 Question 19 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 19 of the Unity of Christ's Operation in four articles. We must now consider the Unity of Christ's Operation. And under this head, there are four points of inquiry. First, whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the Godhead and manhood. Second, whether in Christ there were several operations of the human nature. Third, whether Christ by his human operation merited anything for himself. Fourth, whether he merited anything for us by it. First article, whether in Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and manhood. Objection one, it would seem that in Christ there was about one operation of the Godhead and the manhood. For Dionysius says in On the Divine Names too, The most loving operation of God is made manifest to us by the super substantial word having taken flesh integrally and truly, and having operated and suffered whatsoever befits his human and divine operation. But he here mentions only one human and divine operation, which is written in Greek, Theandruke, that is, God-man-like. Hence, it seems that there is but one composite operation in Christ. Objection two further, there is but one operation of the principle and instrumental agent. Now the human nature in Christ was the instrument of the divine, as was said above in question seven article one third reply, as well as in question eight article one first reply, and in question eighteen article two second reply. Hence the operations of the divine and human natures in Christ are the same. Objection three further, since in Christ there are two natures in one hypothesis or person, whatever pertains to the hypothesis or person is one and the same. But operation pertains to the hypothesis or person, for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates. Hence according to the philosopher and metaphysics one one, acts belong to singulars. Hence in Christ there is only one operation of the godhead and the manhood. Objection four further, as being belongs to a subsisting hypothesis, so also it is operation. But on account of the unity of hypothesis there is only one operation of the godhead and the manhood. Hence on account of the same unity there is one operation in Christ. Objection five further, where there is one thing operated there is one operation, but the same thing was operated by the godhead and the manhood as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead. Hence it seems that in Christ there is but one operation of the godhead and the manhood. On the contrary, Ambrose says in On the Faith 2.8, how can the same operation spring from different powers? Cannot the lesser operate as the greater? And can there be one operation where there are different substances? I answer that as was said above in question 18 article 1, the aforesaid heretics who placed one will in Christ placed one operation in Christ. Now in order better to understand their erroneous opinion we must bear in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained agents the inferior is moved by the superior as in man the body is moved by the soul and the lower powers of the reason and thus the actions and movements of the inferior principle are things operated rather than operations. Now what pertains to the highest principle is properly the operation. Thus we say of man that to walk which belongs to the feet and to touch which belongs to the hand are things operated by the man one of which is operated by the soul through the feet the other through the hands and because it is the same soul that operates in both cases there is only one indifferent operation on the part of the thing operating which is the first moving principle but difference is found on the part of what is operated. Now as in a mere man the body is moved by the soul and the sensitive by the rational appetite so in the Lord Jesus Christ the human nature is moved and ruled by the divine. Hence they said that there is one indifferent operation on the part of the godhead operating but diverse things operated in as much as the godhead of Christ did one thing by itself as to uphold all things by the word of his power and another thing by his human nature as to walk in body. Hence the sixth council quotes the words of Severus the heretic who said what things were done and wrought by the one Christ differ greatly for some are becoming to God and some are human as to walk bodily on the earth is indeed human but to give hail steps to sickly limbs wholly unable to walk on the ground is becoming to God yet one that is the incarnate word wrought one and the other neither was this from one nature and that from another nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two operating natures and forms but herein they were deceived for what is moved by another has a twofold action one which it has from its own form the other which it has in as much as it is moved by another thus the operation of an axe of itself is to cleave but in as much as it is moved by the craftsman its operation is to make benches hence the operation which belongs to a thing by its form is proper to it nor does it belong to the mover except insofar as he makes use of this kind of thing for his work thus to heat is the proper operation of fire but not of a smith except insofar as he makes use of fire for heating iron but the operation which belongs to the thing as moved by another is not distinct from the operation of the mover thus to make a bench is not the work of the axe independently of the workman hence where so ever the mover and the moved have different forms or operative faculties there must the operation of the mover and the proper operation of the moved be distinct although the moved shares in the operation of the mover the mover makes use of the operation of the moved and consequently each acts in communion with the other therefore in christ the human nature has its proper form and power whereby it acts and so has the divine hence the human nature has its proper operation distinct from the divine and conversely nevertheless the divine nature makes use of the operation of the human nature as of the operation of its instrument and in the same way the human nature shares in the operation of the divine nature as an instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent and this is what pope Leo says in his letter to Flavian both forms that is both the divine and the human nature in christ do what is proper to each in union with the other that is the word operates what belongs to the word and the flesh carries out what belongs to flesh but if there were only one operation of the godhead and manhood in christ it would be necessary to say either that the human nature had not its proper form and power for this could not possibly be said of the divine once it would follow that in christ there was only the divine operation or it would be necessary to say that from the divine and human power there was made up one power now both of these are impossible for by the first the human nature in christ is supposed to be imperfect and by the second a confusion of the nature is supposed hence it is with reason that the sixth council act 18 condemned this opinion and decreed as follows we confess too natural indivisible unconvertible unconfused and inseparable operations in the same lord jesus christ our true god that is the divine operation and the human operation reply to objection one Dionysius places in christ a theandric that is a god man like or divino human operation not by any confusion of the