Gary Wills replies,"The idea of a separate Christian priesthood is as invalid for the Anglicans as for the Catholics because it, too, is based on the Letter to the Hebrews, which is riddled with fallacies."

Are we to take this kind of political rhetoric seriously as New Testament scholarship? .

The anonymous letter to the Hebrews is an important bridge document in the New Testament with regard to an evolving Christology, pivotal really, a step in the development of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.

I've seen the Melchizedek reference in a Roman Catholic context. Those that are familiar with Roman Catholic ordination theology can address that; but attributing it as a core text for ordained ministry in any of the churches of the reformation, including Anglicanism, is a fundamental mistake. See Article XXXl, or note the Gospel readings assigned in classic Anglican Ordinals i.e., Matthew 9:36 and John 10.1 ff. See also the "note on the word 'priest' " in Massey Shepherd's "Prayer Book Commentary". See also the article on "Episcopal Services" by Marion Hatchett, "Commentary on the American Prayer Book."

See also this very concise on line article (link below)on the ambiguous NT origins of various church offices with regard to the development of the catholic notion of three-fold ministry.

I get what Mr. Wills is trying to say, but others have said it, are saying it with less heat, more light, and a more clearly focused and integrated NT analysis.

http://aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/395138/AEJT_7.15_Gleeson_Ordained_Persons.pdf

Thanks, Rod. I would say that Hebrews, if anything, is a contrast between earthly priesthood and Jesus' unique standing. It's true the Melchizedek imagery gets coopted -- wrongly in my opinion -- but I've only heard it come up once or twice in an Anglican setting, and most Episcopal priests I know far more understand their role as one of leadership and coordination, not domination. There is, of course, such a thing as bad leadership, and certain Roman notions (including the presumptuous "vicar of Christ") are out of place. St Gregory the Great preferred "servant of the servants of God." Something worth remembering at the present moment...

Maybe an aging brain deceives me, but it's my clear recollection that inscribed on the wall of the chapel of The General Theological Seminary are the words, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizidek." Filled me with awe during my brief sojourn in that august institution 60-odd years ago.

Can't speak to Gen'L Sem.,which one of my mentors and NT profs attended, but its not in line with a classical Anglican view.

My recollection is that the chapel inscription is the RC prayer for ordination: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum in officium et opus Sacerdotis in Ecclesia Dei, per impositionem manuum nostrarum jam tibi commissum. Quorum remiseris peccata, remittuntur eis: et quorum retinueris, retenta sunt. Esto etiam fidelis verbi Dei, et sanctorum ejus Sacramentorum Dispensator: In Nomine...

Tobias, that is [also?] the Latin for the prayer of consecration of a priest in the old Canadian (1959) BCP. And, I believe, one of two options in the old 1928 BCP.

"Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven;and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments; in the name of etc."

The current ordinals have something different. The Hebrews text is not a feature of a normative Anglican view, ancient or modern, in terms of a survey of the relevant documents. A reading from Hebrews is not included in the list of readings. The current prayer of consecration of the priest does describe offering "spiritual sacrifices" (plural).

Of course, we belong to a tradition that is very adept at the Humpty Dumpty school of hermeneutics. After all, the Oxford Dons managed to interpret some of the Articles of Religion so as to read from them the virtual opposite of their intent.

Fascinating little controversy!

You are correct, Rod; it's the Latin version of an Anglican ordination prayer, with rather early roots (and opposition from Puritans!). So this is an old controversy, and Wills is merely one in a long succession of opponents of a "priestly" office.

Tobias, I think that's pretty much it. I'm sure Wills' book is interesting and provocative, and there is real value in that, especially in the church. The down side is that a lot of average folks will read only Wills' book but not be all that interested in looking at the issues from a more balanced scholarly point of view.

I watched the clip of Colbert interviewing Gary Wills, and of course its not a symposium, more of a theatre of the absurd really, but Wills could have be challenged on some of his basic premises right out of the gate. Some of the conservative blog sites have had some really good rejoinders to Wills' assertions, but they are written by other eggheads, and don't represent a general audience. Reading books like the one Wills has written doesn't make one a theologian, any more than Google makes one a doctor.

A former teacher of mine once told us, the problem with reading Aquinas is that you are lured into letting him do your thinking for you. It can be a more universal problem.