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 sonship 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 sonship. But in G.o.d there is natural sonship, 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.
Reply Obj. 1: Considered in his nature man is not a stranger in respect to G.o.d, as to the natural gifts bestowed on him: but he is as to the gifts of grace and glory; in regard to which he is adopted.
Reply Obj. 2: Man works in order to supply his wants: not so G.o.d, Who works in order to communicate to others the abundance of His perfection. Wherefore, as by the work of creation the Divine goodness is communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness, so by the work of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to men, according to Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew ... to be made conformable to the image of His Son."
Reply Obj. 3: Spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the same time; not so material goods. Wherefore none can receive a material inheritance except the successor of a deceased person: whereas all receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety without detriment to the ever-living Father.
Yet it might be said that G.o.d ceases to be, according as He is in us by faith, so as to begin to be in us by vision, as a gloss says on Rom. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also."
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 2]
Whether It Is Fitting That the Whole Trinity Should Adopt?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that the whole Trinity should adopt. For adoption is said of G.o.d in likeness to human custom. But among men those only adopt who can beget: and in G.o.d this can be applied only to the Father. Therefore in G.o.d the Father alone can adopt.
Obj. 2: Further, by adoption men become the brethren of Christ, according to Rom. 8:29: "That He might be the first-born among many brethren." Now brethren are the sons of the same father; wherefore our Lord says (John 20:17): "I ascend to My Father and to your Father." Therefore Christ"s Father alone has adopted sons.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4, 5, 6): "G.o.d sent His Son ... that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons of G.o.d, G.o.d hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: "Abba" (Father)." Therefore it belongs to Him to adopt, Who has the Son and the Holy Ghost. But this belongs to the Father alone. Therefore it befits the Father alone to adopt.
_On the contrary,_ It belongs to Him to adopt us as sons, Whom we can call Father; whence it is written (Rom. 8:15): "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: "Abba" (Father)." But when we say to G.o.d, "Our Father," we address the whole Trinity: as is the case with the other names which are said of G.o.d in respect of creatures, as stated in the First Part (Q. 33, A. 3, Obj. 1; cf. Q.
45, A. 6). Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole Trinity.
_I answer that,_ There is this difference between an adopted son of G.o.d and the natural Son of G.o.d, that the latter is "begotten not made"; whereas the former is made, according to John 1:12: "He gave them power to be made the sons of G.o.d." Yet sometimes the adopted son is said to be begotten, by reason of the spiritual regeneration which is by grace, not by nature; wherefore it is written (James 1:18): "Of His own will hath He begotten us by the word of truth." Now although, in G.o.d, to beget belongs to the Person of the Father, yet to produce any effect in creatures is common to the whole Trinity, by reason of the oneness of their Nature: since, where there is one nature, there must needs be one power and one operation: whence our Lord says (John 5:19): "What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner." Therefore it belongs to the whole Trinity to adopt men as sons of G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 1: All human individuals are not of one individual nature, so that there need be one operation and one effect of them all, as is the case in G.o.d. Consequently in this respect no comparison is possible.
Reply Obj. 2: By adoption we are made the brethren of Christ, as having with Him the same Father: Who, nevertheless, is His Father in one way, and ours in another. Whence pointedly our Lord says, separately, "My Father," and "Your Father" (John 20:17). For He is Christ"s Father by natural generation; and this is proper to Him: whereas He is our Father by a voluntary operation, which is common to Him and to the Son and Holy Ghost: so that Christ is not the Son of the whole Trinity, as we are.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (A. 1, ad 2), adoptive sonship is a certain likeness of the eternal Sonship: just as all that takes place in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man is likened to the splendor of the Eternal Son by reason of the light of grace which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption, though common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as its author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy Ghost, as imprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 3]
Whether It Is Proper to the Rational Nature to Be Adopted?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the rational nature to be adopted. For G.o.d is not said to be the Father of the rational creature, save by adoption. But G.o.d is called the Father even of the irrational creature, according to Job 38:28: "Who is father of the rain? Or who begot the drops of dew?" Therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted.
Obj. 2: Further, by reason of adoption some are called sons of G.o.d.
But to be sons of G.o.d seems to be properly attributed by the Scriptures to the angels; according to Job 1:6: "On a certain day when the sons of G.o.d came to stand before the Lord." Therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted.
Obj. 3: Further, whatever is proper to a nature, belongs to all that have that nature: just as risibility belongs to all men. But to be adopted does not belong to every rational nature. Therefore it is not proper to human nature.
_On the contrary,_ Adopted sons are the "heirs of G.o.d," as is stated Rom. 8:17. But such an inheritance belongs to none but the rational nature. Therefore it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2, ad 3), the sonship of adoption is a certain likeness of natural sonship. Now the Son of G.o.d proceeds naturally from the Father as the Intellectual Word, in oneness of nature with the Father. To this Word, therefore, something may be likened in three ways. First, on the part of the form but not on the part of its intelligibility: thus the form of a house already built is like the mental word of the builder in its specific form, but not in intelligibility, because the material form of a house is not intelligible, as it was in the mind of the builder. In this way every creature is like the Eternal Word; since it was made through the Word. Secondly, the creature is likened to the Word, not only as to its form, but also as to its intelligibility: thus the knowledge which is begotten in the disciple"s mind is likened to the word in the mind of the master. In this way the rational creature, even in its nature, is likened to the Word of G.o.d. Thirdly, a creature is likened to the Eternal Word, as to the oneness of the Word with the Father, which is by reason of grace and charity: wherefore our Lord prays (John 17:21, 22): "That they may be one in Us ... as We also are one." And this likeness perfects the adoption: for to those who are thus like Him the eternal inheritance is due. It is therefore clear that to be adopted belongs to the rational creature alone: not indeed to all, but only to those who have charity; which is "poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 5:5); for which reason (Rom. 8:15) the Holy Ghost is called "the Spirit of adoption of sons."
Reply Obj. 1: G.o.d is called the Father of the irrational creature, not properly speaking, by reason of adoption, but by reason of creation; according to the first-mentioned partic.i.p.ation of likeness.