnerum cicatrices quae pro Christi nomine pertulerunt, non enim deformitas in eis, sed dignitas erit; et quaedam, quamvis in corpore, non corporis, sed virtutis pulchritudo fulgebit. Secundo, ad confirmandum corda discipulorum circa fidem suae resurrectionis. Tertio, ut patri, pro nobis supplicans, quale genus mortis pro homine pertulerit, semper ostendat. Quarto, ut sua morte redemptis quam misericorditer sint adiuti, propositis eiusdem mortis indiciis, insinuet. Postremo, ut in iudicio quam iuste damnentur, ibidem annuntiet. Unde, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de symbolo, sciebat Christus quare cicatrices in suo corpore servaret. Sicut enim demonstravit Thomae non credenti nisi tangeret et videret, ita etiam inimicis vulnera demonstraturus est sua, ut convincens eos veritas dicat, ecce hominem quem crucifixistis. Videtis vulnera quae infixistis. Agnoscitis latus quod pupugistis. Quoniam per vos, et propter vos apertum est, nec tamen intrare voluistis. 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 Luke 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. Second, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to the faith in His Resurrection (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Third, that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Fourth, 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 Luke 24:40). Lastly, that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation (Bede, on Luke 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.’ Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cicatrices illae quae in corpore Christi permanserunt, non pertinent ad corruptionem vel defectum, sed ad maiorem cumulum gloriae, inquantum sunt quaedam virtutis insignia. Et in illis locis vulnerum quidam specialis decor apparebit. Reply Obj. 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod illa apertura vulnerum, quamvis sit cum quadam solutione continuitatis, totum tamen hoc recompensatur per maiorem decorem gloriae, ut corpus non sit minus integrum, sed magis perfectum. Thomas autem non solum vidit, sed etiam vulnera tetigit, quia, ut dicit Leo Papa, suffecit sibi ad fidem propriam vidisse quod viderat; sed nobis operatus est ut tangeret quem videbat. Reply Obj. 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 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus in suo corpore voluit cicatrices vulnerum remanere, non solum ad certificandum discipulorum fidem, sed etiam propter alias rationes. Ex quibus apparet quod semper in eius corpore cicatrices illae remanebunt. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, ad Consentium de resurrectione carnis, domini corpus in caelo esse credo ut erat quando ascendit in caelum. Et Gregorius, XIV Moral., dicit quod, si quid in corpore Christi post resurrectionem potuit immutari, contra veridicam Pauli sententiam, post resurrectionem dominus rediit in mortem. Quod quis dicere vel stultus praesumat, nisi qui veram carnis resurrectionem denegat? Unde patet quod cicatrices quas Christus post resurrectionem in suo corpore ostendit, nunquam postmodum ab illo corpore sunt remotae. Reply Obj. 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. Quaestio 55 Question 55 De manifestatione resurrectionis The Manifestation of the Resurrection 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 appear 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. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum resurrectio Christi debuerit omnibus manifestari Whether Christ’s Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all? 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. Obj. 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. 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. Obj. 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 Isa. 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 Obj. 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. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Luke 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 John 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—were the first to see Him rising in glory. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum conveniens fuerit quod discipuli viderent Christus resurgere Whether it was fitting that the disciples should see him rise again? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 (Mark 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 (Rom 13:1): Those things that are of God, are well ordered. 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. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 3 Article 3