operations or powers of both natures but inasmuch as his divine operation employs the human and his human operation shares in the power of the divine hence as he says in a certain epistle to kyus number four what is of man he works beyond man and this is shown by the virgin conceiving supernaturally and by the unstable waters bearing up the weight of bodily feet now it is clear that to be begotten belongs to human nature and likewise to walk yet both were in christ supernaturally so too he wrought divine things humanly as when he healed the leper with a touch hence in the same epistle he adds he performed divine works not as god does and human works not as man does but god having been made man by a new operation of god and man now that he understood two operations in christ one of the divine and the other of the human nature is clear from what he says in on the divine names too whatever pertains to his human operation the father and the holy ghost know wise share in except as one might say by their most gracious and merciful will that is in as much as the father and the holy ghost in their mercy wished christ to do and to suffer human things and he adds he is truly the unchangeable god and god's word by the sublime and unspeakable operation of god which being made man for us he brought hence it is clear that the human operation in which the father and the holy ghost do not share except by their merciful consent is distinct from his operation as the word of god wherein the father and the holy ghost share reply to objection to the instrument is said to act through being moved by the principal agent and yet besides this it can have its proper operation through its own form as stated above of fire and hence the action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from the action of the principal agent yet it may have another operation in as much as it is a thing hence the operation of christ's human nature as the instrument of the godhead is not distinct from the operation of the godhead for the salvation we're with the manhood of christ saves us and that we're with his godhead saves us are not distinct nevertheless the human nature in christ in as much as it is a certain nature has a proper operation distinct from the divine as stated above reply to objection three to operate belongs to a subsisting hypothesis in accordance however with the form and nature from which the operation receives its species hence from the diversity of forms or natures springs the diverse species of operations but from the unity of ipostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation of the species thus fire has two operations specifically different namely to illuminate and to heat from the difference of light and heat and yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one in the same time is numerically one so likewise in christ there are necessarily two specifically different operations by reason of his two natures nevertheless each of the operations at one and the same time is numerically one as one walking and one healing reply to objection four being and operation belong to the person by reason of the nature yet in a different manner for being belongs to the very constitution of the person and in this respect it has the nature of a term consequently unity of person requires unity of the complete and personal being but operation is an effect of the person by reason of a form or nature hence plurality of operations is not incompatible with personal unity reply to objection five the proper work of the divine operation is different from the proper work of the human operation thus to heal a leper is a proper work of the divine operation but to touch him is the proper work of the human operation now both these operations concur in one work in as much as one nature acts in union with the other second article whether in christ there are several human operations objection one it would seem that in christ there are several human operations for christ as man communicates with plants by his nutritive soul with the brutes by his sensitive soul and with the angels by his intellect of soul even as other men do now the operations of a plant as plant and of animal as animal are different therefore christ as man has several operations objection two further powers and habits are distinguished by their acts now in christ's soul there were diverse powers and habits therefore also diverse operations objection three further instruments ought to be proportioned to their operations now the human body has diverse members of different form and consequently fitted to diverse operations therefore in christ there are diverse operations in the human nature on the contrary as damasin says in on the true faith 315 operation is consequent upon the nature but in christ there is only one human nature therefore in christ there is only one human operation i answer that since it is by his reason that a man is what he is that operation is called human simply which proceeds from the reason through the will which is the rational appetite now if there is any operation in man which does not proceed from the reason and the will it is not simply a human operation but belongs to man by reason of some part of human nature sometimes by reason of the nature of elementary bodies as to be born downwards sometimes by reason of the force of the vegetative soul as to be nourished and to grow sometimes by reason of the sensitive part as to see and hear to imagine and remember to desire and to be angry now between these operations there is a difference for the operations of the sensitive soul are to some extent obedient to reason and consequently they are somewhat rational and human in as much as they obey reason as is clear from the philosopher in ethics 113 but the operations that spring from the vegetative soul or from the nature of elemental bodies are not subject to reason consequently they are no wise rational nor simply human but only as regards a part of human nature now it was said in article one that when a subordinate agent acts by its own form the operations of the inferior and of the superior agent are distinct but when the inferior agent acts only as moved by the superior agent then the operation of the superior and the inferior agent is one and hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and of the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's operation which is properly human so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul in as much as it is not moved by reason but in as much as it is moved by reason the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the same now there is but one operation of the rational part if we consider the principle of the operation which is the reason and the will but the operations are many if we consider their relationship to various objects and there were some who called this a diversity of things operated rather than of operations judging the unity of the operation solely from the operative principle and it is in this respect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of operations in christ hence in every mere man there is but one operation which is properly called human but besides this there are in a mere man certain other operations which are not strictly human as was said above but in the man jesus christ there was no motion of the sensitive part which was not ordered by reason even the natural and bodily operations pertained in some respects to his will in as much as it was his will that his flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it