Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Tomus I: De Christo Legato Divino, De Ecclesia Christi, De Fontibus Theologicis

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

105. We have seen that divine revelation is possible. The question now is whether God actually gave human beings positive revelation. This question is partly historical and partly philosophical. Historically, we ask about the external fact of revelation; philosophically, we ask about the internal character of this fact, whether it bears the marks of divine revelation.

Among the revelations said to have occurred, for the reasons indicated above (n. 26), the one especially worthy of consideration is that for which Jesus Christ is the author. We must first ask, therefore, what is historically established about this revelation.

When we are concerned with establishing a historical fact from past centuries, first of all we must secure the authority of the documents on whose testimony we rely. Among the documents at issue here, the four Gospels are the most important, because it is chiefly from them that we draw what we know about the life, words, and deeds of Jesus Christ. We must therefore deal with the genuineness of these books, and with genuineness alone, not with their inspiration or canonicity, because for the present we are considering these books not as dogmatic sources but simply as historical sources, like any other historical sources. We shall use other books besides the Gospels as documents of the period to which, by the consensus of scholars, they are assigned.

A second necessary question is whether the genuine books have come down to us uncorrupted, or intact. A third question is whether their authors are worthy of belief. We must therefore proceed in order, dealing with the genuineness, integrity, and credibility of the Gospels.

The question of the genuineness of a book is a historical question, which must be resolved chiefly by external criteria, that is, by a sufficient number of suitable witnesses. Internal criteria, drawn from the character of the book, come second and serve to confirm the external criteria, especially insofar as they show that nothing stands in the way of the book's genuineness.

Historical arguments based on human testimony are moral arguments. They do not establish metaphysical certainty but moral certainty, which is nevertheless real, provided the conditions required for a good moral argument are fulfilled.

ARTICLE I.

ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.

Cf. Cornely, Introduct. in libros N. T., and, in general, Introductiones in S. Script. N. T.; Meignan, Les évangiles et la critique au 19ᵉ siècle², Paris 1870; I. Schaefer, Die Evangelien und die Evangelienkritik², Freiburg 1911; Bougaud, Schanz, and others in the books already cited above, before n. 26.

Proposition X. The four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are genuine.

106. Position of the question. Everyone knows what our four Gospels are. The word Gospel, which is prefixed only to Mark's book, here means “good news”; this good news is the announcement of the messianic salvation expected by the Jews (cf. Lc 4, 16 sqq). The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus Christ, but brief accounts of what seemed necessary to explain messianic salvation to various readers. For this reason, the books are not called the Gospel of Matthew, and so on, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, and so on. Nevertheless, the names attached to them indicate the authors of the books. At first, the word Gospel did not mean a written book but the preaching of Christian doctrine (Rom 1, 1 9 16). Later, those four books, too, were called Gospels. St. Augustine observes that it is better to speak of “four books of one Gospel” than of “four Gospels” (In Ioan. tract. 36, n. 1). Nevertheless, from the first centuries onward, the custom of speaking of four Gospels prevailed.

The Gospels are genuine if they were truly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Antiquity gives unanimous testimony on this matter; Matthew and John are understood to be two apostles, that is, two immediate disciples of Christ, while Mark and Luke are disciples of apostles. The precise time of writing is not certain. Nearly everyone now admits that the first three Gospels (“Synoptics”) were written between the years 40 and 80, and John's Gospel near the end of the first century of our era. The Gospel of Matthew has been transmitted to us only in a Greek translation, made in the first century. Nearly all the witnesses speak exclusively of this translation.

107. Argument 1. From the testimony of the universal Church existing in the second century.

If the Gospels came forth from the bosom of the ancient Church, they must be considered genuine if that Church universally and without doubt regarded them as genuine. But it did so. Therefore.

As to the major premise: It was of the greatest importance to the ancient Church to know and testify which writings were genuine sources from which knowledge of Christ's words and deeds could be drawn, because these writings were the rule of faith and morals. Christians would therefore undoubtedly have resisted if anyone had tried to impose spurious and doubtful writings on them as genuine and certain in this most serious matter. Moreover, in the earliest times oral tradition was very much alive, because at the beginning this was almost the only way to spread knowledge of Jesus Christ and his teaching. Therefore, if shortly after the Gospels were published the testimony of the universal Church, dispersed throughout the world, attested their genuineness, this is more splendid proof of genuineness than exists for any profane book of antiquity, because it is public testimony about a matter concerning the whole Christian society. Such testimony, however, is already found from the second century onward and continues through the following centuries in an uninterrupted succession of witnesses.

108. As to the minor premise. Against Marcion, who had separated from the Church around the year 150, Tertullian insists that one must stand by apostolic tradition: «Certainly it will be established that that was handed down by the apostles which was held sacred in the churches of the apostles… I say, then, that in those churches—not only the apostolic churches now, but all those united with them in the fellowship of the sacrament—the Gospel of Luke has stood from the beginning of its publication, and this is the Gospel we chiefly defend… The same authority of the apostolic churches will also protect the other Gospels, which we have through them and according to them: I mean those of John and Matthew, although what Mark published is also affirmed to be Peter's, Mark being his interpreter; for they also usually attribute Luke's account to Paul» (Adv. Marcion. 4, 4 5). In the same work (4, 2) he testifies that Matthew and John were apostles, while Luke and Mark were apostolic men. This testimony comes from the African Church.

In Gaul, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who had been a disciple of St. Polycarp in Asia Minor (Polycarp himself a disciple of the apostles), and who wrote a great work against heresies between the years 180 and 190, no less emphatically insists that one must adhere to the tradition of the apostles: «For we did not learn the plan of our salvation from others than those through whom the Gospel came to us. They first proclaimed it, and afterward, by God's will, handed it down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith… Thus Matthew published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language… Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down in writing what Peter had preached. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel that Paul preached. Later John, the Lord's disciple who also reclined upon his breast, himself published a Gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia» (3, 1). «There can be neither more nor fewer Gospels in number than these» (3, 11).

In the Alexandrian Church, Origen testifies that he received by tradition the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, «which alone, without controversy, are accepted in the whole Church of God under heaven» (In Matth. tom. I; In Luc. hom. 1; In lib. Iesu Nave hom. 7, n. 1; M 12, 857; 13, 829 1803).

Before Origen, Clement of Alexandria wished to admit as the words of Christ only those that «we have in the four Gospels handed down to us» (Strom. 3, 13; M 8, 1194); and he reports «a certain tradition about the order of the Gospels, which he had received from the older presbyters» (quoted in Eusebius, H. E. 6, 14).

In the Roman Church, Hippolytus often cites «the fourfold Gospel» (cf. Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts, Leipzig 1897, 19 sqq). From the same Church comes the Muratorian Fragment, that is, a catalogue of the books that the Roman Church either accepted or rejected in the second century. Its beginning is missing. «The third book of the Gospel according to Luke. This Luke, a physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as one eager for the journey [or, for the letters], wrote it down in his own name in order; he himself, however, had not seen the Lord in the flesh. And [or “therefore”] he begins to tell the story from the birth of John, just as he was able to ascertain it. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples… And so, although different beginnings are taught in the individual books of the Gospels, this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by one and the same principal Spirit all things concerning the birth, passion, and resurrection have been declared in all of them» (Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 139 sq; cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 134 sq).

Older than all these witnesses¹, Justin Martyr speaks of «the memoirs of the apostles (ἀπομνημονεύμασιν), which are called Gospels» (Apol. I, n. 66), and says that these memoirs were written partly by the apostles and partly by their disciples (Dial. cum Tryphone n. 103). He does not state the authors' names, but he cites many passages from these memoirs, from which it follows that he admitted our four Gospels and no others. He also testifies that at Christian gatherings on Sundays the Gospels were read along with the writings of the prophets (Apol. I, n. 67).

One may add to these testimonies Tatian's Diatessaron, that is, a harmony of the four Gospels. This work, written around the year 170, shows that our Gospels had already been in use for a long time by that period.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, was an immediate disciple of the apostles. Around the year 125, according to Eusebius (H. E. 3, 39), he wrote five books “On the Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord,” of which only a few fragments remain. In one of these he says of Mark that «Mark, Peter's interpreter, carefully wrote down whatever he had committed to memory, but did not set out in order the things said or done by the Lord (τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα). For he himself had neither heard nor followed the Lord. But afterward, as I said, he was with Peter, who used to preach the Gospel for the benefit of his hearers, not, however, to compose a history of the Lord's words (λόγων).» Of Matthew he says: «Matthew wrote the divine oracles (τὰ λόγια) in the Hebrew language; each person, however, interpreted them (ἡρμήνευσε) as best he could.» Nothing is read about Luke in the surviving fragments. A testimony about John is reported in the prologue to John's Gospel (from a ninth-century manuscript): «The beginning of the argument according to John. The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches while John was still in the body, as Papias, called Hierapolitanus, a beloved disciple of John, related in the Exoteric, that is, in the last five books.» Learned people judge this fragment in different ways (cf. Funk, in Papiae fragmentum 17, and Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 898 sqq).

Therefore, such splendid testimonies are available for the genuineness of the Gospels that, unless these suffice, the genuineness of no ancient book can be proved (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 128). Whoever denies this genuineness cannot plausibly explain how a consensus so firm and universal arose already in the second century, with no one objecting or doubting, and in such a way that the witnesses reach back to the very times of the apostles.

109. There are also many other very ancient witnesses who cite various passages from the four Gospels. In the edition of the works of the Apostolic Fathers prepared by Funk or others, the indexes indicate the words cited from Sacred Scripture. Omitting the less clear passages, the following may be gathered. The Epistle of Barnabas cites Matthew three times; Clement of Rome, Matthew once and Luke once; Ignatius of Antioch, Matthew four times and John once; Polycarp, Matthew four times, Mark once, and Luke twice; Hermas, Matthew six times, Mark twice, Luke once, and John twice. In these citations the Evangelists' names are usually not added; instead, general formulas are used, such as “as Scripture says,” “it is written,” or similar expressions. For example, in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (8, 2) we read: «Do not pray as the hypocrites do, but pray as the Lord commanded in his Gospel: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…» and so forth, as read in Matthew 6, 9 sqq. Or Polycarp (2, 3): «Mindful of what the Lord said as he taught: Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,» and other things read in Matthew 7, 1 sqq. Thus, even in those short writings of the Apostolic Fathers the Gospels are already cited. Much more extensive citations are found among the Fathers called the Apologists. Read, for example, Justin Martyr's Dialogue, n. 100 sqq: Christ «is written in the Gospel to have said: All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and: No one knows the Father except the Son,» and so on, as in Matthew 11, 27. So many passages are cited in the second century that almost the entire Gospels could be assembled from them.

Add this practical use of the Gospels to those theoretical testimonies, and you will see that the genuineness of the Gospels cannot reasonably be doubted.

110. Argument 2. From the testimony of heretics of the second century.

According to Irenaeus and other Fathers, there were in the second century heretics who had a very strong interest in denying the genuineness of the Gospels. But no one dared to do so. Therefore, the Gospels must be considered genuine.

As to the major premise. Irenaeus (Contra haer. 3, 11, 7) writes: «Such is the firmness of these Gospels that the heretics themselves bear witness to them, and each of them, going forth from them, tries to confirm his own doctrine. The Ebionites, indeed, use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, and from that very Gospel they are convicted of not thinking rightly about the Lord. Marcion, however, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is shown by the passages he still retains to blaspheme against the one God who exists. Those who separate Jesus from Christ, saying that Christ remained impassible while Jesus suffered, can be corrected if, with a love of truth, they read the Gospel according to Mark, which they prefer. But those who belong to Valentinus, using most fully the Gospel according to John to display their pairings, will be exposed by that very Gospel as saying nothing rightly… Since, then, those who contradict us bear witness to these Gospels and use them, our demonstration concerning them is firm and true.»

111. As to the minor premise. Among the heretics of the second century, the Gnostic Basilides (d. c. 130), who maintained that Jesus received divine power for a time, recounts his life «as it is written in the Gospels.» So says Hippolytus (Philosoph. 7, 27), who reports various things Basilides took from the Gospels (ibid. 7, 22 26 27). Basilides' contemporary was Valentinus, who used chiefly, though not exclusively, the Gospel of John, as is clear from Hippolytus (6, 35) and Irenaeus (1, 7, 4; 1, 8, 2; 1, 8, 5; 3, 11, 7). Heracleon, a disciple of Valentinus, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John, from which Origen preserved fragments for us in his Commentary on the Gospel of John (M 14). Marcion did not deny the genuineness of the four Gospels, but said that the apostles themselves had been infected with Judaism, that the true doctrine of Christ could be drawn only from the writings of Paul and Luke, and that even from these the remnants of Judaism had to be removed. Tertullian wrote chiefly against Marcion (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 109).

Therefore, the heretics did not deny the genuineness of the Gospels; rather, they chose one or another Gospel that they thought they could use for their own ends, then partly mutilated its sayings, partly adulterated them, and partly twisted genuine texts into a false sense. Since the Gospels were already being corrupted in these ways frequently before the middle of the second century, they existed much earlier and were regarded as genuine.

It can also be added that in the second century pagan writers wrote against the Gospels, such as Celsus, who published in the year 178 a book entitled Ἀληθὴς λόγος. In this book he says that he is citing everything from the sacred books of the Christians, which the disciples of Jesus had written. So Origen testifies (Contra Celsum 2, 13 15 16 74), and from his words it is clear that Celsus cites our Gospels (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 102 sqq).

112. Argument 3. From internal reasons.

A book is to be considered genuine on the basis of internal criteria if its language, ideas, and circumstances of time and place correspond to the age and people to which it is ascribed. But the character of the Gospels is such. Therefore, the Gospels must be considered genuine.

As to the major premise. This argument is concerned not so much with the individual authors by name—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as with the time and place of origin; that is, it shows that the Gospels, according to their internal character, entirely fit the age and region in which the narrated events are said to have taken place. An author who merely pretends to have lived at a certain time and in certain places will often betray his fiction by anachronisms and other indications, and all the more so the more the external customs, internal ideas, inclinations, and dispositions of the age in which he writes differ from those of the age he describes. Therefore, if a book is a faithful image of the times and customs it describes, the presumption in favor of its genuineness is very strong, even though this argument, when separated from external testimony, is scarcely ever conclusive.

113. As to the minor premise. a) On the character of the language. Although our Gospels, except for Matthew's book, were written in Greek, they descend from a Hebrew (Aramaic) source, because they report what was said and done among the Jews several decades before the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and of Jewish political power. Since the Greek language differs greatly from Hebrew, one should expect a priori that the Gospels, if genuine, would bear the stamp of a Hebrew character in their language. In fact, they do. The whole manner of speaking is simple, without artificial constructions, and instead of periods the parts of speech are joined by the particle and (the connective waw). There are many expressions that Greeks never use and scarcely understand. Such are the words raka, rabbi, Boanerges, Kephas, abba, korban, gehenna, etc. (Mt 5, 22; 23, 7. Mc 3, 17. Io 1, 42 etc.); such are the expressions “son of peace,” “son of light,” “kingdom of heaven,” and the like (Mt 3, 2; 23, 15. Lc 10, 6; 16, 8 etc.); and such are constructions like this: «Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you, you are Peter (kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven» (Mt 16, 18 19). Consider each detail; it will immediately be clear that from beginning to end nothing in these words has a Greek character: everything is Semitic. Such things, however, are read so often in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament that special vocabularies and grammars of Greek had to be written. On the other hand, Latin words were adopted, as befits writers living among Romans: Κῆνσος = census (Mt 22, 17), Καῖσαρ = Caesar, κεντυρίων = centurion (Mc 15, 39), τίτλος = titulus (Io 19, 19).

b) On historical knowledge. The Evangelists mention many things about civil and ecclesiastical officials only in passing, making it clear that they did not deliberately devote themselves to studying these matters. Nevertheless² their knowledge of matters and persons is so exact and so well confirmed by other historical sources that it cannot be understood how the Evangelists knew all these things unless they themselves took part in them or received them from immediate witnesses. Thus, for example, what Matthew or Luke recount about the Herodian family and the political division of the land of Palestine, about Pontius Pilate and other persons, is confirmed by Flavius Josephus (Antiq. 1, 17; 14, 14, 4; 17, 8, 4; 18, 3, 1; 18, 5, 1 sq).

c) The whole social life of the Jews is depicted in vivid colors: the factions of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the scribes and teachers of the law, the Jews' hatred of the Romans and expectation of a great leader who would free them from the Romans, and the discord between Jews and Samaritans. All these things are also found in Flavius Josephus, who was an eyewitness (Antiq. 12, 1; 17, 2, 4; 18, 1, 2 sqq. De bello iud. 1, 33, 2; 2, 8, 1; 2, 12, 3; 6, 5, 4; 7, 8, 1).

The customs of the Jews are described, such as strict observance of the Sabbath, frequent washings, and so forth. Matthew speaks of these matters as familiar to his readers; Mark adds explanations for the benefit of Gentile readers (cf. e.g. Mt 15, 1 sqq and Mc 7, 1 sqq). Various coins were in use because of the mixture of peoples in Palestine: Roman coins were asses and denarii (Mt 10, 29. Mc 14, 5. Lc 7, 41); Jewish coins were shekels (Mt 26, 15); Greek coins were the δραχμή, μνᾶ (Lc 15, 8; 19, 16).

d) Furthermore, if you recall how minutely the Evangelists often describe people's faces, actions, and movements, not artificially but in a very simple manner (cf. e.g. Io 13, 4 sqq; 18, 3 sqq), you cannot rationally doubt that they themselves saw those things or received them from those who had seen them. For when facts reach writers through many intermediate witnesses, they lose such vivid colors. Since, then, forty years after Christ's death the whole Jewish commonwealth had been overthrown and the circumstances described by the Evangelists had been changed into an entirely different state, it would not have been possible for later writers to recount things in this way. Nevertheless, the Evangelists who came later did not care to avoid apparent contradictions with the earlier ones, but honestly wrote the things they had seen or heard from witnesses. Forgers do not usually act in this way. Therefore, the genuineness of the Gospels is supported by internal criteria.

114. Objection I. The ancient writers invoked as witnesses to the genuineness of the Gospels said many things that are not accepted (for example, about chiliasm), and they lacked critical art. Therefore, they cannot be considered suitable witnesses.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: one or another of them held certain opinions that others did not accept, and in these matters they are not witnesses to universal tradition, I concede the antecedent; they all unanimously taught something as handed down that in fact was not handed down, I deny the antecedent. Hence, I deny the inference, because the cases are not on a par. The very example of chiliasm illustrates the difference well. Justin and Irenaeus took literally certain statements about the happiness of the messianic kingdom, which they knew other Christians interpreted allegorically. Thus, they themselves testify that others thought differently, and in fact very many Fathers reject all chiliasm (cf. Praelect. dogm. IX, n. 695 sqq). But with regard to the genuineness of the Gospels, all the witnesses are in unanimous agreement.

The claim about critical art is conceded insofar as the Fathers did not possess a scientifically developed critical art. But it is entirely false that they lacked sound natural critical sense and blindly accepted everything recounted about Jesus Christ. Many more Gospels were rejected as spurious in that age than were accepted as genuine. When Serapion (bishop of Antioch, 190–211) heard that in the church of Rhossus in Cilicia another Gospel besides our four was being read under the name of Peter, he wrote to those faithful: «We, brothers, receive both Peter and the other apostles just as we receive Christ himself. But those that falsely bear their names inscribed upon them we reject, as people who know and understand, since we have learned that our ancestors did not receive them at all» (Eusebius, H. E. 6, 12). Likewise, Tertullian recounts that in Asia a presbyter who had composed a false writing was convicted and deposed (De bapt. 17). The use of criticism can also be seen in the Muratorian Fragment and other documents.

115. Objection II. The greatest and most singular men are usually celebrated after death by mythical or legendary narratives. Therefore, it must be presumed that not everything recounted about Jesus Christ is genuine.

