Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

A great controversy arose among the semi-Arian Heretics and the Catholics concerning the priesthood of Christ: for those heretics, who judged the nature of the Son of God and of the Word to be different from the nature of the Father, and far inferior to it, ascribed whatever was in Christ, or was done by him — his lowliness, his condition of greater weakness, as it were his suffering, his affection for praying and invoking, and other proper duties of a Priesthood — to that humanity itself, so that they might assert him to be inferior to the Father according to the divinity attributed to himself. But Nestorius, who held that the man was in reality separated from God and joined to him only by a union of affection and grace, assigned the priesthood to the humanity of Christ in such a way that he by no means suffered the dignity of Priest to be attributed to the Son of God, or to God: wherefore, that he might bring the Catholics into hatred, as if they said that the divinity itself was the pontiff, he thus interpreted their profession before Cyril, book 3 against him: Fictitiously, he says, they fashion the Divinity, they fashion for themselves a Pontiff, with a certain admirable species of insanity: then he subjoined very many arguments by which he might construct this dogma, namely: if the Divinity is Pontiff, who will be he who is worshipped by the pontifical office? If God offers sacrifice, there is no one to whom it may be offered, or he will offer to himself, which is plainly ridiculous. But Cyril removes this calumny from the Catholics, showing that the Catholics indeed affirm that God was made supreme Priest when he clothed himself with human flesh, yet not fulfilling the office of Priest according to the Divinity, but in respect of the humanity joined to the Divinity in unity of person.

Note 2. From the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1, Sacrifice and Priesthood are so joined together by the ordination of God that both existed in the old law. Hence the Priesthood necessarily imports a respect and relation to sacrifice, so that however much a Priest perform and celebrate other sacred things and other divine mysteries, nevertheless he is held to exercise the office and duty of a Priest only incompletely, but not adequately, unless he celebrates sacrifice, or obtains the power and authority of celebrating it. Hence St. Augustine, epistle 19, which is to Dardanus in thanks, recalls these three: temple, sacrifice, and Priest, as necessarily connected with one another. Moreover, sacrifice can generally be considered twofold: one indeed improperly so called for every action, whether internal or external, which is exercised to the praise and glory of God: to which sacrifice corresponds some Priesthood less properly so called, by which reason all the faithful, devoting themselves by their good works to the glory of God and their own salvation, are called Priests by St. Peter, epistle 1, chapter 2: You are, he says, a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, a holy nation. And all the saints triumphing with Christ in the heavens render thanks to him in return because he made them Priests and Kings: You have made us to our God a kingdom, and Priests. But the other sacrifice properly so called signifies an external and sacramental oblation, which is offered to God in worship owed to his majesty, either in beseeching that supreme dominion, or in thanksgiving for a benefit received, or in satisfaction for sins and their expiation. Hence sacrifice is especially distinguished threefold, namely of veneration, of gratitude, and of expiation, although many other kinds could be recalled, as we abundantly said in the treatise On Laws, treating of the Mosaic Law.

Note 3. That just as sacrifice can be offered with a twofold rite, namely private and public, so a twofold office of the Priest is distinguished: that indeed private, which the Priest can sometimes act secretly and privately, with every fellowship of men set aside; but another public, which is celebrated before the multitude of the people and in the sight of many. Hence that passage to Heb. 5: Every high priest taken from among men is constituted for men in those things that appertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Which lastly certainly signifies the true and properly so called office of Priesthood.

These things thus premised, two things especially are to be determined in this Question: First, whether Christ is truly and properly called a Priest; Second, whether the dignity and ministry of a Priest befit him as God, or as man.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST WAS TRULY AND PROPERLY A PRIEST.

This is of faith: which St. the Apostle admirably proves, chapter 5 to Heb. and the following; and the truth of this Conclusion is evident from the fact that Christ, as public Priest, offered a true and properly so called sacrifice, not only according to the order of Melchisedech, when on the day of the supper, receiving bread and chalice, he immolated his body and his blood with an unbloody rite and sacrifice to the eternal Father: but also when, coming as a High Priest of the good things to come, as the Apostle says to Heb. 9, by greater and more perfect tabernacles not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by his own blood, he entered once into the Holies, having found eternal redemption. Namely, when on the altar of the cross he offered himself as victim to the eternal Father.

This the Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1, admirably explains in these words:

Therefore, since our God and Lord, though he was about to offer himself once on the altar of the cross to God the Father, death intervening, that he might accomplish that eternal redemption: nevertheless, because by death his priesthood was not to be extinguished, at the Last Supper, on the night in which he was betrayed, that he might leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, as the nature of man requires, by which that bloody one, to be accomplished once on the cross, would be represented, and its memory would remain unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue would be applied for the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring himself constituted a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, he offered to God the Father his body and blood under the species of bread and wine, and under the symbols of the same things he gave to the Apostles, whom > then he was constituting Priests of the New Testament, that they might take them, and commanded them and their successors in the priesthood that they should offer them by these words: Do this for a commemoration of me, as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.

The holy Fathers, both Greek and Latin, explain this truth most lucidly by their oracles and their doctrine: that Christ the Lord is Priest and Pontiff of the new law chiefly according to the order of Melchisedech, because he who once immolated his body and blood by a bloody oblation on the cross, offers them to the eternal Father daily in sacrifice in the continual and perpetual sacrifice of the Mass through the ministry of Priests; all which most holy Authors attesting this truth we shall cite in the Tractate De divina Eucharistia: that no escape may be left to the Calvinists, and other heretics of this age, who deny that there is any other sacrifice of the new law besides that which was offered by Christ on the cross. — Meanwhile it helps to praise and recite certain of the holy Fathers, who that they may demonstrate the priesthood of Christ as perfect and illustrious with every title, pronounce him not only Priest but victim and oblation. Thus first of all Epiphanius Heresy 55. which is of the Melchisedechians, where speaking of the priesthood of Christ he says: First indeed he offered himself, that he might dissolve the sacrifice of the old sacrament with a more perfect one, and about a host slain for the whole world: that he himself might be the victim, himself the sacrifice, himself the Priest, himself the altar, himself God, himself man, himself King, himself Pontiff, himself heaven sic, himself lamb, made all in all for us. St. Augustine elegantly explains this same thing in Psal. 131. Who is the Priest, he says, except the one Priest who entered into the Holy of Holies? Who is the Priest, unless he who was victim and priest? Unless he who when he found nothing in the world to offer, offered himself? Fulgentius also admirably commends the priesthood of Christ, book 1. Ad Tras., chapter 12. in these words: One therefore, and the same Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, himself shepherd and sheep, himself bridegroom and bride, himself priest and victim: one, and the same, both offerer of the gift, and made gift of the offerer: so that neither did the offerer depart from the quality of the gift, nor ought the gift to disagree with the merit of the oblation.

You will say: Every true and perfect Priest must physically act upon the victim itself, either by slaying, or consuming by fire, or otherwise changing it: but it is impious to say Christ killed himself: therefore it is false that he was at once Priest and victim.

— I deny the major: for it suffices for a true sacrifice that the Priest take up the victim and offer it to God by a moral and spontaneous oblation: but Christ the Lord performed this: since he voluntarily underwent the death inflicted upon him, as a sacred thing, and offered it to God in sacrifice.

You will urge: If these things be so, it follows that Martyrs similarly are truly and properly Priests, and render a true sacrifice to God when they pour out blood and willingly undergo a bloody death for his glory: but no Catholic has said this: therefore neither is it to be asserted concerning Christ.

— I deny the major: for although the Martyrs immolate life with blood for the glory and honor of God, nevertheless since they are not constituted by God that they undergo death after the manner of sacrifice, nor that they offer themselves as victims to God to make satisfaction for the sins of others; hence their death cannot be reputed a true sacrifice, as St. Leo admirably teaches, epistle 83. chapter 1. Let them say, he says, by what blood they were redeemed? Let them say, by what sacrifice were they reconciled? Who is he who delivered himself for us in oblation, and host for an odor of sweetness? Or what sacrifice ever was more sacred than that which the true Pontiff placed upon the altar of the cross by the immolation of his flesh? For although the death of many Saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the propitiation was never in the world in the slaying of any innocent.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST IS PRIEST AND PONTIFF NOT ACCORDING TO THE DIVINE NATURE BUT ACCORDING TO THE HUMAN SUBSISTING IN THE PERSON OF THE WORD.

This is common among Catholics, and the holy Fathers prove it, above all Epiphanius heresy 55. from that passage of the Apostle to Heb. 6. Every high priest taken from among men is constituted for men, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. By which words, says St. Epiphanius, the Apostle signifies that pontifical dignity was attributed to the Son of God after the nature of man had been assumed. Similarly St. Augustine in Psal. 109. According to that, he says, that he was born of the Father God coeternal with God with the one begetting, not Priest; but Priest on account of the flesh assumed, on account of the victim, which he would offer for us, taken from us. So likewise Theodoretus, dialogue 1. proves against the Apollinarists from this, that Christ offered his own body in sacrifice, and that he truly was endowed with a body: Wherefore, he says, if this is proper to Priests, to offer gifts, and Christ was called Priest according to human nature, and offered no further victim than his own body, it follows that Christ had a body. I pass over other holy Fathers affirming the same, whom we shall praise in a more fitting place and order in the Tractate De Eucharistia.