as stated above in question 18 article five much more therefore is there one operation in christ than in any other man whatsoever reply to objection one the operations of the sensitive and nutritive parts are not strictly human as stated above yet in christ these operations were more human than in others reply to objection two powers and habits are diversified by comparison with their objects hence in this way the diversity of operations corresponds to the diverse powers and habits as likewise to the diverse objects now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of operations from christ's humanity nor that which springs from a diversity of time but only that which regards the first active principle as was said above translator's note saint thomas gives no reply to objection three some codices add hence maybe gathered the reply to the third objection third article whether the human action of christ could be meritorious to him objection one you would seem that the human action of christ could not be meritorious to him for before his death christ was a comprehensive or even as he is now but comprehensors do not merit because the charity of the comprehensive or belongs to the reward of beatitude since fruition depends upon it hence it does not seem to be the principle of merit since merit and reward are not the same therefore christ before his passion did not merit even as he does not merit now objection to further no one merits what is due to him but because christ is the son of god by nature the eternal inheritance is due to him which other men merit by their works and hence christ who from the beginning was the word of god could not merit anything for himself objection three further whoever has the principle does not properly merit what flows from its possession but christ has the glory of the soul whence in the natural course flowed from the glory of the body as agustin says in his letter to deus though by a dispensation it was brought about that in christ the glory of the soul should not overflow to the body hence christ did not merit the glory of the body objection four further the manifestation of christ's excellence is a good not of christ himself but of those who know him hence it is promised as a reward to such as love christ that he will be manifested to them according to john 1421 he that loveth me shall be loved of my father and i will love him and will manifest myself to him therefore christ did not merit the manifestation of his greatness on the contrary the apostle says in philippians two verses eight and nine becoming obedient unto death for which cause god also hath exalted him therefore by obeying he merited his exaltation and thus he merited something for himself i answer that to have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it from another for what is of itself a cause is always more excellent than what is a cause through another as i said in physics eight five now a thing is said to have of itself that of which it is to some extent the cause but of whatever good we possess the first cause by authority is god and in this way no creature has any good of itself according to first Corinthians four seven what has to thou that thou has not received nevertheless in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause to himself of having certain good things in as much as he cooperates with god in the matter and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it in a manner of himself hence it is better to have a thing by merit than without merit now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to christ consequently he must have by merit what others have by merit unless it be of such a nature that its want would detract from christ's dignity and perfection more than would accrue to him by merit hence he merited neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of his soul nor the godhead because since merit regards only what is not yet possessed it would be necessary that christ should have been without these at some time and to be without them would have diminished christ's dignity more than his merit would have increased it but the glory of the body and the like are less than the dignity of meriting which pertains to the virtue of charity hence we must say that christ had by merit the glory of his body and whatever pertain to his outward excellence as his ascension veneration and the rest and thus it is clear that he could merit for himself reply to objection one fruition which is an act of charity pertains to the glory of the soul which christ did not merit hence if he merited by charity it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the same nor did he merit by charity in as much as it was the charity of a comprehensor but in as much as it was that of a wayfarer for he was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor as was said above in question 15 article 10 and therefore since he is no longer a wayfarer he is not in the state of meriting reply to objection two because by nature christ is god and the son of god the divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to him as to the first and supreme lord nevertheless the glory is due to him as a beatified man and this he has partly without merit and partly with merit as is clear from what has been said reply to objection three it is by divine appointment that there is an overflow of glory from the soul in the body in keeping with human merit so that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs in the body so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing to the body and hence not only the glory of the soul but also the glory of the body falls under merit according to romans 8 11 he shall quicken also our mortal bodies because of his spirit that dwelleth in us and thus it could fall under christ's merit reply to objection four the manifestation of christ's excellence is as good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others although in regard to the being which they have in themselves it chiefly belongs to the good of those who know him yet even this is referred to christ in as much as they are his members fourth article whether christ could merit for others objection one it would seem that christ could not merit for others for it is written in Ezekiel 18 4 the soul that sineth the same shall die hence for a like reason the soul that meriteth the same shall be recompensed therefore it is not possible that christ merited for others objection to further of the fullness of christ's grace we all receive as is written in john 116 now other men having christ's grace cannot merit for others for it is written in Ezekiel 14 20 that if Noah and Daniel and Job be in the city they shall deliver neither son nor daughter but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice hence christ could not merit anything for us objection three further the reward that we merit is due according to justice and not according to grace as is clear from romans 4 4 therefore if christ merited our salvation it follows that our salvation is not by god's grace but by its justice and that he acts unjustly with those whom he does not save since christ's merit extends to us all on the contrary it is written in romans 5 18 as by the offense of one unto all men the condemnation so also by the justice of one unto all men to justification of life but atoms demerits reached to the condemnation of others much more therefore does the merit of christ reach others i answer that as stated above in question eight articles