I answer. The whole premise can be conceded, and yet it does not follow rightly that our Gospels are mythical writings. Apocryphal Gospels existed from the second century onward, some heretical, others serving only pious curiosity. St. Irenaeus says: Heretics «bring forward an unspeakable multitude of apocryphal and spurious [adulterated] writings, which they themselves have fabricated, to amaze the foolish» (Contra haer. 1, 20, 1 sq). Hegesippus, in a work published after the year 160, «writes that some of the books called apocryphal were composed in his own time by certain heretics» (Eusebius, H. E. 4, 22). Origen says: «So that you may know that not only four Gospels but many more were written, from among which these that we have were chosen and handed down to the churches, let us learn this from Luke's own prologue… The Church has four Gospels; heresies have many… Only four Gospels have been approved… In all these matters we approve nothing else than that the Church, that is, only four Gospels, are to be received» (Hom. 1 in Luc.). The principal rule for distinguishing genuine Gospels from apocryphal ones was apostolic tradition and, in this sense, the authority of the Church, as St. Augustine expresses very briefly in these words: «I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me» (Contra epist. fundam. c. 5; M 42, 176). Eusebius, speaking of apocryphal books, says: «No one who taught in the Church through the continuous succession from the apostles ever deigned to mention these books in his writings» as historical or theological sources (H. E. 3, 25).

Therefore, if fabulous accounts about Jesus Christ necessarily arose, they exist in the apocryphal books; and if critical art was necessary to distinguish genuine books from spurious ones, the Church exercised it in rejecting the apocrypha. All fair-minded people now concede that the Church's judgment was sound, and no one contends that apocryphal books can in any way be compared with the genuine Gospels.

116. Objection III. If the four Gospels are so certainly genuine, why have so many learned men denied or called their genuineness into doubt?

I answer. Because those learned men denied a priori the possibility of truly supernatural events. But no one who acknowledges the Gospels as genuine can consistently deny supernatural events.

Formerly, some did indeed try to explain naturally all the events recounted in the Gospels; among them Gottlob Paulus easily carried off the palm (Exegetisches Handbuch 1830). His “natural” explanation is so violent that it was received with laughter by everyone, including rationalists.

David Friedrich Strauss ridicules that explanation (Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet I³ 24 sqq 41 sq), and himself resorts to the theory of myths. But since myths arise only after some time, they exerted every effort to show that the Gospels did not appear until around the middle of the second century and were certain pious frauds. The “Tübingen school,” headed by Ferdinand Christian Baur (Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien 1847), stands out especially in this matter. But its theories so clearly conflict with historical facts that they have been abandoned by everyone (cf. Cornely, Introd. I, 743 sqq; La science catholique, Arras 1894, 906 sqq). Others then devised other theories, but the matter has come to this: it is almost a war of all against all. Because they refuse to hear historical witnesses and instead set up their prejudices as principles, they do not reach agreement, and their disagreement shows a sure sign of error. Adolf Harnack found another escape; for in his books Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, Lukas der Arzt, and others, he in many respects returns to the old tradition and wants the origin of the Synoptic Gospels and other books and institutions of early Christianity to be sought in Jerusalem between the years 40 and 70, and thus the events recounted to be admitted; but he says that the Evangelists' judgments and explanations of these events cannot be accepted by us, since the Evangelists were superstitious men and hunters of miracles.

Thus one returns to a natural explanation, but one that is less crude and artfully concealed. The terror of the supernatural order that occupies these men's minds is not a trustworthy guide to finding the truth (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, 75 115).

ARTICLE II.

ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS.

Cf. Cornely, Introd. I² 307 sqq; critical edition of the New Testament by Westcott-Hort 1882 and thereafter; Tischendorf⁸, 1869, with Prolegomena edited by Gregory 1864–1890, and his Textkritik des N. T. 1900–1902; H. v. Soden, Die Schriften des N. T. I, 1902.

Proposition XI. The Gospels have come down to us substantially intact.

117. Position of the question. The integrity of a book is the same as its freedom from corruption. A book is intact when nothing written by its author is missing, nothing not written by him has been added, and no words or sentences have been changed. Integrity is either substantial or accidental. This distinction does not apply in the same way to poetic or rhetorical books as to historical or doctrinal books. The force and dignity of a poetic or rhetorical book may depend so much on its external form of expression that, if this is lost, the book is substantially corrupted. But if a book is being evaluated as a historical or doctrinal source, a mere change of form that does not affect the matter itself leaves the book substantially untouched, so that in this respect it remains intact, even if only a faithful translation survives. Likewise, if parts of a work have been lost, the surviving parts can nevertheless be intact in the sense that they contain what the author wrote from the beginning and are free from falsification.

The Evangelists' autographs perished in the first centuries; the question, therefore, concerns only copies. From the time the art of printing was invented, an intact text could be preserved without great difficulty. The difficulty was greater as long as manuscripts had to be copied by hand. Hence the chief question is whether the text remained intact in manuscript codices. This can be judged more easily the more codices there are from various parts of the world and the farther back in antiquity they reach. Other aids to textual criticism are translations of the Gospels into other languages, especially if they are very old, and then quotations from the Gospels by the Fathers and later writers. All these, when compared with one another, make it possible to know what the primitive text was. For it is impossible for the same corruptions to have crept into all copies, all translations, and all quotations throughout the world. Therefore, what is found everywhere certainly remained intact. Where there are variant readings, however, one must discern according to the rules of criticism which readings are certainly or probably genuine, and which are certainly or probably false or doubtful. The integrity of the Gospels must therefore be established in the same way as that of other ancient books; but the Gospels surpass all other ancient books in the number and antiquity of their codices. Critical investigations, too, have often been made with great care, variant readings have been collected, and critical editions have been made by comparing them, so that we can judge this matter with certainty.

We therefore say that, although there is an immense number of variant readings (they are counted up to 120,000 in the entire New Testament), the text has remained substantially intact with regard to the facts and doctrine of Christ treated in this work. Most variant readings are obvious slips of the pen; others concern only spelling, grammatical forms, the omission or position of an article, word order, and other details that do not change the meaning. Westcott and Hort judge that, if one considers the sense, scarcely a thousandth part of the New Testament is uncertain (The New Testament, introd. p. 2). There are only four passages in the Gospels that are at issue with regard to the matter itself in textual criticism: Lc 22, 43 sq, where Christ's bloody sweat is discussed; Io 5, 4, about the angel descending into the pool; and Io 8, 1–11, about the woman caught in adultery. These three texts are not necessary for the apologetic treatise. The fourth passage is the end of Mark's Gospel (16, 9 sqq), which some maintain was added by another hand. This text is indeed of some importance in apologetics; nevertheless, what it says is also said in other certainly genuine passages of the Gospels. Moreover, even if those verses were added by someone else, they were written in the age of the apostles (some attribute them to Aristion or another disciple of the apostles) and are already cited by writers of the second century.

With these points premised, let us examine the reasons why the Gospels must be said to be substantially intact.

118. Argument. Those books are to be called intact whose integrity is proved by a great number of witnesses and was from the beginning the object of special care by those who had an interest in preserving them intact. This is true of the Gospels. Therefore, the Gospels must be said to be intact.

Proof of the minor premise. a) More than three thousand codices are known, some containing the whole New Testament, others only parts or fragments. The oldest are those written in uncial letters; of these, about 114 are older than the tenth century, and four are assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries: the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain complete Gospels. In the Alexandrinus nearly all of Matthew's Gospel is missing, and a few passages of John are missing. The sixth-century Codex Bezae contains nearly all the Gospels; critics consider it to exhibit the form of the text that was in use in most of the Church in the third century. The ninth-century Codex Sangallensis contains all the Gospels and is very close to Codex Bezae. Other Gospel codices are the Laudianus of the sixth or seventh century, the Rossanensis of the sixth century, the Basileensis of the eighth century, the Harleianus and Hamburgensis of the ninth or tenth century, and the Cyprius of the ninth century. To these are added several hundred Gospel codices written in minuscule letters.

We can more easily understand what this large number of ancient codices means if we remember how inferior in number and antiquity are the codices of ancient profane authors, both Greek and Latin. For example, there is one ninth-century codex of Caesar and a few from the tenth to twelfth centuries. A large part of Tacitus's Annals survives in only one codex. Fewer than three hundred codices survive for those writers who were read most often, and all of them are much farther removed from the age of their authors than Gospel codices are from the Evangelists. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are about three hundred years removed from the Evangelists. The first complete codex of Caesar, however, is about 900 years later; that of Thucydides, 1,300 years later; and the same holds for other ancient profane historians. Only Livy's first codex (not at all complete) is separated by just 400 years. Therefore, if the integrity of profane writers is not called into question, the integrity of the Gospels must all the more be admitted.

b) Many translations of the Gospels exist in various languages, some of which, such as the Sahidic and Old Syriac, were made in the second or third century. The Latin version read in the Vulgate is an old version corrected by St. Jerome. These translations are of great help in critically judging the text, and a certain conclusion drawn from comparing them is once again the substantial integrity of the Gospels.

c) Finally, in the works of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries, so many extracts or quotations from the Gospels are found that the Gospels can almost be reconstructed from them. Let us also recall that public reading of the Gospels at Christian gatherings, already attested by Justin, was always in use. As a result, the faithful often had accurate knowledge of them and could immediately notice any corruption. St. Augustine relates that great commotion arose among the people because a certain bishop had read Jerome's new translation in church (Epist. 71, n. 5). The way in which the holy Fathers cite the Gospels also makes it clear that they often quote them from memory, rather than copying from books. The Gospels began to be cited soon after they appeared, and in this they differ from profane authors; for example, Herodotus is first mentioned by Aristotle a hundred years after his death, and next by Cicero, that is, after four hundred years. Thucydides is first cited by Cicero, that is, more than three hundred years later. The same holds for other writers.

d) We do not therefore deny that corruptions of the text occurred already in the first centuries (cf. Cornely, Introd. I, n. 111); but, as is clear from critical editions, such corruptions are of a kind that not even one important fact in Christ's life or any of his doctrine is called into doubt in the Gospels. Moreover, the bishops watched with the greatest care to prevent corruptions from spreading further, especially if they had been made with heretical intent. For example, they fought so vigorously against Marcion's adulteration of Luke's Gospel that Marcion's work disappeared entirely. St. Irenaeus already protests that the Valentinians had inverted the order of words in Mt 11, 27 (Contra haer. 4, 6), and appeals to “accurate and ancient copies” (ibid. 5, 30). This and similar facts show how difficult it was to change even one sentence without others noticing and resisting. Certain men, such as Hesychius and Lucian, and especially St. Jerome, also devoted special effort to restoring the sacred text to its integrity, even in accidental details; many learned men in the following centuries, down to our own time, undertook the same labor. One fruit of their labors is that we know with certainty that the Gospels have come down to us substantially intact through the course of the centuries. No one denies this except those unbelievers who, while attacking the truth of the Christian religion for entirely different reasons, are wholly unfamiliar with New Testament criticism.

119. Objection I. Even with all the aids of criticism employed, we arrive at most, perhaps, at the form of the Gospels that was in use in the second century. But before that time many things not written by the Evangelists could have crept into the Gospels. Therefore, the integrity of the Gospels is not established.

I answer. I concede the major premise. As to the minor premise, the following must be said:

a) Corruptions are not to be asserted or supposed without cause, but must be proved. No such proofs have been brought forward thus far; indeed, they are excluded, because it is wholly improbable that all Christians silently allowed the principal books of the Christian religion to be corrupted in this way.

b) It cannot be understood how such corruptions could have penetrated all codices everywhere so completely that no trace of the ancient text remained anywhere in the world. In fact, nothing has ever been heard about a text of the Gospels substantially different from ours, although the holy Fathers began in the second century to speak against accidental corruptions. The uniformity of the Gospel text from the end of the second century onward cannot be explained if a substantially different text had previously been read in the Church. Since there is no mention or suspicion of a different text even among the earliest Fathers, no such text existed. What was said above (n. 112 sq) about the internal criteria of genuineness also excludes a later substantial change that would not immediately have revealed itself as such.

120. Objection II. The Gospels recount the institution by Christ of the Church, the sacraments, and other things. But these things were not instituted by Christ; they arose gradually later. Therefore, those accounts are a corruption of the primitive Gospels.

I answer. I distinguish the minor premise: this is the theory of the Modernists (cf. Denz. n. 2015 sqq 2054 sqq 2088 2100), I concede the minor premise; this is a historical fact, I deny the minor premise. And I deny the inference.

ARTICLE III.

ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPELS.

Cf. H. Wallon, De la croyance due à l'évangile², Paris 1866; H. Boese, Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Evangelien, Freiburg 1895; F. Vigouroux, Les Livres Saints IV, l. 5, who demonstrates the truthfulness of each Evangelist.

Proposition XII. The writers of the Gospels are worthy of belief.

121. Position of the question. Since the Gospels are genuine and substantially intact, one thing more is required for them to be sources of historical faith: their authors must be such people as we can safely trust. We must trust those who can and wish to tell the truth. Therefore, it must be demonstrated that the Evangelists are such witnesses.

Those who say that the Gospels were written with a desire to deceive, such as Reimarus, Ferdinand Christian Baur, and others, rather deny their genuineness and say that the Gospels were composed in the second century and falsely attributed to the Evangelists. The Modernists are not far from this position, such as Loisy (Les évangiles synoptiques), who assert that the Gospels already contain many things reported by the very writers themselves that do not agree with Christ's doctrine, and that until the canon was definitively established the Gospels were subject to continual changes, so that what appears in them is no longer “the Christ of history” but “the Christ of faith,” very different from the historical Christ (cf. Denz. n. 2013 sqq 2096). Several writers have written against these theories, such as M. Lepin (Les théories de M. Loisy, Paris 1908). The Modernists call into question the genuineness, integrity, or credibility of the Gospels, relying not on historical reasons but on a priori hypotheses that they want to treat as postulates of critical art. Having proved the genuineness and integrity of the Gospels, we ask here only whether their authors could and wished to tell the truth.

122. Argument. The writers of the Gospels are worthy of belief if they could and wished to tell the truth. But they could and wished to tell the truth. Therefore.

Proof of the minor premise. a) The Evangelists either expressly affirm or tacitly presuppose that they report true historical facts. St. Luke says: «It seemed good to me also, having followed everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth of the things about which you have been instructed» (1, 3 sq). St. John says: «Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ» (20, 30 sq). And at the end of the Gospel: «This is the disciple who bears witness to these things and wrote them, and we know that his testimony is true» (21, 24; cf. 19, 35 and 1 Io 1, 1 sqq). Matthew and Mark, too, write as people who report historical facts and wish to teach human beings what they should know or believe about Christ's deeds and words. In this way, and no other, not as fictional narratives, the Church received and understood their writings from the beginning and throughout all the following centuries, and held them as the rule of faith and morals.

b) The Evangelists were able to tell the truth about the things they recounted. For, according to what we heard above (n. 108), Matthew and John were disciples of the Lord; Mark wrote the Gospel that Peter preached; and Luke followed immediate witnesses in addition to Paul's preaching. For the most part, the things they recount took place publicly before many people, and these were not savage and uncultivated people but Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Nearly all the things recounted are such that any person endowed with sound senses could have seen or heard them. If certain things are exceptions, such as those recounted about Christ's infancy, these could have been learned from trustworthy people. For the rest, these matters are of less importance in an apologetic treatise. Many miracles, too, were sensible events that could easily be perceived: for example, when a man born blind or other sick people were suddenly cured, when five thousand people were fed with five loaves, when water was changed into wine, and when Christ walked on the water. Christ's teaching, too, was presented to the whole people, not to learned and select men. The Evangelists could therefore rightly receive and report this teaching, even if perhaps they did not immediately penetrate its full force. The matters were indeed sublime, but their form was simple. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that the Evangelists were deceived in recounting Christ's deeds and teaching.

c) Nor could the Evangelists deceive. For many witnesses to the things they recount were present. Jesus himself said to Annas: «I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I spoke to them; behold, they know what I said» (Io 18, 20 sq). St. Peter said to the Jews: «Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you through mighty works, wonders, and signs that God performed through him in your midst, as you yourselves know, him… you killed» (Act 2, 22 sq). And St. Paul said to Festus: «The king [Agrippa] knows about these things… for I do not believe that any of these things is hidden from him, since none of them was done in a corner» (Act 26, 26). Since so many witnesses were still alive when the Gospels were written, they would not have been silent if the Evangelists had recounted falsehoods. For the rest, what can be gathered from the Acts of the Apostles and other writings of the New Testament about Christ's life and teaching agrees with the Gospels. It would be irrational to suppose that all those writers were deceived or deceivers, and that none of them detected the deception.

Nor could the Evangelists have invented a doctrine so alien to the ideas of the people of that age and imagined a man so outstanding in word and deed and at the same time so different from those who were then held in reverence by the common people. The life and teaching of Jesus Christ is a miracle of the moral order; if it had not occurred, the Evangelists themselves would have performed a miracle by inventing something the like of which had never existed in the world, either before or since. If Christ's life and teaching were invented by idle men, never was there a more wondrous fraud, nor one carried out with more successful results. For a most noble doctrine, the firmest faith, the outstanding virtues of Christians, the overthrow of pagan religion, intimately bound up with ancestral customs, and the propagation and firmness of the Christian religion, victorious over so many attacks and persecutions down to our own time—in short, the perfect transformation of the whole moral and social order—would have been brought about by the fiction of certain unlearned men. Anyone who admits this is endowed with far greater credulity than the Christian faith requires.

d) The Evangelists lacked a motive for deceiving. No one is to be presumed a liar without cause; rather, this must be proved. But not only is the fraudulent intention of the Evangelists unproved; it is rather excluded. For preaching Christ was a matter full of danger in those times. Prisons, punishments, and death were prepared for Christ's disciples, both by Jews and by Gentiles, and especially for the preachers of his doctrine (cf. Act 4, 1 sqq; 5, 17 sqq; 6, 1 sqq; 12, 1 sqq; 16, 19 sqq). Therefore, neither hope of temporal gain, nor of honor, nor of people's favor, nor anything similar could have moved the Evangelists to deceive people with false accounts. At the same time, by their fraud they would have deserved the gravest punishments from God. What St. Paul says about himself applies to all of them: if the doctrine we preach is false, «our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain; we are also found to be false witnesses of God… If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are the most pitiable of all people… Why are we also in danger every hour? If I fought with beasts at Ephesus in a human way, what does it profit me?… Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die» (1 Cor 15, 14 sq 19 30 32). But because the apostles and their disciples were so firmly persuaded of the truth of the things they preached, they gladly underwent disgrace, suffering, and death for Christ. Deceivers do not act in this way.

e) Finally, the manner of narration shows that they were truthful men. For it is simple and free from all artifice. They write against the evil desires of human beings and demand contempt for the world and self-denial. They do not conceal what is a disgrace to themselves, their teachers, or the cause they commend: Matthew's occupation, detestable to the Jews; the apostles' imperfections; Judas's betrayal; Peter's denial; the flight of all the disciples; everything disgraceful that Christ suffered; the rejection of the people of Israel; and the future destruction of the city of Jerusalem. They recount even the things that are most wondrous or dreadful calmly, without emotional agitation, and without rhetorical declamation. Compare the manner in which Flavius Josephus speaks about the Jews with the manner in which the Evangelists speak; the great difference between an advocate and a sincere narrator of the truth will immediately appear.

Therefore, it is certain that the Evangelists both could and wished to tell the truth, and that the Gospel narratives are worthy of belief.

123. Objection I. Those writers are not worthy of belief who recount the same things in different ways. But the Evangelists narrate the same things in such a way that their accounts cannot be reconciled with one another. Therefore, they are not worthy of belief.

I answer. Since for the present the question is not about the Evangelists as inspired writers but simply as historians, I distinguish the major premise: writers are not worthy of belief, at least not all of them, if they recount the same things in such different ways that the facts and teaching turn out to be substantially different, I concede the major premise; they are not worthy of belief if they differ only in minute and accidental details that do not affect the substance of the matter, I deny the major premise. It scarcely ever, or perhaps never, happens that various writers recounting many particular details report everything in precisely the same way down to the smallest point, because each person has his own manner of conceiving things and expressing what he conceives, and because people who see the same event or hear the same words usually all perceive the substance of the matter, while one attends more to this accidental detail and another to that. Nevertheless, prudent people do not for this reason call their credibility into question. Indeed, if the Evangelists had wished to deceive, they would have carefully tried to avoid every appearance of disagreement with the accounts of the other Evangelists. Since they did not do so, their sincerity is all the more commended.

I distinguish the minor premise: the Evangelists disagree with one another about accidental and minor details, I grant the minor premise; about substantial and serious matters, I deny the minor premise. The different Evangelists do not recount a different life and teaching of Christ, but the same one; and even with respect to many secondary matters, apparent disagreement can be reconciled. If this cannot be done with certainty in every case, there are nevertheless at least probable solutions, and in historical questions this is often all that can prudently be required.