The sacrifice of Christ the Lord is celebrated by the Apostle to Heb. 5. and the following with many titles of glory above all the sacrifices of the law of nature and of the Mosaic law: First indeed from the dignity of the person of the priest. For Christ was the true Son of God; hence the Apostle says: In the days of his flesh, prayers and supplications were offered to him who was able to save him from death, with a strong cry and tears, and he was heard for his reverence. Second from the innocence of the Pontiff: For it behoved such that he should be for us a High Priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who has not need daily, as the priests have, first to offer sacrifices for his own sins, and then for those of the people. Third from its perpetuity, for as the Apostle says in the same place: Others indeed were made many priests, because they were hindered from remaining by death; but this Christ, because he remains forever, has an everlasting Priesthood. Hence also he can save forever those who approach God by himself, always living to make intercession for us. Fourth from the efficacy of the sacrifice, for, as the same Apostle teaches, chapter 13, It is impossible that they can be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats. Every priest indeed stands daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but he, offering one host for sins, sits forever at the right hand of God, thenceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool; for by one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified. Finally in the union of both Priesthoods, the Melchisedechian and the Aaronical: for Christ offered both sacrifices, the bloody one on the cross, as Aaron in victims, and the unbloody one in the Eucharist, as Melchisedech in bread and wine, to the eternal Father. But whether Christ is truly to be called a Priest according to the order or rite of Aaron, and of Melchisedech, is disputed among Theologians.

Note 2. That the sacerdotal office is chiefly twofold, namely to offer sacrifices and prayers to God for the salvation of the people: For every high priest, says St. Paul, chapter 5 to Heb., taken from among men is constituted for men in those things that appertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins: and it is most certain that Christ fulfilled both these offices. For, says Claudianus Mamertus, book 1 On the state of the soul, that Pontiff is Christ, who principally sanctifies before the divinity of the supreme Trinity the offerings of the human race, expiates sins, commends vows. And before him Tertullian, explaining these words of Luke, Therefore show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded: thus it is said: arguments not figurative, such as prophecies, the law; moreover in their own images are disturbed those things which signified man once a sinner, soon purified by the word of God, owing to offer a gift to God at the temple, namely prayer, and an act of thanksgiving at the Church, through Christ Jesus the Catholic Priest of the Father. Tertullian altogether elegantly calls Christ the Catholic Priest of the Father, that is, the general one, and that for two reasons: then because he alone represents to God and the Father all kinds of oblations, gifts, and sacrifices: then because one suffices for all, so that he may offer and ratify that very sacrifice for all men, and all may have access to him, and may offer through him, and may be grateful and acceptable to God, since no gifts and sacrifices are approved to God and useful to us unless through him, and by his intervention and merit. But it is asked whether Christ even now fulfills both this sacerdotal office, not only offering himself in sacrifice through the ministry of the Priests of the new law, but also pouring out prayers and supplications for us to God.

Note 3. That a twofold mode of prayer can be distinguished, namely expressive and interpretative. Expressive prayer is that by which someone, either mentally, or vocally, or by gestures, or in writing, demands some benefit or grace to be granted to himself. Interpretative however is that by which someone solicits a benefit or grace, not indeed demanding it anew and expressly, but proposing meritorious works, in view of which that grace seems ought to be granted. Moreover, expressive prayer can still be distinguished two ways, for one is meritorious anew of that which is asked: another truly only petitionary of what is owed by virtue of preceding merit. Again, since prayer is a manifestation of appetite and desire, and since there is a threefold appetite in us, namely rational, sensitive, and natural, hence the question is moved, by which of these modes Christ prayed. These things thus premised, four things especially present themselves to be determined: First, whether Christ was a Priest according to the order of Aaron, and of Melchisedech. Second, of what sort was the effect of his sacrifice, both toward himself and toward men. Third, of what sort was his prayer. Fourth finally, whether, and how he now prays for us in heaven. All which will be resolved in the following Conclusions.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD WAS NOT A PRIEST ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF AARON, NOR DID HE MINISTER IN ANY LEVITICAL DEGREE IN THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

