x, 20):
"Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the
sacred token of which He wished to be the daily Sacrifice of the
Church.
"Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the
sacred token of which He wished to be the daily Sacrifice of the
Church.
Summa Theologica
Whence he says
pointedly that "His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself. " For if
"the Lord hears the desire of the poor," as is said in the Ps. 9:38,
much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the
Father: wherefore He said (Jn. 11:42): "I know that Thou hearest Me
always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that
they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. "
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered,
at that particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His
passion, the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory He
expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and
therefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it.
Reply to Objection 3: This very glory which Christ, while praying,
besought for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to
Rom. 4:25: "He rose again for our justification. " Consequently the
prayer which He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered for
others. So also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for
the good of others, prays not only for himself, but also for others.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's prayer was always heard?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard.
For He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from
Him, as we read (Mat. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him.
Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 2: Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him
might be forgiven, as is related (Lk. 23:34). Yet not all were pardoned
this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it
seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord prayed for them "who would believe in
Him through the word" of the apostles, that they "might all be one in
Him," and that they might attain to being with Him (Jn. 17:20, 21, 24).
But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His was
heard.
Objection 4: Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: "I
shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear. " Not every prayer of His,
therefore, was heard.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): "With a strong cry and
tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence. "
I answer that, As stated above [4102](A[1]), prayer is a certain
manifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of one
who prays granted, when his will is fulfilled. Now absolutely speaking
the will of man is the will of reason; for we will absolutely that
which we will in accordance with reason's deliberation. Whereas what we
will in accordance with the movement of sensuality, or even of the
simple will, which is considered as nature is willed not absolutely but
conditionally [secundum quid]---that is, provided no obstacle be
discovered by reason's deliberation. Wherefore such a will should
rather be called a "velleity" than an absolute will; because one would
will [vellet] if there were no obstacle.
But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He
knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human,
was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently
His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also is it that
other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity
with God, according to Rom. 8:27: "And He that searcheth the hearts
knoweth," that is, approves of, "what the Spirit desireth," that is,
what the Spirit makes the saints to desire: "because He asketh for the
saints according to God," that is, in conformity with the Divine will.
Reply to Objection 1: This prayer for the passing of the chalice is
variously explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) says:
"When He asks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may
pass by Him, but that others may share in that which passes on from Him
to them; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the
passion, so may others drink of it, with unfailing hope, with
unflinching anguish, without fear of death. "
Or according to Jerome (on Mat. 26:39): "He says pointedly, 'This
chalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance as
an excuse for putting Me to death, since they have the Law and the
Prophets, who foretold concerning Me. "
Or, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7):
"When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not mean, 'Let it
not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as that
which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent, so the Saviour
beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed. "
Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as
man," being reluctant to die according to His natural will.
Thus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He
thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of His Passion, or
that He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not trouble
Him, or that death might not withhold Him, His prayer was entirely
fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might not drink
the chalice of His passion and death; or that He might not drink it at
the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed fulfilled,
because His reason which formed the petition did not desire its
fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to make known to
us His natural will, and the movement of His sensuality, which was His
as man.
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified
Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for
those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.
Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.
Reply to Objection 4: When He says: "I shall cry and Thou wilt not
hear," we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality,
which shunned death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
(2) Of the victim offered by this priest;
(3) Of the effect of this priesthood;
(4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only
to others?
(5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood;
(6) Whether He should be called "a priest according to the order of
Melchisedech"?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest.
For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zech. 3:1):
"The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the
Lord. " But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Heb. 1:4:
"Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more
excellent name than they. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should
be a priest.
Objection 2: Further, things which were in the Old Testament were
figures of Christ, according to Col. 2:17: "Which are a shadow of
things to come, but the body is Christ's. " But Christ was not descended
from the priests of the Old Law, for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:14): "It
is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priests. " Therefore it is not fitting that
Christ should be a priest.
Objection 3: Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the
lawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said to
Moses the lawgiver (Ex. 28:1): "Take unto thee Aaron, thy brother . . .
that he [Vulg. : 'they'] may minister to Me in the priest's office. " But
Christ is the giver of the New Law, according to Jer. 31:33: "I will
give My law in their bowels. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ
should be a priest.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 4:14): "We have [Vulg. : 'Having']
therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus,
the Son of God. "
I answer that, The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator
between God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine
things on the people, wherefore "sacerdos" [priest] means a giver of
sacred things [sacra dans], according to Malachi 2:7: "They shall seek
the law at his," i. e. the priest's, "mouth"; and again, forasmuch as he
offers up the people's prayers to God, and, in a manner, makes
satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the Apostle says (Heb.
5:1): "Every high-priest taken from among men is ordained for men in
the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and
sacrifices for sins. " Now this is most befitting to Christ. For through
Him are gifts bestowed on men, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "By Whom" (i. e.
Christ) "He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by
these you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature. " Moreover, He
reconciled the human race to God, according to Col. 1:19,20: "In Him"
(i. e. Christ) "it hath well pleased (the Father) that all fulness
should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself. "
Therefore it is most fitting that Christ should be a priest.
Reply to Objection 1: Hierarchical power appertains to the angels,
inasmuch as they also are between God and man, as Dionysius explains
(Coel. Hier. ix), so that the priest himself, as being between God and
man, is called an angel, according to Malachi 2:7: "He is the angel of
the Lord of hosts. " Now Christ was greater than the angels, not only in
His Godhead, but also in His humanity, as having the fulness of grace
and glory. Wherefore also He had the hierarchical or priestly power in
a higher degree than the angels, so that even the angels were ministers
of His priesthood, according to Mat. 4:11: "Angels came and ministered
unto Him. " But, in regard to His passibility, He "was made a little
lower than the angels," as the Apostle says (Heb. 2:9): and thus He was
conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the priesthood.
Reply to Objection 2: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): "What
is like in every particular must be, of course, identical, and not a
copy. " Since, therefore, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of
the priesthood of Christ, He did not wish to be born of the stock of
the figurative priests, that it might be made clear that His priesthood
is not quite the same as theirs, but differs therefrom as truth from
figure.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4103]Q[7], A[7], ad 1), other
men have certain graces distributed among them: but Christ, as being
the Head of all, has the perfection of all graces. Wherefore, as to
others, one is a lawgiver, another is a priest, another is a king; but
all these concur in Christ, as the fount of all grace. Hence it is
written (Is. 33:22): "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our law-giver,
the Lord is our King: He will" come and "save us. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was Himself both priest and victim?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ Himself was not both priest and
victim. For it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim. But Christ
did not kill Himself. Therefore He was not both priest and victim.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ has a greater similarity
to the Jewish priesthood, instituted by God, than to the priesthood of
the Gentiles, by which the demons were worshiped. Now in the old Law
man was never offered up in sacrifice: whereas this was very much to be
reprehended in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, according to Ps. 105:38:
"They shed innocent blood; the blood of their sons and of their
daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan. " Therefore in
Christ's priesthood the Man Christ should not have been the victim.
