Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Hebraeos lectura
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewsby
Saint Thomas Aquinastranslated by Fabian R. Larcher, O.P.
Scripture text: VIVES & RSV
Html-formated by Joseph Kenny, O.P.
CONTENTS
Proeomium PROLOGUE
אֵין־כָּמוֹךָ בָאֱלֹהִים * אֲדֹנָי * וְאֵין כְּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ Non est similis tui in diis, domine, et non est secundum opera tua, Ps. There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours (Ps. 86:8).
The Latin here is "reportatio altera", whereas the translation is from the "vulgata", with some differences, and the omission of the last three paragraphs. Verba proposita exprimunt excellentiam Christi, in quibus Psalmista duo facit: primo ponit excellentiam Christi super omnes deos quantum ad naturam, secundo quantum ad operationem. 1. – In these words Christ’s transcendence is described under two aspects: first as compared to other gods, when he says, ‘There is none among the gods like thee, O Lord’; secondly, as reflected in His effects, when he says, ‘nor are there any works like yours’. Quantum ad primum dicit: non est similis tui in diis, domine, circa quod sciendum est quod quamvis sit unus Deus natura, ut dicitur Deut. VI: dominus Deus tuus unus est, participatione tamen multi sunt dii in caelo et in terra, ut dicitur infra cap. VIII; nam dii quandoque dicuntur ipsi Angeli, ut patet Iob I et II: cum venissent filii Dei ut assisterent coram domino etc., quandoque prophetae, sicut de Moyse dicitur, Exod. VI: constitui te Deum Pharaonis, quandoque sacerdotes, secundum illud Exod. XXII: diis, idest sacerdotibus, non detrahes. Sed Angeli quidem dicuntur dii propter vehementem refulgentiam claritatis divinae gloriae, secundum illud Iob XXVI: numquid est numerus militum eius et super quem non fulgeat lumen illius?; Sed Angeli non sunt similes Christo in diis qui est splendor paternae gloriae, Eph. I: constituit eum super omnem principatum et potestatem et cetera. Prophetae vero dicuntur dii, quia ad eos verbum Dei factum est; non ergo sunt similes Christo in diis, quia est substantialiter ipsum verbum Dei, Io. I: verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat verbum. Sacerdotes autem dicuntur dii quia sunt ministri Dei nostri; non ergo sunt similes Christo in diis qui est dominus, infra IV: tamquam dominus in omni domo sua. Sic ergo patet excellentia eius super omnes deos quantum ad naturam, quia ipse est splendor, Angeli autem participant refulgentiam splendoris eius; ipse est verbum Dei quod prophetis innotescit; ipse est Deus et dominus cuius ministerio sacerdotes deputantur. 2. – In regard to the first it should be noted that although there is but one God by nature, as it says in Deut. 6:4: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord’, nevertheless, by participation there are many gods both in heaven and on earth: ‘For there be gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor. 8:5). For angels are sometimes called gods: ‘When the sons of God came to stand before the Lord’ (Jb. 1:6 & 11), and also prophets, as is said of Moses: ‘Behold I have appointed you the god of Pharaoh’ (Ex. 7:1), and priests: ‘You shall not speak ill of the gods’, i.e., of the priests (Ex. 22:28); ‘If the thief be not known, the master of the house shall be brought to the gods’ (Ex. 22:8). Angels are called gods on account of their rich splendor of divine brightness: ‘Upon whom shall not his light arise?’ (Jb. 25:3). But angels are not like unto Christ among the gods, because He is the ‘brightness of the Father’s glory’ (1:3); ‘Setting him on his right hand in the heavenly place above all principality and power and above every name named in this world and in the world to come’ (Eph. 1:20). The prophets are called gods, because the word of God was spoken to them; ‘He called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken’ (Jn. 10:35). Therefore, Christ is God in some more excellent way, because He is the substantial Word of God. Priests are called gods, because they are God’s ministers: ‘You shall be called priests of the Lord, you ministers of our God’ (Is. 61:6). But Christ is God in a stronger sense, for He is not a minister but the Lord of all: ‘Lord of Lords’ (Rev. 19:16). ‘But Christ was faithful in his own house as a son’ (Heb. 3:6). Christ, therefore, is the great God above all the gods, because He is the splendor, the Word, and the Lord. Secundo manifestat excellentiam Christi quantum ad operationem, cum dicit: et non est secundum opera tua. Ubi sciendum est quod triplex est excellens opus Christi: unum quod se extendit ad totam