The first part is of faith: for the Apostle to Heb. 7, after showing that it was necessary that after the Levitical Priest and Pontiff, and according to the order of Aaron, another Priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedech, namely Christ, subjoins: For he (Christ) of whom these things are said is of another tribe, of which no one was at the altar: for it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning Priests. And a little lower concerning the same Christ he says: who was made (namely a Priest), not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life. By which the Apostle most clearly signifies that Christ the Lord was not a Priest according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedech; wherefore he immediately subjoins: For he testifies: You are a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. Add to these, that if Christ had been a Priest according to the order of Aaron, he would have attained that dignity especially either by election of the people, or by designation of other Priests: but neither can be affirmed. Not indeed the first, for although God, from his supreme dominion over men, could call forth and destine any men whatsoever to his worship, though he had otherwise sanctioned it, nevertheless it is not permitted to assert that he destines anyone beyond the laws he himself sanctioned to this office, unless it has been revealed that he did so: but nowhere do we have expressed that God instituted Christ a Priest according to the order of Aaron: indeed the Apostle openly declares the contrary; therefore this must not be asserted lightly and without foundation. — Nor was Christ called forth to that sacerdotal ministry by voluntary election of the people, or by designation of other Priests, which is evident, because Priests could not thus be elected and assumed except from the tribe of Levi, as appears Exodus 29, and Leviticus 8, and also from St. Paul to Heb. 7 and 5.: therefore Christ was not a Priest according to the order of Aaron.

The second part is also evident, namely that Christ ministered in no order in the Temple of Solomon: for no one was assumed to minister in the temple except from the tribe of Levi: but, as we just said, Christ was not of the tribe of Levi: therefore, etc.

You will say: Christ read the book of the law in the Synagogue of Nazareth, Luke 4. Moreover, sitting in the temple in the midst of the Doctors he disputed. Similarly Matt. 21, he cast out the sellers and buyers from the temple: but he could not perform this unless he had some order, either of reader or of porter: therefore he must have been initiated into some order of Levitical ministry. —

I deny the minor, for to read the book of the law was not only the office of the Levites, but it was also lawful for any learned and taught person: for Acts 13, Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, read the book and disputed in the Synagogue of Antioch. Similarly, that he cast out the sellers and buyers is not a sign that he had some Levitical order: for he could execute this by divine power, by which he also preached to the people, and censured its depraved morals, and likewise those of the Priests. For if he had done this by reason of any ministry competent to him from a Levitical order, he would not have been interrogated by the very sellers and buyers cast out, nor by his adversaries, by what power he did this: therefore the opinion of Waldensis, book On the sacrament of Order, chapter 11, where he asserts that Christ was chosen not into the number of Priests but of readers, whence he gathers that he was also of the tribe of Levi, seems less to be approved. — Nor should Suidas be heard, when he relates that a certain Rabbi contested with the Word Jesus that Jesus was truly the Messiah, because he had read his name written down in a codex, in which the priests of the temple had been accustomed to write, which afterward, he said, was carried off in the destruction of Jerusalem and deposited in Tiberias. In which codex it was related how Christ, in place of a certain Priest who had died at that time, was numbered among the Levitical Priests and elected by the common consent of the others, after examination of his Genealogy having been premised. This history, I say, ought not to move us, seeing that it plainly militates against sacred Scripture affirming that Christ was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Juda, as appears not only from St. Paul, but also from the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, who wove the Genealogy of Christ.

Second Conclusion. — THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST, INASMUCH AS IT WAS EXPIATORY, PROFITED NOT CHRIST, BUT ONLY MEN: BUT TRULY THE HONORIFIC, AND EUCHARISTIC, AND PETITORY SACRIFICE COULD ALSO PROFIT CHRIST HIMSELF. This is common among Theologians as to the first part; indeed determined of faith in the Council of Ephesus, chapter 11, approving the letter of the Council of Alexandria to Nestorius, which is the tenth among the works of Cyril, in which the tenth anathematism was thus:

Wherefore if anyone shall say that he (Christ) offered himself not only for us, but also at the same time for himself, he can by no means escape the crime of impiety: for it is established that he never sinned, nor ever designated any sin. What therefore needed oblation, since it had committed nothing for whose host it is rightly and deservedly offered?

So Petavius translated the words of the Council. The reason therefore of this assertion is most evident, because expiatory sacrifice regards remission of sins: but Christ committed no sin, nor was he bound by even the slightest guilt: therefore he could not experience the force of his own sacrifice inasmuch as expiatory.