124. Objection II. At least John's Gospel differs so much from the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus Christ seems to be quite different in the fourth Gospel from the one in the first three. Therefore, at least the fourth Gospel does not seem to be a trustworthy historical source.

I answer. Since John presupposed different readers and wrote for a different purpose than the Synoptics, there is nothing surprising in his choosing different material and using a different style of speaking. For John, writing near the end of the first century for people who had already been Christians for a long time, warns them against the errors of certain heretics who denied Christ's divinity, as appears from John's first epistle and the testimonies of the Fathers: Irenaeus (Contra haer. 3, 11), Epiphanius (Haer. 51, 12; 69, 23), and Jerome (De vir. ill. 9). For this purpose John chose, unlike the Synoptics, not what Jesus said in Galilee to the common people, but what he disputed in Judea against the teachers of the law. It is understandable why Jesus would speak differently to the learned and the unlearned. The same difference is also apparent in the Synoptics when Christ speaks to the Pharisees (cf. Mt 12, 24 sqq; 15, 1 sqq; Mc 7, 1 sqq; 11, 27 sqq). Likewise, in John Christ speaks differently with Nicodemus than with the Samaritan woman (Io 3, 1 sqq; 4, 5 sqq). What rationalists have often said—that Christ's divinity is preached in John, whereas in the Synoptics Christ is nothing more than an outstanding human being—is manifestly false; even the rationalists themselves increasingly concede that the Christ of the Synoptics is a divine being (cf. Knabenbauer, Commentar. in Ioan.² 33 sqq).

How could St. John remember such long speeches of Christ as the ones he recounts? The answer is that St. John could retain in his memory the things contained in those speeches, because they were very important matters that Jesus impressed very strongly, so that they were firmly imprinted on the disciple's memory. But even if John faithfully reports Christ's meaning, the form and construction of the words are his own, as he renders in Greek what he had heard in Aramaic. Therefore, he does not always present Christ's words verbatim, although without doubt the Evangelist often also translated the Lord's very words exactly into Greek (cf. Knabenbauer, l. c. 54 sq).

As for the individual questions about reconciling John's Gospel with the Synoptic Gospels, see the Introductions to Sacred Scripture and the commentaries. However the individual questions are resolved, the life and teaching of Christ remain substantially the same, and that is entirely sufficient for us in this treatise.

125. Scholium. Testimonies of certain ancient non-Christian writers.

In the earliest times, the Christian religion had relatively few and obscure adherents, about whom outside writers took no notice. But as their number gradually grew and the new worship became an object partly of wonder, partly of hatred and persecution, writers who were not Christians also began to speak about it. Let us hear at least some of what they said.

The Jew Flavius Josephus (d. after 93) writes: «At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a worker of wonderful deeds, a teacher of people who gladly receive the truth, and he drew many Jews and many Gentiles to himself. He was the Christ. When Pilate, on the accusation of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the punishment of the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and a thousand other wondrous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, named after him, continues to this day» (Antiq. 18, 3, 3). There is no manuscript of Josephus in which these words are absent; all the ancient translations repeat them, and ancient writers, such as Eusebius (H. E. 1, 11), cite them. Therefore, the external criteria support their genuineness. It is objected that Josephus could not have spoken in this way. But this is asserted without reason (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 138). There are also testimonies by Josephus about John the Baptist and James, the brother of the Lord (Kirch, Enchir. n. 6 sq).

T​​acitus (d. 119) says of Nero: «To suppress the rumor [that he was said to be the author of the fire that occurred in A.D. 64], Nero substituted defendants and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on those hated for their shameful acts, whom the common people called Christians. The author of that name, Christ, had been executed during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, suppressed for the moment, was breaking out again, not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city, where all things atrocious or shameful from everywhere flow together and are celebrated» (Annal. 15, 44).

Pliny the Younger (d. 113), after conducting a judicial inquiry into Christians, writes to the emperor Trajan: «They affirmed that this was the sum either of their fault or their error: that on a fixed day they were accustomed to assemble before dawn and sing a hymn to Christ as if to a god, responsively, and to bind themselves by an oath not to commit any crime, but not to commit thefts, robberies, or adulteries, not to break faith, and not to deny a deposit when called upon to return it. When these things were done, it was their custom to depart and then gather again to take food, which was ordinary and harmless» (Epist. l. 10, ep. 96). Trajan's response is found in Kirch (Enchir. n. 25), where sayings of the emperor Hadrian (nn. 30 32 45 52) and of Suetonius (n. 33 sq) are also included. Cf. Wilmers, De religione revelata 319 sqq.

When the Christian religion had spread more widely, pagan writers began to publish larger works against it: Celsus in the second century, Porphyry and Hierocles in the third, and finally Proclus in the fifth (cf. Epiphanius, Haer. 51, 8).

Thus, the attitude of pagan writers toward the Christian religion was more or less what one would expect a priori³.

Cf. Ottiger, Theologia fundam. I, 526 ff., 629 ff., and the other apologetic treatises already mentioned; F. M. Lagrange, Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, Paris 1909; M. Meinertz, Jesus und die Heidenmission, Münster 1909; A. Seitz, Das Evangelium vom Gottessohn, Freiburg 1908, who reviews the various opinions of rationalists, who deny that Jesus was God, the Messiah, a teacher, or even existed at all.

Proposition XIII. Jesus Christ said that he was a divine envoy, and this testimony of his is worthy of faith.

126. Position of the question. Having established the authenticity, integrity, and credibility of the Gospels, we ask who and what sort of person Jesus was according to these sources. According to Catholic doctrine, already clearly transmitted in the Gospels, he is God incarnate. For the present, however, we set aside his divinity and consider only the dignity that he himself very often emphasizes: namely, that of a divine envoy, sent to human beings to teach them the right order toward God. Just as many deny Jesus’ divinity, so certain rationalists deny that Christ was, or wanted to be regarded as, a divine envoy. Most, however, concede this.

Long before the time of Jesus, the Jews were expecting a certain distinguished divine envoy, who was given the name Messiah, which is rendered ὁ Χριστός, or “Anointed One” (Dn 9, 25 sq.; cf. Is 61, 1). In the Old Testament, kings, priests, and prophets were called “anointed.” Here we consider only the office of prophet, or divine envoy. The Jews, then, were expecting the Messiah, τὸν Χριστόν, or τὸν προφήτην. Herod asks the priests and scribes “where ὁ Χριστός was to be born” (Mt 2, 4). Simeon had received from God the promise that “he would not see death unless he had first seen τὸν Χριστὸν Κυρίου” (Lc 2, 25 sq.). John the Baptist says of himself, “I am not ὁ Χριστός” (Io 1, 20). Andrew says, “We have found the Messiah” (Io 1, 41). The Jews exclaim, “This is truly ὁ προφήτης who is to come into the world” (6, 14). These and many other things show the expectation of a future divine envoy of an entirely unique kind.

We shall therefore show first that Christ said he was this divine envoy, and that this testimony he gave about himself is worthy of faith. We are not yet speaking of divine faith, but of human certainty.

127. Argument. Christ is a divine envoy if he said that he was a divine envoy and if his testimony is worthy of faith. But both conditions obtain. Therefore, he is.

Proof of the minor, part I. a) Christ said that he was the Messiah whom the Jews were expecting. To the question, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another?” he answers, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, the poor are evangelized” (Mt 11, 4 sq.). These are the words of Isaiah’s prophecy about the future Messiah (Is 35, 5 sq.; 61, 1). To the Samaritan woman who says, “I know that the Messiah is coming,” he answers, “I am he, the one speaking with you” (Io 4, 25 sq.). He declares Peter blessed because he has recognized him as τὸν Χριστόν (Mt 16, 17). To the high priest who adjures him, “Tell us whether you are ὁ Χριστός,” he answers, “You have said it,” and “I am” (Mt 26, 64; Mc 14, 62). He repeats the same thing in many other places (cf. Mt 22, 42; 23, 10; Mc 9, 40; Lc 24, 26, 46; Io 17, 3)¹.

b) Christ often said that he was sent by God (Mt 10, 40; 15, 24; Lc 4, 43; Io 4, 34; 5, 24, 36; 6, 39, 44; 17, 18). He was sent to preach and teach (Mc 1, 21 sq., 38 sq.; Lc 4, 31 sq., 43). He taught “a new doctrine” (Mc 1, 27; 4, 2; 6, 2), “as one having authority” (Mt 7, 29). Of this doctrine he said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me” (Io 7, 16). “He who sent me is true, and what I heard from him, these things I speak in the world” (Io 8, 26). “I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what I should say and what I should speak” (Io 12, 49). He alone is the teacher of all (Mt 23, 10). Whoever does not hear him rejects the God who sent him (Lc 10, 16) and is liable to condemnation (Io 3, 18; Mt 10, 15; Mc 16, 16). Those who heard him rightly said of him, “Never has anyone spoken as this man speaks” (Io 7, 46).

From these things it is clear that Christ presented himself as an envoy sent by God for this purpose: to hand on to human beings a doctrine divinely revealed.

128. Proof of the minor, part II. Christ’s testimony about himself is true. Christ is either a divine envoy, a deceiver, or deceived. But he is neither a deceiver nor deceived. Therefore, he is a divine envoy.

a) Christ is not a deceiver. Whoever says he is a divine envoy, while knowing that he is not, commits a grave crime, especially if he leads many people astray; if not only in private but also in public, indeed before a judge, adjured in God’s name, he asserts his error and persists in it until death. But Christ is not a most wicked criminal; rather, he is a man distinguished by the holiest conduct, who confidently asked his adversaries, “Which of you will convict me of sin?” (Io 8, 46); whose whole life is so perfect an example of virtue as none other than he has ever been in the world; “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb 7, 26); “who committed no sin, and in whose mouth no deceit was found” (1 Petr 2, 22). The Jews indeed accused him as deserving death because he had called himself the Messiah and the Son of God, but the judge replied, “I find no cause in this man for the charges you bring against him” (Lc 23, 14), and “I am innocent of the blood of this just man” (Mt 27, 24).

But a man could not have been so holy and at the same time a most wicked impostor. Christ’s holiness is the effect of a wholly unique and miraculous divine providence, by which God could not have distinguished a man who wickedly pretended to be a divine envoy.

b) Christ was not deceived. A person who seriously and consistently proclaims himself an envoy of God, whose doctrine all must accept under penalty of eternal damnation, is insane if he is in fact not a divine envoy. But Christ was certainly not a man of unsound mind; he was most wise, as his most excellent doctrine shows, and most unbelievers concede this as well. Anyone who thinks that a deranged man could have led so exemplary a life, taught doctrine so holy and so suited to the condition of all human beings, and brought about so great a religious and moral renewal as Christ did—such a person is plainly deranged himself.

If Christ is compared with the outstanding teachers who arose among the pagans, with Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, a great difference immediately appears. They only try to discover the truth, admit their many forms of ignorance, despair of correcting vices and errors, themselves fell into errors and vices, could persuade only a few disciples of their doctrine, and their schools perished. Christ, however, spoke with absolute authority, certainty, truth, confidence, and simplicity. His doctrine is suited to everyone, even “little ones,” and yet so lofty that even the most gifted cannot exhaust it. His kingdom, that is, the Church, still stands, flourishes, and triumphs, producing men remarkable for talent and holiness. For not only did Christ’s own life perfectly agree with his holy doctrine, but he always had, and still has, many faithful followers who imitate the holiness of his life. Such are not the fruits of dreams produced by an unsound mind.

Nor can the matter be explained by Christ’s fanaticism or enthusiasm. First of all, Christ acts and speaks so calmly and prudently in every respect that it is scarcely possible to conceive of anyone more alien to fanatical frenzy. No signs of morbid agitation appear in him, no desire to rule, no trace of an arrogant spirit. His enemies, to be sure, object, “He has a demon and is mad.” But others immediately answered that his words “are not those of one who has a demon” (Io 10, 20 sq.). Moreover, enthusiasm may accomplish something for a short time, but violent impulses do not last; as the frenzy cools, they collapse. Christ himself, however, calmly persevered in completing his work until death, and his work has endured with the greatest stability up to our own times. Empty enthusiasm does not produce such things.

Therefore, since Christ was neither a deceiver nor deceived, he truly was an envoy of God.

129. Objection I. Jesus did not teach any theoretical propositions that all were bound to accept; he only showed people the practical way to worship God rightly. Therefore, he was not a divine envoy in the sense of having proposed some revealed doctrine.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Jesus did not teach people with the aim that they stop at bare knowledge, but rather that they order their lives according to his doctrine, I concede the antecedent; he did not teach any theoretical truths that were the foundation of Christian life and religion, I deny the antecedent. For example, he taught that he is the Father’s Only-Begotten Son, that he alone knows the Father, and therefore that he can reveal the Father to others (Mt 11, 27). He said that he had come to give his life as a λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν (Mc 10, 45), that he is the Lord of David (Mc 12, 35 ff.), and that he will come in the clouds of heaven to judge all people (Mc 13, 26 sq.). Jesus taught many other dogmas as well, as we shall see in the course of dogmatic theology. Christ as a pure, undogmatic moralist is not the true Christ, but a fiction of unbelief.

130. Objection II. Jesus Christ had no doctrine of his own other than that God is our Father and we are children of the heavenly Father. The rest was taken from Judaism and passed into Christian doctrine either through Jesus’ own accommodation to the religious opinions of his contemporaries or through the application of those opinions to Jesus by his disciples.

I answer. I deny the assertion. For the principal dogmas of the Christian religion, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption, were not taught among the Jews in Christ’s time. Christ abrogated the whole Mosaic law and instituted a new religious society, which the Jews, from the very beginning, pursued with the greatest hatred as opposed to them. Far from accommodating himself to the prejudices of the Jews, Jesus opposed them throughout his public life. As for the religious doctrines revealed before Christ, Jesus certainly acknowledged them and also proposed them to his disciples as things to be believed, because what is true and revealed by God can never become untrue. The principal object of Christian faith is Christ himself, according to what he revealed about himself. “God so loved the world that he gave his Only-Begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him should not perish but have eternal life… Whoever believes in him is not judged, but whoever does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the Only-Begotten Son of God” (Io 3, 16, 18). This matter is most insistently emphasized in the First Epistle of John.

131. Objection III. Christ did certain things that are unbecoming for a divine envoy, such as when he became angry, drove the sellers from the Temple, sent the demons into the swine, cursed the fig tree, and the like (Mc 3, 5; Mt 21, 12 ff.; 8, 30 sq.; Mc 11, 12 ff.). Therefore, his holiness of life was not so great that anything can be proved from it.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. Christ became angry and did other things in accordance with the judgment of right reason. There is a good anger by which one becomes angry at offenses against God, as Christ became angry because people had made God’s house a den of robbers. He allowed the swine to be beset by demons so that, by this manifestation of his power, he might teach the people of that region who he was and from what dreadful servitude he wished to free them. If this miracle had been morally evil, God would not have performed it. The same holds for the fig tree: by its miraculous withering Christ showed the Jews their future fate if they remained a bad and fruitless tree (cf. Lc 13, 6 ff.). If Jesus had allowed himself to be carried away by immoderate agitation, he could not have said to people so confidently, “Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Mt 11, 29).

132. Objection IV. There were also false prophets who called themselves envoys of God and performed great works, such as Mohammed. Therefore, nothing can be concluded from Christ’s testimony and works about the truth of his divine mission.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: There were false prophets who can be recognized as false prophets from their works, I concede the antecedent; there were false prophets whose holiness and works can be compared with Christ’s holiness and work, I deny the antecedent.

It is an insult to Christ to compare him with Mohammed. For Mohammed was a sensual man, who practiced polygamy himself and permitted it to others, and promised his followers a paradise of pleasure; he was also a violent man, who taught that his religion should be propagated by force of arms. The Arabs, stirred up by him to fanaticism, did indeed subjugate many regions and for a time produced a certain outward culture; but the worst corruption of morals and the destruction of civilized life followed Mohammedanism everywhere. Just as Christ’s work proves his divine origin, Mohammed’s work proves quite the contrary.

Proposition XIV. Jesus Christ taught that his entire doctrine must necessarily be embraced by all people.

133. Position of the question. Since Jesus is a divine envoy, we ask whether he was sent only to the people of Israel, like most of the prophets of the Old Testament, or whether his revelation pertains to all people. As for his own preaching, he explicitly said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 15, 24). And although he sometimes preached to the Samaritans (Io 4, 40 sq.) and did not refuse contact with Gentiles (Mt 4, 23; 8, 5 ff., 28 ff.; 15, 21 ff.; Io 12, 20 ff.), nevertheless almost his entire ministry was devoted to the people of Israel (cf. S. Thomas 3, q. 42, a. 1).

But since Jesus also sent his disciples to preach the doctrine, we ask whether he wanted these disciples to preach only to Israelites or to teach other peoples as well at some point.

Certain rationalists, such as A. Harnack (Die Mission und die Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten², Leipzig 1906, 33), deny that Christ ever thought of evangelizing the Gentiles. The Modernists agree; this is their opinion: “Christ did not teach a fixed body of doctrine applicable to all times and all people, but rather initiated a certain religious movement, adapted or to be adapted to different times and places” (Denz. n. 2059). M. Meinertz wrote the already-cited book Jesus und die Heidenmission against Harnack.

We therefore establish as a certain and evident fact that Jesus wanted his Gospel to be preached to all people at some point, and that all people should receive this Gospel.

134. Argument. Christ foretold that the doctrine he had revealed would be preached to all nations, and gave his disciples the command to preach this doctrine throughout the whole world. Therefore, he wanted this doctrine to be accepted by all to whom the preaching would come.

Proof of the antecedent. a) Christ foretold that his doctrine would be preached to all people. “This Gospel of the kingdom [the Messianic kingdom] will be preached throughout the whole world² as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Mt 24, 14). “The Gospel must first be preached among all nations” (Mc 13, 10). “Wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world” (Mc 14, 9). “I have other sheep that are not of this fold [of Israel], and I must lead them too; they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (Io 10, 16). For this reason Christ is the light of the world (Io 8, 12; 9, 5); here “the world” means all people. Since the apostles were appointed to preach to everyone, he said to them, Ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου (Mt 5, 14). And if many Jews will reject this light, many Gentiles will receive it. “I tell you that many will come from the East and the West and recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness” (Mt 8, 11 sq.). At the last judgment Christ “will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven” (Mc 13, 27). “And all nations will be gathered before him” (Mt 25, 32).

b) For this to happen, Christ commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations after his departure from the world. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all days, until the consummation of the age” (Mt 28, 18 ff.). “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mc 16, 15 sq.). “It was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and for repentance and the forgiveness of sins to be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things” (Lc 24, 46 ff.). “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Act 1, 8).

c) The reason why the Gospel of Jesus must be preached to all nations is that “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved” (Act 4, 12). “Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles too. Since indeed there is one God, who justifies the circumcision [that is, the Jews] by faith, and the uncircumcision [that is, the Gentiles] through faith” (Rom 3, 29 sq.). “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord is Lord of all, rich toward all who call on him. For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, will they call on one in whom they have not believed? Or how will they believe in one whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom 10, 12 ff.).

These things establish that the apostles understood themselves to have been sent to preach to the Gentiles. Since they had received the command to preach first to the Jews, they remained among them until God indicated that they should now go to the Gentiles (Act 8, 4 ff.; 9, 15, 29; 10, 1 ff.; 11, 1 ff.; 13, 1 ff.; 15, 1 ff.; 16, 1 ff.). From the very beginning, Christians had no conviction other than that the Gospel should be preached to Gentiles just as to Jews. It is an irrational supposition that everyone misunderstood Christ’s will from the very beginning (cf. 1 Petr 1, 1 ff.; 2, 10, 12, 25; 4, 3 sq.). “The apostles became preachers of the Gospel to us [Gentiles] by the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, therefore, was sent by God, and the apostles by Christ; and both were done in due order according to the will of God” (Clemens. Rom., 1 Cor.* 42, 1 sq.).

d) Consequently, all people are bound by the duty of embracing the entire doctrine of Christ. For anyone to whom divine revelation is proposed with sufficient certainty as applying to and binding him is without doubt bound to follow it, because it is not permissible to refuse assent to God who speaks, and because God must be worshiped in the way he himself prescribes (cf. above, n. 49). Until someone has sufficient certainty that revelation has been made, he must inquire, because it is not permissible for a person to be indifferent about things necessary for salvation. If one who does not believe cannot be saved, religious indifferentism is harmful and detestable. A lengthy discussion of this matter may be found in Ottiger, Theologia fundam. I, 273 ff. The doctrine of religious indifferentism has often been condemned by the Church (cf. Denz. n. 1715 ff., 1789, 1810).