one and five grace was in christ not merely as in an individual but also as in the head of the whole church to whom all are united as members to a head who constitute one mystical person and hence it is that christ's merit extends to others in as much as they are his members even as in a man the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members since he perceives not merely for itself alone but for all the members reply to objection one the sin of an individual harms himself alone but the sin of adam who was appointed by god to be the principle of the whole nature is transmitted to others by carnal propagation so to the merit of christ who has been appointed by god to be the head of all men in regard to grace extends to all his members reply to objection two others receive a christ's fullness not indeed the fount of grace but some particular grace and hence it need not be that men merit for others as christ did reply to objection three as the sin of adam reaches others only by carnal generation so to the merit of christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration which takes place in baptism wherein we are incorporated with christ according to galatians 327 as many of you have been baptized in christ have put on christ and it is by grace that it is granted to man to be incorporated with christ and thus man's salvation is from grace end of question 19 read by michael shane craig lambrit lc question 20 of summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior this is a libervox recording all libervox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit libervox.org summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior by saint thomas equinas translated by the fathers of the english dominican province question 20 of christ's subjection to the father in two articles we must now consider such things as belong to christ in relation to the father some of these things are predicated of him because of his relation to the father for example that he was subject to him that he prayed to him that he ministered to him by the priesthood and some are predicated or may be predicated of him because of the father's relation to him for example that the father adopted him and that he predestined him hence we must consider one christ's subjection to the father two his prayer three his priesthood four adoption whether it is becoming to him five his predestination under the first head there are two points of inquiry first whether christ is subject to the father second whether he is subject to himself first article whether we may say that christ is subject to the father objection one it would seem that we may not say that christ was subject to the father for everything subject to the father is a creature since as it is said in on-church doctrine for in the trinity there is no dependence or subjection but we cannot say simply that christ is a creature as was said above in question 18 article 8 therefore we cannot say simply that christ is subject to god the father objection to further a thing is said to be subject to god when it is subservient to his dominion but we cannot attribute subservience to the human nature of christ for damasin says in on the true faith 321 we must bear in mind that we may not call it that is christ's human nature a servant for the words subservience and domination are not names of the nature but of relations as the words paternity and affiliation hence christ in his human nature is not subject to god the father objection three further it is written in first chrithians 1528 and when all things shall be subdued unto him then the son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him but as written in Hebrews 2 8 we see not as yet all things subject to him hence he is not yet subject to the father who has subjected all things to him on the contrary our lord says in John 14 28 the father is greater than I and Augustine says in on the trinity 17 it is not without reason that the scripture mentions both that the son is equal to the father and the father greater than the son for the first is said on account of the form of god and the second on account of the form of a servant without any confusion now the less is subject to the greater therefore in the form of a servant christ is subject to the father I answer that whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper to that nature now human nature from its very beginning has a threefold subjection to god the first regards the degree of goodness in as much as the divine nature is the very essence of goodness as is clear from Dionysius in on the divine names one while a created nature has a participation of the divine goodness being subject so to say to the rays of this goodness secondly human nature is subject to god as regards god's power in as much as human nature even as every creature is subject to the operation of the divine ordinance thirdly human nature is especially subject to god through its proper act in as much as by its own will it obeys his command this triple subjection to god christ professors of himself the first in matthew 1917 why askest thou me concerning good one is good god and on this Jerome remarks he who had called him a good master had not confessed him to be god or the son of god learns that no man however holy is good in comparison with god and hereby he gave us to understand that he himself in his human nature did not attain to the height of divine goodness and because in such things as are great but not in bulk to be great is the same as to be good as Augustine says in on the trinity six eight for this reason the father is said to be greater than christ in his human nature the second subjection is attributed to christ in as much as all that befell christ is believed to have happened by divine appointment hence Dionysius says in on the celestial hierarchy four that christ is subject to the ordinance of god the father and this is the subjection of subservience whereby every creature serves god according to Judith 1617 being subject to his ordinance according to wisdom 1624 the creature serving thee the creator and in this way the son of god as mentioned in Philippians 2 7 is said to have taken the form of a servant the third subjection he attributes to himself saying in John 8 29 I do always the things that please him and this is the subjection to the father of obedience unto death hence it is written in Philippians 2 8 that he became obedient to the father unto death reply to objection one as we are not to understand that christ is a creature simply but only in his human nature whether this qualification be added or not as stated above in question 18 article 8 so also we are to understand that christ is subject to the father not simply but in his human nature even if this qualification be not added and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid the error of Arius who held the son to be less than the father reply to objection two the relation of subservience and dominion is based upon action and passion in as much as it belongs to a servant to be moved by the will of his master now to act is not attributed to the nature as agent but to the person since acts belong to supposita and to singulars according to the philosopher in metaphysics one one nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the person or hypostasis acts hence although the nature is not properly said to rule or serve yet every hypothesis or person may be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature and in this way nothing prevents christ being subject or servant to the father in human nature reply to objection three as Augustine says in on eternity one eight christ will give the kingdom to god and the father when he has brought the faithful over whom he now reigns by faith to the vision that is to see the essence common to the father and the son and then he will be totally subject to the father not only in himself but also in his members by the full participation of the godhead and then all things will be fully subject to him by the final accomplishment of his will concerning them although even now all things are subject to him as regards his power according to Matthew 28 18 all power is given to me in heaven and in earth second article weather christ is subject to himself objection one it would seem that christ is not subject to himself for Cyril says in a synodal letter which the council of Ephesus part one chapter 26 received christ is neither servant nor master of himself it is foolish or rather impious to think or say this and damasin says the same in on the true faith 321 the one being christ cannot be the servant or master of himself now christ is said to be the servant of the father in as much as he is subject to him hence christ is not subject to himself objection to further servant has reference to master now nothing has a relation to itself hence hillary says in on the trinity seven that nothing is like or equal to itself hence christ cannot be said to be the servant of himself and consequently to be subject to himself objection three further as the rational soul and flesh are one man so god and man are one christ as Athanasius says in his symbol of faith now man is not said to be subject to himself or servant to himself or greater than himself because his body is subject to his soul therefore christ is not said to be subject to himself because his manhood is subject to his godhead on the contrary augustin says in on the trinity one seven truth shows in this way that is whereby the father is greater than christ in human nature that the son is less than himself further as he argues in on the trinity one seven again the form of a servant was so taken by the son of god that the form of god was not lost but because the form of god which is common to the father and the son the father is greater than the son in human nature therefore the son is greater than himself in human nature further christ in his human nature is the servant of god the father according to john 2017 i ascend to my father and your father to my god and your god now whoever is the servant of the father is the servant of the son otherwise not everything that belongs to the father would belong to the son therefore christ is his own servant and is subject to himself i answer that as was said above in article one second reply to be master or servant is attributed to a person or hypothesis according to a nature hence when it is said that christ is the master or servant of himself or that the word of god is the master of the man christ this may be understood in two ways first so that this is understood to be said by reason of another hypothesis or person as if there was the person of the word of god ruling and the person of the man serving and this is the heresy of Nestorius hence in the condemnation of Nestorius it is said in the council of Ephesus part three chapter one sixth anathema if anyone say that the word begotten of god the father is the god or lord of christ and does not rather confess the same to be at once god and man as the word made flesh according to the scriptures let him be anathema and in this sense it is denied by Cyril and damocene confer objection one and in the same sense must it be denied that christ is less than himself or subject to himself secondly it may be understood of the diversity of natures in the one person or hypothesis and thus we may say that in one of them in which he agrees with the father he presides and rules together with the father and in the other nature in which he agrees with us he is subject and serves and in this sense Augustine says that the son is less than himself yet it must be borne in mind that since this name christ is the name of a person even as the name son those things can be predicated essentially and absolutely of christ which belong to him by reason of the person which is eternal and especially those relations which seem more properly to pertain to the person or the hypothesis but whatever pertains to him in his human nature is rather to be attributed to him with a qualification so that we say that christ is simply greatest lord ruler whereas to be subject or servant is less to be attributed to him with the qualification in his human nature reply to objection one Cyril and Damascene deny that christ is the head of himself in as much as this implies a plurality of supposita which is required in order that anyone may be the master of another reply to objection two simply speaking it is necessary that the master and the servant should be distinct yet a certain notion of mastership and subservience may be preserved in as much as the same one is master of himself in different respects reply to objection three on account of the diverse parts of man one of which is superior and the other inferior the philosopher says in ethics 511 that there is justice between a man and himself in as much as the irascible and concupisable powers obey reason hence this way a man may be said to be subject and subservient to himself as regards his different parts to the other arguments the reply is clear from what has been said for agustin asserts that the son is less than or subject to himself in his human nature and not by a diversity of supposita end of question 20 read by michael shane greg lambert lc question 21 of summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior this is a lever vox recording all lever vox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit lever vox org summa theologica tertia pars triates on the savior by saint thomas equinas translated by the fathers of the english dominican province question 21 of christ's prayer in four articles we must now consider christ's prayer and under this head there are four points of inquiry first whether it is becoming that christ should pray second whether it pertains to him in respect of his sensuality third whether it is becoming to him to pray for himself or only for others fourth whether every prayer of his was heard first article whether it is becoming of christ to pray objection one he would seem unbecoming that christ should pray for as damascene says and on the true faith 3 24 prayer is the asking for becoming things from god but since christ could do all things it does not seem becoming to him to ask anything from anyone therefore it does not seem fitting that christ should pray objection to further we need not ask in prayer for what we know for certain will happen thus we do not pray that the sun may rise tomorrow 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 three further damascene says and on the true faith 3 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 in luke 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 second part question 83 articles 1 and 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 notably the divine it would no wise belong to him to pray since the divine will of itself is effective of whatever he wishes by it according to psalm 134 verse 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 is having a human will reply to objection one christ as god and not as man was able