naturam, scilicet opus creationis, Io. I: omnia per ipsum facta sunt; aliud quod se extendit ad creaturam rationalem tantum quae per ipsum illuminatur, Io. I: lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum; tertium est opus iustificationis per quam a Christo sancti familiariter iustificantur, Io. I: et vita erat lux hominum. Et quantum ad istud triplex opus, non adaequantur Christo dii praedicti: Angeli quidem non, quia non sunt creatores sed creaturae, Ps.: qui facit Angelos suos spiritus; non prophetae, quia non sunt illuminatores sed illuminati, Lc. I: illuminare his qui etc.; non sacerdotes, quia non sunt iustificatores sed iustificati, infra IX (X 4): impossibile est enim sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata. 3. – Secondly, this transcendence is shown by His works; hence it says, nor are there any works like thine. Here it should be noted that the matchless work of Christ is threefold: one extends to every creature, namely, the work of creation: ‘All tings were made through Him’ (Jn. 1:3); a second extends to the rational creature, who is enlightened by Christ, namely, the work of enlightenment: ‘He was the true light which enlightens every man that comes into the world’ (Jn. 1:9); the third extends to justification, which pertains only to the saints, who are vivified and sanctified by Him, i.e., by life-giving grace: ‘And the life was the light of men’ (Jn. 1:4). Now, the other gods cannot perform these works: for the angels are not creators, but creatures ‘Who make your angels spirits’ (Ps. 103:4); prophets are enlightened and not enlighteners: ‘He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light’ (Jn. 1:8); and priests do not justify: ‘It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away’ (Heb. 10:4). Sic ergo manifestum est quod Christo nullus similis est in diis nec in operibus, et ideo haec verba perfecte continent materiam huius epistolae quae scribitur ad Hebraeos. Quae quidem epistola dividitur contra praecedentes, cum enim intentio apostoli in omnibus epistolis sit commendare gratiam novi testamenti; Ecclesia autem tota est corpus mysticum: habet quidem similitudinem cum corpore naturali quantum ad tria: quantum ad ipsum corpus, quantum ad membra principalia et quantum ad caput; in primis ergo epistolis directis ad Ecclesias, scilicet Romanorum, Corinthiensium et Galatarum, etc. usque ad primam ad Timotheum, commendat gratiam novi testamenti quantum ad ipsum corpus mysticum; in sequentibus vero epistolis directis ad personas speciales, scilicet Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, commendat gratiam novi testamenti quantum ad membra principalia; in ista vero epistola commendat ipsam quantum ad caput, scilicet Christum, unde hic agitur de excellentia Christi. 4. – The transcendence of Christ is thus clearly shown in our text; and this is the subject matter of this epistle to the Hebrews. By this subject matter this epistle is distinguished from the other epistles: for some of the epistles deal with the grace of the New Testament, so far as it extends to the whole mystical body of the Church. This is the theme of all the epistles he sent to the churches, i.e., to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, up to the first epistle to Timothy. In the others he treats of this grace, insofar as it extends to individual persons, namely, Timothy, Titus, Philemon. But in the epistle to the Hebrews he treats of this grace, inasmuch as it pertains to the head, namely, Christ. For these three things are found in the body of the Church, just as they are found in the natural body, namely, the mystical body itself, its chief members, namely, prelates and rulers, and the head, namely, Christ, from Whom life flows to all the members. Sed antequam accedamus ad divisionem, sciendum est quod quidam apud Nicenam synodum dubitaverant an haec epistola edita fuisset a beato Paulo; et quod non esset eius probabant duobus argumentis: uno quidem modo, quia in aliis suis epistolis salutationem praemisit et proprium nomen expressit, in hac vero et nomen tacuit et salutationem intermisit; alio modo, quia epistola illa non concordat in stylo cum aliis, immo et elegantiorem modum habet et ordinatiorem in verbis et sententiis. Sed contra hoc est quia ab antiquis doctoribus testimonia huius epistolae accipiuntur sicut a Paulo editae, ut patet ex dictis Dionysii et aliorum, et ideo Nicena synodus recepit eam sicut epistolam Pauli. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod salutationem et nomen suum non expressit et praetermisit propter tria: primo, cum esset apostolus gentium (secundum quod dicitur Gal. II: qui operatus est Petro in apostolatu, operatus est et mihi inter gentes etc.), nolebat officium suum insinuare nisi ipsis gentibus, quod etiam oportuisset ipsum fecisse ipsis Iudaeis si salutationem praemisisset; quia tamen emulabatur salutem gentis suae, nisi desisteret a salutatione, non cessavit quin scriberet eis, Ro. II: quamdiu ego sum apostolus gentium, ministerium meum honorabo, si quomodo etc.; secundo, quia nomen suum erat odiosum Iudaeis, cum doceret legalia non debere servari; tertio, quia Iudaeus erat: domestici enim non bene sustinent excellentiam suorum, Io. IV: propheta in patria sua honorem non habet, et ideo ne tam salubris doctrina impediretur, tacuit nomen suum, et propter suam humilitatem et propter Iudaeorum superbiam. Ad secundum, dicendum quod causa elegantiae fuit, in stylo et ordine in sententia et verbis eius, quia non scripsit eam in Graeco sed in Hebraeo, in qua utpote in propria lingua quam a pueritia didicit eruditus loquebatur. Nam licet alias linguas sciret ex dono spiritus sancti, non tamen in aliis ita ordinate loquebatur (I Cor. XI: etsi inexpertus sermone, non tamen scientia): cum enim omne quod recipitur sit secundum modum et dispositionem eius in quo recipitur, non est mirum si apostolus perfectius receperit donum spiritus sancti secundum modum propriae linguae in qua nutritus fuerat. Unde Glossa super illud Amos I: dominus de excelsis rugiet, dicitur quod prophetae similitudines illarum rerum videbant circa quas versabantur, et inde est quod Amos qui fuit pastor instruebatur sub similitudinibus animalium; Isaias vero qui fuit vir urbanus et nobilis, sub similitudinibus nobilioribus, Is. VI: vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum et cetera. Quamvis possit dici quod fuerit translata a Luca de Hebraico in Graecum, qui utpote optimus prolocutor ornatum sui styli modum servavit. 5. – But before we come to the task of dividing this epistle, it should be noted that before the Council of Nicaea, some doubted that this was one of Paul’s epistles for two reasons: first, because it does not follow the patters of the other epistles. For there is no salutation and no name of the author. Secondly, it does not have the style of the others; indeed, it is more elegant. Furthermore, no other work of Scripture proceeds in such an orderly manner in the sequence of words and sentences as this one. Hence, they said that it was the work of Luke, the evangelist, or of Barnabas or Pope Clement. For he wrote to the Athenians according to this style. Nevertheless, the old doctors, especially Dionysius and certain others, accept the words of this epistle as being Paul’s testimony. Jerome, too, acknowledges it as Paul’s epistle. To the first argument, therefore, one may respond that there are three reasons why Paul did not write his name: first, because he was not the apostle of the Jews but of the Gentiles: ‘He who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:8); consequently, he made no mention of his apostleship at the beginning of this epistle, because he was unwilling to speak of it except to the Gentiles. Secondly, because his name was odious to the Jews, since he taught that the observance of the Law were no longer to be kept, as is clear from Acts (15:2). Consequently, he concealed his name, lest the salutary doctrine of this epistle go for naught. Thirdly, because he was a Jew: ‘They are Hebrews: so am I’ (2 Cor. 11:22). And fellow countrymen find it hard to endure greatness in their own: ‘A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house’ (Mt. 13:57). To the second argument the answer might be given that the style is more elegant, because even though he knew many languages: ‘I speak with all your tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:18), he knew the Hebrew language better than the others, for it was his native tongue, the one in which he wrote this epistle. As a result, he could write more ornately in his own idiom than in some other language; hence, he says: ‘For though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge’ (2 Cor. 11:6). But Luke, who was a skillful writer, translated this ornate Hebrew into Greek. Scripta autem est haec epistola propter errores quorumdam qui ex Iudaismo conversi ad fidem Christi volebant simul et legalia servare cum Evangelio, quasi non sufficiebat gratia Christi ad salutem; quod, ut dictum est, intendit apostolus destruere ostendendo excellentiam Christi. [This letter was written because of the errors of some converts from Judaism to the faith of Christ, who wanted to observe Old Testament laws along with the Gospel, implying that the grace of Christ was not sufficient