135. Objection I. Jesus thought that his second coming was about to take place, and wanted only that before this coming the apostles prepare the people of Israel for the kingdom of God that was soon to come. For he said, “When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Mt 10, 23). And again, “Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things happen” (Mt 24, 34). Therefore, he did not think of evangelizing the Gentiles.

I answer. I deny the antecedent. And as for the added reason: in the very context of that discourse he says to the apostles, “You will be led before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and to the nations” (Mt 10, 18). We must not suppose that by these and the other words cited above Christ so plainly contradicted himself about the calling of the Gentiles as to mean that the apostles would never leave the land of Israel. Elsewhere he says, “They will be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the nations are fulfilled” (Lc 21, 24). The apostles also understood Christ’s words in this way: “A partial blindness has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles enters, and thus all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11, 25 sq.). Therefore, in Mt 10, 23, either the words “until the Son of Man comes” are not understood of Christ’s final coming, but of his resurrection or the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, as not a few Fathers and exegetes explain; or, if this concerns Christ’s final coming, “the cities of Israel” means all cities, including those outside Palestine, in which there were Jewish communities, as others explain. In fact, we see the apostles in their apostolic missions visiting those Jewish communities, as is recounted in many places in Acts (Act 13, 5, 14; 14, 1; 17, 1 sq., 10; 18, 4, etc.).

In Mt 24, 34, “this generation” means the Jewish people, so that the sense is: The Jewish people will not be extinguished until Christ’s second coming. We see this prophecy fulfilled daily in the fact that the Jews, dispersed among other peoples, continue as a separate nation.

136. Objection II. The Apostle Paul says that the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles because the Jews were unwilling to receive the doctrine of Christ. Therefore, if the Jews had received this doctrine, the apostles would not have preached to the Gentiles. “Through their offense salvation has come to the Gentiles” (Rom 11, 11).

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: The Apostle says that because of the Jews’ unbelief the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles sooner, I concede the antecedent; he says it would not have been preached to the Gentiles at all if the Jews had believed, I deny the antecedent. “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you [Jews] first; but since you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord commanded us” (Act 13, 46 sq.).

137. Objection III. According to Christ’s doctrine, charity is what makes a person pleasing to God. Therefore, whoever believes anything will be saved, provided that he has charity.

I answer. I deny the argument’s supposition. No one can have the charity of God who does not believe the things God proposes to be believed. “Whoever does not believe is already judged” (Io 3, 18). St. John, who commends charity so highly, writes: “This is the victory that conquers the world, our faith. Who is it that conquers the world, except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 Io 5, 4 sq.).

ARTICLE I.

ON THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST.

Cf. S. Thomas, S. th. 3, q. 43 sq., with the commentaries of Suárez, De mysteriis vitae Christi disp. 31; P. Vallet, Les miracles de l'évangile, Paris 1901; L. Cl. Fillion, Les miracles de N. S. Jésus-Christ, 2 vols., Paris 1909/1910; F. Chable, Die Wunder Jesu in ihrem Zusammenhange betrachtet, Freiburg 1897; L. Fonck, Die Wunder des Herrn im Evangelium I², Innsbruck 1907, 44 ff.; E. Mangenot, La résurrection de Jésus, Paris 1910.

Proposition XV. Jesus Christ appealed to the miracles he performed in order to prove his divine mission.

138. Position of the question. Above (n. 79 ff.) we saw that divine revelation and the mission of a divine envoy can be recognized by certain criteria, among which miracles are principal. Did Jesus Christ also perform miracles for this purpose: to show that he truly was a divine envoy and that his doctrine had been divinely revealed? Many rationalists, such as Reimarus (Fragment. VII) and, in our own day, Harnack (Das Wesen des Christentums), answer that Christ attributed no, or scarcely any, force to miracles as proof of his divine mission. We say that Christ performed miracles also for the purpose of enabling people to recognize from them that he was a divine envoy.

139. Argument. Christ both said expressly that he was to be believed as a divine envoy because of the miracles he performed, and by this means led people to believe. Therefore, he wanted the miracles to be proof of his divine mission.

Proof of the antecedent. a) From the very beginning of his public life, Jesus began not only to teach but also to perform miracles (Mt 4, 23; Mc 1, 21 ff.; Lc 4, 16 ff.; Io 2, 1 ff.). When asked whether he was the Messiah promised by God, he appeals to what those questioning him had seen: “The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, the poor are evangelized” (Mt 11, 5; cf. Lc 7, 21). When the scribes refused to believe that he could forgive the paralytic’s sins, he said: “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your mat, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he says to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your mat, and go to your house.” And immediately he rose, took up his mat, and went out before everyone, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this” (Mc 2, 9 ff.). On another occasion Christ said, “If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lc 11, 20). He sent this message to Herod: “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am finished” (Lc 13, 32). Before healing the man born blind, he said that he had been born blind “so that the works of God might be manifested in him; I must do the works of him who sent me” (Io 9, 3 sq.). Before raising Lazarus, “Jesus lifted his eyes upward and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the people standing around, so that they may believe that you sent me” (Io 11, 42).

The Jews’ sin is so great precisely because, despite so many miracles, they were unwilling to believe. “The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these very works that I do testify about me, that the Father sent me” (Io 5, 36). “If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do them, even if you do not want to believe me, believe the works” (Io 10, 37 sq.). “The Father who remains in me himself does the works. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves” (Io 14, 10 ff.). “If I had not done among them the works that no one else has done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father” (Io 15, 24).

b) Since he also sent others to preach, Jesus gave his disciples the power to perform miracles as well. “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mt 10, 8). “They cast out many demons, anointed many sick people with oil, and healed them” (Mc 6, 13). “These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mc 16, 17 sq.). “Calling the twelve apostles together, he gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases, and sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick” (Lc 9, 1 sq.). “Whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do, and will do greater works than these” (Io 14, 12).

Christ’s disciples understood that miracles were performed to confirm the doctrine: “They went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word by the signs that followed” (Mc 16, 20). St. John says of the miracles, “These things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Io 20, 31). St. Paul likewise says of his miracles, “The signs of my apostleship were performed among you with all endurance, with signs and wonders and mighty deeds” (2 Cor 12, 12). “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which, having first been declared by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him, God bearing witness with signs and wonders and various mighty deeds and distributions of the Holy Spirit according to his will?” (Heb 2, 3 sq.).

Therefore the apostles and evangelists judged that Jesus performed miracles and shared miraculous power with his disciples in order to confirm divine revelation and his mission. But Christ’s immediate disciples undoubtedly understood Christ’s mind better than the unbelieving rationalists of our age. Therefore, by miracles Christ wanted to prove that he was an envoy sent by God to announce divine revelation to people.

140. Objection I. Christ rebukes those who ask for miracles. “Why does this generation seek a sign? Amen, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation” (Mc 8, 12). “Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe” (Io 4, 48). Therefore, in Christ’s view, miracles are not proof of his divine mission.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Christ rebukes those who demanded miracles from a bad or less than good disposition of mind, I concede the antecedent; Christ teaches that no miracles at all should be expected or requested, I deny the antecedent. And I deny the consequence and the inference.

We have heard Christ appeal to his miracles, and this is especially emphasized in the Gospel of John; therefore, that Gospel certainly does not teach the contrary. In Mc 8, 12 the subject is those who prescribed to Christ what kind of sign he should perform. For after the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, and after other miracles, they demand “a sign from heaven.” Christ answers that no sign of the kind they demand will be given to this faithless generation. Mark himself immediately recounts that Christ performed other signs; and in Mt 16, 4 it is added, “No sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” that is, the sign of rising from the dead (Mt 12, 39 sq.). Therefore Jesus appeals to this greatest miracle. The same is recounted in Lc 11, 29 sq.

In Io 4, 48 the disposition¹ of the Galileans is rebuked: they did not fully believe the trustworthy testimony of John the Baptist or of Christ himself without miracles (cf. Io 3, 11, 32; 10, 25; 15, 22), whereas the Samaritans had believed (Io 4, 42). Nevertheless, because some beginning of faith was present, Jesus performed the miracle requested by the royal official, who himself believed, along with his whole household (Io 4, 53).

141. Objection II. Christ forbade the miracles to be publicized (Mt 9, 30; Mc 1, 44; 5, 43). Therefore, he did not want to prove his divine mission by them.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: He sometimes forbade this for special reasons, I concede the antecedent; he forbade it always and forever, I deny the antecedent. And I deny the consequence.

Many miracles are recounted about which Jesus imposed no silence. To the man freed from a demon he said, “Return to your house and tell how much God has done for you” (Lc 8, 39; Mc 5, 19). Indeed, in general he appeals to his miracles as manifest signs. But because his teaching and miracles caused great commotion among the people, thereby stirring his adversaries to greater hatred, Jesus sought to restrain that commotion, especially when people thought that their false ideas about the Messianic age were about to be fulfilled. “And he charged them not to make him known, so that what had been spoken through Isaiah the prophet [42, 1] might be fulfilled: Behold my servant, whom I have chosen.… He will not contend or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; he will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick” (Mt 12, 16 ff.). Christ commanded lepers to show themselves to the priest according to the law of Moses (Lv 14, 2) before going to other people (Mt 8, 4; Mc 1, 44; Lc 17, 14). Once he commanded three apostles “to tell no one what they had seen, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead” (Mc 9, 8). It is already clear from this that there is no question of an absolute concealment of the miracles, which would in any case have been impossible, since many people knew the sick and saw them suddenly healed.

142. Objection III. Christ requires faith before miracles. Therefore, a miracle is not a condition or inducement of faith, but follows faith and is its object.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Christ sometimes requires those who asked for a miracle to believe that he could perform that miracle, I concede the antecedent; he always requires faith before miracles, even perfect faith in his entire doctrine, and does not want to lead people to this faith by miracles, I deny the antecedent. And I distinguish the consequence: Therefore, a miracle is not a condition of every act of faith, but faith may also precede a miracle, I concede the consequence; therefore, by miracles Christ did not want to lead people to perfect faith in his mission and doctrine, I deny the consequence.

First, Christ performed many miracles without any prior instruction about faith (Io 2, 1 ff.; Mc 1, 21 ff.; Mt 8, 14 ff., etc.). Then, at times, because of the faith of those present, he healed people who were absent, so that faith was in no way the psychological disposition of the sick that naturally prepared them for healing, as rationalists claim (Io 4, 46 ff.; Lc 7, 1 ff.; Mt 15, 21 ff.). Moreover, such an explanation is impossible for the raising of the dead, the multiplication of the loaves, the calming of the storm, and other miracles. Therefore, it is false to say that all miracles proceeded from faith. On the other hand, just as Christ denied a miracle to obstinate Jews when they asked for one, so he rightly required those asking for a miracle not to expect merely a bodily benefit, but also to make greater moral progress from it, namely by believing in him or growing in the faith they perhaps already possessed. Sometimes he warns about the faith to be held even before the miracle; sometimes he leads to faith through the miracle. Thus he asks the man born blind whom he had healed, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” He answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and he is the one speaking with you.” He said, “I believe, Lord,” and falling down, he worshiped him (Io 9, 35 ff.).

143. Objection IV. Despite Christ’s miracles, many did not believe in him. Therefore, a miracle is not an apt means of leading people to faith.

I answer. I concede the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: Therefore, a miracle does not impose the necessity of believing, but leaves a freedom that a person can abuse, I concede the consequence; therefore, a miracle is not apt to show that it is reasonable to believe a person who performs it as a sign of his divine mission, I deny the consequence. By this very fact Christ emphasizes the enormity of the Jews’ sin: in response to so many signs and miracles they opposed a stubborn unbelief (Io 15, 24; cf. above, n. 97).

144. Objection V. The miracles are recounted in the Gospels for their symbolic meaning, not as strictly historical facts.

I answer. I distinguish the assertion: The miracles are recounted not as historical facts but as purely ideal representations of certain truths, I deny the assertion; some miraculous events also have an attached symbolic meaning, I concede the assertion. This symbolic meaning, however, is not to be invented arbitrarily, but must be drawn either from Scripture or from the sayings of the Fathers. Thus, after healing the man born blind, Christ says, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (Io 9, 39). And before raising Lazarus, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he has died, will live” (Io 11, 25). These sayings do not deny the historical character of the miracles; they presuppose it.

Proposition XVI. Jesus Christ performed many works that are true miracles in order to prove his divine mission.

145. Position of the question. Since Jesus Christ appealed to his miracles in order to prove his divine mission (above, n. 139), unless he performed true miracles, he is either a deceiver or deceived. But neither can be said. Therefore, he performed true miracles.

Now those people who had seen Christ’s miracles “said: When the Christ comes, will he do more signs than this man has done?” (Io 7, 31). The apostles appealed to Christ’s miracles (Act 1, 22; 2, 22, etc.; Rom 15, 19; 1 Cor 15, 3 ff., etc.), as did their disciples. Quadratus wrote an apology for the Christians to the Emperor Hadrian (117–138), in which he said: “The works of our Savior were always conspicuous, for they were true: namely, those who had been delivered from diseases or brought back from death to life. They were seen by everyone not only while they were being healed or restored to life, but also for a long time afterward. And they survived not only while our Savior remained on earth, but long after his departure, so that some of them even lived until our own times” (Euseb. H. E. 4, 3). In the following centuries too, Christians were always firmly convinced that Christ had performed many true miracles. In these last centuries, however, and especially in our own age, many have begun to deny Christ’s miracles, not for historical reasons but because they decided a priori that miracles cannot happen.

Christ’s first adversaries admitted that he had performed miraculous works: “This man performs many signs” (Io 11, 47); but they said, “He has a demon” (Io 10, 20 sq.; Mc 3, 22). The Gentiles too, such as Celsus, did not deny the facts, but attributed them to magical arts (Origen, contra Cels. 1, 38). Now most rationalists try to eliminate from the Gospels many accounts of miracles as later additions. They retain almost only cures of illnesses, and explain these by an excitation of the nerves, both of Christ himself and of his contemporaries, so that they are no longer miracles but pathological events, suggestion, magnetism, and other hidden natural forces.

The attempt to purge the Gospels of miracles is irrational. For once the miracles are removed, nothing remains but a wholly impossible trunk, because miracles are not certain accidental adornments but belong to the very substance of the narratives. Thus those who refuse to admit miracles can have the Gospels only as fraudulent and mendacious writings. But this supposition is unjust (above, n. 121 ff.). Those who trust the Evangelists in other matters but deny them credit in this matter also contradict themselves. For writers who deceive or are deceived in the greatest and most substantial part of their narrative deserve no trust.

Therefore, two things must be shown: that Christ performed many miraculous works, and that these works include true miracles. Perhaps, for not every wondrous work of Christ can we form a certain judgment whether it is a miracle in the proper sense or an answer to prayers that is not strictly miraculous. But this too is not necessary. If Christ had proved his divine mission by even one true and certain miracle, the proof would be firm. There are, however, many miracles that are entirely beyond doubt.

146. Argument. Christ performed many works that admit no other explanation than that they are true miracles. Therefore, we must admit that Christ performed true miracles.

Proof of the antecedent. a) Among other things, Mark recounts the following in his very brief Gospel: Christ says to the leper, “I will; be cleansed,” and “immediately the leprosy left him” (Mc 1, 40 ff.). He says to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your mat, and go to your house,” and “he took up the mat and went out before everyone” (Mc 2, 11 sq.). To the man with a withered hand: “Stretch out your hand. And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored” (Mc 3, 5). To the deaf and mute man: “Be opened. And immediately his ears were opened, the bond of his tongue was loosened, and he spoke plainly” (Mc 7, 34 sq.). To the blind man: “Go, your faith has saved you. And immediately he saw” (Mc 10, 52). These are a few of the many deeds the Evangelist selected. For he often gives only a summary: “He cured many who were afflicted with various diseases” (Mc 1, 34). “For he healed many” (Mc 3, 10). Cf. Mt 15, 30 sq.

Similar things are recounted in all four Gospels. Therefore, if the Evangelists are truthful, these events cannot be denied. But these events are manifest miracles. To cure at once, by the mere command of the voice, leprosy, blindness, deafness, muteness, withered limbs, paralysis, and every sort of affliction is beyond the power of nature, because there is no proportion between the voice of the one giving the command and the cure of diseases, especially such diverse ones. Nor does any experience or experiment ever show such a thing to have occurred naturally, even with the alleged assistance of suggestion, magnetism, hypnotism, or other arts, of which no trace appears in Christ’s works. Therefore, even if we consider only the works of healing that Christ performed, one thing or the other must be said: if they are true, they are miracles; if they are not miracles, they are not true. To admit them and explain them naturally is egregious folly; to declare them fictitious and not performed is egregious slander.

b) Other miracles: When a great storm arose, Jesus said, “Be silent, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” (Mc 4, 39). Jesus “took the five loaves and the two fish, looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; he also divided the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the leftover fragments, and of the fish. Those who ate numbered five thousand men” (Mc 6, 41 ff.). A similar miracle was performed again for four thousand (Mc 8, 1 ff.). Jesus specially calls these two miracles to his disciples’ minds (Mc 8, 18 ff.). By his sole command he withered a tree (Mc 11, 14, 20).

These miracles manifest such power over all material nature that rationalists either deny them outright or explain them by a chance concurrence of events: when Jesus said, “Be silent,” the wind happened to cease; when he divided a few loaves, many other loaves happened to be found by chance. It would be a sin to trouble such wisdom!

c) The raising of three dead people: the daughter of Jairus, who had just died (Mt 9, 18 ff.; Mc 5, 22 ff.); the young man at Nain, who was being carried to the tomb (Lc 7, 11 ff.); and Lazarus, who had already been lying in the tomb for four days (Jn c. 11). This threefold raising does not create such great difficulty for rationalists. They say that the girl and the young man were not dead, but only seemed to be; while the raising of Lazarus is a myth or symbolic account, not an event. Nevertheless, Jesus himself appeals to the raising of the dead (Mt 11, 5; Lc 7, 22; Io 11, 14, 42), and gives his disciples the power to raise the dead (Mt 10, 8), which power the disciples used (Act 9, 36 ff.; 20, 7 ff.).

d) Jesus exercised power over demons, as is recounted in many places in the Gospels. But such power is not natural to a human being. Rationalists who deny the existence of demons say that demoniacs were people suffering from nervous illness. But even on that account Jesus would have cured all these illnesses by the mere nod of his will. Further, Jesus teaches that demons exist (Mt 13, 39; 25, 41; Lc 10, 18, 20), that he has power over demons (Mt 12, 22 ff.), and that he gives this power to his disciples (Mt 10, 8; Mc 3, 15; Lc 9, 1). If the demoniacs were not truly possessed, how did they know that Christ was the Son of God, and why did they fear him so greatly (Mc 1, 24; 3, 11 sq.)? Nor can what Mark recounts about the possessed man in the region of the Gerasenes be explained by a cure of illness. Jesus said to the demon, “What is your name?” And he said, “My name is Legion, for we are many.… And the spirits begged him, saying, ‘Send us into the swine, so that we may enter them.’ And Jesus immediately allowed them. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, about two thousand, rushed violently down into the sea and were drowned in the sea” (Mc 5, 1 ff.; Mt 8, 28 ff.; Lc 8, 26 ff.).

Let this suffice. We have proved that the Evangelists are trustworthy witnesses; we have proved that Jesus proclaimed himself an envoy of God whose doctrine must be accepted by all; we have proved that he appealed to the miracles he performed to confirm his divine mission; we have proved that he performed true miracles. The conclusion follows: Christ is a divine envoy; his doctrine is revealed by God and must necessarily be accepted by all people.

147. Objection I. Miracles that are not regarded as genuine are also attributed to the founders of other religions. Therefore, Christ’s miracles should not be regarded as genuine either.

I answer. I deny the consequence and the inference. For there is this essential difference: the miracles of Jesus Christ are historically established, while those of the other men are not.

