|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not
according to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the
fountain-head of the entire priesthood, as being the principal
priest. Now that which is principal is not . secondary in regard to
others, but others are secondary in its regard. Therefore Christ
should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.
Objection 2: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin
to Christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the
Law. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly
they signified Him; as is clear from what we have said in the SS,
Question 2, Article 7. Therefore the priesthood of Christ should
be denominated after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the
order of Melchisedech, which was before the Law.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:2,3): "That
is 'king of peace,' without father, without mother, without
genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor ending of life":
which can be referred only to the Son of God. Therefore Christ
should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech,
as of some one else, but according to His own order.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a
priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 4, ad 3) the priesthood
of the Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as
adequately representing the reality, but as falling far short thereof:
both because the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and
because it was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the
excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed
in the priesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham,
in whose loins the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the
priesthood of Christ is said to be "according to the order of
Melchisedech," on account of the excellence of the true priesthood
over the figural priesthood of the Law.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be according to the order
of Melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest,
but because he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the
Levitical priesthood.
Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in Christ's
priesthood: namely, the offering made by Christ, and (our)
partaking thereof. As to the actual offering, the priesthood of
Christ was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the Law,
by reason of the shedding of blood, than by the priesthood of
Melchisedech in which there was no blood-shedding. But if we
consider the participation of this sacrifice and the effect thereof,
wherein the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of
the Law principally consists, then the former was more distinctly
foreshadowed by the priesthood of Melchisedech, who offered bread and
wine, signifying, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.)
ecclesiastical unity, which is established by our taking part in the
sacrifice of Christ [Question 79, Article 1]. Wherefore also
in the New Law the true sacrifice of Christ is presented to the
faithful under the form of bread and wine.
Reply to Objection 3: Melchisedech is described as "without
father, without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither
beginning of days nor ending of life," not as though he had not these
things, but because these details in his regard are not supplied by
Holy Scripture. And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the
same passage, he is "likened unto the Son of God," Who had no
earthly father, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to
Is. 53:8: "Who shall declare His generation?" and Who in
His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of days.
|
|