for salvation. The Apostle wanted to refute this by showing the excellence of Christ.] Dividitur autem haec epistola in partes duas: primo enim multipliciter ostendit excellentiam capitis ut ex hoc praeferatur novum testamentum veteri, secundo determinat de his quibus membra iunguntur capiti, et hoc a X capitulo et ultra. Circa primum est sciendum quod apostolus ostendit excellentiam novae legis ad veterem legem. In veteri autem lege, quantum ad eius lationem, interveniunt tres personae excellentes per quas ipsius legis dignitas assumi posset, scilicet Angeli quorum ministerio tradita est, Act. I, Gal. IV: ordinata est per Angelos etc.; item Moyses per quem data est, Deut. ult.: non surrexit propheta in Israel sicut Moyses quem noscit Deus facie ad faciem; item Aaron per quem sacerdotium exercebatur, infra IX: in priori quidem tabernaculo semper introibant sacerdotes et cetera. Et ideo dividitur pars illa prima in tres partes: primo ostendit excellentiam Christi quantum ad Angelos, secundo quantum ad Moysen, III cap. ibi: unde fratres sancti, tertio quantum ad sacerdotes, V cap. ibi: omnis namque pontifex. Prima pars dividitur in duas partes: primo ponit Christi ad Angelos excellentiam, secundo concludit novae legi exhibendam esse reverentiam, II cap. ibi: propter quod abundantius. Circa primum duo facit: primo proponit intentum, secundo properat (probat) propositum, ibi: tanto melior et cetera. [This letter has two parts. The first shows in many ways the excellence of the Head, so that the New Testament takes precedence over the Old. The second, from chapter 10, shows by what means the members are joined to the head. Regarding the first, note that the Apostle shows the excellenceo f the new law over the old. In the promulgation of the old law, three persons stand out, who indicate its excellence: (1) angels, by whose ministry it was delivered (Acts 1, Gal 4 - it was ordered by angels etc.), (2) Moses, through whom it was given (Dt, at the end: "No prophet ever rose in Israel like Moses, whom God knew face to face". (3) Aaron, through whom the priesthood was exercised (in chapter 9 below: The prists always entered the first tabernacle). Therefore that part is divided into three: the first compares Christ's excellence with that of the angels, the second does the same with regard to Moses (ch. 3, at "holy brothers"), the third with regard to priests (ch. 5, at "every high priest"). The first part is divided into two: He first shows Christ's superiority over the angels, secondly concludes that the New Testament must be revered (ch. 2 at "therefore more abundantly"). On this first point, he first states his intention, secondly proves it (at "so much better" etc.)] Circa primum, sciendum est quod singulare est in hac epistola ut singula verba singulas habeant sententias et suum ordinem servent. Intentio igitur apostoli est ostendere excellentiam Christi quantum ad quattuor: primo quantum ad naturalem proprietatem originis, vocando eum verum filium Dei essentialem, cum dicit: locutus est nobis in filio; secundo quantum ad maiestatem dominationis, cum dicit: quem constituit heredem universorum; tertio quantum ad virtutem operationis, cum dicit: per quem fecit et saecula; quarto quantum ad sublimitatem gloriae et divinitatis, cum dicit: qui, cum sit splendor gloriae. Et quia apostolus commendat Christi excellentiam ut hic redundet in novo testamento, ideo comparat novum testamentum veteri. Circa vetus autem testamentum quinque ponit: modum tradendi, traditionis tempus, auctorem, personas quibus fuit traditum et ministros per quos traditum est. Modus autem tradendi est cum multiplicitate, cum dicit: multipharie multisque modis et cetera. [On the first point, note that what is unique about this letter is that each verb has its own sentence and its own order. The intention of the Apostle is to show the excellence of Christ with regard to four points: (1) his natural uniqueness of origin, calling him the true and essential Son of God (at "he spoke to us in his son"), (2) his majesty of rule (at "whom he made heir of all"), (3) his power of acting (at "through whom he made the universe"), (4) his sublimity of glory and divinity (at "since he is the splendor of glory"). And since the Apostle commends Christs superiority, which redounds to the New Testament, he compares the New Testament to the old. He makes four points regarding the Old Testament: (1) its manner of delivery, (2) the time of its delivery, (3) its author, (4) the persons to whom it was delivered and the ministers through whom it was delivered. The manner of delivery is multiple, as he says: "by many different ways" etc.]