to carry out all that he wished since as man he was not omnipotent has stated above in question 13 article 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 in john 11 42 because of the people who stand about i have said it that is the words of the prayer that they may believe that thou hast sent me hence hillary says in on the trinity 10 he did not need prayer it was for us he prayed lest the sun should be unknown secondly to give us an example of prayer hence ambrose says commenting on luke 6 12 be not deceived nor think that the son of god prays as a weakling in order to beseech what he cannot affect for the author of power the master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of virtue by his example hence augustin says in his commentary on the gospel of john our lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence if need be but he wished to show himself a supplement of the father in such sort as to bear in mind that he was our teacher reply to objection to 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 beside god reply to objection three to rise is nothing more than to move towards what is above now a movement is taken in two ways as it is said in on the soul three seven first strictly according as it implies the passing from potentiality to act in as much 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 says damasin says in on the true faith three twenty four 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 that is 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 second article whether it pertains to christ to pray according to his sensuality objection one you would seem that it pertains to christ to pray according to his sensuality for it is written in psalm 83 verse 3 in the person of christ my heart and my flesh have rejoicing in the living god now sensuality is the appetite of the flesh hence christ's sensuality could ascend to the living god by rejoicing and with equal reason by praying objection to further prayer would seem to pertain to that which desires what is besought now christ besought something that his sensuality desired when he said in matthew 26 39 let this chalice pass from me therefore christ's sensuality prayed objection three 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 in 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 in philippians 27 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 in as much 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 second part the bars secunde secunde question 83 article one 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 in as much 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 augustin says in the end caridian 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 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 one 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 in as much as the sensitive appetite follows the movement of the rational appetite reply to objection two 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 three 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 third article whether it was fitting that christ should pray for himself objection one it would seem that it was not fitting that christ should pray for himself for here lary says in on the trinity to end although his word of besieging did not benefit himself yet he spoke for the prophet of our faith hence it seems that christ prayed not for himself but for us objection to further no one prays save for what he wishes because as was said in article one prayer is an unfolding of our will to god that he may fulfill it now christ wished to suffer what he suffered for augustin says in his letter against faustus 26 a man though unwilling is often angry though unwilling is sad though unwilling sleeps though unwilling hungers and thirsts but he that is christ did all these things because he wished therefore it was not fitting that he should pray for himself objection three further syprian says in his reflection on the lord's prayer 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 one one jesus began to do and to teach therefore christ never prayed for himself alone on the contrary our lord himself said while praying in john 17 verse one glorify thy son i answer that christ prayed for himself in two ways first by expressing the desire of his sensuality as stated above in article two or also of his simple will considered as a nature as when he prayed that the chalice of his passion might pass from him confirm matthew 26 verse 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 confer john 17 verse one and this is reasonable for as we have said above in article one first reply 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 in matthew 26 verse 27 and john 11 verse 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 one hillary 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 Psalm 9 verse 38 much more the will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the father wherefore he said in John 11 verse 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 has sent me reply to objection two 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 is 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 three this very glory which Christ while praying basalt for himself pertained to the salvation of others according to Romans 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 praise not only for himself but also for others fourth article whether Christ's prayer was always heard objection one it would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard for he was sought that the chalice of his passion might be taken away from him as we read in Matthew 26 39 and yet it was not taken from him therefore it seems that not every prayer of his was heard objection to further he prayed that the sin of those who crucified him might be forgiven as is related in Luke 23 34 yet not all were pardoned at the sin since the Jews were punished on account thereof therefore it seems that not every prayer of his was heard objection three 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 all of this related in John 17 in Christ's priestly prayer but not all attained to this therefore not every prayer of his was heard objection four further it is said in Psalm 21 verse 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 in Hebrews 5 verse 7 with a strong cry and tears offering up prayers he was heard for his reverence I answer that as stated above in article one 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 reasons 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 so kundum quid that is provided no obstacle be discovered by reasons deliberation wherefore such a will should rather be called a valiety than an absolute will because one would will velet 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 Romans 8 27 and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth that is approves of what the spirit desireeth 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 one this prayer for the passing of the chalice is variously explained by the saints for Hilary in his commentary on the gospel of Matthew 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 and 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 in his commentary on Matthew 26 verse 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 on martyrdom 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 Savior procedures that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed lastly Ambrose origin and Chrysostom say that he prays 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 fulfillment but for our instruction it was his will to make known to us his natural will and the movement of essentiality which was his as man reply to objection to our lord did not pray for all those who crucified him as neither did he for all those who had believed in him but for those only who were predestined to obtain eternal life through him where for the reply to the third objection is also manifest reply to objection for 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. End of question 21 read by Michael Shane Greg Lambert LC. Question 22 of Summa Theologica Terziapars triates on the Savior. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terziapars triates on the Savior by Saint Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province. Question 22 of the priesthood of Christ in six articles. We have now to consider the priesthood of Christ and under this heading there are six points of inquiry. First, whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest. Second, of the victim offered by this priest. Third, of the effect of this priesthood. Fourth, whether the effect of his priesthood pertains to himself or only to others. Fifth, of the eternal duration of his priesthood. Sixth, whether he should be called a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. First article, whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest. Objection one, you would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest. For a priest is less than an angel. Whence it is written in Zechariah 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 Hebrews 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 two further, things which were in the Old Testament were figures of Christ according to Colossians 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 in Hebrews 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 three further, in the Old Law which is a figure of Christ the law givers and the priests were distinct wherefore the Lord said to Moses the law giver and Exodus 28 verse 1 take unto the Aaron thy brother that he may minister to me in the priest's office. But Christ is the giver of the new law according to Jeremiah 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 in Hebrews 4.14 we have 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 in as much as he bestows defined things on the people wherefore sacerdos priest means a giver of sacred things sacra duns according to Melachi 2.7 they shall seek the law at his that is the priests mouth and again for as much as he offers up the people's prayer to God and in a manner makes satisfaction to God for their sins wherefore the apostle says in Hebrews 5.1 every priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that have pertain 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 Peter 1.4 by whom that is 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 Colossians 1 verses 19 and 20 in him that is Christ it hath well pleased the father that all fullness 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 one hierarchical power up pertains to the angels in as much as they also are between God and man as Dionysius explains in on the celestial hierarchy nine 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 fullness 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 Matthew 4.11 angels came and ministered unto him but in regard to his passability he was made a little lower than the angels as the apostle says in Hebrews 2.9 and thus he was conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the priesthood reply to objection two as damascene says in on the true faith 326 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 there from as truth from figure reply to objection three as stated above in question 7 article 7 first reply 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 in Isaiah 33 22 the lord is our judge the lord is our lawgiver the lord is our king he will come and save us second article whether Christ was himself both priest and victim objection one it would seem that Christ 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 two 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 psalm 105 verse 38 they shed innocent blood the blood of their sons and of their daughters which they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan therefore in Christ's priesthood the man Christ should not have been the victim objection three 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 in Ephesians 5 2 Christ hath loved us and hath delivered himself for us an ablation and a victim to God for an order of sweetness I answer that as Augustine says in On the City of God 10 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 psalm 50 verse 19 a sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit therefore 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 has turned away from God hence the apostle says in Hebrews 5 1 that it apportains to the priest to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins secondly that a man may be preserved in a state of grace by ever adhering to God wherein his peace and salvation consist therefore 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 Romans 4 25 who was delivered up for our sins secondly through him we received the grace of salvation according to Hebrews 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 Hebrews 10 19 we have a confidence in the entering into the holies that is 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 one Christ did not slay himself but of his own free will he exposed himself to death according to Isaiah 53 7 he was offered because it was his own will thus he is said to have offered himself reply to objection two the slaying of the man Christ maybe 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 similarity of which was born 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 translators note the reply to the third objection is wanting in the original manuscripts but it may be gathered from the above some additions however give the following reply reply to objection three 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 sacrificed 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 third article whether the effect of Christ's priesthood is the expiation of sins objection one it would seem that the effect of Christ's priesthood is not the expiation of sins for it belongs to God alone to blood out sins according to Isaiah forty three twenty five 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 to further the apostle says in Hebrews 10 verses one through three that the victims of the Old Testament could not make the commerce there unto perfect for then they would have ceased to be offered because the worshippers 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 as stated in Matthew six twelve more over the sacrifices 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 three 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 Leviticus four verses three twenty three and twenty eight but Christ is compared to none of these but to the lamb according to Jeremiah eleven nineteen I was as meek as a lamb that is carried to be a victim therefore it seems that his priesthood does not expiate sins on the contrary the apostle says in Hebrews nine verse 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 Romans three verses 24 and 25 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God hath promised to be a propitiation through faith in his blood moreover he satisfied for us fully in as much as