Objection 3: Further, every victim, through being offered to God, is
consecrated to God. But the humanity of Christ was from the beginning
consecrated and united to God. Therefore it cannot be said fittingly
that Christ as man was a victim.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): "Christ hath loved us,
and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim [Douay:
'sacrifice'] to God for an odor of sweetness. "
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5): "Every visible
sacrifice is a sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of the invisible
sacrifice. " Now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers
his spirit to God, according to Ps. 50:19: "A sacrifice to God is an
afflicted spirit. " Wherefore, whatever is offered to God in order to
raise man's spirit to Him, may be called a sacrifice.
Now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for
the remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God. Hence the
Apostle says (Heb. 5:1) that it appertains to the priest "to offer
gifts and sacrifices for sins. " Secondly, that man may be preserved in
a state of grace, by ever adhering to God, wherein his peace and
salvation consist. Wherefore under the old Law the sacrifice of
peace-offerings was offered up for the salvation of the offerers, as is
prescribed in the third chapter of Leviticus. Thirdly, in order that
the spirit of man be perfectly united to God: which will be most
perfectly realized in glory. Hence, under the Old Law, the holocaust
was offered, so called because the victim was wholly burnt, as we read
in the first chapter of Leviticus.
Now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. For,
in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according to Rom. 4:25:
"Who was delivered up for our sins. " Secondly, through Him we received
the grace of salvation, according to Heb. 5:9: "He became to all that
obey Him the cause of eternal salvation. " Thirdly, through Him we have
acquired the perfection of glory, according to Heb. 10:19: "We have
[Vulg. : 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the Holies" (i. e.
the heavenly glory) "through His Blood. " Therefore Christ Himself, as
man, was not only priest, but also a perfect victim, being at the same
time victim for sin, victim for a peace-offering, and a holocaust.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own
free-will He exposed Himself to death, according to Is. 53:7: "He was
offered because it was His own will. " Thus He is said to have offered
Himself.
Reply to Objection 2: The slaying of the Man Christ may be referred to
a twofold will. First, to the will of those who slew Him: and in this
respect He was not a victim: for the slayers of Christ are not
accounted as offering a sacrifice to God, but as guilty of a great
crime: a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of the
Gentiles, in which they offered up men to idols. Secondly, the slaying
of Christ may be considered in reference to the will of the Sufferer,
Who freely offered Himself to suffering. In this respect He is a
victim, and in this He differs from the sacrifices of the Gentiles.
(The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original
manuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above. --Ed. )
[*Some editions, however, give the following reply:
Reply to Objection 3: The fact that Christ's manhood was holy from its
beginning does not prevent that same manhood, when it was offered to
God in the Passion, being sanctified in a new way---namely, as a victim
actually offered then. For it acquired then the actual holiness of a
victim, from the charity which it had from the beginning, and from the
grace of union sanctifying it absolutely. ]
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of Christ's priesthood is the expiation of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that the effect of Christ's priesthood is
not the expiation of sins. For it belongs to God alone to blot out
sins, according to Is. 43:25: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for
My own sake. " But Christ is priest, not as God, but as man. Therefore
the priesthood of Christ does not expiate sins.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 10:1-3) that the victims
of the Old Testament could not "make" (the comers thereunto) "perfect:
for then they would have ceased to be offered; because the worshipers
once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer; but in them
there is made a commemoration of sins every year. " But in like manner
under the priesthood of Christ a commemoration of sins is made in the
words: "Forgive us our trespasses" (Mat. 6:12). Moreover, the Sacrifice
is offered continuously in the Church; wherefore again we say: "Give us
this day our daily bread. " Therefore sins are not expiated by the
priesthood of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, in the sin-offerings of the Old Law, a he-goat
was mostly offered for the sin of a prince, a she-goat for the sin of
some private individual, a calf for the sin of a priest, as we gather
from Lev. 4:3,23,28. But Christ is compared to none of these, but to
the lamb, according to Jer. 11:19: "I was as a meek lamb, that is
carried to be a victim. " Therefore it seems that His priesthood does
not expiate sins.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 9:14): "The blood of Christ,
Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse
our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. " But dead
works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ has the power to
cleanse from sins.
I answer that, Two things are required for the perfect cleansing from
sins, corresponding to the two things comprised in sin---namely, the
stain of sin and the debt of punishment. The stain of sin is, indeed,
blotted out by grace, by which the sinner's heart is turned to God:
whereas the debt of punishment is entirely removed by the satisfaction
that man offers to God. Now the priesthood of Christ produces both
these effects. For by its virtue grace is given to us, by which our
hearts are turned to God, according to Rom. 3:24,25: "Being justified
freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His
blood. " Moreover, He satisfied for us fully, inasmuch as "He hath borne
our infirmities and carried our sorrows" (Is. 53:4). Wherefore it is
clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to expiate sins.
Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ was a priest, not as God, but as
man, yet one and the same was both priest and God. Wherefore in the
Council of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. i, anath. 10] we read: "If anyone
say that the very Word of God did not become our High-Priest and
Apostle, when He became flesh and a man like us, but altogether another
one, the man born of a woman, let him be anathema. " Hence in so far as
His human nature operated by virtue of the Divine, that sacrifice was
most efficacious for the blotting out of sins. For this reason
Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 14): "So that, since four things are to be
observed in every sacrifice---to whom it is offered, by whom it is
offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered; the same one true
Mediator reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, was one with
Him to Whom it was offered, united in Himself those for whom He offered
it, at the same time offered it Himself, and was Himself that which He
offered. "
Reply to Objection 2: Sins are commemorated in the New Law, not on
account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of Christ, as though sins
were not sufficiently expiated by Him: but in regard to those who
either are not willing to be participators in His sacrifice, such as
unbelievers, for whose sins we pray that they be converted; or who,
after taking part in this sacrifice, fall away from it by whatsoever
kind of sin. The Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Church is
not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, but is a
commemoration thereof. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. De.
x, 20):
"Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the
sacred token of which He wished to be the daily Sacrifice of the
Church. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Origen says (Sup. Joan. i, 29), though various
animals were offered up under the Old Law, yet the daily sacrifice,
which was offered up morning and evening, was a lamb, as appears from
Num. 38:3,4. By which it was signified that the offering up of the true
lamb, i. e. Christ, was the culminating sacrifice of all. Hence (Jn.
1:29) it is said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away
the sins [Vulg. : 'sin'] of the world. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of the priesthood of Christ pertained not only to others,
but also to Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that the effect of the priesthood of Christ
pertained not only to others, but also to Himself. For it belongs to
the priest's office to pray for the people, according to 2 Macc. 1:23:
"The priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming. " Now Christ
prayed not only for others, but also for Himself, as we have said above
([4104]Q[21], A[3]), and as expressly stated (Heb. 5:7): "In the days
of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears He offered [Vulg. :
'offering'] up prayers and supplications to Him that was able to save
Him from death. " Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not
only in others, but also in Himself.