They bring forward the things recounted about Buddha, Mahavira, Nanak, and Mohammed. But the books recounting Buddha’s life were written many centuries after Buddha by people entirely lacking historical sense, and are filled with nonsense. The same applies to Mahavira and Nanak. Mohammed explicitly says that he cannot perform miracles (Qur’an, sura 29, 49). No one witnessed some of the miracles attributed to him, such as a certain heavenly journey. It is also said that he split the moon in two, made it pass through his sleeve, and then joined it together again. If anyone wants to admit these things and compare them with Christ’s miracles, let him.

Although some have tried to derive Christ’s life and teaching from Buddhism, this opinion has now been almost entirely abandoned. Most recently, Iensen² has tried in a large book on the Babylonian poem Gilgamesh to show that not only the history of Jesus Christ but also the whole history of the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament derives from that poem. But since his whole inquiry is nothing but a stupendous example of an imagination that wanders and luxuriates extraordinarily, there is no point in dwelling on it. (Cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 132, 204 ff.; some other material in Fonck, Die Wunder des Herrn I, 36 ff., and Th. Specht, Lehrbuch der Apologetik § 30, 32.)

148. Objection II. Miraculous events that occurred nineteen centuries ago can no longer be adequately judged now, so that we can know with certainty whether they were true miracles. Therefore, at least in our own age, Christ’s miracles should no longer be appealed to as criteria of Christian revelation.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: If sufficient historical testimony is lacking, I concede the antecedent; if sufficient testimony is present, I deny the antecedent. And I deny the consequence. As we have already observed, one who trusts the Evangelists in other matters cannot reasonably deny them credit in this matter. Most rationalists do so, however, not for historical reasons but because of philosophical prejudices (cf. above, n. 87 ff.).

Proposition XVII. In particular, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a true miracle and certain proof of his divine mission.

149. Position of the question. Since among the miracles that prove Jesus Christ’s divine mission, the most important is his resurrection from the dead, it must be considered specifically, just as his resurrection is specifically attacked by his adversaries. They speak of fraud, of the vivid imagination of Christ’s disciples, of words of Christ or the apostles wrongly understood, of myth, and I know not what other evasions. In the book Das Wesen des Christentums, Harnack teaches that the Easter faith must be retained altogether, but that the Easter message is not historically certain and cannot serve as support for our faith. The meaning is this: Christ, although he died on the cross and was never bodily raised, did not, nevertheless, die entirely, but lives in his work, that is, in the religion he founded, in the souls of the faithful, and perhaps also in some way in spirit with God. Harnack concedes, however, that the first Christians had a very firm conviction of Jesus Christ’s bodily resurrection (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I⁴, 94 sq.). This is certainly quite true.

Read the Acts of the Apostles: from the very beginning, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is set forth as the foundation of the Christian religion. In place of Judas it was necessary for another to “become with us a witness to his [Jesus’] resurrection” (Act 1, 21 sq.). On the day of Pentecost, Peter speaks to the Jews about Jesus’ resurrection (Act 2, 22 ff.), and likewise in Act 3, 12 ff.; 4, 9 ff., etc. “With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Act 4, 33). Paul did the same afterward (Act 19, 30 sq.; 17, 3), and with the gravest words he insists on this fact: “If Christ has not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. We are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise.… But now Christ has risen from the dead” (1 Cor 15, 14 ff.).

The apostles spoke about the resurrection publicly before people among whom the events they testified to had occurred; they spoke before Christ’s enemies, who tried in vain to forbid this preaching with threats and punishments (Act 4, 21; 5, 40 ff.). They spoke with the greatest confidence and without any hesitation; by this testimony they converted many thousands to the faith and laid so firm a foundation for the Christian religion that it has remained unconquered to our own times. Who was mistaken: Jesus Christ himself, the apostles, and the whole Church thereafter, which everywhere and always professes in its creeds, “He rose on the third day,” or the rationalists, who devise absurd, diverse, mutually conflicting hypotheses and assertions? (Cf. Mangenot, La résurrection de Jésus.)

150. Argument. It is established by a constant and firm tradition extending back to the very eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and was seen alive again on the third day. Therefore, Jesus Christ truly rose from the dead.

Proof of the antecedent. a) In the year 58 St. Paul writes to the Corinthians: “I delivered to you what I also received,” that is, when I preached the Gospel to you (in 52), I presented what I had received from apostolic tradition. He enumerates four things, putting the particle ὅτι (“that” or “because” in the Vulgate) before each: “[1.] That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. [2.] And that he was buried. [3.] And that he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures. [4.] And that he appeared to Cephas, and after this to the Twelve.” Then, without ὅτι, he adds, “After that he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, of whom many remain until now, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, as to an untimely birth, he appeared also to me” (1 Cor 15, 3 ff.). Therefore, about twenty years after the event, when many of its witnesses were still alive, these four things were part of the common tradition of the Church: Christ’s death, Christ’s burial, the resurrection of Christ, and Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to the apostles. The Apostle plainly does not speak of an imaginary vision, but of the historical fact that “he rose on the third day,” from which he also proves that Christians will rise bodily. He recalls and insists on the same matter in his other letters as well (Rom 1, 4; 6, 1 ff.; 7, 4; 8, 34; 14, 9; 2 Cor 5, 15; Eph 1, 20; Phil 3, 10; Col 2, 12; 3, 1; 1 Thess 1, 10; 4, 13; 2 Tim 2, 8).

b) Jesus explicitly foretold that he would die and rise again. “The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes; they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked, scourged, and crucified; and on the third day he will rise” (Mt 20, 18 sq.; cf. 16, 21). “They will kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Mc 10, 34).

“They will kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Lc 18, 33). For the Son of Man came to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mc 10, 45; Mt 20, 27; cf. Mt 26, 28; Mc 14, 24; Lc 22, 20; Gal 3, 13). “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for his sheep.… For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord, and I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (Io 10, 11, 17 sq.). “The Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights” (Mt 12, 40; cf. Io 2, 18 ff.). Because Christ had foretold this, the Jews said to Pilate, “Sir, we remember that while that deceiver was still alive he said, ‘After three days I will rise again’” (Mt 27, 63).

c) Jesus died, as he had foretold. After scourging and other most cruel sufferings, he was driven onto the cross and nailed to it (Io 20, 25 ff.). He hung on the cross for three hours, then breathed his last; after his death a soldier pierced his side with a lance (Io 19, 32 ff.).

All who either wrote or spoke about this event testified that he had died. So did all the Evangelists (Mt 27, 50; Mc 15, 37; Lc 23, 46; Io 19, 30; cf. 19, 35); so did the apostles in their sermons and letters (Act 2, 23; 3, 15; 4, 10, etc.; 1 Petr 1, 18 ff.; Apc 5, 9; Eph 2, 15; Heb 2, 14; 9, 12; and the other passages already cited); so did the soldiers with the centurion, who had to give an account of what happened (Mc 15, 39, 44 sq.); so did the chief priests and Pharisees (Mt 27, 63). No one raised the slightest doubt about this.

d) Jesus was buried after his death. All the Evangelists also testify to this (Mt 27, 57 ff.; Mc 15, 42 ff.; Lc 23, 50 ff.; Io 19, 38 ff.), as do St. Peter (Act 2, 24 ff.) and St. Paul (Act 13, 29; Rom 6, 4; 1 Cor 15, 4). Jesus was buried with many ointments and spices, and remained in the tomb until the third day.

On the third day the tomb was found empty by the women, by the apostles Peter and John, and by the soldiers (Mt 28, 1 ff.; Mc 16, 1 ff.; Lc 24, 1 ff.; Io 20, 1 ff.). If the body had remained in the tomb, it would have been easy to show that Jesus had not risen. No one tried to do so; rather, Jesus’ enemies gave the soldiers money to say that the body had been stolen (Mt 28, 11 ff.).

e) Jesus appeared alive again to the women, the apostles, and many other people, as we have already heard Paul say. Christ was not only seen, but walked with the disciples, spoke with them, ate in their presence (Mt 28, 9 sq., 18 ff.; Mc 16, 9 ff.; Lc 24, 13 ff.; Io 20, 11 ff.; Act 1, 1 ff.; 2, 15), as St. Peter says: “God raised Jesus on the third day and granted that he be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen beforehand by God—to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead” (Act 10, 40 ff.; cf. 13, 31 sq.).

Therefore, from the very time of the resurrection there were always witnesses to this event: not one but many, not thrown into confusion by very brief appearances but conversing familiarly with the risen Jesus and sharing meals with him, and this over many weeks. So once again, either one thing or the other: either this whole tradition is a fraud, or Jesus truly rose. The former is asserted only impudently; therefore, the latter must be admitted.

151. Objection I. The resurrection of Jesus is most difficult to believe. But such a thing must not be admitted as long as any other explanation is possible. Therefore, every other explanation must first be tried.

I answer. I distinguish the major: It is most difficult to believe when compared with the ordinary course of things, I concede the major; it is most difficult when compared with divine omnipotence, by which God established a revealed religion that would endure until the end of the world, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: As long as an explanation is possible that leaves the historical facts intact and the good faith of witnesses beyond all suspicion, I concede the minor; if only the explanations proposed by rationalists are possible—explanations that, on the basis of a priori assertions, distort the facts in violation of all sound principles and slander trustworthy witnesses—I deny the minor. I distinguish the consequence: Every other explanation would have to be tried if another reasonable explanation were possible, I concede the consequence; since none is possible, I deny the consequence.

152. Objection II. The witnesses contradict one another in their accounts. Therefore, they are not trustworthy.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: The witnesses contradict one another concerning the substance of the event, I deny the antecedent; the witnesses report various things that are not actually contradictory, but whose agreement cannot be shown with certainty in one particular way, I concede the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: The witnesses would not be trustworthy if they contradicted one another concerning the substance of the event, I concede the consequence; if they contradicted one another concerning incidental and secondary matters, I deny the consequence.

In fact, the witnesses not only say that Christ rose again, but also say that they saw him, heard him speak, and received instructions from him. The particular order in which the various reported appearances occurred is not an important matter. It can indeed be shown with probability how they followed one another, but not with certainty in every detail (cf. A. Cellini, Gli ultimi capi del Tetramorfo e la critica razionalistica, Rome 1906). The historical certainty of the event itself is plainly not diminished for that reason.

153. Objection III. St. Paul says that Christ was revealed “in him,” ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί (Gal 1, 16), which refers to an inward manifestation, not an outward appearance. But in 1 Cor 15 he places his own vision and those of the other apostles on the same level. Therefore, all the appearances of Christ must be considered to have occurred in the minds of the disciples, not to have been outward appearances. Confirmation: the disciples thought they saw a spirit, and at times did not recognize Christ immediately (Lc 24, 16, 37 ff.; Io 20, 14).

I answer. We have already said that Paul plainly speaks of the historical fact of the resurrection. What he says about Christ being revealed “in him” refers to the inward grace of illumination, which does not exclude but presupposes the outward fact of the resurrection. In Gal 1, 16 St. Paul is not speaking about Christ’s appearances, but about his conversion to faith in Christ, which is impossible without inward grace (cf. Io 6, 44, 65 sq.; Eph 2, 5 ff.; 1 Thess 2, 13). The subject of 1 Cor 15 is outward appearances.

It is not surprising that the disciples thought they saw a spirit when Christ appeared suddenly. But anyone who admits this part of the account must also admit what follows, where Christ is said immediately to have corrected the apostles, to have offered his hands, feet, and side for them to touch, and to have eaten in their presence. That the risen Jesus could appear and disappear at will, enter through closed doors, and make himself known immediately or gradually pertains to the endowments of the glorified body (1 Cor 15, 42 ff.), whose substance is the same as before, though its state is different.

154. Objection IV. It is possible to admit that the disciples did not lie, but were hallucinating through lively faith and imagination.

I answer. This is an irrational supposition, according to which many people, not asleep but awake, imagined that for forty days—and no longer—they saw the one risen from the dead, heard his instructions, received commands from him, ate with him, and touched him; then they announced this publicly in their preaching, lived and died for this conviction, and led many others to live and die for it. Moreover, there is no sign of such lively faith and imagination before the apostles saw Christ risen; rather, their faith was the fruit of Christ’s appearances. For beforehand the apostles “did not yet know the Scripture [the prophecies of the Old Testament], that he had to rise from the dead” (Io 20, 9). When the women announced Christ’s resurrection to the apostles, “these words seemed to them like nonsense, and they did not believe them” (Lc 24, 11). Neither the disciples going to Emmaus (ibid. v. 13 ff.) nor the apostle Thomas (Io 20, 25) show that great power of imagination and creative faith, but quite the contrary. Finally, why did the others not produce the dead body of Jesus? That would have been the simplest cure for this supposed imagination. Some Jews said that it had been stolen; yet they did not dare to bring either the soldiers to trial for negligence or Christ’s disciples for the alleged crime. Others resort to an earthquake by which the body was swallowed by the earth. That earthquake did not act indiscriminately, however, since after swallowing Christ’s body it left the linen cloths and the napkin carefully arranged (Io 20, 6 sq.).

155. Objection V. Why did Christ not appear to his enemies, but only to his friends?

I answer. Because it was free to him to arrange matters according to his wisdom, as was fitting. The testimony of the soldiers, whom his enemies themselves had placed as guards of the tomb, the open and empty tomb, the disciples’ testimony, and the miracles confirming it could suffice for his enemies. Christ had promised his disciples that he would appear to them (Io 16, 16), but he had foretold to his adversaries that they would no longer see him (Io 7, 33 sq.). Moreover, afterward he appeared to his adversary Saul and converted him to himself (Act c. 9).

Many other questions that can be asked about Christ’s resurrection pertain rather to exegesis or dogmatic theology (cf. S. Thomas 3, q. 53 ff.).

ARTICLE II.

ON THE PROPHECIES THAT PROVE THE DIVINE MISSION OF JESUS CHRIST.

See Ottiger, Theologia fundam. I, 640 ff., 749 ff.; L. Reinke, Beiträge zur Erklärung des A. T., 1851—1874 (9 tomi); — Komment. zu den messian. Psalmen, 1857—1858 (2 tomi); — Komment. zu den messianischen Weissagungen, Giessen 1859—1862 (4 tomi); I. Bade, Die Christologie des A. T., Münster 1850 ff.; I. Knabenbauer, Comment. in prophetas, Paris 1887 ff.; Fr. Schmid, Christus als Prophet, nach den Evangelien dargestellt, Brixen 1892; L. Murillo, Jesucristo y la iglesia romana II, Madrid 1898.

Proposition XVIII. Christ proved himself a divine envoy by prophecies.

156. Position of the question. Prophecy belongs among miraculous works; that is, it is a prediction of a future event that can be foreknown with certainty only through supernatural divine assistance (cf. above, n. 98 ff.).

Rationalists say that prophecies are either predictions made after the event—that is, after the fulfillment of the things said to have been foretold, the Evangelists put them into Jesus’ mouth—or matters that could have been known by natural conjecture. If the former is true, the narrators of Jesus’ life acted fraudulently. This, however, is an unjust slander. That the other explanation is an empty evasion is shown by the facts themselves.

157. Argument. Jesus Christ appeals to what he foretold; since these things could not have been known naturally by a human being and were fulfilled, they are evidently true prophecies. Therefore, Jesus Christ’s divine mission was proved by prophecies.

Proof of the antecedent. a) Jesus appeals to his predictions. “Behold, I have foretold it to you” (Mt 24, 25). “So you, then, take heed; behold, I have foretold everything to you” (Mc 13, 23). “I have told you these things so that, when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you” (Io 16, 4). “From now on I tell you before it happens, so that when it has happened you may believe that I am” the Messiah (Io 13, 19; cf. 8, 24). “When, therefore, he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken” (Io 2, 22). The angels say to the women, “He has risen, as he said” (Mt 28, 6; cf. Mc 16, 7; Lc 24, 6, 44; Act 11, 16). Therefore, Christ’s predictions too are a sign by which his divine mission is proved.

b) Jesus foretold many things, some of which have already been fulfilled and some of which will be fulfilled at the end of time. He foretold various things about his future passion, death, and resurrection (Mt 17, 21 ff.; 20, 18 ff.; Mc 10, 33 sq.; Lc 18, 32 ff.). Rationalists say that Christ could have inferred his death from the Jews’ hatred, which was growing day by day. But even if we grant this, a human being could not naturally have foreknown so precisely the circumstances of a death that depended on the free will of other people. “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests, scribes, and elders; they will condemn him to death, hand him over to the Gentiles, mock him, spit on him, scourge him, kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Mc 10, 33 sq.). He also foretold the betrayal by Judas (Mc 14, 18) and Peter’s denial before the second cockcrow (Mc 14, 30). These things are recounted by all the Evangelists. Rationalists answer that the Evangelists later added these precise details to their accounts, since they could not have been foreknown. Certainly, they could not have been foreknown naturally; therefore, since Christ truly foretold them, this was a true prophecy.

Similarly, he foretold the future destruction of the city of Jerusalem with specific circumstances (Mt 24, 1–3 and 15–21; other things are added there about the end of the world; Mc 13, 1 sq., 14–19; Lc 19, 41 ff.; 21, 5 sq., 20–24). Flavius Josephus recounts its fulfillment (De bello iud. 6 sq.; cf. Euseb. H. E. 3, 5 sq.).

Jesus foretold many and varied persecutions to his disciples (Mt 10, 16 ff.; 24, 8 ff.; Mc 13, 9 ff.), future glory to Mary Magdalene (Mc 14, 9), and martyrdom to Peter (Io 21, 18 sq.). Other predictions are read in Mt 21, 1 ff.; Mc 11, 1 ff.; 14, 13 ff.; Lc 19, 29 ff.; 22, 10 ff. The dispersion of the Jews among the nations, which Christ foretold (Lc 21, 24; cf. Mt 24, 34), still continues.

To this may be added that Jesus knew things absent and hidden (Io 1, 48; 4, 18; 11, 11 ff.; Mt 17, 26), and even the secrets of hearts (Mt 9, 4; 12, 25; Lc 6, 8; 7, 39 ff.; 11, 38 ff.; Io 2, 24 sq.).

Therefore, the apostles conclude: “We know that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; by this we believe that you came from God” (Io 16, 30). And rightly so: a man in whose favor God performs in this way the intellectual miracle of prophecy, and who himself appeals to this miracle no less than to the others as a sign of his divine mission, cannot deceive us; otherwise, God himself would have deceived us (cf. Dt 18, 18 ff.).

158. Objection I. Christ said, “False Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders” (Mt 24, 24). Therefore, the truth of a divine mission cannot be inferred from prophecy confirmed by signs.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: False prophets will arise whose prophecies and signs can be recognized as false, I concede the antecedent; false prophets will arise whose prophecies are such that they lead people of good will into invincible error, I deny the antecedent. Whoever comes after Christ and says that he is the Christ is for that very reason a false prophet, because God cannot contradict himself. Therefore, Christ warned the apostles about this: “If anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There he is,’ do not believe it.… So you, then, take heed; behold, I have foretold everything to you” (Mc 13, 21, 23). God had already given a similar warning in the Old Testament (Dt 13, 1 ff.). I distinguish the consequence: The truth of a divine mission cannot be inferred from prophecy if the circumstances show that it is false prophecy, I concede the consequence; if the circumstances show that it is true prophecy, I deny the consequence.

159. Objection II. Christ foretold that he would soon return for judgment. But this did not happen. Therefore, he was not a true prophet.

I answer. This objection is an error of the rationalists and Modernists (Denz. n. 2052); Christ did not err. For he himself said, “As for that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father” (Mc 13, 32). “It is not for you to know the times or moments that the Father has set by his own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Act 1, 7 sq.; cf. above, n. 134 sq.). He wanted the time to be uncertain so that people would always be ready, just as in the Old Testament the prophets spoke about the coming of the Messiah in such a way that people’s expectation would always remain alive (e.g. Is 40, 52, 60; cf. above, n. 135).

Proposition XIX. Jesus Christ is proved to be a divine envoy by the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

160. Position of the question. The Jews expected a certain distinguished divine envoy whom they called the Messiah (above, n. 126). The Jews had drawn this messianic faith from their sacred books. When asked where Christ was to be born, the priests answered, “In Bethlehem, for so it is written through the prophet” (Mt 2, 5). Zachariah says that God will visit his people “as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been from of old” (Lc 1, 70). Philip says to Nathanael, “We have found Jesus, the one of whom Moses in the Law and the prophets wrote” (Io 1, 45). We often read in the Gospels, “This happened so that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” or something similar (Mt 3, 3; 4, 14; 13, 35; 27, 9, 35; Mc 15, 28; Io 12, 37 ff.; 19, 24, 28, 36 sq.).