The Apostle teaches the second part most evidently, especially to Heb. 10, where, when he had proved that Christ in the oblation and sacrifice of his body had placated God offended by our sins, and had perfected them that are sanctified, he infers that the sacrifice of Christ is to be preferred to the oblations of the old law, because the one sacrifice of Christ expiated our sins, whereas those, so often repeated, could not effect this.

You will say: If Christ by one oblation so expiated sins that there is no longer need of repeating that oblation, as the sacrifices of the old law were repeated: therefore the sacrifice of the Mass is not to be continued unceasingly, seeing that the sacrifice of the cross had every virtue of taking away sin. —

I answer, expiation and taking away of sins can come about in two ways: namely either as from a principal cause, or as from a particular cause: as from a principal and universal cause, most sufficiently meritorious of the expiation of sins; or as from a particular cause, applying the remission of sins already sufficiently made by that universal cause. The mind therefore of St. Paul was that the sacrifice of the old law ought to have been repeated: because none of those sacrifices of the old law was expiatory of sins as a principal cause, universal, and supremely meritorious: for which reason therefore the sacrifice of the cross ought not to be repeated: since it, as universal cause supremely meritorious, was expiatory of our sins: but the sacrifice of the Mass ought to be repeated, not on account of insufficiency of the sacrifice of the cross, but because it is applicative, as particular cause, of the remission of our sins already made through the sacrifice of the cross.

The third part is urged, namely that the sacrifice of Christ redounded to his own use and fruit, inasmuch as it was honorific, Eucharistic, and petitory. It is urged, I say, from that passage to the Hebrews 5, where Christ is said to have prayed and offered not only for others, but also for himself, in these words: Who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications to him who was able to save him from death, with a strong cry and tears, and he was heard for his reverence. By which words the Apostle signifies not only that Christ the Priest poured forth prayers and supplications to God after the manner of other Priests, not only for others, but also for himself; for he directed them to him who was able to save him: which is a sign that they were directed toward obtaining some benefit, perhaps that he might be quickly rescued from death by resurrection, which benefit he obtained, and he was heard for his reverence: but also he directed those prayers to God, offering himself as Priest as a victim, which certainly is gathered both from the fact that the Apostle uses the word of offering, and because there he treats of the priesthood of Christ. Therefore it follows that the sacrifice of Christ, as petitory and honorific, profited not only others, but also himself. — But that it profited inasmuch as it was Eucharistic can easily be gathered: since Christ the Lord was of most grateful spirit toward the eternal Father; and meanwhile doubtless repaid to him thanks which could be greatest. Since therefore no one can give thanks to God in a nobler manner than through sacrifice, therefore it must piously be believed that Christ ordered his own sacrifice also, that he might repay due thanks to the eternal Father for so many benefits received.

You will say: The Council of Ephesus, in the words praised above, pronounces absolutely that Christ did not offer sacrifice for himself with the intention of placating God: therefore it holds that he also did not offer with the intention of obtaining some benefit. The consequence is proved, for on this account a petitory sacrifice is offered, that God offended, placated by the merit of the sacrifice, may bestow that benefit: therefore, etc. —

I deny the consequence: for the Council of Ephesus determines only that Christ could not receive the effect of his own sacrifice inasmuch as it was expiatory: for it says that Christ had no need of sacrifice on that account, because he had never done wrong, nor ever committed any sin. I deny also the parity using the argument of probation: for if the state of innocence had persevered longest, and men had been confirmed in grace, they would not have ceased to offer sacrifices, for then there would have been some true religion, which since it cannot subsist without sacrifice, there would then have been some sacrifice not only Eucharistic, truly also petitory: therefore a petitory sacrifice is not offered precisely lest our sins impede the bestowal of the benefit. Thence it is asked whether, where there is no sin, there be no occasion of offering sacrifice; by equal right prayer will be so much a work to be made to God, because by living badly we can impede him from conferring benefits upon us; and consequently Christ, who was entirely impeccable, should never have prayed for obtaining some benefit for himself, which conflicts with the Apostle to the Hebrews chapter 5. Nor does it matter that the sacred Scriptures, while treating of this sacrifice of the cross, make mention only of us: for there they treat of it as it was expiatory, and reconciliatory of man with God, how Christ did not offer it for himself.