Objection 2: Further, in His passion Christ offered Himself as a
sacrifice. But by His passion He merited, not only for others, but also
for Himself, as stated above ([4105]Q[19], AA[3],4). Therefore the
priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in
Himself.
Objection 3: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the
priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the Old Law offered sacrifice
not only for others, but also for himself: for it is written (Lev.
16:17) that "the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for
himself and his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel. "
Therefore the priesthood of Christ also had an effect not merely in
others, but also in Himself.
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the Council of Ephesus [*Part
III, ch. i, anath. 10]: "If anyone say that Christ offered sacrifice
for Himself, and not rather for us alone (for He Who knew not sin
needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema. " But the priest's office
consists principally in offering sacrifice. Therefore the priesthood of
Christ had no effect in Himself.
I answer that, As stated above [4106](A[1]), a priest is set between
God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of
himself cannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the
priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of
Christ; for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:25): "Coming of Himself to God,
always living to make intercession for us [Vulg. : 'He is able to save
for ever them that come to God by Him; always living,' etc. ]. " And
therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the
effect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For
the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it
receives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive
light; fire gives but does not receive heat. Now Christ is the
fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law
was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in His
person, according to 2 Cor. 2:10: "For what I have pardoned, if I have
pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of
Christ. " Therefore it is not fitting that Christ should receive the
effect of His priesthood.
Reply to Objection 1: Although prayer is befitting to priests, it is
not their proper office, for it is befitting to everyone to pray both
for himself and for others, according to James 5:16: "Pray for one
another that you may be saved. " And so we may say that the prayer by
which Christ prayed for Himself was not an action of His priesthood.
But this answer seems to be precluded by the Apostle, who, after saying
(Heb. 5:6), "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of
Melchisedech," adds, "Who in the days of His flesh offering up payers,"
etc. , as quoted above (OBJ[1] ): so that it seems that the prayer which
Christ offered pertained to His priesthood. We must therefore say that
other priests partake in the effect of their priesthood, not as
priests, but as sinners, as we shall state farther on (ad 3). But
Christ had, simply speaking, no sin; though He had the "likeness of sin
in the flesh [Vulg. ,: 'sinful flesh']," as is written Rom. 8:3. And,
consequently, we must not say simply that He partook of the effect of
His priesthood but with this qualification---in regard to the
passibility of the flesh. Wherefore he adds pointedly, "that was able
to save Him from death. "
Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in the offering of a
sacrifice by any priest---namely, the sacrifice itself which is
offered, and the devotion of the offerer. Now the proper effect of
priesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself. But Christ
obtained a result from His passion, not as by virtue of the sacrifice,
which is offered by way of satisfaction, but by the very devotion with
which out of charity He humbly endured the passion.
Reply to Objection 3: A figure cannot equal the reality, wherefore the
figural priest of the Old Law could not attain to such perfection as
not to need a sacrifice of satisfaction. But Christ did not stand in
need of this. Consequently, there is no comparison between the two; and
this is what the Apostle says (Heb. 7:28): "The Law maketh men priests,
who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the Law,
the Son Who is perfected for evermore. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priesthood of Christ endures for ever?
Objection 1: It would seem that the priesthood of Christ does not
endure for ever. For as stated above (A[4], ad 1,3) those alone need
the effect of the priesthood who have the weakness of sin, which can be
expiated by the priest's sacrifice. But this will not be for ever. For
in the Saints there will be no weakness, according to Is. 60:21: "Thy
people shall be all just": while no expiation will be possible for the
weakness of sin, since "there is no redemption in hell" (Office of the
Dead, Resp. vii). Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for
ever.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ was made manifest most
of all in His passion and death, when "by His own blood He entered into
the Holies" (Heb. 9:12). But the passion and death of Christ will not
endure for ever, as stated Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising again from the
dead, dieth now no more. " Therefore the priesthood of Christ will not
endure for ever.
Objection 3: Further, Christ is a priest, not as God, but as man. But
at one time Christ was not man, namely during the three days He lay
dead. Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for
ever. "
I answer that, In the priestly office, we may consider two things:
first, the offering of the sacrifice; secondly, the consummation of the
sacrifice, consisting in this, that those for whom the sacrifice is
offered, obtain the end of the sacrifice. Now the end of the sacrifice
which Christ offered consisted not in temporal but in eternal good,
which we obtain through His death, according to Heb. 9:11: "Christ is
[Vulg. : 'being come'] a high-priest of the good things to come"; for
which reason the priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal. Now this
consummation of Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed in this, that the
high-priest of the Old Law, once a year, entered into the Holy of
Holies with the blood of a he-goat and a calf, as laid down, Lev.
16:11, and yet he offered up the he-goat and calf not within the Holy
of Holies, but without. In like manner Christ entered into the Holy of
Holies---that is, into heaven---and prepared the way for us, that we
might enter by the virtue of His blood, which He shed for us on earth.
Reply to Objection 1: The Saints who will be in heaven will not need
any further expiation by the priesthood of Christ, but having expiated,
they will need consummation through Christ Himself, on Whom their glory
depends, as is written (Apoc. 21:23): "The glory of God hath
enlightened it"---that is, the city of the Saints---"and the Lamb is
the lamp thereof. "
Reply to Objection 2: Although Christ's passion and death are not to be
repeated, yet the virtue of that Victim endures for ever, for, as it is
written (Heb. 10:14), "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified. "
Wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear.
As to the unity of this sacrifice, it was foreshadowed in the Law in
that, once a year, the high-priest of the Law entered into the Holies,
with a solemn oblation of blood, as set down, Lev. 16:11. But the
figure fell short of the reality in this, that the victim had not an
everlasting virtue, for which reason those sacrifices were renewed
every year.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priesthood of Christ was according to the order of Melchisedech?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not according
to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain-head of the
entire priesthood, as being the principal priest. Now that which is
principal is not . secondary in regard to others, but others are
secondary in its regard. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest
according to the order of Melchisedech.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin to
Christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the
Law. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly
they signified Him; as is clear from what we have said in the [4107]SS,
Q[2], A[7]. Therefore the priesthood of Christ should be denominated
after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the order of
Melchisedech, which was before the Law.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:2,3): "That is 'king of
peace,' without father, without mother, without genealogy; having
neither beginning of days nor ending of life": which can be referred
only to the Son of God. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest
according to the order of Melchisedech, as of some one else, but
according to His own order.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for ever
according to the order of Melchisedech. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 3) the priesthood of the Law
was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as adequately
representing the reality, but as falling far short thereof: both
because the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and because
it was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the excellence of
Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed in the
priesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham, in whose
loins the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the priesthood
of Christ is said to be "according to the order of Melchisedech," on
account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural
priesthood of the Law.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be according to the order of
Melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest, but
because he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical
priesthood.
Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in Christ's
priesthood: namely, the offering made by Christ, and (our) partaking
thereof. As to the actual offering, the priesthood of Christ was more
distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the Law, by reason of the
shedding of blood, than by the priesthood of Melchisedech in which
there was no blood-shedding. But if we consider the participation of
this sacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of
Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the Law principally
consists, then the former was more distinctly foreshadowed by the
priesthood of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, signifying, as
Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) ecclesiastical unity, which is
established by our taking part in the sacrifice of Christ [*Cf. [4108]
Q[79], A[1]]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of
Christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine.
Reply to Objection 3: Melchisedech is described as "without father,
without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither beginning of
days nor ending of life," not as though he had not these things, but
because these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy Scripture.
And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same passage, he is
"likened unto the Son of God," Who had no earthly father, no heavenly
mother, and no genealogy, according to Is. 53:8: "Who shall declare His
generation? " and Who in His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of
days.
__________________________________________________________________
OF ADOPTION AS BEFITTING TO CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now come to consider whether adoption befits Christ: and under
this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?
(2) Whether this is fitting to God the Father alone?
(3) Whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of God?
(4) Whether Christ can be called the adopted Son?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting that God should adopt
sons. For, as jurists say, no one adopts anyone but a stranger as his
son. But no one is a stranger in relation to God, Who is the Creator of
all. Therefore it seems unfitting that God should adopt.
Objection 2: Further, adoption seems to have been introduced in default
of natural sonship. But in God there is natural sonship, as set down in
the [4109]FP, Q[27], A[2]. Therefore it is unfitting that God should
adopt.
Objection 3: Further, the purpose of adopting anyone is that he may
succeed, as heir, the person who adopts him. But it does not seem
possible for anyone to succeed God as heir, for He can never die.
Therefore it is unfitting that God should adopt.
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 1:5) that "He hath predestinated
us unto the adoption of children of God. " But the predestination of God
is not ineffectual. Therefore God does adopt some as His sons.
I answer that, A man adopts someone as his son forasmuch as out of
goodness he admits him as heir to his estate. Now God is infinitely
good: for which reason He admits His creatures to a participation of
good things; especially rational creatures, who forasmuch as they are
made to the image of God, are capable of Divine beatitude. And this
consists in the enjoyment of God, by which also God Himself is happy
and rich in Himself---that is, in the enjoyment of Himself. Now a man's
inheritance is that which makes him rich. Wherefore, inasmuch as God,
of His goodness, admits men to the inheritance of beatitude, He is said
to adopt them. Moreover Divine exceeds human adoption, forasmuch as
God, by bestowing His grace, makes man whom He adopts worthy to receive
the heavenly inheritance; whereas man does not make him worthy whom he
adopts; but rather in adopting him he chooses one who is already
worthy.
Reply to Objection 1: Considered in his nature man is not a stranger in
respect to God, as to the natural gifts bestowed on him: but he is as
to the gifts of grace and glory; in regard to which he is adopted.
Reply to Objection 2: Man works in order to supply his wants: not so
God, Who works in order to communicate to others the abundance of His
perfection. Wherefore, as by the work of creation the Divine goodness
is communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness, so by the work
of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to men,
according to Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew . . . to be made conformable
to the image of His Son. "
Reply to Objection 3: Spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the
same time; not so material goods. Wherefore none can receive a material
inheritance except the successor of a deceased person: whereas all
receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety
without detriment to the ever-living Father.
Yet it might be said that God ceases to be, according as He is in us by
faith, so as to begin to be in us by vision, as a gloss says on Rom.
8:17: "If sons, heirs also. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that the whole Trinity should adopt?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that the whole Trinity should
adopt. For adoption is said of God in likeness to human custom. But
among men those only adopt who can beget: and in God this can be
applied only to the Father. Therefore in God the Father alone can
adopt.
Objection 2: Further, by adoption men become the brethren of Christ,
according to Rom. 8:29: "That He might be the first-born among many
brethren. " Now brethren are the sons of the same father; wherefore our
Lord says (Jn. 20:17): "I ascend to My Father and to your Father. "
Therefore Christ's Father alone has adopted sons.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4, 5, 6): "God sent His Son
. . . that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are
sons of God, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts,
crying: 'Abba' [Father]. " Therefore it belongs to Him to adopt, Who has
the Son and the Holy Ghost. But this belongs to the Father alone.
Therefore it befits the Father alone to adopt.
On the contrary, It belongs to Him to adopt us as sons, Whom we can
call Father; whence it is written (Rom. 8:15): "You have received the
spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: 'Abba' [Father]. " But when
we say to God, "Our Father," we address the whole Trinity: as is the
case with the other names which are said of God in respect of
creatures, as stated in the [4110]FP, Q[33], A[3], OBJ[1]; cf.
[4111]FP, Q[45], A[6]. Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole
Trinity.
I answer that, There is this difference between an adopted son of God
and the natural Son of God, that the latter is "begotten not made";
whereas the former is made, according to Jn. 1:12: "He gave them power
to be made the sons of God. " Yet sometimes the adopted son is said to
be begotten, by reason of the spiritual regeneration which is by grace,
not by nature; wherefore it is written (James 1:18): "Of His own will
hath He begotten us by the word of truth. " Now although, in God, to
beget belongs to the Person of the Father, yet to produce any effect in
creatures is common to the whole Trinity, by reason of the oneness of
their Nature: since, where there is one nature, there must needs be one
power and one operation: whence our Lord says (Jn. 5:19): "What things
soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. "
Therefore it belongs to the whole Trinity to adopt men as sons of God.
Reply to Objection 1: All human individuals are not of one individual
nature, so that there need be one operation and one effect of them all,
as is the case in God. Consequently in this respect no comparison is
possible.
Reply to Objection 2: By adoption we are made the brethren of Christ,
as having with Him the same Father: Who, nevertheless, is His Father in
one way, and ours in another. Whence pointedly our Lord says,
separately, "My Father," and "Your Father" (Jn. 20:17). For He is
Christ's Father by natural generation; and this is proper to Him:
whereas He is our Father by a voluntary operation, which is common to
Him and to the Son and Holy Ghost: so that Christ is not the Son of the
whole Trinity, as we are.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (A[1], ad 2), adoptive sonship is
a certain likeness of the eternal Sonship: just as all that takes place
in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man
is likened to the splendor of the Eternal Son by reason of the light of
grace which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption, though
common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as its
author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy Ghost, as imprinting
on us the likeness of this exemplar.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the rational nature
to be adopted. For God is not said to be the Father of the rational
creature, save by adoption. But God is called the Father even of the
irrational creature, according to Job 38:28: "Who is father of the
rain?
pointedly that "His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself. " For if
"the Lord hears the desire of the poor," as is said in the Ps. 9:38,
much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the
Father: wherefore He said (Jn. 11:42): "I know that Thou hearest Me
always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that
they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. "
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered,
at that particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His
passion, the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory He
expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and
therefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it.