Since those books in which these prophecies are read had already been translated into Greek several centuries before Christ (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 215), it is established that the original text of the prophecies themselves existed many centuries before Christ—something no learned person denies. Therefore, if predictions about Christ are in fact read in them and were fulfilled in Christ, they are true prophecies.

Jesus Christ himself taught that the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament referred to him. Thus he says that he does not wish to prevent his passion. Why not? “How, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled, for thus it must happen?” (Mt 26, 54). “But let the Scriptures be fulfilled” (Mc 14, 49). “Everything that was written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished” (Lc 18, 31). “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John” (Mt 11, 13). “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.… And he said to them, ‘These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled’” (Lc 24, 27, 44 sq.). He says to the Jews, “Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and they are the ones that testify about me.… If you believed Moses, perhaps you would also believe me, for he wrote about me” (Io 5, 39, 46). Such things are read in all the Evangelists (e.g. Mt 21, 42; 22, 41 ff.; Mc 9, 11; 12, 10; Lc 4, 16 ff.; Io 13, 18). The apostles too taught that the prophecies were to be understood of Christ (Act 2, 25 ff.; 3, 18; 7, 52; 28, 23; Rom 1, 2 sq.; 9, 33; 1 Petr 1, 10, etc.).

From the time of St. Justin (Dial. cum Tryphone), the Holy Fathers diligently developed this argument from the messianic prophecies. Much on this subject is read in Eusebius of Caesarea in the “Demonstratione evangelica” (M PG 22).

The argument can be constructed in two ways: either by considering each prophecy and showing how it was fulfilled in Christ, or by presenting the whole series and comparing it with the facts of Christ’s life. The first way is better in itself, but too long for a Compendium of Theology. We therefore prefer the second way, indicating only in summary the prophecies and their fulfillment. More precise knowledge is to be acquired from exegetical commentaries.

161. Argument. There are many messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, Christ is the true Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

Proof of the antecedent, part I. There exist in the Old Testament³ many messianic prophecies.

1. A future king is foretold from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Judah, from the family of David.

God promised the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations would be blessed. “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord… I will multiply your seed like the stars of heaven… and all nations of the earth will be blessed in your seed” (Gn 22, 16 ff.). The same blessing is often repeated (Gn 18, 18; 26, 4; 28, 14).

For this reason the name Abram is changed to Abraham. “You shall be called Abraham, because I have made you the father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will establish nations through you, and kings will come forth from you” (Gn 17, 5 sq.).

This blessing passed to Isaac (Gn 26, 2 ff.) and Jacob (Gn 28, 10 ff.).

When Jacob blesses his sons and tells them “what will happen in the last days” (Gn 49, 1), he says to Reuben, “Reuben, my firstborn… you shall not excel”; to Simeon and Levi, “Let my glory not be in their assembly” (ibid. v. 3 ff.). Then he turns to Judah: “Judah, your brothers will praise you.… The sons of your father will bow down to you.… The scepter will not be taken from Judah, nor a ruler from between his feet, until the one who is to be sent comes, and he will be the expectation of the nations” (ibid. vv. 8, 10). Therefore, the royal dignity already promised to Abraham will pass to the tribe of Judah, not immediately but only after a long time. In place of “the one who is to be sent,” some translate Shiloh as “whose is” the promised scepter, others as “peacemaker”; the whole Jewish and Christian tradition, however, understood this word to designate the Messiah. For this reason Onkelos and Jonathan simply translate, “until the Messiah comes.”

The royal power of the house of Judah was obtained through David, as David himself says: “The Lord God of Israel chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever; for he chose the leaders from Judah” (1 Par 28, 4). God spoke to David through the prophet Nathan: “I took you from the pastures, from following the flocks, to be leader over my people Israel.… When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who will come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me. If he does anything wrong, I will correct him with the rod of men and with the blows of human beings; but I will not take my mercy from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before me. Your house and your kingdom will be faithful [everlasting] before you forever, and your throne will be firm for all time” (2 Reg 7, 8, 12 ff.).

Therefore, two things are foretold: a) royal dignity will not be transferred to another family, but will remain in the family of David; b) if they remain faithful, the temporal kingdom will remain, but if they depart from God, God will punish them and destroy the kingdom. Nevertheless, the promise of the perpetual royal dignity of the house of David will remain. God repeats this to Solomon (3 Reg 9, 4 ff.). In Ps 88, 21, 29 ff., 33 ff., we read: “I have found David my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him.… Forever I will keep my mercy for him, and my covenant will be faithful to him. I will establish his seed forever and his throne as the days of heaven. If his sons forsake my law… I will visit their iniquities with a rod and their sins with blows. But I will not remove my mercy from him, nor will I break faith with my promise, nor profane my covenant; I will not make void what comes from my lips. Once I have sworn by my holiness, I will not lie to David. His seed will endure forever, and his throne [unshaken] as the sun before me” (cf. Ps 131, 11 ff.). For this reason there is frequent mention of the “Anointed [Messiah] of the Lord,” to whom all the earth and all peoples will be subjected, and whose kingdom will have no end (Ps 2; 44; 71; 109).

2. The rejection of the people of Israel and its kings is foretold, followed by reconciliation and the raising up of a new, eternal king.

The people of Israel and its kings are rejected because they fell into idolatry: “For many days the children of Israel will sit without a king and without a prince, without sacrifice and without an altar, without an ephod and without household gods. After this the children of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king” (Os 3, 4 sq.). It is not David the king, who had long been dead, but the king promised from the lineage of David. In the Babylonian captivity the people returned to God; therefore, the promise of the future king is renewed: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up a righteous branch for David; a king will reign, and he will be wise and do judgment and justice in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which they will call him: The Lord our Righteousness” (Ier 23, 5 sq.). “They will serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Ier 30, 9). “I will set up over them [the Lord’s sheep] one shepherd who will feed them, my servant David; he will feed them and be their shepherd. I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David will be prince in their midst” (Ez 34, 23 sq.). “My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for them all; they will walk in my judgments.… David my servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them.… I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Ez 37, 24 ff.).

3. A glorious king is foretold, reigning over all, yet also suffering.

The greatness of the future king’s kingdom is sometimes foretold plainly and sometimes metaphorically under the image of Mount Zion and the city of Jerusalem, to which all nations will gather. “In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord will be prepared on the top of the mountains and raised above the hills, and all nations will flow to it… for the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Is 2, 2 sq.). “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light.… A child is born to us, and a son is given to us.… He will sit upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and strengthen it in judgment and justice, from now and forever” (Is 9, 2, 6 sq.). This is repeated again and again (Is 12, 1 ff.; 14, 1 ff.; 26, 1 ff.; 33, 20 ff.; 40, 1 ff.; 49, 8 ff.; 51, 3 ff.). “Arise, be enlightened, Jerusalem, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.… Nations will walk in your light and kings in the brightness of your rising.… Your heart will wonder and expand when the abundance of the sea is turned to you and the strength of the nations comes to you” (Is 60, 1, 5; cf. 65, 1).

Evils will be driven away; tranquility and peace will reign. “Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will be opened.… Those redeemed by the Lord will return and come to Zion with praise; everlasting joy will be upon their heads; they will obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and groaning will flee away” (Is 35, 5 sq., 10). The Messiah is described in this way: “Behold my servant, I will uphold him; my chosen one, in whom my soul is pleased. I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring judgment to the nations. He will not cry out, nor raise his voice, nor make his voice heard in the streets; he will not break a bruised reed.… The islands will wait for his law” (Is 42, 1 ff.). “The spirit of the Lord will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding.… Justice will be the belt of his loins, and faithfulness the belt of his waist. The wolf will dwell with the lamb.… They will not harm or kill on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as waters cover the sea. On that day the root of Jesse, who stands as a sign to the peoples, will be sought by the nations” (Is 11, 2, 5 sq., 9 sq.). The Messiah says of himself, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me and sent me to announce good news to the meek” (Is 61, 1).

Nevertheless, this same glorious king will come when only a slender shoot remains of the house of David in a parched land, and he himself will endure the gravest evils. For this reason the Messiah is often called a “branch” (e.g. Ier 33, 15; Zach 3, 8; 6, 12). When, because of the scarcity of men, seven women quarrel over one man, “on that day the branch of the Lord will be in magnificence” (Is 4, 1 ff.). “The remnant of the forest [of Israel] will be numbered because of its smallness, and a child will write them down.… The remnant will return… to the mighty God” (Is 10, 19, 21). “I will gather the remnant of my flock… and raise up a righteous branch for David” (Ier 23, 3, 5). The Messiah, then, will come in this miserable condition of the house of David. “He will grow up before him [the Lord] like a shoot, like a root out of dry ground; he has no form or comeliness, and we saw him, and there was no appearance that we should desire him: despised and the least of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity.… Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows.… He was wounded for our iniquities.… The Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all.… Therefore I will allot him many, and he will divide the spoils of the strong, because he gave his life over to death and was numbered with transgressors” (Is 53, 2 ff., 12). Thus the Messiah will come to victory through battle and blood. “Who is this who comes from Edom, with garments stained from Bosra?… I am he who speaks justice and is mighty to save. Why, then, is your garment red?… I have trodden the winepress alone.… I trampled the peoples in my fury… and cast their strength down to the earth” (Is 63, 1 ff., 6). The people of Israel itself will reject the Messiah, but he will establish a new covenant with many others. “The Christ will be killed, and the people who will deny him will no longer be his.… He will confirm a covenant with many” (Dn 9, 26 sq.). And the one who was not God’s people will become God’s people: “I will say to the one who is not my people, ‘You are my people,’ and he will say, ‘You are my God’” (Os 2, 24; cf. Is 65, 1). “I am coming to gather all nations and tongues, and they will come and see my glory.… I will take some of them as priests and Levites” (Is 66, 18, 21). A new sacrifice corresponds to this new priesthood, the old one having been abrogated: “I have no will in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place an offering is sacrificed and offered to my name, a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal 1, 10 sq.).

4. The place of birth and the time of the future Messiah are foretold.

The place of the Messiah’s birth is indicated by Micah: “And you, Bethlehem Ephrata, though you are small among the thousands of Judah, from you will come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Therefore [God] will give them [the Israelites to affliction] up until the time when she who is in labor gives birth, and the remnant of his brothers will return to the children of Israel. He will stand and feed them in the strength of the Lord.… For now he will be great to the ends of the earth” (Mich 5, 2 ff.).

The time of the Messiah will be when the second Temple is still standing. For Haggai says of this Temple: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Yet a little while, and I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and the Desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory.… The glory of this latter house will be greater than that of the first, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give peace, says the Lord of hosts” (Agg 2, 7 sq., 10; cf. Mal 3, 1).

The number of years is indicated by the archangel Gabriel to the prophet Daniel: “Seventy weeks have been shortened [appointed] for your people and your holy city, so that transgression may be finished, sin may come to an end, iniquity may be wiped away, everlasting justice may be brought in, vision and prophecy may be fulfilled, and the Holy of Holies may be anointed. Know, therefore, and understand: from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem until Christ the prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the square and the walls will be rebuilt again in troubled times. After the sixty-two weeks Christ will be killed, and the people who will deny him will no longer be his.

And a people with a coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary; its end will be devastation, and after the end of the war desolation has been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week; in the middle of the week the sacrifice and offering will cease, and in the Temple there will be the abomination of desolation; desolation will continue until the consummation and the end” (Dn 9, 24 ff.). The weeks are understood as weeks of years, so the sense is: four hundred and ninety years have been appointed for the completion of what the angel foretells. “From the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem” is explained as the decree of Artaxerxes I in 458 B.C., by which the king ordered that the city be rebuilt. The angel therefore says that Christ will die after 69½ weeks, reckoned from that decree, or 488 years after the decree, that is, in the year 30 of the common era, which agrees with the now most widely accepted view concerning the time of Christ’s death.

Conclusion. From this very brief survey it is clear how the promise and expectation of the future Messiah and his kingdom runs through the whole history of the people of Israel: at first more obscure and sketched in a few lines, but gradually made more and more explicit; in this way the longing for the Messiah increased day by day. “Would that you would tear open the heavens and come down” (Is 64, 1): this was the feeling of all devout Israelites, who were awaiting the consolation and redemption of Israel (Lc 2, 25, 38).

It remains to show briefly how these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

162. Proof of the antecedent, part II. The messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Since the facts are well known, we give only a brief survey.

1. Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham (Mt 1, 1; Lc 3, 34), from the tribe of Judah (Mt 1, 3; Lc 3, 33; Hebr 7, 14), from the family of David (Mt 1, 1; Lc 1, 32; 2, 4; 3, 31; Act 13, 23; Rom 1, 3). The Jews recognized this (Mt 20, 30 sq.; 21, 9; Mc 11, 10; Lc 18, 38).

2. Jesus Christ is a king, not indeed of an earthly and temporal kingdom, but of a spiritual and eternal one (Mt 2, 2; 25, 34; 27, 11; Mc 15, 2; Lc 1, 32; 23, 3; Io 18, 33 ff.; Hebr 1, 8; Apc 17, 14; 19, 16). All the peoples of the earth belong to his kingdom (Mt 8, 11 sq.; 13, 46 sq.; 25, 32; Act 1, 8; Rom 1, 5).

3. Jesus Christ established a kingdom of peace, from which he drove out the evil of sin and other evils by curing diseases, expelling demons, and conferring many benefits on people (Mt 8, 16; Act 4, 8 ff.), although the perfection of this kingdom will not come until the next life (Mt 25, 34; Io 14, 2 sq.; 17, 24; 1 Cor 15, 23 ff.; Apc c. 22).

4. Christ is that prophet upon whom the Spirit of the Lord rests (Lc 4, 16 ff.), in whom the heavenly Father is well pleased (Mt 3, 17; 17, 5; Mc 1, 11; 9, 6; Lc 3, 22), who is meek and humble (Mt 11, 28 sq.; 12, 15 ff.), and who shows by the new law the way to true blessedness (Mt 5, 1 ff.; Lc 6, 17 ff.).

5. Jesus Christ came when the house of David was almost extinguished and its kingdom divided among foreign rulers (Lc 3, 1). He truly was a slender shoot (nezer, Nazarene; Is 11, 1; Mt 2, 23), and was the son of a carpenter (Mt 13, 55; Mc 6, 3).

6. Through his passion, cross, and death he entered into his glory (Lc 24, 25 sq.). His sufferings and the glory that followed are described in Ps 21 in such a way that they were fulfilled literally in Christ and in no one else: “Many dogs have surrounded me; the council of the wicked has beset me. They pierced my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones. They looked at me and watched me; they divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my robe.… Save me from the lion’s mouth.… I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the Church I will praise you.… All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord.… For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he will rule over the nations.… My soul will live for him, and my seed will serve him. The coming generation will be announced to the Lord, and the heavens will announce his righteousness to a people yet to be born, whom the Lord has made.”

The people of Israel denied their king (Mt 27, 25; Io 19, 15). Therefore, the people were rejected (Mt 23, 37 ff.; 24, 1, 15 ff.; Lc 13, 34 sq.), and the Gentiles took their place (Mt 24, 14; Rom 9, 24 ff.; 10, 19 ff.). New priests were chosen from among the Gentiles, and a new sacrifice was instituted, offered to God in every place, and the name of the Lord became great among all nations.

7. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt 2, 1; Lc 2, 4). He came to the second Temple shortly before it was destroyed forever.

8. He suffered at the time foretold by Daniel; after his death came the war with the Romans and the decreed desolation.

9. Many other things that are indicated in the Gospels can be added. Cf. e.g. Mal 3, 1 with Mc 1, 2; Is 9, 1 sq. with Mt 4, 15; Zach 9, 9 sq. with Mt 21, 1 ff.; Is 50, 6 with Mt 26, 67. We omit others for brevity.

Conclusion. Therefore, the things that the prophets foretold about the Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. From this two things follow:

a) God, who alone foreknew all these things and could foretell them through the prophets, testified concerning the Messiah: If the one to whom these prophecies apply comes, he is my envoy, sent to teach all people and to establish the everlasting kingdom of God. Therefore, because these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is truly God’s envoy, whom all people must hear.

b) Just as no one before Christ fit the messianic prophecies, so no one will come after him who does. For the foretold time has passed, the temporal scepter has long since departed from Judah, the second Temple has been destroyed, and the Jews have been dispersed throughout the whole world. Nor can there be another kingdom of this kind besides the one universal and everlasting kingdom. God “promises, saying [Agg 2, 7]: Yet once more, and I will shake not only the earth but also heaven. The words ‘Yet once more’ indicate the removal of what is movable, as of things made, so that what is immovable may remain. Therefore, receiving an unshakable kingdom, let us have grace by which we may serve God acceptably, with fear and reverence” (Hebr 12, 26 ff.).

163. Objection I. The prophecies called messianic are collected from various books belonging to different times. But it is not established that things so far apart refer to one and the same person; they could pertain to several people and be fulfilled at different times. Therefore, they prove nothing about Jesus Christ.

I answer. I concede the major. I deny the minor and the consequence. For a) many of the prophecies are such that they cannot be explained as referring to several people. One king from the family of David is promised, to whose power all nations must be subjected, who will destroy the kingdom of iniquity and establish an everlasting kingdom of justice. There cannot be several such kings.

b) Later prophets sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, look back to earlier prophecies (cf. Gn 26, 2 ff.; 28, 13 ff.; 49, 10; 1 Par 28, 4; Ps 88, 20, 36; Is 2, 1 ff. compared with Mich 4, 1 ff.; Is 4, 2 compared with Ier 23, 5; Dn 9, 2 ff., etc.). In general, the messianic prophecies are so naturally connected with one another that they cannot be forcibly torn out of the series one by one. Even if it is doubtful of one or another prophecy whether it is messianic, our argument nevertheless stands invincibly if only those that are manifestly messianic are considered.

c) Not only had the people of Israel understood that a great liberator and king was promised to them (Mc 11, 10), but Christ himself also explicitly said that the messianic prophecies referred to him (above, n. 160). It is improbable that the Jews, Christ, and all Christians were mistaken in this matter.

d) Unless those prophecies referred to one and the same Messiah, they would have been fulfilled in Christ only by chance. But recourse to chance is irrational when a complex matter is at issue. For example, although an animal might by chance form a single letter, it cannot by chance form a whole book, and one that has meaning. Therefore, much less could a series of such extraordinary events be foretold and fulfilled by chance.

164. Objection II. Many things are said in these prophecies that were not fulfilled in Christ, such as the complete justice of the citizens of his kingdom, perfect peace, and the greatest tranquility. Therefore, they are not true prophecies about Christ.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Many things were foretold by metaphors and were not fulfilled literally, such as that all peoples would come to Mount Zion and that the wolf and lamb would dwell peacefully together, I concede the antecedent; many things were foretold in their proper sense and have not been fulfilled, I subdivide: Those that have not yet been fulfilled perfectly, I concede the antecedent; those that will never be fulfilled perfectly, I deny the antecedent. To this belong all that was foretold about the moral perfection and supreme happiness of the Messianic kingdom, which is fulfilled on earth in an incipient way among Christ’s faithful disciples, but perfectly in heaven. The prophets often announce together what they see together (e.g. Is 66, 10 ff.; Ioel 3, 14 ff.). It does not rightly follow that these things must also be fulfilled at the same time; it is enough that they be fulfilled successively (cf. Cornely, Introd. II, 2, 228 ff.).

165. Objection III. Because of the messianic prophecies, the Jews expected the restoration of a temporal kingdom. But this restoration did not happen. Therefore, they were deceived by the messianic prophecies.

I answer. I distinguish the major: The Jews formed this expectation because of their earthly ideas, I concede the major; they could not learn from the prophecies that a spiritual kingdom was foretold, I deny the major. I concede the minor. I distinguish the consequence: They were deceived by their own prejudices, I concede the consequence; they were deceived by the messianic prophecies themselves, I deny the consequence.