You will say 2: Christ did not pray for himself, nor directed his prayers to the eternal Father that he might obtain some benefit for himself: therefore much less did he offer sacrifice for his own commodity and utility. The antecedent is proved from St. Paulinus book 1 Against Felix Cergolitanus, where he pronounces expressly that Christ prayed not for himself, but for us: Not for himself, he says, nor for himself did he pray: what? as has been more often intimated, he was not born for himself, nor suffered nor died for himself: but for those, that is his members, he prayed, for whom he bore all these things with voluntary condescension and most high power. And afterward in the same book he brings forward these words of the Apostle: Who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications to him who was able to save him, with a strong cry and tears, and he was heard for his reverence. Then he subjoined this: And because not for himself, nor for himself, but, as we said before, for us, and for us he prayed, for whom he deigned to be born, to suffer, and to die, etc. —

I answer, St. Paulinus must be understood concerning the prayer of the Mediator or Reconciliator, which Christ poured forth to the eternal Father for the salvation of men, which certainly Christ did not need, since he was not turned away from God, nor did he need mediation and reconciliation. For at that place he treats against Felix, who contended that Christ was therefore son not natural but adoptive, because he acted the part of advocate and Mediator. Paulinus however strives to prove on the contrary that he acts the office of Mediator and Advocate, not quasi he himself needed pardon and reconciliation, but only that he might fulfill that office for the benefit of men: whence he subjoins in the same place: A Mediator from that whereby he is middle between the dissenting parties of each, that he may reconcile both into one. While indeed our Redeemer, the only-begotten Son of God the Father deigned gratuitously to be made for us between God and us: that we who had arisen discordant from the fellowship of the charity of God by sinning, through him reconciled to concord of divine love in himself, deserve to be renewed, as is taught through Paul: When we were, he says, enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son: much more through his blood. Then indeed he goes on to strike the heretic thus: *If therefore you deny that the same Christ Jesus is true God, and true Son of God, because he is our Advocate, and intercedes for the faults of offenders: I ask what you presume to define concerning the Holy Spirit, who himself also is our Advocate, and was not incarnate? Whether he be true

God, or not? etc. Soon likewise: But if you judged rightly concerning the Son, he says, truly you would also understand rightly concerning the Holy Spirit: for the Son of God undertook all things for us, not for himself, with voluntary piety. From which, and other things said there by Paulinus, it is evident that only that kind of prayer for himself was denied to Christ by him, by which he interceded for us: that he might obtain remission of sins, and the grace of reconciliation, and suitable aids of salvation to be won together, and lastly salvation itself. For of such things he himself had need of nothing, nor did he demand them for himself.

Third Conclusion. — CHRIST TRULY WHILE HE ACTED ON EARTH PRAYED TO THE FATHER, NOT AS GOD, BUT AS MAN, AND THAT WITH PRAYER NOT ONLY INTERPRETATIVE, BUT ALSO EXPRESSIVE. This consists of three parts, which are proved at once by all those texts of Scripture in which it is signified that Christ, while he led mortal life on earth, often poured forth prayers and supplications to God. Thus Matthew 11 it is said of Christ: And the multitude dismissed, he ascended into the mountain alone to pray. And Matthew 26 he prayed to the Father in these words: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou. And Luke 6: He went out into the mountain to pray, and he was passing the night in the prayer of God. John 17 he had a long prayer to God in these words: Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, etc. Finally Heb. 5: He (namely Christ) in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications to God who was able to save him from death, with a strong cry and tears, and he was heard for his reverence. By all which texts it stands most evident that Christ truly prayed, not only in the sense taken for the interior act by which the mind is borne to God with affection and love, but even taken for the manifestation of desire, or petition and supplication. But it was becoming that Christ pray, for a fourfold cause, says the Seraphic Doctor, d. 17, a. 2, q. 1.

On account of merit, on account of the example of virtue, on account of the argument of truth, and on account of fulfilling an office. On account of merit, because by his petition and supplication he merited for us, who were less fit for the reception of the gifts of God. On account of example, namely that he might invite his disciples, and consequently others, to the study of prayer, in the exercise of which especially the adversary is overcome: wherefore the Lord said to his disciples: Watch ye, and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. On account of the argument of truth, that he might show himself a true man, and truly sent from God, wherefore he says: I give thee thanks therefore, Lord, because thou hast heard me: but I knew that thou always hearest me: but on account of this people standing about, I spoke, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. On account of the office: because Christ held the dignity of Priest and Pontiff: whence as it pertained to his own office to offer sacrifice for sins, so also to entreat for sins. Whence Hebrews 5: Every high priest taken from among men is constituted for men in those things that appertain to God: and, Such it behoved that he should be for us a holy, innocent, undefiled High Priest, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. For these causes therefore it was congruous and becoming that the use of prayer be found in Christ.

