本文旨在探討利瑪竇（Matteo Ricci）在《天主實義》中對天主存在的論證方式，並分析其哲學來源。傳統上，學界認為利瑪竇關於天主存在的證明理論深受多瑪斯·阿奎納（Thomas Aquinas）的影響，尤其是其「五路證明」。然而，本文旨在進一步指出，利瑪竇的天主存在論證不僅繼承了多瑪斯的思想，還融合了其他哲學傳統，尤其是來自古代哲學（如西塞羅和亞里士多德），並遵循了16世紀伊比利亞傳教士，如路易斯·德·格拉納達（Luis de Granada, O.P.）的護教風格。透過比較《天主實義》與《神學大全》、《駁異大全》及《信仰表徵 之引言》，本文試圖說明利瑪竇在論述策略上展現出「融合主義」特徵。他不僅採用了多瑪斯哲學中的「目的因證明」，還借鑑了西塞羅（Cicero）的「良能論」、以及16世紀傳教士的論述結構，並以符合中國文化的表達方式加以改寫。並進一步解釋，為什麼利瑪竇的天主存在理論並不應當被認為是多瑪斯思想的單純照搬，而是在適應東亞文化語境的同時，融入多種哲學與神學傳統，形成了獨特的融合風格的論證模式。這種融合不僅體現在文本結構與內容選擇上，也體現在論證方式的適應與轉換上。這種風格體現了利瑪竇天主存在證明理論來源的多樣性和其風格的時代性。

This paper aims to explore Matteo Ricci’s arguments for the existence of God in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven and analyse their philosophical origins. Traditionally, scholars have regarded Ricci’s theory of proving God’s existence as being deeply influenced by Thomas Aquinas, particularly his “Five Ways” of proving God’s existence. However, this study seeks to further demonstrate that Ricci’s arguments not only inherit Aquinas’ ideas but also integrate other philosophical traditions, particularly those from ancient philosophy (such as Cicero and Aristotle), while following the apologetic style of 16th-century Iberian missionaries (such as Luis de Granada, O.P.).
By comparing The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven with Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, and Introducción del Símbolo de la Fe, this paper attempts to illustrate that Ricci’s argumentative strategy exhibits a “syncretic” character. He adopts Aquinas’ “final cause” proof, draws on Cicero’s “commonsense” argument and the rhetorical structures of 16th-century missionary writings, adapting them to fit the Chinese cultural context. Furthermore, this paper explains why Ricci’s theory of God’s existence should not be regarded as a mere imitation of Aquinas’ ideas. Instead, it represents a unique argumentative model that blends multiple philosophical and theological traditions while adapting to the East Asian cultural milieu. This syncretic approach is reflected not only in textual structure and content selection but also in the adaptation and transformation of argumentation methods. It highlights both the diversity of Ricci’s philosophical sources and the historical specificity of his apologetic style.