Reply to Objection 3: This very glory which Christ, while praying,
besought for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to
Rom. 4:25: "He rose again for our justification. " Consequently the
prayer which He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered for
others. So also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for
the good of others, prays not only for himself, but also for others.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's prayer was always heard?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard.
For He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from
Him, as we read (Mat. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him.
Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 2: Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him
might be forgiven, as is related (Lk. 23:34). Yet not all were pardoned
this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it
seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord prayed for them "who would believe in
Him through the word" of the apostles, that they "might all be one in
Him," and that they might attain to being with Him (Jn. 17:20, 21, 24).
But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His was
heard.
Objection 4: Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: "I
shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear. " Not every prayer of His,
therefore, was heard.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): "With a strong cry and
tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence. "
I answer that, As stated above [4102](A[1]), prayer is a certain
manifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of one
who prays granted, when his will is fulfilled. Now absolutely speaking
the will of man is the will of reason; for we will absolutely that
which we will in accordance with reason's deliberation. Whereas what we
will in accordance with the movement of sensuality, or even of the
simple will, which is considered as nature is willed not absolutely but
conditionally [secundum quid]---that is, provided no obstacle be
discovered by reason's deliberation. Wherefore such a will should
rather be called a "velleity" than an absolute will; because one would
will [vellet] if there were no obstacle.
But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He
knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human,
was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently
His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also is it that
other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity
with God, according to Rom. 8:27: "And He that searcheth the hearts
knoweth," that is, approves of, "what the Spirit desireth," that is,
what the Spirit makes the saints to desire: "because He asketh for the
saints according to God," that is, in conformity with the Divine will.
Reply to Objection 1: This prayer for the passing of the chalice is
variously explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) says:
"When He asks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may
pass by Him, but that others may share in that which passes on from Him
to them; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the
passion, so may others drink of it, with unfailing hope, with
unflinching anguish, without fear of death. "
Or according to Jerome (on Mat. 26:39): "He says pointedly, 'This
chalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance as
an excuse for putting Me to death, since they have the Law and the
Prophets, who foretold concerning Me. "
Or, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7):
"When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not mean, 'Let it
not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as that
which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent, so the Saviour
beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed. "
Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as
man," being reluctant to die according to His natural will.
Thus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He
thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of His Passion, or
that He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not trouble
Him, or that death might not withhold Him, His prayer was entirely
fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might not drink
the chalice of His passion and death; or that He might not drink it at
the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed fulfilled,
because His reason which formed the petition did not desire its
fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to make known to
us His natural will, and the movement of His sensuality, which was His
as man.
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified
Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for
those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.
Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.
Reply to Objection 4: When He says: "I shall cry and Thou wilt not
hear," we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality,
which shunned death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
(2) Of the victim offered by this priest;
(3) Of the effect of this priesthood;
(4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only
to others?
(5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood;
(6) Whether He should be called "a priest according to the order of
Melchisedech"?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest.
For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zech. 3:1):
"The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the
Lord. " But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Heb. 1:4:
"Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more
excellent name than they. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should
be a priest.
Objection 2: Further, things which were in the Old Testament were
figures of Christ, according to Col. 2:17: "Which are a shadow of
things to come, but the body is Christ's. " But Christ was not descended
from the priests of the Old Law, for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:14): "It
is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priests. " Therefore it is not fitting that
Christ should be a priest.
Objection 3: Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the
lawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said to
Moses the lawgiver (Ex. 28:1): "Take unto thee Aaron, thy brother . . .
that he [Vulg. : 'they'] may minister to Me in the priest's office. " But
Christ is the giver of the New Law, according to Jer. 31:33: "I will
give My law in their bowels. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ
should be a priest.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 4:14): "We have [Vulg. : 'Having']
therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus,
the Son of God. "
I answer that, The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator
between God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine
things on the people, wherefore "sacerdos" [priest] means a giver of
sacred things [sacra dans], according to Malachi 2:7: "They shall seek
the law at his," i. e. the priest's, "mouth"; and again, forasmuch as he
offers up the people's prayers to God, and, in a manner, makes
satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the Apostle says (Heb.
5:1): "Every high-priest taken from among men is ordained for men in
the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and
sacrifices for sins. " Now this is most befitting to Christ. For through
Him are gifts bestowed on men, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "By Whom" (i. e.
Christ) "He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by
these you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature. " Moreover, He
reconciled the human race to God, according to Col. 1:19,20: "In Him"
(i. e. Christ) "it hath well pleased (the Father) that all fulness
should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself. "
Therefore it is most fitting that Christ should be a priest.
Reply to Objection 1: Hierarchical power appertains to the angels,
inasmuch as they also are between God and man, as Dionysius explains
(Coel. Hier. ix), so that the priest himself, as being between God and
man, is called an angel, according to Malachi 2:7: "He is the angel of
the Lord of hosts. " Now Christ was greater than the angels, not only in
His Godhead, but also in His humanity, as having the fulness of grace
and glory. Wherefore also He had the hierarchical or priestly power in
a higher degree than the angels, so that even the angels were ministers
of His priesthood, according to Mat. 4:11: "Angels came and ministered
unto Him. " But, in regard to His passibility, He "was made a little
lower than the angels," as the Apostle says (Heb. 2:9): and thus He was
conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the priesthood.
Reply to Objection 2: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): "What
is like in every particular must be, of course, identical, and not a
copy. " Since, therefore, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of
the priesthood of Christ, He did not wish to be born of the stock of
the figurative priests, that it might be made clear that His priesthood
is not quite the same as theirs, but differs therefrom as truth from
figure.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([4103]Q[7], A[7], ad 1), other
men have certain graces distributed among them: but Christ, as being
the Head of all, has the perfection of all graces. Wherefore, as to
others, one is a lawgiver, another is a priest, another is a king; but
all these concur in Christ, as the fount of all grace. Hence it is
written (Is. 33:22): "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our law-giver,
the Lord is our King: He will" come and "save us. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ was Himself both priest and victim?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ Himself was not both priest and
victim. For it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim. But Christ
did not kill Himself. Therefore He was not both priest and victim.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ has a greater similarity
to the Jewish priesthood, instituted by God, than to the priesthood of
the Gentiles, by which the demons were worshiped. Now in the old Law
man was never offered up in sacrifice: whereas this was very much to be
reprehended in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, according to Ps. 105:38:
"They shed innocent blood; the blood of their sons and of their
daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan. " Therefore in
Christ's priesthood the Man Christ should not have been the victim.