You will say: He does not truly and properly pray who by his own power can confer what he seems to demand from another: but all that which Christ seemed to demand he could obtain by his own authority, and bestow upon others, as is gathered from that passage John 11, where Martha, desiring the resurrection of her brother, had said to Christ: I know that whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee, Jesus answered: Thy brother shall rise, as if he would say, says St. Chrysostom, Homil. 61: There is no need that I ask this of my Father, because by my sole power I can effect that thy brother arise. The same is confirmed from the following words of Christ: But I knew that thou always hearest me, but on account of the people who stand about I spoke, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. Whence St. Chrysostom subjoins: I knew that thou always hearest me: this is, that my will be done, he had no need of prayers for persuading, for there is one will. To what purpose therefore prayers? on account of the weaker, etc., namely, that the truth of human nature, which he had assumed, might be shown, and that he might furnish to others an example of praying. Thus also Theophylactus explains that text: Wherefore, he says, he prayed, or rather took on the figure of one praying, we affirm the Lord himself saying: for he says: On account of the crowd standing by I spoke, etc. And below: But who ever prayed thus? for before he had said anything, he says, thou hast heard me, and thus he did not pray, but it is the figure of prayer, and only a sign. Euthymius also on the same words of John 11 says: But how did he say, thou hast heard me, when he had not prayed? And he answers immediately: He did not pray, showing that prayer was not needed by him. —

I answer, the SS. Fathers signify nothing else than that Christ did not pray from simple necessity, but from hypothesis and supposition of the decree and providence divine, by which from eternity he had decreed to concede certain things only to Christ, by virtue of the merit of his prayer, as the Psalmist signifies, Psalm 2, in these words: Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance: that is, I proposed indeed to subject the nations to thy empire, but through the medium of prayer.

Fourth Conclusion. — IT IS PROBABLE THAT CHRIST THE LORD PRAYS NOT ONLY WITH INTERPRETATIVE BUT ALSO EXPRESSIVE PRAYER, NOR DOES HE PRAY FOR US TO THE FATHER IN HEAVENS ONLY INTERPRETATIVELY.

It is proved first by the authority of Scripture: for Romans 8 the Apostle testifies: Christ Jesus who died, yea who also rose again, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Where by the name of intercession the Apostle signifies expressive prayer: since to make intercession for us (said he, as Theophylactus says), so that Christ may repeat toward us his charity, who although he completed the dispensation of the assumed flesh, nevertheless did not take away his most clement affection of soul toward us, but intercedes for us. Likewise Hebrews 7 the holy Apostle teaches that Christ has an everlasting priesthood: Therefore, he says, he is able to save forever them that come to God by himself, always living to make intercession for us. But intercession is a continuation of prayer, and an iterated repetition. Finally St. John Epist. 1 chapter 2: If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is the propitiation for our sins. By which he pronounces expressly that Christ acts our advocate before the Father: but among the offices of an advocate acting the part of someone, this one is, that he intercede with express prayers before the judge, that he deal mercifully and not according to rigor of justice with the guilty: therefore since Christ is truly and properly our advocate before the Father, also truly and properly he prays him for us.

It is proved second by the authority of the SS. Fathers, especially indeed St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 36. One (he says) God, one and Mediator of God and men Jesus Christ. For even now he surely entreats, as a man, for my salvation, seeing that he is with that body which he assumed: until he make me God to him by the assumption of humanity: although no longer be he known according to the flesh; namely according to the affections of the flesh, and ours concerning sin. In the same manner also we have Jesus an Advocate: not as casting down and prostrating himself before the Father on our cause after a servile manner. Far be that servile suspicion, and unworthy (?) as Word and exhorter. Thus therefore I interpret this advocacy. —

Didymus subscribes, book 2 On the Holy Spirit: For since the Savior (he says) holds the person of mediator and legate, from when the Pontiff may entreat for our sins, saving forever those who through him have approached God, etc. The same St. Augustine admirably teaches on Psalm 86: No greater gift could God bestow upon men, he says, than that he made his own Word, by which he founded all things, their head, and joined them to him as members: that there might be Son of God, and Son of man, one God with the Father, one man with men: that both when we speak to God entreating, we do not thence separate the son; and when the body of the son prays, it does not separate its own body from itself: and there be one himself Supplicant of his own body our Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, who both prays for us, and prays in us, and is prayed to by us. He prays for us, as our Priest: he prays in us, as our head: he is prayed to by us, as our God. The same he has in sermon 119 On time, and epistle 56, where he teaches that Christ does not somehow intercede for us, but by praying, and petitioning. Beda subscribes to him in the sermon On Pentecost: He will ask, he says, the Father through humanity, who reigns with the Father through Divinity: for neither must it be thought because before his passion he asked only for the Church, that he does not also now after Ascension ask, since he says with that sentence of the Apostle: who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. The same teach Gregorius Valensius on Psalm 6 of penitence, and Bernard in the sermon On the Nativity of the Virgin. By all which authorities it stands that Christ truly now also prays for us.