he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows as is stated in Isaiah 53 4 wherefore it is clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to expiate sins reply to objection one 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 3 chapter 1 10th anathema 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 insofar as his human nature operated by virtue of the divine that sacrifice was most efficacious for the blotting out of sins for this reason augustin says in on the holy trinity 414 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 to sins are commemorated in the new law not on account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of christ as those sins were not sufficiently expiated by him but in regard to those who either are not willing to be participators in a 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 where for augustin says in on the city of God 1020 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 three as origin says in his commentary on the gospel of john 129 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 numbers 38 verses 3 and 4 by which it was signified that the offering up of the true lamb that is christ was the culminating sacrifice of all hence in john chapter 1 verse 29 it is said behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world fourth article whether the effect of the priesthood of christ pertained not only to others but also to himself objection one 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 2nd maccabees 123 the priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming now christ not only prayed for others but also for himself as we have said above in question 21 article 3 and as expressly stated in Hebrews 5 7 in the days of his flesh with a strong cry and tears he offered 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 to 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 in question 19 articles 3 and 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 in Leviticus 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 3 chapter 1 10th anathema 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 in article 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 in hebrew 7 25 coming of himself to god always living to make intercession for us 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 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 Corinthians 2 10 for what i have pardoned if i have pardoned anything for your sakes i have done it in the person of christ therefore it is not fitting that christ should receive the effect of his priesthood reply to objection one although prayer is befitting to priests it is not their proper office for it is befitting to everyone to pray for both 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 in Hebrews 5 6 thou art a priest forever according to the order of melchizedek adds who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers etc as quoted above in objection one 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 further on in the third reply but christ had simply speaking no sin though he had the likeness of sin in the flesh as is written in romans 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 passability of the flesh therefore he adds pointedly that was able to save him from death reply to objection two 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 three a figure cannot equal the reality wherefor 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 in hebrew 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 forever more fifth article whether the priesthood of christ endures forever objection one he would seem that the priesthood of christ does not endure forever for as stated above in article four first and third replies 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 forever for in the saints there will be no weakness according to israel 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 according to the office of the dead seventh reply therefore the priesthood of christ endures not forever objection to 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 as is stated in hebrews 9 12 but the passion and death of christ will not endure forever as stated in roman 6 9 christ raising again from the dead dieth now no more therefore the priesthood of christ will not endure forever objection three 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 forever on the contrary it is written in psalm 109 verse 4 thou art a priest forever 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 sacrifices 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 hebrews 9 11 christ is 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 lay down in leviticus 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 one 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 in apocalypse 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 two although christ's passion and death are not to be repeated yet the virtue of that victim injures forever for as it is written in hebrews 10 14 by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear as to the unity of the 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 in the viticus 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 sixth article whether the priesthood of christ was according to the order of melchizedek objection one it would seem that christ's priesthood was not according to the order of melchizedek for christ is the fountainhead 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 melchizedek objection two 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 the parsecunda secunde question two article seven therefore the priesthood of christ should be denominated after the priesthood of the law rather than after the order of melchizedek which was before the law objection three further it is written in hebrew seven verses two and three 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 melchizedek as of someone else but according to his own order on the contrary it is written in psalm 109 verse four thou art a priest forever according to the order of melchizedek i answer that as stated above in article four third reply the priesthood of the law was a figure of the priesthood of christ not as adequately representing the reality but is falling very 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 melchizedek 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 melchizedek on account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural priesthood of the law reply to objection one christ is said to be according to the order of melchizedek 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 two 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 then by the priesthood of melchizedek in which there was no blood shedding but if we consider the participation of the 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 melchizedek who offered bread and wine signifying as augustin says in his commentary on john ecclesiastical unity which is established by our taking part in the sacrifice of christ wherefore also in the new law the new sacrifice of christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine reply to objection three melchizedek 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 the apostle says in the same passage he is likened unto the son of god who had no earthly father no earthly mother and no genealogy according to isaac 53 8 who shall declare his generation and who in his godhead has neither beginning nor end of days end of question 22 read by michael shane greg lambert lc