Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 39 (1/2)

SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 6]

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 princ.i.p.al priest. Now that which is princ.i.p.al 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.

Obj. 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 Second Part (II-II, 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.

Obj. 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 G.o.d. 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 t.i.thes from Abraham, in whose loins the priesthood of the Law was t.i.thed. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 partic.i.p.ation of this sacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the Law princ.i.p.ally 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. 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 Obj. 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 pa.s.sage, he is ”likened unto the Son of G.o.d,” Who had no earthly father, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to Isa. 53:8: ”Who shall declare His generation?” and Who in His G.o.dhead has neither beginning nor end of days.

_______________________

QUESTION 23

OF ADOPTION AS BEFITTING TO CHRIST (In 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 G.o.d should adopt sons?

(2) Whether this is fitting to G.o.d the Father alone?

(3) Whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sons.h.i.+p of G.o.d?

(4) Whether Christ can be called the adopted Son?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 1]

Whether It Is Fitting That G.o.d Should Adopt Sons?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting that G.o.d 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 G.o.d, Who is the Creator of all. Therefore it seems unfitting that G.o.d should adopt.

Obj. 2: Further, adoption seems to have been introduced in default of natural sons.h.i.+p. But in G.o.d there is natural sons.h.i.+p, as set down in the First Part (Q. 27, A. 2). Therefore it is unfitting that G.o.d should adopt.

Obj. 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 G.o.d as heir, for He can never die.

Therefore it is unfitting that G.o.d should adopt.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:5) that ”He hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children of G.o.d.” But the predestination of G.o.d is not ineffectual. Therefore G.o.d 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 G.o.d is infinitely good: for which reason He admits His creatures to a partic.i.p.ation of good things; especially rational creatures, who forasmuch as they are made to the image of G.o.d, are capable of Divine beat.i.tude. And this consists in the enjoyment of G.o.d, by which also G.o.d 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 G.o.d, of His goodness, admits men to the inheritance of beat.i.tude, He is said to adopt them. Moreover Divine exceeds human adoption, forasmuch as G.o.d, 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.