The prophets very often emphasize that the future Messianic kingdom will be a kingdom of holiness. In the new Zion “there will be a path and a way, and it will be called the holy way; the unclean will not pass along it, and this will be a straight way for you, so that fools will not go astray on it” (Is 35, 8). “Iniquity will no longer be heard in your land.… Your people will all be righteous” (Is 60, 18, 21). “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers.… This will be the covenant I will make with the house of Israel: I will put my law in their inward parts and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Ier 31, 31 ff.). The same things are often repeated (e.g. Ez 11, 19 sq.; 36, 23; Os 2, 19; Ioel 2, 28 ff.; Ps 71, etc.). Therefore, the Jews could have known that a spiritual kingdom was promised.

ARTICLE III.

ON THE WONDERFUL SPREAD OF CHRIST’S DOCTRINE.

See Th. M. Mamachi, Originum et antiquitatum christianarum libri 20 (5 vols.), Rome 1749–1755; this is the best work written on the subject, and anyone who has read it will not proclaim Harnack’s book, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, to be the first work of its kind and a work of unheard-of learning; F. Rivière, La propagation du christianisme dans les trois premiers siècles, Paris 1907; Th. Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum, often published; P. Allard, Histoire des persécutions (5 vols.), Paris 1885 ff.; Le christianisme et l'empire romain⁴, Paris 1898; G. Sortais, Valeur apologétique du martyre, Paris 1905.

Proposition XX. The wonderful manner in which Christ’s doctrine was spread proves the divinity of this doctrine.

166. Position of the question. We have proved that Christ is a divine envoy whose doctrine, as revealed by God, must be accepted by all. With this, the first part of our inquiry is complete. Nevertheless, it is also useful to consider Christ’s work, or the religion he himself instituted, and to do so in two ways: a) according to its external progress, b) according to its internal character. For here too the divine origin of this religion is suggested, though not proved absolutely, and is confirmed by what has been proved elsewhere. These are not absolute and sufficient arguments in themselves, since it is not impossible for a good doctrine to be discovered by human beings and promoted with special divine help. Nevertheless, as will be clear from what follows, not everything pertaining to the Christian religion can be explained on this supposition alone; and it is enough for us to propose these arguments as confirmation of what we have so far proved.

When the Jews were resisting the Christian religion, Gamaliel said to them: “I tell you, leave these men alone and let them go; for if this plan or work is from human beings, it will be dissolved; but if it is from God, you will not be able to dissolve it” (Act 5, 38 sq.). This test turned out in favor of the Christian religion. The Christian religion has been spread and preserved, overcoming the greatest obstacles, down to our own times.

The Holy Fathers also used this argument. St. Augustine says: “If the very manner in which the world believed is considered, it is found to be more incredible still. Christ sent a very small number of men, untrained in the liberal arts and entirely unpolished, so far as their doctrines were concerned—fishermen with the nets of faith to the sea of this age—and in this way caught so many fish of every kind, and the more remarkable because they were rarer, even the philosophers themselves.… If they do not believe that these miracles also took place through Christ’s apostles, as they preached his resurrection and ascension so that people might believe them, this one great miracle is enough for us: that the whole world believed it without any miracles” (De civ. Dei 22, 5). Cf. Conc. Vatic. sess. 3, c. 3: Denz. n. 1794.

167. Argument. The Christian religion has been spread and preserved throughout the world with singular effectiveness. But human means are not sufficient to explain this spread and preservation. Therefore, a special divine assistance must be acknowledged, by which God testifies that this religion is of divine origin.

Proof of the major. a) The books of the New Testament attest the great and rapid spread of the Christian religion. After Christ’s ascension, about 120 of his disciples were gathered in Jerusalem (Act 1, 15). After Peter’s first sermon, delivered on the day of Pentecost, about three thousand people were converted (Act 2, 41). A few days later many others believed, “and the number of men became five thousand” (Act 4, 4). Nor did the increase cease afterward: “the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord increased still more” (Act 5, 14). After the disciples were scattered from the city, many Samaritans believed (Act 8, 4 ff.). Soon at Antioch “a great number believed and turned to the Lord” (Act 11, 21). Then Paul and Barnabas traveled through Cyprus, Pisidia, and Lycaonia; on returning to Antioch, “they reported all that God had done with them and that he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” (Act 14, 26). After Paul returned to Jerusalem from many apostolic journeys, some said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed” (Act 21, 20). The Apostle Paul wrote letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians; these letters show that the Christian religion had also been introduced with great success in many other places. St. Peter wrote his first letter to the faithful in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. According to the Apocalypse, Christian communities existed in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Apc cc. 2–3). This was truly an astonishing spread, accomplished in a few decades.

b) The same is attested by writers of the second century. St. Justin Martyr says: “There is absolutely no people, whether Greek or barbarian.… I say, there is no such people among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered to the Father and Creator of all through the name of Jesus crucified” (Dial. cum Tryph. n. 117). St. Irenaeus says: “The Church, sown throughout the whole world to its ends.… The churches founded in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Iberia, nor those among the Celts, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those established in the middle of the world. Just as the sun, God’s creature, is one and the same throughout the world, so too the light, the preaching of the truth, shines everywhere and enlightens all people who wish to come to a knowledge of the truth” (Contra haer. I, 10, 1–2). Pliny writes to Trajan about Christians accused before him: “The matter seemed to me worthy of consultation, especially because of the number of those in danger. Many of every age, every rank, and both sexes are being called into danger, and will continue to be. The contagion of this superstition has spread not only through the cities but also through villages and the countryside” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 24). This letter, written at the beginning of the third century, shows how much progress the Christian religion had made in Asia Minor during the second century. Tertullian gives the same testimony about North Africa in his letter to the judge Scapula, c. 2: “Such a great multitude of people, almost the greater part of every city, live in quietness and modesty; perhaps each of us is better known individually than we all are together”; in c. 5: If you wish to kill all these people, “how many fires, how many swords will be needed! What will Carthage itself suffer, when you are decimating it, since everyone there will recognize his relatives and companions, and perhaps see there men of your own rank, matrons, and all the leading people, as well as the relatives or friends of your friends? Spare yourself, then, if not us; spare Carthage, if not yourself; spare the province” (cf. Apolog. 37; Ad nationes I, 8; Adv. iudaeos 7).

The spread in the third century was no less. Origen says: “Could Jesus, wishing to spread his doctrine, without God have accomplished so much in these few years that in many places of this world he attracted many Greeks and barbarians, many wise and unlearned people to his doctrine?… He subdued all Greece and most of the barbarian peoples, and drew countless souls to the worship of God that he taught” (Contra Cels. I, 26 sq.; cf. 3, 9 sq., 15, 29). At the beginning of the fourth century the emperor Maximinus Daia writes to Sabinus: “I think it is known both to your Gravity and to all mortals how our lords and fathers Diocletian and Maximian⁴—when they saw that almost all people, abandoning the worship of the immortal gods, had attached themselves to the Christian sect—rightly and properly decided that anyone who had abandoned the religion of his gods should be recalled to their worship by public punishment and penalty” (Euseb. H. E. 9, 9).

Let these few things suffice to show how rapid the spread of the Christian religion was in the first three centuries. When Constantine gave peace to the Church in the fourth century, this religion had already spread not only throughout the Roman Empire but beyond its borders too, and indeed among every class of people, as Arnobius emphasizes (Adv. gent. 2, 5). Scholars believe that by then more than 1,500 episcopal sees had been established. “You would have seen the highest honor, reverence, and goodwill shown to each bishop of the churches by everyone, both private citizens and provincial governors. Who could adequately describe the countless crowd of people daily taking refuge in the faith of Christ, the number of churches in each city, or the splendid gatherings of peoples in the sacred buildings? The result was that, no longer content with the old buildings, they constructed spacious churches in every city from the very foundations.” In these words Eusebius (H. E. 8, 1) describes the state of the religion immediately before the persecution of Diocletian (303).

168. Proof of the minor. Human means are not sufficient to explain this spread and preservation. For:

a) The greatest obstacles stood in the way of this rapid spread, first and foremost the very person of Jesus Christ, who was a Jew and suffered the most shameful death; nevertheless, he was proposed for worship as God to Greeks and Romans who boasted of their humanity and their worship. “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews but foolishness to the Gentiles” (1 Cor 1, 23). To the Romans the Jews were “the most contemptible part of their subjects” and “a most detestable race” (Tacit., Hist. 5, 8). Yet the founder of the Christian religion was a crucified Jew. It is therefore not surprising that the Gentiles imposed so many insulting names on Christians, a great many of which Mamachi collected (vol. I, c. 2).

Then the doctrine proposed by the apostles, who themselves were uneducated Jews, invited people to a humble and chaste life, apart from the things after which the Gentiles yearned with their whole being. It was an exclusive doctrine that allowed neither other gods nor another worship, and was therefore subversive of the pagan religion, which was most closely bound up with all public and private life.

Thus, just as among the Jews a false expectation of a glorious temporal kingdom hindered the acceptance of the Christian religion, among the Gentiles ancestral customs were, as it were, turned into their very flesh and blood. Whoever became a Christian had to abstain from pageants, games, spectacles, and the common feasts that were so pleasing to the Romans and Greeks. Therefore, the Gentiles called the Christian religion “a deadly superstition” (Tacit., Annal. 15, 44), “madness” (Pliny, Ep. 96 to Trajan), “a frenzied belief” (*Min.

Felix, Octav. 11), and similar things. It was greatly in the interest of the pagan priests to attack a religion so hostile to their own. The Roman emperors were the supreme pontiffs, and they too were worshiped as gods. They therefore could not patiently bear Christians denying them this honor, but for three centuries tried to extinguish the Christian religion by the most terrible persecutions. Yet after three centuries pagan fury and superstition lay defeated: the Christian religion triumphed as victor.

b) Natural means were entirely disproportionate to securing the victory of the Christian religion. Twelve men of the Jewish nation, without arms, worldly learning, or the promise of any temporal advantage, set out to subject the Roman Empire to a doctrine and religion most opposed to human desires by nature. Although all the powerful opposed them, remarkable success crowned their work, and this work continues to our own times. Having overcome the greatest internal and external difficulties, it still flourishes, still grows, and always wins in the end, even if it seems for a time to be defeated by its adversaries. If the divine origin of a work could ever be inferred from its greatness, duration, vitality, and beneficial character, this conclusion certainly applies to the Christian religion. Just as it arose and spread not without many miracles, so it is itself a great miracle. Origen rightly proposed this for the pagans to consider: “If anyone, reflecting wisely on these things, grants that nothing good happens to people without God, how much more confidently will he affirm this of Jesus, when he compares the former conduct of those who have embraced Christ’s doctrine with their new conduct, and observes how given they were to what is filthy, unjust, and covetous.… But how fairer, more grateful, and more steadfast they have become since they made themselves teachable to that doctrine.… Whoever considers these things will understand that Jesus undertook things beyond human power and accomplished what he undertook. For from the beginning everyone tried to prevent Jesus’ doctrine from being spread throughout the whole world: the kings of every age…, soldiers, and peoples. He conquered them all, since his doctrine was from God and of such a nature that it could not be hindered and would overcome all its adversaries” (Contra Cels. I, 27). St. John Chrysostom elegantly develops this argument in his oration “That Christ Is God” (M 48, 813 ff.).

169. Objection I. In the early times of the Christian religion, many natural causes were present that greatly favored its rapid spread, such as the unity of the Roman Empire, which contained so many peoples; the dispersion of the Jews throughout the world; the religious syncretism of that age; the eclecticism of Christians, who appropriated from Jewish doctrine and Gentile philosophy whatever seemed useful; the doctrine of universal brotherhood itself, which attracted slaves and other unfortunate people; and the promise of a future glorious kingdom of Christ and his disciples. Therefore, there is no need to have recourse to supernatural assistance from God.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: There were many causes that, by the arrangement of divine providence, greatly aided the spread of the Christian religion, I concede the antecedent; those favorable causes were not opposed by the greatest obstacles, which were overcome in an altogether extraordinary way, I deny the antecedent. I distinguish the consequence: Therefore, naturally favorable causes are not to be denied, I concede the consequence; therefore, these causes alone suffice to explain the whole effect, I deny the consequence.

The Roman Empire certainly made access to many peoples easier; but when the emperors had decreed that the Christian name should be wiped out, no one could protect Christians against their powerful fury. The apostles first approached the Jews living in the Diaspora, and from their synagogues the report of the new religion spread everywhere; but the Christian religion found among them even the most obstinate adversaries, including among women (cf. Act 13, 50; 14, 18; 17, 5 13; 18, 6; 19, 6; 21, 27 sqq; 23, 12 sqq). Religious syncretism was most opposed by the religion that teaches that one God alone, all others excluded, must be worshiped. Christians acknowledged what was true wherever they found it, whether among Jews or Gentiles, and gradually turned it to their own use; nevertheless, they attacked far more falsehoods, and especially those most cherished by the Jews and Gentile philosophers. Hence we see first the Jews, then many philosophers, arguing fiercely against the Christian religion (Celsus, Porphyry, Proclus, and others). The doctrine of universal brotherhood pleased the poor, but displeased the powerful; nor were the poor taught by this doctrine to rebel against the powerful, but rather to be content with their own lot (1 Cor 7, 17 sqq. Eph 6, 5 sqq) and to seek good things not in this life but in the next. That the Christian religion, by promising future spiritual goods, drew people away from a harmful love of temporal things is its greatest praise and a singular gift, surpassing human power.

170. Objection II. Many religions spread very rapidly, yet no one attributes a divine origin or special help from God to them, such as Buddhism and Mohammedanism. Therefore, the Christian religion should not be called divine because of its rapid spread either.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: Other religions spread rapidly by means naturally proportionate to their spread, I concede the antecedent; without means naturally proportionate, as the Christian religion did, I deny the antecedent. And I deny the consequence and the parallel.

Buddhism was at first nothing but a certain philosophical system among other Indian systems. Gradually, however, it became a kind of popular polytheistic religion, like the other religions of the Indians. Buddhism spread through an internal cause, because it taught that people could be freed from every evil provided that they maintained perfect quiet, abstaining from all bodily and intellectual work—a doctrine that pleased the Indians greatly. An external cause of its spread was the favor of princes; for Buddhism did not overcome violent and prolonged persecutions as the Christian religion did. Moreover, if only those are called Buddhists who observe at least the most fundamental precepts of Buddha, Buddhism has almost died out. The great number of Buddhism’s adherents that is sometimes reported is nothing but a great exaggeration. (I have collected further evidence on this matter in «Stimmen aus Maria-Laach» XXXIII 118 sqq.)

Mohammedanism began to spread rapidly only when it was imposed upon peoples by force of arms. Its moral laxity and promise of a wholly sensual paradise undoubtedly strongly attract uncultivated people. But it has caused the greatest harm to morality, true humanity, and the progress of the human race (cf. S. Thom., Contra gent. I, 6).

Some also compare Mithraism (the worship of Mithras) with the Christian religion. But there is no parallel. Mithraism was a cult artificially spread chiefly among Roman soldiers in the third century; it never became a religion of the people and soon came to nothing (cf. E. B. Allo, L'évangile en face du syncrétisme païen, Paris 1910).

We will say some other things about the spread of the Christian religion later, in the treatise on the catholicity of the Church.

Proposition XXI. In particular, martyrdom confirms the divinity of the Christian religion.

171. Position of the question. Martyrdom is the undergoing of a deadly punishment inflicted out of hatred for the faith or other virtues and endured patiently. Martyrdom may be considered either as an act of fortitude (cf. Praelect. dogm. IX, n. 69 sqq), as a kind of baptism (ibid. VI, n. 424 sqq), or as testimony borne to the Christian religion. Here it is taken in this last sense, which is especially suited to the word itself, since “martyr” means the same as “witness.”

In Scripture, all who bear witness to the Gospel of Christ are indeed called martyrs (Lc 24, 48. Act 1, 8). Gradually, however, among the Latins this title came to be reserved for those who suffered death for confessing the faith; the first of them was St. Stephen: τὸ αἶμα Στεφάνου τοῦ μάρτυρός σου (Act 22, 20). Another of the first martyrs was Antipas, who died at Pergamum as “my faithful witness” (ὁ μάρτυς μου ὁ πιστός: Apc 2, 13). In Scripture, the undergoing of death itself is not called martyrdom; rather, martyrs are said to have been killed on account of μαρτυρίαν, that is, on account of their testimony (Apc 6, 9; 20, 4). For later writers, however, martyrdom means the undergoing of death for the faith of Christ.

The thesis proceeds from the historical fact that many people voluntarily and patiently suffered death for the Christian religion. We ask what caused this fortitude, and, seeing that there can be no other cause than the special help God gave to the martyrs, we conclude that the Christian religion, which is helped by God in so special a way, is truly a religion revealed by God.

172. Argument. Very many people suffered death for the Christian religion in a remarkable way. But this cannot be explained without special assistance from God, who testifies to the truth of the Christian religion. Therefore, this religion, which presents itself as divinely revealed, is truly revealed by God.

Proof of the major. a) A great multitude of martyrs died for the Christian religion. In Sacred Scripture there is already mention of the gravest persecutions of Christians, stirred up both by Jews and by Gentiles (Act 6, 8 sqq; 8, 1. 1 Petr 4, 12 sqq), and of the souls of those “killed for the word of God” (Apc 6, 9), “beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who did not worship the beast” (Apc 20, 4; cf. 17, 6). Clemens Rom. (I Cor. 6, 1) speaks of the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul and of the “great multitude of the elect,” who were joined to the apostles through “many punishments and tortures.” St. Irenaeus says: “The Church, everywhere, on account of its love for God, continually sends a multitude of martyrs to the Father” (Contra haer. 4, 33, 9). Athenagoras (Legat. n. 34), St. Cyprian in De mortalitate n. 26, and Lactantius in De mortibus persecutorum testify to the same.

Sulpicius Severus says of Nero: “He was the first to undertake to destroy the Christian name; for vices are always hostile to virtues” (Chronic. 2, 28). According to Tacitus, under Nero “an immense multitude” of Christians perished; “mockery was added to their deaths, so that, covered with the skins of beasts, they died torn by dogs, or were fastened to crosses, or set on fire, and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as nocturnal illumination” (Annal. 15, 44). Suetonius says: “Christians, a class of people belonging to a new and harmful superstition, were afflicted with punishments” (Vita Neronis 16, 2).

Following St. Augustine (De civ. Dei 18, 52), people usually count ten persecutions up to Constantine the Great: those of Nero (54—68), Domitian (81—96), Trajan (98—117), Marcus Aurelius (161—180), Septimius Severus (193—211), Maximinus Thrax (235—238), Decius (249 ad 251), Valerian (253—260), Aurelian (270—275), and Diocletian (284 ad 305).

How great the fury of the Gentiles under Decius was, and how atrocious were the crimes committed against Christians, is recounted by St. Dionysius of Alexandria, who witnessed them (Euseb. H. E. 6, 40 sqq). But to recount them one by one would take too long. Eusebius of Caesarea says of the persecutions of his own age: “It is impossible to say how many and how great a number of martyrs could be seen here and there in every place and city” (H. E. 8, 4). “It is now scarcely possible to count those who thereafter suffered martyrdom in each province.… We ourselves were present while these things were happening” (ibid. c. 6 sq). In Egypt, “almost numberless men, with their wives and children, despising this temporal life for the doctrine of our Savior, endured various kinds of death.… All these things were done not for a few days or a short time, but continuously over the course of several years, when at one time ten, at another twenty or more, sometimes as many as thirty or sixty, and at other times a hundred men and women were killed in a single day, subjected in turn to various tortures. When we ourselves were living in those parts, we saw very many killed in heaps in a single day, some beheaded, others consigned to the flames, so that the swords themselves grew blunt and the executioners, exhausted, took turns replacing one another” (ibid. c. 8 sq). He recounts the burning of an entire city in Phrygia, “with men, women, and little children invoking Christ, God of all” (ibid. c. 11).