Objection 3: Further, every victim, through being offered to God, is
consecrated to God. But the humanity of Christ was from the beginning
consecrated and united to God. Therefore it cannot be said fittingly
that Christ as man was a victim.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): "Christ hath loved us,
and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim [Douay:
'sacrifice'] to God for an odor of sweetness. "
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5): "Every visible
sacrifice is a sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of the invisible
sacrifice. " Now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers
his spirit to God, according to Ps. 50:19: "A sacrifice to God is an
afflicted spirit. " Wherefore, whatever is offered to God in order to
raise man's spirit to Him, may be called a sacrifice.
Now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for
the remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God. Hence the
Apostle says (Heb. 5:1) that it appertains to the priest "to offer
gifts and sacrifices for sins. " Secondly, that man may be preserved in
a state of grace, by ever adhering to God, wherein his peace and
salvation consist. Wherefore under the old Law the sacrifice of
peace-offerings was offered up for the salvation of the offerers, as is
prescribed in the third chapter of Leviticus. Thirdly, in order that
the spirit of man be perfectly united to God: which will be most
perfectly realized in glory. Hence, under the Old Law, the holocaust
was offered, so called because the victim was wholly burnt, as we read
in the first chapter of Leviticus.
Now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. For,
in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according to Rom. 4:25:
"Who was delivered up for our sins. " Secondly, through Him we received
the grace of salvation, according to Heb. 5:9: "He became to all that
obey Him the cause of eternal salvation. " Thirdly, through Him we have
acquired the perfection of glory, according to Heb. 10:19: "We have
[Vulg. : 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the Holies" (i. e.
the heavenly glory) "through His Blood. " Therefore Christ Himself, as
man, was not only priest, but also a perfect victim, being at the same
time victim for sin, victim for a peace-offering, and a holocaust.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own
free-will He exposed Himself to death, according to Is. 53:7: "He was
offered because it was His own will. " Thus He is said to have offered
Himself.
Reply to Objection 2: The slaying of the Man Christ may be referred to
a twofold will. First, to the will of those who slew Him: and in this
respect He was not a victim: for the slayers of Christ are not
accounted as offering a sacrifice to God, but as guilty of a great
crime: a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of the
Gentiles, in which they offered up men to idols. Secondly, the slaying
of Christ may be considered in reference to the will of the Sufferer,
Who freely offered Himself to suffering. In this respect He is a
victim, and in this He differs from the sacrifices of the Gentiles.
(The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original
manuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above. --Ed. )
[*Some editions, however, give the following reply:
Reply to Objection 3: The fact that Christ's manhood was holy from its
beginning does not prevent that same manhood, when it was offered to
God in the Passion, being sanctified in a new way---namely, as a victim
actually offered then. For it acquired then the actual holiness of a
victim, from the charity which it had from the beginning, and from the
grace of union sanctifying it absolutely. ]
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of Christ's priesthood is the expiation of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that the effect of Christ's priesthood is
not the expiation of sins. For it belongs to God alone to blot out
sins, according to Is. 43:25: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for
My own sake. " But Christ is priest, not as God, but as man. Therefore
the priesthood of Christ does not expiate sins.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 10:1-3) that the victims
of the Old Testament could not "make" (the comers thereunto) "perfect:
for then they would have ceased to be offered; because the worshipers
once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer; but in them
there is made a commemoration of sins every year. " But in like manner
under the priesthood of Christ a commemoration of sins is made in the
words: "Forgive us our trespasses" (Mat. 6:12). Moreover, the Sacrifice
is offered continuously in the Church; wherefore again we say: "Give us
this day our daily bread. " Therefore sins are not expiated by the
priesthood of Christ.
Objection 3: Further, in the sin-offerings of the Old Law, a he-goat
was mostly offered for the sin of a prince, a she-goat for the sin of
some private individual, a calf for the sin of a priest, as we gather
from Lev. 4:3,23,28. But Christ is compared to none of these, but to
the lamb, according to Jer. 11:19: "I was as a meek lamb, that is
carried to be a victim. " Therefore it seems that His priesthood does
not expiate sins.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 9:14): "The blood of Christ,
Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse
our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. " But dead
works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ has the power to
cleanse from sins.
I answer that, Two things are required for the perfect cleansing from
sins, corresponding to the two things comprised in sin---namely, the
stain of sin and the debt of punishment. The stain of sin is, indeed,
blotted out by grace, by which the sinner's heart is turned to God:
whereas the debt of punishment is entirely removed by the satisfaction
that man offers to God. Now the priesthood of Christ produces both
these effects. For by its virtue grace is given to us, by which our
hearts are turned to God, according to Rom. 3:24,25: "Being justified
freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His
blood. " Moreover, He satisfied for us fully, inasmuch as "He hath borne
our infirmities and carried our sorrows" (Is. 53:4). Wherefore it is
clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to expiate sins.
Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ was a priest, not as God, but as
man, yet one and the same was both priest and God. Wherefore in the
Council of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. i, anath. 10] we read: "If anyone
say that the very Word of God did not become our High-Priest and
Apostle, when He became flesh and a man like us, but altogether another
one, the man born of a woman, let him be anathema. " Hence in so far as
His human nature operated by virtue of the Divine, that sacrifice was
most efficacious for the blotting out of sins. For this reason
Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 14): "So that, since four things are to be
observed in every sacrifice---to whom it is offered, by whom it is
offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered; the same one true
Mediator reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, was one with
Him to Whom it was offered, united in Himself those for whom He offered
it, at the same time offered it Himself, and was Himself that which He
offered. "
Reply to Objection 2: Sins are commemorated in the New Law, not on
account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of Christ, as though sins
were not sufficiently expiated by Him: but in regard to those who
either are not willing to be participators in His sacrifice, such as
unbelievers, for whose sins we pray that they be converted; or who,
after taking part in this sacrifice, fall away from it by whatsoever
kind of sin. The Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Church is
not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, but is a
commemoration thereof. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. De.
x, 20):
"Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the
sacred token of which He wished to be the daily Sacrifice of the
Church. "
Reply to Objection 3: As Origen says (Sup. Joan. i, 29), though various
animals were offered up under the Old Law, yet the daily sacrifice,
which was offered up morning and evening, was a lamb, as appears from
Num. 38:3,4. By which it was signified that the offering up of the true
lamb, i. e. Christ, was the culminating sacrifice of all. Hence (Jn.
1:29) it is said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away
the sins [Vulg. : 'sin'] of the world. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the effect of the priesthood of Christ pertained not only to others,
but also to Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that the effect of the priesthood of Christ
pertained not only to others, but also to Himself. For it belongs to
the priest's office to pray for the people, according to 2 Macc. 1:23:
"The priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming. " Now Christ
prayed not only for others, but also for Himself, as we have said above
([4104]Q[21], A[3]), and as expressly stated (Heb. 5:7): "In the days
of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears He offered [Vulg. :
'offering'] up prayers and supplications to Him that was able to save
Him from death. " Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not
only in others, but also in Himself.