1-1
Heb 1:1-2Scripsit autem epistolam istam contra errores quorumdam, qui ex Iudaismo ad fidem Christi conversi, volebant servare legalia cum Evangelio, quasi non sufficeret gratia Christi ad salutem. Unde et dividitur in duas partes. Primo enim multipliciter commendat excellentiam Christi, ut per hoc praeferat novum testamentum veteri; secundo agit de his per quae membra iunguntur capiti, scilicet de fide infra, XI cap., ibi est autem fides. Intendit autem ostendere excellentiam novi ad vetus testamentum per excellentiam Christi, quantum ad tres personas solemnes in ipso veteri testamento contentas, scilicet Angelos, per quos lex tradita est. Gal. III, 19: ordinata per Angelos in manu mediatoris, et cetera. Quantum ad Moysen, a quo, vel per quem data est. Io. I, 17: lex per Moysen data est, et Deut. ult.: non surrexit ultra propheta, et cetera. Quantum ad sacerdotium per quod ministrabatur, infra: in priori tabernaculo semper introibant sacerdotes sacrificiorum, officia consummantes, et cetera. Unde primo praefert Christum Angelis; secundo Moysi, III cap., ibi unde fratres; sed tertio, sacerdotio veteris testamenti, V cap., ibi omnis namque pontifex. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo praefert Christum Angelis in isto capite; secundo concludit qualis reverentia exhibenda sit novae legi, II capite, ibi propter hoc abundantius. Adhuc circa primum duo facit, quia primo excellentiam Christi ostendit; secundo probat, quod hoc verum sit de Christo, et sic Angelos deficere ab illa excellentia, ibi tanto melior. Hoc autem est in hac epistola singulare quod singula verba habent singulas sententias, et servant ordinem suum. 6. – He wrote this epistle against the errors of those converts from Judaism who wanted to preserve the legal observances along with the Gospel, as though Christ’s grace were not sufficient for salvation. Hence it is divided into two parts: in the first he extols Christ’s grandeur to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old; secondly, he discusses what unites the members to the head, namely, faith (chap. 11). But he intends to show the New Testament’s superiority over the Old by proving Christ’s preeminence over the personnel of the Old Testament, namely, the angels, by whom the Law was handed down: ‘The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator’ (Gal. 3:19); and Moses, by whom or through whom it was given: ‘The law was given by Moses’ (Jn. 1:17); ‘There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, to whom the Lord spoke face to face’ (Dt. 3:10), and the priesthood by which it was administered: ‘Into the first tabernacle the priests indeed entered, accomplishing the offices of sacrifices’ (Heb. 9:6). First, therefore, he favors Christ over the angels; secondly, over Moses (chap. 3); thirdly, over the priesthood of the Old Testament (chap. 5). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the angles lack this greatness; secondly, since this is true of Christ, he shows that the angels lack this greatness (chap. 2). Excellentiam vero Christi denotat quantum ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad proprietatem originis, vocando eum verum Dei filium naturalem, cum dicit locutus est nobis in filio; secundo quantum ad magnitudinem dominationis, ibi quem constituit haeredem universorum; tertio quantum ad virtutem operationis, ibi per quem fecit et saecula; quarto quantum ad sublimitatem dignitatis, ibi qui cum sit splendor gloriae. Quia vero intendit commendare Christum, ut hoc redundet in novum testamentum, per hoc praefert novum testamentum veteri. 7. – In regard to the first he indicates Christ’s excellence in four matters: first, as to His unique origin, by calling Him the true natural Son of God; secondly, as to the extent of His rule (v. 2c); thirdly, as to the power of His activity (v. 2d); fourthly, as to the sublimity of His glory (v. 2e). But because he intends to extol Christ so that it redounds to the glory of the New Testament, this favors the New over the Old, Circa autem vetus testamentum quinque ponit. Primo modum tradendi, quia multifarie multisque modis, etc.; secundo tempus, cum dicit olim; tertio auctorem, sive datorem, quia Deus; quarto quibus sit traditum, quia patribus nostris; quinto quibus ministris, quia in prophetis. 