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.
man, is called an angel, according to Malachi 2:7: "He is the angel of
the Lord of hosts.
Summa Theologica
Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what
he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would
happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in
prayer.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that
"prayer is the raising up of the mind to God. " Now Christ's mind needed
no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only
by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude.
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 6:12): "And it came to pass in
those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole
night in the prayer of God. "
I answer that, As was said in the [4097]SS, Q[83], AA[1],2, prayer is
the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If,
therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it
would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is
effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps. 134:6:
"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done. " But because the Divine and
the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will of itself is
not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power,
hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ as God and not as man was able to carry
out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above
([4098]Q[13], A[1] ). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to
offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for
our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the
Father; hence He says (Jn. 11:42): "Because of the people who stand
about I have said it" (i. e. the words of the prayer) "that they may
believe that Thou hast sent Me. " Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He
did not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be
unknown. " Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose says
(on Lk. 6:12): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as
a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the Author
of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of
virtue by His example. " Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan. ):
"Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, if
need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in
such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher. "
Reply to Objection 2: Amongst the other things which He knew would
happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for
these He not unbecomingly besought God.
Reply to Objection 3: To rise is nothing more than to move towards what
is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii,
7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from
potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect,
and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually
above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24),
"the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was
ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision. "
Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, i. e.
something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called
movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always raised up to
God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality?
Objection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray according
to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in the person of
Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living God. " Now
sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh. Hence Christ's
sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and with equal
reason by praying.
Objection 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which
desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His
sensuality desired when He said (Mat. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass
from Me. " Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in
person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed
by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human
nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of God in the
nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of men. " But the rest
of men do not pray with their sensuality. Therefore, neither did Christ
pray according to His sensuality.
I answer that, To pray according to sensuality may be understood in two
ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality; and in
this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His
sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now
in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the
movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and,
consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer;
secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we
desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of reason
alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in the
[4099]SS, Q[83], A[1].
Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our
prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in
this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer
expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of
the sensuality---and this, that He might teach us three things. First,
to show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its natural
affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural
desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should subject
his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says in the
Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): "Christ acting as a man, shows the
proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me'; for
this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and, so to
say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to be
directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou
wilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire
something proper to thee, even though God wishes something else. '"
Reply to Objection 1: The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the
act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart
into the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement
of the rational appetite.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sensuality wished what the reason
besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying,
but to the reason, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The union in person is according to the personal
being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but the
uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as
stated above. Hence there is no parity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that Christ should pray for Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should
pray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Although His word of
beseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of our
faith. " Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for Himself but for us.
Objection 2: Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as
was said [4100](A[1]), prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that
He may fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi): "A man, though unwilling, is often
angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps; though
unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He" (i. e. Christ) "did all these
things, because He wished. " Therefore it was not fitting that He should
pray for Himself.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom. ): "The Doctor of
Peace and Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered
individually and privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for
ourselves alone. " Now Christ did what He taught, according to Acts 1:1:
"Jesus began to do and to teach. " Therefore Christ never prayed for
Himself alone.
On the contrary, our Lord Himself said while praying (Jn. 17:1):
"Glorify Thy Son. "
I answer that, Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by
expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above [4101](A[2]);
or also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed
that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Mat. 26:39).
Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is
considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His
Resurrection (Jn. 17:1). And this is reasonable. For as we have said
above (A[1], ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to give
us an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is the
author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, and of all
the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in His
human nature He had already received certain gifts from His Father. so
there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but which He
expected to receive. And therefore, as He gave thanks to the Father for
gifts already received in His human nature, by acknowledging Him as the
author thereof, as we read (Mat. 26:27; Jn. 11:41): so also, in
recognition of His Father, He besought Him in prayer for those gifts
still due to Him in His human nature, such as the glory of His body,
and the like. And in this He gave us an example, that we should give
thanks for benefits received, and ask in prayer for those we have not
as yet.
Reply to Objection 1: Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not
necessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. 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.
he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would
happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in
prayer.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that
"prayer is the raising up of the mind to God. " Now Christ's mind needed
no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only
by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude.
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 6:12): "And it came to pass in
those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole
night in the prayer of God. "
I answer that, As was said in the [4097]SS, Q[83], AA[1],2, prayer is
the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If,
therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it
would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is
effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps. 134:6:
"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done. " But because the Divine and
the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will of itself is
not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power,
hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ as God and not as man was able to carry
out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above
([4098]Q[13], A[1] ). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to
offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for
our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the
Father; hence He says (Jn. 11:42): "Because of the people who stand
about I have said it" (i. e. the words of the prayer) "that they may
believe that Thou hast sent Me. " Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He
did not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be
unknown. " Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose says
(on Lk. 6:12): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as
a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the Author
of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of
virtue by His example. " Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan. ):
"Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, if
need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in
such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher. "
Reply to Objection 2: Amongst the other things which He knew would
happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for
these He not unbecomingly besought God.
Reply to Objection 3: To rise is nothing more than to move towards what
is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii,
7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from
potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect,
and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually
above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24),
"the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was
ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision. "
Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, i. e.
something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called
movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always raised up to
God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality?
Objection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray according
to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in the person of
Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living God. " Now
sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh. Hence Christ's
sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and with equal
reason by praying.
Objection 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which
desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His
sensuality desired when He said (Mat. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass
from Me. " Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in
person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed
by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human
nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of God in the
nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of men. " But the rest
of men do not pray with their sensuality. Therefore, neither did Christ
pray according to His sensuality.
I answer that, To pray according to sensuality may be understood in two
ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality; and in
this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His
sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now
in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the
movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and,
consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer;
secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we
desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of reason
alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in the
[4099]SS, Q[83], A[1].
Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our
prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in
this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer
expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of
the sensuality---and this, that He might teach us three things. First,
to show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its natural
affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural
desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should subject
his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says in the
Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): "Christ acting as a man, shows the
proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me'; for
this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and, so to
say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to be
directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou
wilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire
something proper to thee, even though God wishes something else. '"
Reply to Objection 1: The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the
act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart
into the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement
of the rational appetite.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sensuality wished what the reason
besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying,
but to the reason, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The union in person is according to the personal
being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but the
uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as
stated above. Hence there is no parity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that Christ should pray for Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should
pray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Although His word of
beseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of our
faith. " Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for Himself but for us.
Objection 2: Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as
was said [4100](A[1]), prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that
He may fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi): "A man, though unwilling, is often
angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps; though
unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He" (i. e. Christ) "did all these
things, because He wished. " Therefore it was not fitting that He should
pray for Himself.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom. ): "The Doctor of
Peace and Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered
individually and privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for
ourselves alone. " Now Christ did what He taught, according to Acts 1:1:
"Jesus began to do and to teach. " Therefore Christ never prayed for
Himself alone.
On the contrary, our Lord Himself said while praying (Jn. 17:1):
"Glorify Thy Son. "
I answer that, Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by
expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above [4101](A[2]);
or also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed
that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Mat. 26:39).
Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is
considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His
Resurrection (Jn. 17:1). And this is reasonable. For as we have said
above (A[1], ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to give
us an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is the
author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, and of all
the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in His
human nature He had already received certain gifts from His Father. so
there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but which He
expected to receive. And therefore, as He gave thanks to the Father for
gifts already received in His human nature, by acknowledging Him as the
author thereof, as we read (Mat. 26:27; Jn. 11:41): so also, in
recognition of His Father, He besought Him in prayer for those gifts
still due to Him in His human nature, such as the glory of His body,
and the like. And in this He gave us an example, that we should give
thanks for benefits received, and ask in prayer for those we have not
as yet.
Reply to Objection 1: Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not
necessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. 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.
