Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/24/q/bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the sacrament of order is proper to the new law.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the sacrament of order is proper to the new law. And that it is not, it seems:

1. Because in the Psalm it is said to Christ: *Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek*; this was said of Christ's priesthood, as the Apostle expounds to the Hebrews: therefore the priesthood of Christ first preceded in Melchizedek: therefore also the order [preceded]. If you say that it preceded in figure; on the contrary: it likewise preceded as a figure in the priesthood of Aaron: therefore it ought to be called "according to the order of Aaron"; which nevertheless it was not fitting to say, as the Apostle shows.

2. Likewise, in the first [epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter ten: *All ate the same spiritual food*: therefore there truly was a sacrifice; but order is for administering sacrifice: therefore [there is] the same order and the same sacrament.

3. Likewise, the Church is one from Abel to the end of the world; and in one unity there ought to be one order: therefore the sacrament of order is one in the new and the old testament.

4. Likewise, the sacrament of order is of the dictate of natural law — and this is evident, because from the beginning there were priests, as is evident from the example of Melchizedek, and Jerome says [so] — but what is of the dictate of nature always remains the same, and this is manifest in matrimony: therefore the order in the old testament and in the new ought to be the same: therefore this sacrament is common, not proper.

**On the contrary:** 1. To the Hebrews, chapter seven: *The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law also be made*: thus therefore the Apostle proves the diversity of the law through the diversity of the priesthood; since the law is one and another, it seems that the order is one and another.

2. Likewise, «order is a spiritual seal, in which spiritual power is handed on to the one ordained», inasmuch as in the highest order there is handed on the power of confecting the body of Christ; but this is proper to the new law alone: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the sacraments of the new law are other and new: therefore for dispensing these, since they are greater and more worthy, a greater and worthier power is required: if therefore the sacraments which are dispensed are diverse; therefore also the sacrament through which they are dispensed [is diverse]. But this is order: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the same order is not to be repeated; but one ordained under the law, if he come to the Gospel, is ordained there [again]: therefore it seems that the order is other and the sacrament other.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *The sacrament of order is proper to the new law and was prefigured in the old.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as a sign takes the name of the thing signified, and conversely; and yet the sign and the thing signified are diverse: so a figure takes the name

of the truth, and the one is said to be in the other, as *a wheel within a wheel*; and yet the figure is one thing, the truth another. In this manner it is to be understood that the new law differs from the old, and sacrifice from sacrifice, and order from order. Whence, just as the sacrament of the eucharist is proper to the new law, although in the old law there was a sacrifice which was a sign of it; so the spiritual power, according to which the sacrament of order is regarded, is proper to the new law, and the priesthood likewise, although a figurative sign of an inferior order of priesthood preceded. Whence, just as there is much difference between the true lamb and the typical one; so there is much difference, though not so much, between the power of offering this lamb and that. — And therefore it must be conceded that, just as baptism and the eucharist are sacraments proper to the new law, although in earlier [times] they were prefigured; so [it is] in sacred ordination.

1. To that which is objected, concerning "according to the order of Melchizedek"; it must be said that this is understood according to an express prefiguration, as the Apostle shows in the same place, since [Melchizedek] prefigured Christ as to origin and as to dignity and as to rite: as to origin, because [he was] without genealogy, namely one expressed in Scripture; as to dignity, because he was priest and king and blessed Abraham; as to rite, because he offered bread and wine. Not so in the priesthood of Aaron. And therefore the Holy Spirit most excellently appropriates [this] in the Psalm, and the Apostle expounds it very elegantly.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that they ate the same food; it must be said that this is understood not of sacramental eating, but of spiritual [eating], which is through faith and charity; and because they believed and loved the same [things] as we [do]: therefore they ate the same food and were of the same Church; nor yet did they have the same sensible signs nor the same sacraments. And the reason for this was seen above, when the difference of the sacraments was treated. — And through this the other reason concerning ecclesiastical unity is evident, because that [unity] is according to the agreement of faith, not according to an indifference of sacraments.

4. To that which is objected, that it is of the dictate of nature; it must be said that it is true in the universal, not in the particular. For right reason well dictates that God is to be worshipped, and that for this special ministers are to be appointed; but that He is to be worshipped in such a way, and that such a sacrifice is to be offered, and that such a power has been conferred on men, this is not of nature, but of grace.

---