8. – About which he mentions five things: first, how it was promulgated; secondly, the time (v. 1b); thirdly, the author or giver (v. 1c); fourthly, to whom it was given (v. 1d); fifthly, by which ministers (v. 13). Dicit ergo multifarie, et hoc quantum ad divisionem, quae attenditur quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad diversas personas, quia non uni personae, sed pluribus, scilicet Abrahae, Noe, et sic de aliis. Secundo quantum ad diversa tempora, et hoc totum ad eius certitudinem. Unde Matth. c. XX, 1 ss.: exiit primo mane (...) et circa horam tertiam, et cetera. Item quantum ad ea, quae ibi ostensa sunt, quia divina. Ex. III, v. 14: ego sum, qui sum, et cetera. Item eventus futuri. Sap. VIII, 8: signa et monstra scit antequam fiant, et cetera. Item promissiones futurorum bonorum, saltem in figura. Eccli. III, v. 25: plurima super sensum hominum monstrata sunt tibi. Item multifarie quantum ad diversas figuras, quia modo in figura leonis, modo in figura lapidis, sicut Dan. II, 34: abscissus est lapis de monte sine manibus. Iob XI, 6: et quod multiplex sit lex oris eius. Sequitur multisque modis, quod refertur ad tria diversa genera visionum, scilicet ad visionem corporalem, sicut Dan. V, 5: apparuerunt digiti quasi manus scribentis in pariete, et cetera. Aliquando aliquibus per visionem imaginariam. Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum sedentem, et cetera. Aliquibus vero apparebat per visionem intellectualem, sicut David. Ps. CXVIII, 100: super senes intellexi. Unde de istis dicitur Oseae XII, 10: ego visionem multiplicavi eis. Refertur etiam ad diversos modos loquendi, quia aliquando plane loquebatur, aliquando vero obscure, nec est aliquis modus loquendi, quo Scriptura veteris testamenti non loquatur. Prov. XXII, 20: ecce descripsi eam tibi tripliciter, in cogitationibus et scientia, et cetera. Tertio, quia arguendo malos, alliciendo iustos, instruendo ignorantes. II Tim. III, 16: omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, et cetera. 9. – He says, therefore, In many ways, referring first of all to various persons, because God spoke not to one person but to many, namely, Abraham, Noah and others; secondly, to the various times and always with the same certitude: ‘He went out early in the morning,…And about the third hour…And again about the sixth hour…’ (Mt. 20:1 ff.). Many also in regard to the matters treated, namely, divine things: ‘I am who am’ (Ex. 3:14); and future events: ‘She knows signs and wonders before they be done’ (Wis. 8:8); and promises of future benefits, at least in figure: ‘Many things are show to you above the understanding of men’ (Sir. 3:25). Many also in the variety of figures; because at one time he uses the figure of a lion, at another the figure of a stone: ‘A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands’ (Dan. 2:34); ‘That he might show you that his law is manifold’ (Jb. 11:6). And in various ways. This refers to the three kinds of vision: first, ocular vision: ‘In the same hour there appeared fingers, as it were the hand of a man writing over against the candlestick upon the surface of the wall’ (Dan. 5:5); secondly, imaginary vision: ‘I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated’ (Is. 6:1); thirdly, intellectual vision, as to David: ‘I have had understanding above the ancients’ (Ps. 119:100). Hence, Hosea (12:10) includes all of these: ‘I have multiplied visions.’ It refers also to the various ways He spoke, because sometimes He spoke plainly and sometimes obscurely. In fact, there is not manner of speaking that has not been employed in the writings of the Old Testament: ‘Behold, I have described it to you three manner of ways, in thoughts and knowledge’ (Pr. 22:20). Thirdly, because He spoke by rebuking the wicked, by enticing the just, and by instructing the ignorant: ‘All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice’ (2 Tim. 3:16). Secundo tangit tempus traditionis huius doctrinae, quod est tempus praeteritum, quia olim, id est, non subito, quia tam magna erant quae de Christo dicebantur, quod non poterant credi, nisi cum incremento temporum prius didicissent. Unde dicit beatus Gregorius: per successiones temporum crevit divinae cognitionis augmentum. Is. c. XLVIII, 3: priora ex tunc annuntiavi, et ex ore meo exierunt, et audita feci ea, et cetera. 10. – Then he touches upon the time, when this teaching was delivered, i.e., the past, because he spoke of old, i.e., not suddenly, because the things that were spoken about Christ were so great as to be incredible, unless they had been taught bit by bit as time went on. Hence St. Gregory says: ‘As time went on, the knowledge of divine things grew.’ ‘The former things of old I have declared, and they went forth out of my mouth, and I have made them to be heard’ (Is. 48:3). Tertio tangit auctorem, quia Deus, qui loquitur. Ps. LXXXIV, 9: audiam quid loquatur in me dominus. Hic est autem, qui non mentitur. Num. XXIII, 19: non est Deus quasi homo, ut mentiatur. Ex his autem tribus commendat vetus testamentum, scilicet ab auctoritate, quia est a Deo, a subtilitate et a sublimitate, quia multifarie multisque modis, a firmitate, quia olim. 11. – Thus, he mentions the author, namely, God, Who speaks: ‘I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me’ (Ps. 84:9) For He does not lie: ‘God is not a man that he should lie’ (Num. 23:19). These, then, are the first three things which commend the Old Testament: authorship, because it is from God; secondly, subtlety and sublimity, because in so many and various ways; thirdly, duration, because of old. Quarto ostendit quibus traditum sit, quia patribus. Et ideo est nobis familiare, et acceptum. Act. XIII, 32: annuntiamus vobis eam, quae ad patres nostros repromissio facta est, et cetera. 12. – Fourthly, he shows to whom it is delivered, namely, to our fathers. This is why it is familiar and known to us: ‘We declare unto you the promise which was made to our fathers’ (Ac. 13:32); ‘As he spoke to our fathers’ (Lk. 1:55). Sed quinto ostendit quibus ministris, quia non ioculatoribus, sed in prophetis, id est per prophetas. Rom. I, 2: quod ante promiserat per prophetas. Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. 13. – Fifthly, he indicates the ministers, because it was delivered not by jesters but by prophets: ‘Which he had promised before by his prophets’ (Rom. 1:2); ‘To whom all the prophets give testimony’ (Ac. 10:43). Deinde cum dicit novissime, describit doctrinam novi testamenti, et ponit quinque, quorum quatuor sunt diversa a quatuor praemissis; unum autem est idem utrobique. Quod enim dixerat, multifarie multisque modis, etc., ostendit quia omnis multitudo ordinata, ad unum debet referri. Ideo dicit, quod licet sit modus multiplex, tamen totum ordinatum est ad istud novissimum. Prov. XXIII, 17 s.: in timore domini esto tota die, et habebis spem in novissimo. Is. c. X, 22 s.: consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Consummationem enim et abbreviationem dominus Deus exercituum faciet in medio omnis terrae. Item illud olim in tempore expectationis et tenebrarum, sed istud in diebus istis, id est, tempore gratiae. Rom. c. XIII, 12: nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquavit, et cetera. 14. – Then (v. 2) he describes the doctrine of the New Testament and mentions five properties. Four of these are differences from those of the Old, and one is the same. For when he had said, in many and various ways, he was indicating that every ordered multitude should be referred to one thing. Therefore, although the manner is manifold, all is ordained to the last thing: ‘Be in the fear of the Lord all the day long’ (Pr. 23:17); ‘The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption and an abridgement in the midst of all the land’ (Is. 10:22). Likewise, of old referred to the time of waiting and of darkness, but in these last days refers to our days, i.e., to the time of grace: ‘The night is passed and the day is at hand’ (Rom. 13:12). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Ubi notandum est, quod ibi dicit loquens, hic autem dicit locutus est, ut designet locutionem novi testamenti perfectiorem illa, quae fuit in veteri. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod tria requiruntur ad locutionem nostram. Primo, verbi conceptio, qua scilicet praeconcipiatur in mente id quod ore loquendum est; secundo ipsius verbi concepti expressio, qua insinuetur quod conceptum est; tertio ipsius rei expressae manifestatio, qua res expressa evidens fiat. Deus ergo loquendo, primo concepit, cuius conceptio una fuit, et ab aeterno Iob c. XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur Deus, et haec aeterna fuit filii generatio, de qua in Ps. II, v. 