Therefore, there was undoubtedly a great multitude of martyrs who suffered for the Christian religion during the first three centuries. Nor were the gravest persecutions absent afterward. Thus in Persia under Shapur II (309—381), one edict was issued in 342 and another in 343, ordering that all Christians, or at least all clerics, be killed. Sozomen (H. E. 2) testifies that the names of sixteen thousand martyrs then killed were known. In Persia, with only brief intervals, persecutions raged for three centuries. The history of China and Japan shows that martyrs were not absent even in our own age. (Cf. H. Leclercq., Les martyrs, 9 vol., Paris 1892—1909, a saeculo I usque ad saeculum XVII inclusive.)

b) The martyrs underwent death for the religion in a remarkable way. For the martyrs fought not by resisting but by enduring, not for their own opinions but for Jesus Christ and his religion, without any hope of temporal advantage. Nor could most of them hope for great fame among posterity, since they were unknown people, whose deaths no one cared about, and they suffered in secret. Far more martyrs are unknown by name than are known. The torments were often most severe and prolonged. “Some, after the hooks and racks, after most cruel beatings and various tortures horrible even to recount, were consumed by fire; others were drowned in the sea; others cheerfully offered their heads to the executioners to be cut off. Some died amid the tortures themselves, some were consumed by hunger, and others were crucified. Some were fastened up in the way criminals are usually crucified; others, more cruelly, were nailed up with their heads downward and kept alive until they perished of hunger on the very crosses” (Euseb. H. E. 8, 8). These things undoubtedly show the immense fanaticism of the Gentiles against Christians, which other writers also attest, such as Tertullian (Apolog. 40).

On the contrary, how far the martyrs were from fanaticism can be seen in their Acts. They answer calmly and modestly that they have done nothing wrong and are accused only on account of the Christian name; that they are ready to obey the emperors in every honorable matter, but cannot fall away from Christ and worship false gods. When condemned, they give thanks to God and patiently endure the gravest punishments. This is what we read in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, and in the Acts of Carpus, Papylus, Agathonice, etc. (Kirch, Enchir. 59 sqq 65 sqq 146 sqq). Eusebius emphasizes in many places how greatly he was struck with admiration when he saw the fortitude of the martyrs. “They thought dangers and every kind of manifold torture of little account; with free speech and without any fear they professed the worship of the supreme God, and, laughing with joy and gladness, received the sentence of death, so that to the last breath they sang psalms, hymns, and thanksgivings in praise of the Creator of all, God” (H. E. 8, 9). Similar things are recounted about martyrs of every age (cf. Ottiger, Theol. fundam. I, 884 ff.).

This often happened: the Gentiles, overcome by this greatness of spirit, were converted to the faith. St. Justin Martyr says: “For while we are struck with the sword, while we are crucified, while we are handed over to wild beasts, chains, fire, and every other torture, as is evident, we do not depart from our confession. Rather, the more such things are inflicted on us, the more others become faithful and devout through the name of Jesus” (Dial. cum Tryph. 110). Tertullian says: “We become more numerous whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed” (Apolog. 50).

Very often Christians could free themselves from punishments by sacrificing to the gods of the Gentiles or by procuring certificates of sacrifice (a specimen of which is in Kirch, Enchir. n. 207 sq.). But they preferred to endure the most dreadful things rather than renounce Christ, even in appearance.

173. Proof of the minor. This constancy cannot be explained without special divine assistance. Fanaticism, pride, and obstinacy may sometimes impel one or another person to endure torture bravely. But when we are dealing with people of every condition—men, women, boys, girls, the elderly, nobles, common people—with a vast multitude, over the course of centuries in which persecutions were stirred up again and again, yet always with the same result, every natural explanation fails. Lactantius says: “Robbers and men of strong bodies cannot endure such lacerations; they cry out and groan, for they are overcome by pain because they lack divinely inspired patience. But our people, to say nothing of the men, even boys and women silently overcome their torturers, and not even fire can make them utter a groan.… Behold, the weaker sex and tender age allow their whole bodies to be torn and burned, not out of necessity—for they can avoid it if they wish—but of their own will, because they trust in God” (Inst. 5, 13). Origen says: “One can see how in a short time the religion itself grew, prospering through the punishments and deaths of its adherents.… From this it is beyond doubt that the word of Christ Jesus did not prevail in the minds and hearts of all with such faith and power through human strength or resources. It is also clear that these very things had been foretold by him and confirmed by his divine responses” (De principiis 4, 1 2). Such is the testimony of those who witnessed these events and in part suffered such things themselves.

Thus martyrdom confirms the Christian religion in three ways: 1. From the very beginning of the Christian religion there has been a “cloud of witnesses” who with the greatest constancy bear witness to the doctrine and events that are the foundation of this religion. 2. By giving the martyrs such singular assistance and often adding other miracles, God himself bears witness to the truth of the Christian religion. c) In this way Christ’s prophecies of future persecutions and future divine assistance are fulfilled (Mt 10, 16 sqq. Lc 12, 11 sq; 20, 12 sqq. Io 15, 18 sqq; 16, 1 sqq).

174. Objection I. The number of martyrs was not great, for Origen writes that only a few were killed for the Christian religion. Therefore, we should not argue from a great multitude of martyrs.

I answer. I deny the antecedent, and various replies must be made to the added reason. For even if there had not been many martyrs up to Origen’s time⁵, there were nevertheless very many after his age, as the testimonies cited show. Moreover, Origen is answering Celsus’s objection that the Christian name would soon be extinguished, since so many Christians had already been killed. “It is not so,” Origen says; “rather, God preserved very many and wanted only a few to be martyrs. Few, and easily counted, died for the Christian religion at intervals. But God never allowed their people to be altogether extinguished” (Contra Cels. 3, 8). In the same place (1, 3), however, he says that the fury of the Gentiles was so great that the Christian religion “would undoubtedly have been crushed, had it not escaped through divine power.” Therefore, he is speaking of the fewness of martyrs in comparison with the much greater number of those who were preserved.

175. Objection II. Many Christians fell away from the faith during the persecutions. But this fact weighs just as much against the Christian religion as the martyrs’ constancy for the Christian religion. Therefore, the argument from martyrdom collapses.

I answer. I concede the major. I deny the minor and the consequence. For if someone is compelled by force and fear to say or do something against his own conviction, this certainly does not have the same force as testimony as does someone who professes his conviction so firmly that he remains steadfast in it against all force and fear. Moreover, many of those who fell away during the persecutions later returned to the Church in repentance and performed severe penance, and thus manifested their true mind. Why God did not help everyone equally effectively to scorn and overcome the torments is a mystery of grace and human free cooperation, about which we must not judge. It is enough that God strengthened so great a multitude of martyrs, fighting for the religion, in so singular and evident a way.

176. Objection III. Brave soldiers in war despise dangers, wounds, and death. People also often endure great evils for their honor or their opinions. But it does not rightly follow from these things that the cause for which they endure them is good and true. Therefore, this conclusion does not hold for martyrdom either.

I answer. I concede the major and the minor, but deny the consequence and the parallel. For this is precisely the difference between martyrs and people displaying natural fortitude: those people fight by attacking or defending themselves with force, whereas martyrs do not resist but endure patiently, placing their hope solely in God, for whose revelation and honor they lose all they have, even life itself, and endure every grave suffering. St. John Chrysostom says: “The one dragged to martyrdom conquers while bound, scourged, cut to pieces, and slain. And just as in war the one who falls is said to be defeated, so with us this very thing is victory.… God gave you this fortitude, so that you conquer not by combat but only by suffering” (In Matth. hom. 84, n. 4).

ARTICLE IV.

ON THE INTERNAL CRITERIA OF CHRIST’S DOCTRINE.

A. M. Weiß treats this subject at great length from the perspective of the moral order in Apologie des Christentums⁴, 5 vols., Freiburg 1904. He shows that the Christian religion educates the whole person: it educates people for true humanity, for social life, and for spiritual perfection. E. Lingens, Die innere Schönheit des Christentums², Freiburg 1902.

F. Souben, L'estétique du dogme chrétien, Paris 1898; I. Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit IV, n. 190 ff.; Th. Specht, Lehrbuch der Apologetik § 36 ff.

Proposition XXII. The internal criteria, too, suggest the divinity of Christ’s doctrine.

177. Position of the question. Many Protestants maintain that the truth of the Christian religion can be perceived through internal experience alone (cf. Denz. n. 1812). The Modernists have partly approached this error (Denz. n. 2074 sq 2081). Some Catholics think that people of our age can be attracted to the Christian religion almost exclusively by internal criteria, and therefore that these arguments should be given first place in apologetics. Nevertheless, to become a Christian, a person must accept doctrines because they have been revealed by God. But their having been revealed cannot be known with certainty by the way of internal criteria or internal experience. For internal experience by itself is too ambiguous, vague, and changeable; those who follow it alone soon turn to opposing opinions and do not remain consistent with themselves. Nor does the excellence of a doctrine alone prove its divine origin. If the truths in question are above reason, the intellect does not find perfect rest in them, since it cannot even perceive the possibility of mysteries from internal reasons (supra n. 69). If, however, the truths are not inaccessible to reason, how do internal criteria prove that they were revealed by God? Therefore, once revelation has already been proved on other grounds, consideration of internal criteria may serve instead as confirmation. Some of these considerations may also be used to dispose people’s minds, so that, once obstacles arising from prejudices have been removed, they may be more readily prepared to give ear to divine revelation.

178. Argument. That doctrine is worthy of God and divine revelation which instructs the intellect in all that must be known in order rightly to order religious and moral life, strengthens the will to pursue its proper end effectively, and is most apt for shaping social life in the best way. But such is the doctrine of Christ. Therefore its divine origin is established in this way.

To the major. If God gives a revelation, he surely gives it for this purpose: to assist the noblest pursuits and desires of human beings. These are the pursuit and desire to know and pursue the highest truth and good, to have a right knowledge of the origin and end of things, and to order life so that the inborn desire for happiness is not in vain, but that a sure hope shines forth of attaining perfect happiness. And since the human being is a social being, it is fitting to his nature that he attain these goods not merely as an individual but as a member of human society. Therefore illumination of the intellect concerning religious and moral truths and goods, strengthening the will to pursue these goods resolutely, and the social sharing and propagation of these truths and goods are rightly established a priori as the requirements of a revelation worthy of God.

179. Proof of the minor, part I. The doctrine of Christ instructs the intellect in the knowledge necessary for religious and moral life. There are two things man naturally demands of God, so that he may worship him truly as God: incomprehensible majesty and an intimacy that brings help. For a God whom man could fully grasp would not be God, but a human being magnified beyond measure. Sound reason, however, demands a God distinguished from man not by degree but by essence, a being of an order wholly higher in substance: a God whom, the more we know, the more incomprehensible we perceive him to be.⁶ Yet God must not be so remote from man that human affairs seem to have nothing to do with him; for man desires to have a true God who is at the same time his own God.

Christian revelation wonderfully answers this twofold desire, teaching that God is One and Triune, creator of all, and at the same time our Father. The One and Triune God is the highest mystery, through which the inner life of the Godhead is revealed to us in such a way that we also perceive our complete incapacity ever to comprehend that life. We are not asked to believe a contradiction, as though the same thing in the same respect were said to be one and three; rather, the one and only divine nature is said to contain in itself three personal relations, by virtue of which, according to our way of conceiving, God is not like a solitary being content with contemplating and loving himself, but truly possesses within himself mutual knowledge and love, without any injury to supreme simplicity. We do not understand how this is; but no one can reasonably deny that, if it is so, it is most beautiful. Christ revealed that it is so; therefore he taught us of God as our mind requires him to be: a God who dwells in inaccessible light (1 Tim 5, 16), whose illumination shows us the unexplored depths of divine life.

Yet this infinite God is at the same time presented as joined to us in such intimacy that we may address him, “Our Father, who art in heaven,” and ask his help with filial confidence and sure hope of being heard in all the needs of our soul and body. Indeed, this infinite God, in order to draw us to himself more effectively, made human nature his own, became one of us as a man, and taught us by word and example what our true end is and by what way we can reach it. “The kindness and humanity of our Saviour God appeared” (Tit 3, 4). “I am the light of the world; he who follows me does not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Io 8, 12). “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Io 14, 6).

Because God himself has taught us, we now know with the greatest certainty where we have come from and where we are going—the two most serious questions that troubled the minds of all people before Christ and left the intellects of the greatest philosophers in doubt. Anyone, even a child who knows the catechism, can, relying on divine revelation, give clearer and more certain answers to the cardinal questions of human life than the Platonists, Peripatetics, Stoics, and all the philosophers together once gave (cf. Tertull., Apolog. 46 sqq). Unbelieving philosophers indeed raised many objections against Christian doctrine, but they could not overturn it. Rather, many tacitly admit that they have been defeated by transferring a great deal from the system of Christian doctrine into their own systems, and presenting matters as though they had found them themselves rather than received them elsewhere. How false this is can readily be seen by comparing the philosophy of the ancient pagan writers with that of those who wrote after Christ’s revelation. Above all, such progress is evident in ethics that this branch of philosophy is a kind of silent yet eloquent homage rendered to the Christian religion. Those who have tried to establish new systems against this religion have always been wandering stars, which have disturbed people for a short time and then vanished forever. If anything can be inferred from the history of past centuries, the doctrine of Christ will flourish and bear fruit when hostile doctrines, which perhaps now enjoy great admiration, have long since been buried.

180. Proof of the minor, part II. Christian doctrine strengthens the will. It is of no benefit to illuminate the intellect unless strength is also added to the will, so that it may follow the light of truth resolutely and steadfastly. Philosophy is especially deficient here: even in what philosophers teach rightly, they encounter the greatest difficulty in human weakness, which they cannot heal. But the Christian religion also wonderfully comes to the aid of human weakness, in three ways: by showing the most blessed end, by promising the strongest help of God, which is infallibly obtained through prayer and the other means instituted by Christ, and by displaying the examples of Christ and the Saints, which show that these promises are neither vain nor ineffective. Through the Christian religion a vast multitude of people have been led from the wretched state of moral ruin to the highest sanctity. Even before the year 200, the pagan physician Galen marvels that there are so many true philosophers among Christians: “For we see before our eyes how they despise death; likewise, that, moved by modesty, they abstain from sexual intercourse. Among them are women and men who have abstained from intercourse throughout their whole lives; there are also those who have advanced so far in governing and restraining their souls, and in their most ardent pursuit, that they yield nothing to those who truly philosophize” (Kirch, Enchir. n. 132). In truth, those who “truly philosophize” are far inferior to the holy Christians who, out of pure love of God, devote themselves and all they possess to divine service and the good of their neighbours.

181. Proof of the minor, part III. Christian doctrine is most apt for rightly ordering social life. How corrupt civil society was is described no less forcefully by Tacitus (Annal. 14, 20 and throughout books 14 and 15) and other pagan writers than by S. Paul, who depicts the pagans as people “filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, ill will, whisperers, slanderers, hateful to God, insolent, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, disorderly, without affection, without covenant, without mercy” (Rom 1, 29 sqq). But he writes to Christians: “Such indeed you were, but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified” (1 Cor 6, 11). “Therefore, putting away lying, speak the truth, each one with his neighbour. … Be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, as God in Christ also forgave you. … Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord. … Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church. … Children, obey your parents in the Lord. … And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as you would Christ. … And you, masters, do the same toward them, giving up threats, knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with him” (Eph 4:25–32; 5:22–25; 6:1–9).

Not all Christians have kept the holy commandments in a holy manner; but if any have sinned, they must do penance and promise future amendment. The Christian religion, though kind toward human beings, does not connive at vices: it either leads sinners who are willing to repentance, or separates from its communion those who obstinately refuse. Above all, Christ restored the sanctity of marriage, which had fallen into the most miserable condition. “Among us all things are shared [that is, common] except our wives. In this one matter we dissolve our fellowship, in which alone other people practise fellowship: they not only take their friends’ marriages for their own, but most patiently lend their own wives to their friends, following, I suppose, the teaching of their ancestors and wisest men, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared with their friends the wives they had married to have children by them elsewhere—whether with their consent, I do not know. For why should they care about chastity, which husbands had so readily given away? O example of Attic wisdom, O Roman gravity! The philosopher and censor is a procurer” (Tertull., Apolog. 39). But why say more? It cannot be hidden from anyone except one unwilling to see how great a transformation for the better human society has undergone through the Christian religion.

Therefore, from the inner character of the Christian religion, its divine origin is suggested. For this religion has doctrines so lofty, moral precepts so distinguished, and motives and means so effective and adapted to the understanding of all people, that no doctrine ever invented by men can be compared with it. Since this religion not only far surpasses all pagan philosophy but also contains many things plainly contrary to men’s earlier opinions, no sufficient explanation of it seems possible except divine revelation. It is improbable and contrary to right reason that what no philosophers could accomplish could have been accomplished by a few unlettered Jewish men through their natural powers. In this way, then, what we have already established by other arguments is confirmed: that God himself has spoken to us through Jesus Christ, and that the doctrine of Jesus Christ must be received just as the doctrine of God himself.

182. Added to this is a most salutary inner experience, by which a person who seriously follows the doctrine of Christ feels its wondrous effects within himself: peace of soul, pursuit of virtue, desire for heavenly things, lessening of evil passions, and an increase of charity and other supernatural gifts. On the contrary, without the Christian religion all grows dark, passions grow stronger, virtue is despaired of, and all things are dragged downward. This is surely no slight indication that God is the author of the Christian religion. “My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone wills to do his will, he will know concerning the doctrine whether it is from God, or whether I speak from myself” (Io 7, 16 sq). In this way God is wont to preserve and strengthen people in the Christian religion.

Nevertheless, this criterion by itself is not sufficient, because those who are not yet Christians lack this experience, and yet they must embrace the Christian religion. Moreover, good Christians do not all have the same inner experiences, nor do they always have the same experiences; at times they seem, with Christ crucified, to have been abandoned by God and deprived of all supernatural help, and yet even in a time of inner trial they must be able to recognize the religion and revelation as divine. Therefore another, firmer and more stable foundation is necessary. This foundation is provided by objective criteria, through which the intellect is convinced of the divinity of the Christian religion; for only that disposition of the will can be firm and stable which follows the unambiguous light of the intellect.

183. Objection I. If there were a divine power in the Christian religion for teaching and moving people, this power would always manifest itself. But more and more people each day turn away from the Christian religion, ridicule its dogmas, and make light of its moral precepts. Therefore the great success the Christian religion once enjoyed must be attributed not to divine power but to favourable circumstances.

I answer. I distinguish the major: divine power will always manifest itself by morally persuading and converting many people, and preserving them in a holy life, I concede the major; by imposing necessity on people and compelling everyone, even against their will, I deny the major. I distinguish the minor: many fall away, while many others remain faithful, I concede the minor; only the falling away can be seen, and not the perseverance and growth of many others, I deny the minor. And I deny the consequence.

Although the falling away of many is a sad fact, the steadfastness of others shines all the more, and divine providence’s help is all the more evident in the Church’s preservation and growth. Besides, it is certain that a great apostasy of people will take place in the last times, because Christ foretold it (Mt 24, 12. Lc 18, 8. 1 Thess 2, 3 sqq). The falling away therefore occurs not through a failure of divine power, but by the inscrutable judgment of God, who permits so great an evil.

184. Objection II. By recalling people from the pursuit of temporal things and placing all hope in heavenly goods, the Christian religion makes people inert and idle and impedes the progress of culture. Therefore, at least in this respect, it is not to be admired but blamed.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: the Christian religion recalls people from immoderate concern for temporal things, by which they become wretched rather than happy, and teaches that the ultimate end is the standard by which all things are judged, I concede the antecedent; it teaches that people should neglect their duties toward themselves and toward human society, I deny the antecedent. And I deny the consequence. Christ did not teach that any honest business should be abandoned or any duty performed carelessly; rather, he taught that right order should be kept in all things and temporal goods subordinated to eternal ones. In civil life Christians must do no different things from other people, but the same things in a different way, according to this very simple rule: “Whatever you do, work from the heart, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; serve the Lord Christ” (Col 3, 23 sq).

That objection is an old one, of which Tertullian says: “But we are charged with another accusation as well, and are called unproductive in business. How can that be, when we live with you, sharing the same food, dress, and the same necessities of life?⁷ … We remember that we owe gratitude to God the Lord and Creator; we reject none of the fruits of his works, but plainly use them with restraint, lest we use them beyond measure or improperly. Thus we live together in this world with you, not without the forum, the marketplace, the baths, shops, workshops, inns, your markets, and the other centres of trade. We sail with you, serve as soldiers, farm, and trade; we likewise practise our crafts and make our work available for your use. How we can seem unproductive in business, when we live with and from you, I do not know” (Apolog. 42). Besides, there is no need to explain at length how greatly the Christian religion has advanced material and spiritual culture, since clear evidence is placed before everyone’s eyes.