Objection 2: Further, in His passion Christ offered Himself as a
sacrifice. But by His passion He merited, not only for others, but also
for Himself, as stated above ([4105]Q[19], AA[3],4). Therefore the
priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in
Himself.
Objection 3: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the
priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the Old Law offered sacrifice
not only for others, but also for himself: for it is written (Lev.
16:17) that "the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for
himself and his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel. "
Therefore the priesthood of Christ also had an effect not merely in
others, but also in Himself.
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the Council of Ephesus [*Part
III, ch. i, anath. 10]: "If anyone say that Christ offered sacrifice
for Himself, and not rather for us alone (for He Who knew not sin
needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema. " But the priest's office
consists principally in offering sacrifice. Therefore the priesthood of
Christ had no effect in Himself.
I answer that, As stated above [4106](A[1]), a priest is set between
God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of
himself cannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the
priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of
Christ; for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:25): "Coming of Himself to God,
always living to make intercession for us [Vulg. : 'He is able to save
for ever them that come to God by Him; always living,' etc. ]. " And
therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the
effect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For
the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it
receives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive
light; fire gives but does not receive heat. Now Christ is the
fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law
was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in His
person, according to 2 Cor. 2:10: "For what I have pardoned, if I have
pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of
Christ. " Therefore it is not fitting that Christ should receive the
effect of His priesthood.
Reply to Objection 1: Although prayer is befitting to priests, it is
not their proper office, for it is befitting to everyone to pray both
for himself and for others, according to James 5:16: "Pray for one
another that you may be saved. " And so we may say that the prayer by
which Christ prayed for Himself was not an action of His priesthood.
But this answer seems to be precluded by the Apostle, who, after saying
(Heb. 5:6), "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of
Melchisedech," adds, "Who in the days of His flesh offering up payers,"
etc. , as quoted above (OBJ[1] ): so that it seems that the prayer which
Christ offered pertained to His priesthood. We must therefore say that
other priests partake in the effect of their priesthood, not as
priests, but as sinners, as we shall state farther on (ad 3). But
Christ had, simply speaking, no sin; though He had the "likeness of sin
in the flesh [Vulg. ,: 'sinful flesh']," as is written Rom. 8:3. And,
consequently, we must not say simply that He partook of the effect of
His priesthood but with this qualification---in regard to the
passibility of the flesh. Wherefore he adds pointedly, "that was able
to save Him from death. "
Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in the offering of a
sacrifice by any priest---namely, the sacrifice itself which is
offered, and the devotion of the offerer. Now the proper effect of
priesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself. But Christ
obtained a result from His passion, not as by virtue of the sacrifice,
which is offered by way of satisfaction, but by the very devotion with
which out of charity He humbly endured the passion.
Reply to Objection 3: A figure cannot equal the reality, wherefore the
figural priest of the Old Law could not attain to such perfection as
not to need a sacrifice of satisfaction. But Christ did not stand in
need of this. Consequently, there is no comparison between the two; and
this is what the Apostle says (Heb. 7:28): "The Law maketh men priests,
who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the Law,
the Son Who is perfected for evermore. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priesthood of Christ endures for ever?
Objection 1: It would seem that the priesthood of Christ does not
endure for ever. For as stated above (A[4], ad 1,3) those alone need
the effect of the priesthood who have the weakness of sin, which can be
expiated by the priest's sacrifice. But this will not be for ever. For
in the Saints there will be no weakness, according to Is. 60:21: "Thy
people shall be all just": while no expiation will be possible for the
weakness of sin, since "there is no redemption in hell" (Office of the
Dead, Resp. vii). Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for
ever.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ was made manifest most
of all in His passion and death, when "by His own blood He entered into
the Holies" (Heb. 9:12). But the passion and death of Christ will not
endure for ever, as stated Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising again from the
dead, dieth now no more. " Therefore the priesthood of Christ will not
endure for ever.
Objection 3: Further, Christ is a priest, not as God, but as man. But
at one time Christ was not man, namely during the three days He lay
dead. Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for
ever. "
I answer that, In the priestly office, we may consider two things:
first, the offering of the sacrifice; secondly, the consummation of the
sacrifice, consisting in this, that those for whom the sacrifice is
offered, obtain the end of the sacrifice. Now the end of the sacrifice
which Christ offered consisted not in temporal but in eternal good,
which we obtain through His death, according to Heb. 9:11: "Christ is
[Vulg. : 'being come'] a high-priest of the good things to come"; for
which reason the priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal. Now this
consummation of Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed in this, that the
high-priest of the Old Law, once a year, entered into the Holy of
Holies with the blood of a he-goat and a calf, as laid down, Lev.
16:11, and yet he offered up the he-goat and calf not within the Holy
of Holies, but without. In like manner Christ entered into the Holy of
Holies---that is, into heaven---and prepared the way for us, that we
might enter by the virtue of His blood, which He shed for us on earth.
Reply to Objection 1: The Saints who will be in heaven will not need
any further expiation by the priesthood of Christ, but having expiated,
they will need consummation through Christ Himself, on Whom their glory
depends, as is written (Apoc. 21:23): "The glory of God hath
enlightened it"---that is, the city of the Saints---"and the Lamb is
the lamp thereof. "
Reply to Objection 2: Although Christ's passion and death are not to be
repeated, yet the virtue of that Victim endures for ever, for, as it is
written (Heb. 10:14), "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified. "
Wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear.
As to the unity of this sacrifice, it was foreshadowed in the Law in
that, once a year, the high-priest of the Law entered into the Holies,
with a solemn oblation of blood, as set down, Lev. 16:11. But the
figure fell short of the reality in this, that the victim had not an
everlasting virtue, for which reason those sacrifices were renewed
every year.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the priesthood of Christ was according to the order of Melchisedech?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not according
to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain-head of the
entire priesthood, as being the principal priest. Now that which is
principal is not . secondary in regard to others, but others are
secondary in its regard. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest
according to the order of Melchisedech.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin to
Christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the
Law. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly
they signified Him; as is clear from what we have said in the [4107]SS,
Q[2], A[7]. Therefore the priesthood of Christ should be denominated
after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the order of
Melchisedech, which was before the Law.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:2,3): "That is 'king of
peace,' without father, without mother, without genealogy; having
neither beginning of days nor ending of life": which can be referred
only to the Son of God. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest
according to the order of Melchisedech, as of some one else, but
according to His own order.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for ever
according to the order of Melchisedech. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[4], ad 3) the priesthood of the Law
was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as adequately
representing the reality, but as falling far short thereof: both
because the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and because
it was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the excellence of
Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed in the
priesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham, in whose
loins the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the priesthood
of Christ is said to be "according to the order of Melchisedech," on
account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural
priesthood of the Law.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be according to the order of
Melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest, but
because he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical
priesthood.
Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in Christ's
priesthood: namely, the offering made by Christ, and (our) partaking
thereof. As to the actual offering, the priesthood of Christ was more
distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the Law, by reason of the
shedding of blood, than by the priesthood of Melchisedech in which
there was no blood-shedding. But if we consider the participation of
this sacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of
Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the Law principally
consists, then the former was more distinctly foreshadowed by the
priesthood of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, signifying, as
Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan. ) ecclesiastical unity, which is
established by our taking part in the sacrifice of Christ [*Cf. [4108]
Q[79], A[1]]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of
Christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine.
Reply to Objection 3: Melchisedech is described as "without father,
without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither beginning of
days nor ending of life," not as though he had not these things, but
because these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy Scripture.
And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same passage, he is
"likened unto the Son of God," Who had no earthly father, no heavenly
mother, and no genealogy, according to Is. 53:8: "Who shall declare His
generation? " and Who in His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of
days.
__________________________________________________________________
OF ADOPTION AS BEFITTING TO CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now come to consider whether adoption befits Christ: and under
this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?
(2) Whether this is fitting to God the Father alone?
(3) Whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of God?
(4) Whether Christ can be called the adopted Son?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting that God should adopt
sons. For, as jurists say, no one adopts anyone but a stranger as his
son. But no one is a stranger in relation to God, Who is the Creator of
all. Therefore it seems unfitting that God should adopt.
Objection 2: Further, adoption seems to have been introduced in default
of natural sonship. But in God there is natural sonship, as set down in
the [4109]FP, Q[27], A[2]. Therefore it is unfitting that God should
adopt.
Objection 3: Further, the purpose of adopting anyone is that he may
succeed, as heir, the person who adopts him. But it does not seem
possible for anyone to succeed God as heir, for He can never die.
Therefore it is unfitting that God should adopt.
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 1:5) that "He hath predestinated
us unto the adoption of children of God. " But the predestination of God
is not ineffectual. Therefore God does adopt some as His sons.
I answer that, A man adopts someone as his son forasmuch as out of
goodness he admits him as heir to his estate. Now God is infinitely
good: for which reason He admits His creatures to a participation of
good things; especially rational creatures, who forasmuch as they are
made to the image of God, are capable of Divine beatitude. And this
consists in the enjoyment of God, by which also God Himself is happy
and rich in Himself---that is, in the enjoyment of Himself. Now a man's
inheritance is that which makes him rich. Wherefore, inasmuch as God,
of His goodness, admits men to the inheritance of beatitude, He is said
to adopt them. Moreover Divine exceeds human adoption, forasmuch as
God, by bestowing His grace, makes man whom He adopts worthy to receive
the heavenly inheritance; whereas man does not make him worthy whom he
adopts; but rather in adopting him he chooses one who is already
worthy.
Reply to Objection 1: Considered in his nature man is not a stranger in
respect to God, as to the natural gifts bestowed on him: but he is as
to the gifts of grace and glory; in regard to which he is adopted.
Reply to Objection 2: Man works in order to supply his wants: not so
God, Who works in order to communicate to others the abundance of His
perfection. Wherefore, as by the work of creation the Divine goodness
is communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness, so by the work
of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to men,
according to Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew . . . to be made conformable
to the image of His Son. "
Reply to Objection 3: Spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the
same time; not so material goods. Wherefore none can receive a material
inheritance except the successor of a deceased person: whereas all
receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety
without detriment to the ever-living Father.
Yet it might be said that God ceases to be, according as He is in us by
faith, so as to begin to be in us by vision, as a gloss says on Rom.
8:17: "If sons, heirs also. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that the whole Trinity should adopt?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that the whole Trinity should
adopt. For adoption is said of God in likeness to human custom. But
among men those only adopt who can beget: and in God this can be
applied only to the Father. Therefore in God the Father alone can
adopt.
Objection 2: Further, by adoption men become the brethren of Christ,
according to Rom. 8:29: "That He might be the first-born among many
brethren. " Now brethren are the sons of the same father; wherefore our
Lord says (Jn. 20:17): "I ascend to My Father and to your Father. "
Therefore Christ's Father alone has adopted sons.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4, 5, 6): "God sent His Son
. . . that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are
sons of God, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts,
crying: 'Abba' [Father]. " Therefore it belongs to Him to adopt, Who has
the Son and the Holy Ghost. But this belongs to the Father alone.
Therefore it befits the Father alone to adopt.
On the contrary, It belongs to Him to adopt us as sons, Whom we can
call Father; whence it is written (Rom. 8:15): "You have received the
spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: 'Abba' [Father]. " But when
we say to God, "Our Father," we address the whole Trinity: as is the
case with the other names which are said of God in respect of
creatures, as stated in the [4110]FP, Q[33], A[3], OBJ[1]; cf.
[4111]FP, Q[45], A[6]. Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole
Trinity.
I answer that, There is this difference between an adopted son of God
and the natural Son of God, that the latter is "begotten not made";
whereas the former is made, according to Jn. 1:12: "He gave them power
to be made the sons of God. " Yet sometimes the adopted son is said to
be begotten, by reason of the spiritual regeneration which is by grace,
not by nature; wherefore it is written (James 1:18): "Of His own will
hath He begotten us by the word of truth. " Now although, in God, to
beget belongs to the Person of the Father, yet to produce any effect in
creatures is common to the whole Trinity, by reason of the oneness of
their Nature: since, where there is one nature, there must needs be one
power and one operation: whence our Lord says (Jn. 5:19): "What things
soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. "
Therefore it belongs to the whole Trinity to adopt men as sons of God.
Reply to Objection 1: All human individuals are not of one individual
nature, so that there need be one operation and one effect of them all,
as is the case in God. Consequently in this respect no comparison is
possible.
Reply to Objection 2: By adoption we are made the brethren of Christ,
as having with Him the same Father: Who, nevertheless, is His Father in
one way, and ours in another. Whence pointedly our Lord says,
separately, "My Father," and "Your Father" (Jn. 20:17). For He is
Christ's Father by natural generation; and this is proper to Him:
whereas He is our Father by a voluntary operation, which is common to
Him and to the Son and Holy Ghost: so that Christ is not the Son of the
whole Trinity, as we are.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (A[1], ad 2), adoptive sonship is
a certain likeness of the eternal Sonship: just as all that takes place
in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man
is likened to the splendor of the Eternal Son by reason of the light of
grace which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption, though
common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as its
author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy Ghost, as imprinting
on us the likeness of this exemplar.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the rational nature
to be adopted. For God is not said to be the Father of the rational
creature, save by adoption. But God is called the Father even of the
irrational creature, according to Job 38:28: "Who is father of the
rain?