Reason also supports it: For indeed if Christ does not now pray for us with expressive prayer, especially because this mode of praying unbecomes the Majesty of his Divinity, or the state of beatitude: but neither can congruously be affirmed. Not indeed the first, otherwise it would follow also that while he led mortal life among mortals, he could not have approached the eternal Father in this mode of prayer: for he was God from the instant of conception: but no one denies Christ the Lord then prayed: therefore neither is this mode of praying to be denied to him. Nor the second: otherwise all Saints partakers of eternal felicity could not make intercession for us, which no Catholic would concede.

You will object several of the SS. Fathers, who affirm that Christ does not now pray before the Father in any other way than the interpretative mode, namely manifesting to the eternal Father his humanity and his merits. Thus Rupertus book 9 On divine offices, chapter 3, where speaking of the intercession of Christ he says: That intercession, by the true assertion of all Doctors, is no humble supplication, but an eternal commemoration of his passion, which once received, was offered once for us in sacrifice, a celebration of his innocent blood once admitted in the sight of the holy Trinity. Similarly St. Gregory book 22 Moral., chapter 13: For the Only-begotten Son to make intercession for man, he says, is to demonstrate himself man before the coeternal Father: and to have asked him for human nature is to have assumed the same nature in the loftiness of his Divinity. Therefore the Lord makes intercession for us not by voice, but by compassion: because what he willed not to be damned in the elect, he freed by assuming. Vasquez brings forward other such authorities for his opinion, disput. 82, cap. 2. —

But I answer, the SS. Fathers are to be understood thus, that they wish Christ now to pray for us not with expressive meritorious prayer, which has something humble and annexed: but they do not deny expressive prayer, which is by voluntary petitioning of what is owed by virtue of preceding merit. Hence let depart the ridiculous exposition of Origen Homil. 7 on Leviticus, where he asserts that Christ reigning in heaven not only intercedes for us, but is even afflicted over our errors and sins, weeps, and laments: Nor indeed must it be thought, he says, that Paul laments for sinners, grieves for offenders: but let my Lord Jesus abstain from weeping, when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar, and offers propitiation for us. And this is believed (?)m drinking no wine of gladness at the altar (Leviticus 22 verse 9), because still bitternesses of our sinner are drunk: which fable certainly concerning Christ lamenting for us S. Bernard rightly plucks and censures, Homily On the words of Origen.

You ask: whether Christ was always heard in praying: — The Seraphic Doctor answers dist. 17 art. 2 q. 2.

Since prayer is a petition proceeding from will and desire, according as the human will was in Christ, according to a threefold difference, so also prayer. For certain prayer was expressive, or proceeding from the will of reason; certain from the will of piety, certain from the will of the flesh. Prayer proceeding from the will of reason was preceded by the will, by which indeed he required to be heard; and such prayer was heard in all things, both on account of this, that that will was conformable through all to the divine will, and also because he asked so worthily and holily that in all things he was heard for his reverence and dignity. But prayer preceding from the will of piety and from the will of the flesh was not heard in all things in Christ: both because that will was not conformed to God in everything willed, as has been treated before: and also because that petition is more ordered to our instruction than to divine hearing. For he rather asked with this will that he might instruct us, than that he might incline God to his petition.

You ask 2: whether we can pray Christ that he himself pray for us: saying: Christ Savior, pray for us. — The Theologians commonly respond that absolutely, and with the danger of error and scandal set aside, this can be done by reason of humanity. Nevertheless I judge this ought not be used in practice, lest we seem to agree with the Arians: for when simply someone is prayed that he pray, then it is signified that he himself has a superior whom he can pray to, and because simply speaking Christ is not inferior to God, indeed is God himself, he ought not be prayed that he pray, but rather that he have mercy on us. Thence that prayers are directed precisely not to the humanity, but to the person of Christ: but the person, since it is divine, by reason of itself has not interiority, nor subjection necessary to the one praying. Finally, when someone is to be prayed to, he must be addressed in a more honorific manner. Therefore the old practice of the Church is to be stood by, which for avoiding the errors of Arius and Nestorius refused to use this mode of praying.