The real and well-documented argument, found in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 6.
The first point
Aquinas first affirms that miracles genuinely occurred — the sick were healed, the dead raised, and, most remarkably, simple and uneducated men were given sudden wisdom and eloquence by the Holy Spirit. There are the wonderful cures of illnesses, the raising of the dead, and the wonderful immutation in the heavenly bodies; and what is more wonderful, there is the inspiration given to human minds, so that simple and untutored persons, filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit, come to possess instantaneously the highest wisdom and the readiest eloquence.
Because of these signs, an innumerable throng of people, both simple and most learned, flocked to the Christian faith — and this happened through the efficacy of the abovementioned proof, and not the violent assault of arms or the promise of pleasure, and (what is most wonderful of all) in the midst of the tyranny of the persecutors.
(This in itself means it was a miracle, for Christianity to spread world wide, and also for the Jewish people being monotheistic coming to worship a Jewish man).
The Second, Sharper Point
Aquinas then raises a hypothetical to make the argument airtight: even if no miracles had occurred, the conversion of the world by twelve poor fishermen would itself be the greatest miracle of all. This so wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is so certain a sign of past miracles, that they need no further reiteration, since they appear evidently in their effects. It would be more wonderful than all other miracles, if without miraculous signs the world had been induced by simple and low-born men to believe truths so arduous, to do works so difficult, to hope for reward so high.
In other words: the world’s conversion is itself the ongoing, visible proof of the earlier miracles — so vivid and undeniable a sign that Aquinas says even if the miraculous element were subtracted, the sheer improbability of fishermen converting the whole world to renounce pleasure, embrace difficult truths, and die for their faith would demand a supernatural explanation on its own.
The Bottom Line
The conversion itself remains inexplicable by natural causes. Twelve unlettered fishermen overturning the wisdom of philosophers, the might of empires, and the disordered desires of the flesh, without armies or bribes, is not the kind of thing simple men accomplish by their own power.
Given that no other explanation — political, military, or philosophical — accounts for uneducated men from Galilee overturning the entire Roman world within three centuries, what natural cause would need to be proposed to explain it away?
Confirmed — Aquinas Is Not Alone on This
Aquinas is drawing on a tradition that predates him by nearly nine hundred years — this exact argument has a name (the “twin dilemma”) and a lineage running through the Fathers, medieval theology, and into modern apologetics.
St. Augustine Said It First
Writing in the early fifth century, centuries before Aquinas, Augustine posed the identical dilemma in City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 8. Augustine asked directly: “How is it that in enlightened times, in which every impossibility is rejected, the world has, without any miracles, believed things marvellously incredible?” His conclusion is stated as a formal either/or, structurally identical to what later appears in Aquinas: “either incredible things which were not witnessed have caused the world to believe other incredible things which both occurred and were witnessed, or this matter was so credible that it needed no miracles in proof of it, and therefore convicts these unbelievers of unpardonable scepticism.” Aquinas inherited this argument from Augustine and sharpened it into the six-fold proof structure of Summa Contra Gentiles I.6.
Blaise Pascal Carried It Forward
Centuries after Aquinas, Pascal picked up the same reasoning but shifted the emphasis toward the apostles’ willingness to die rather than recant. Pascal’s argument, later summarized by philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, runs through the psychological impossibility of conspiracy: imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus’ death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead — this means attacking all the powers that be, and the human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. Pascal’s version does not require the reader to grant the miracles up front — it isolates the human behavior itself (unbribable, untorturable unity of testimony) as evidence no natural motive explains.
Why This Matters
Three witnesses, separated by centuries and writing in entirely different contexts — a North African bishop confronting a collapsing Roman Empire, a Dominican friar addressing philosophers and Muslim scholars, and a French mathematician answering Enlightenment skeptics — arrived at the same structural conclusion independently reinforced across eras. That convergence itself is worth noting: it is not one man’s rhetorical flourish but a recurring recognition, by minds of the highest caliber in every century since the event itself, that no purely natural account closes the gap.
The Bottom Line
This is not “Aquinas’s argument” that a skeptic can dismiss as one philosopher’s clever framing — it is the shared verdict of the Church’s greatest minds across fifteen centuries, examining the same historical fact and arriving at the same dilemma every time.
Question
Given that Augustine, Aquinas, and Pascal — separated by thirteen hundred years and radically different intellectual worlds — all landed on the identical conclusion, what would it take for a skeptic today to treat that convergence as evidence rather than coincidence?
Leave a Reply