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Secundo, huiusmodi conceptum expressit, et hoc tripliciter. Primo in creaturarum editione, cum scilicet verbum conceptum similitudo patris existens, sit etiam similitudo ad quam omnes creaturae factae sunt. Gen. I, 3: dixit Deus: fiat lux, et cetera. Secundo per quasdam notiones, puta in mentibus Angelorum, in quibus species omnium rerum, quae in verbo latebant indidit, et in mentibus hominum sanctorum: et hoc per revelationes sensibiles, vel intellectuales, vel imaginarias. Et ideo omnis talis manifestatio procedens a verbo aeterno, locutio nuncupatur. Ier. I, 2: factum est verbum domini, et cetera. Tertio per carnis assumptionem, de qua dicitur Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est, et vidimus gloriam eius, et cetera. Et ideo dicit Augustinus, quod hoc modo se habet verbum incarnatum ad verbum increatum, sicut verbum vocis ad verbum cordis. Prima autem expressio, scilicet in creatione, non ordinatur ad manifestationem, sed ad esse, Sap. I creavit Deus ut essent omnia. Cum ergo expressio non habeat rationem locutionis nisi prout ordinatur ad manifestationem, manifestum est, quod illa expressio non potest dici locutio, et ideo numquam dicitur, quod Deus loquatur creando creaturas, sed quod cognoscatur. Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Secunda vero expressio, quae est editio specierum in mente angelica, vel humana, ordinatur tantum ad cognitionem sapientiae divinae, et ideo potest dici locutio. Tertia vero, quae est per assumptionem carnis, ordinatur ad esse, et ad cognitionem, et ad expressam manifestationem, quia per assumptionem carnis, et verbum factum est homo, et nos in cognitionem Dei perfecit. (Io. XVIII, 37: ad hoc natus sum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati). Et se nobis expresse manifestavit. Bar. c. III, 38: post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. Sic ergo, licet Deus loquatur in novo et veteri testamento, perfectius tamen in novo nobis loquitur, quia ibi per revelationes in mentibus hominum, hic per incarnationem filii. Vetus vero testamentum traditum est patribus, aspicientibus a longe et intuentibus Deum procul; istud autem nobis, scilicet apostolis, qui vidimus eum in propria persona. I Io. I, 1: qui audivimus, et vidimus oculis nostris, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vitae. Deut. V, 3 s.: non cum patribus nostris iniit pactum, sed nobiscum, qui in praesentiarum sumus, et vidimus, et facie ad faciem locutus est nobis. Unde patet quod illa locutio fuit promissoria. Gal. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt repromissiones. Ista locutio est exhibitoria. Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Item, ibi locutus est in prophetis, hic in filio, qui est dominus prophetarum. Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse nobis narravit. 15. – It should be noted that in regard to the Old Testament he says, ‘speaking’, but here he says, has spoken, in order to designate that the speech of the New Testament is more perfect than that of the Old. To understand this it should be noted that three things are required for our speech: first, the conception of a thought whereby we preconceive in our mind that which is to be spoken by the mouth; secondly, the expression of the conceived thought to enable us to indicate what has been conceived; thirdly, the manifestation of the thing expressed, so that it becomes evident. God, therefore, when speaking, first conceived, so that there was but one conception and that from all eternity: ‘God speaks once’ (Jb. 33:14). This eternal conception is the engendering of the Son of God, concerning Whom it says in Ps. 2 (v. 7): ‘The Lord said to me: you are my Son, this day have I begotten you.’ Secondly, he expressed his concept in three ways: first, in the production of creatures, namely, when the conceived Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness according to which all creatures were made: ‘God said: Be light made. And light was made’ (Gen. 1:3). Secondly, through certain notions; for example, in the minds of the angels, in whom the forms of all things, which were concealed in the Word, were infused, and in the minds of holy men: and this by sensible or intellectual or imaginary revelations. Hence, every such manifestation proceeding from the eternal Word is called a speaking: ‘The word of the Lord which came to him’ (Jer. 1:2). Thirdly, by assuming flesh, concerning which it says in John (1:14): ‘And the Word was made flesh.’ Hence, Augustine says that the Incarnate Word is related to the uncreated Word as the voice’s work is related to the heart’s word. But the first expression, namely, in creation, is not for the purpose of manifesting. For it is clear that that expression cannot be called a speaking; hence, it is never said that God speaks when making creatures, but that He is known: ‘The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ (Rom. 1:20). But the second expression, which is the infusion of forms in the minds of angels or of men, is directed only to the knowledge of divine wisdom; hence, it can be called a speaking. The third expression, namely, the assuming of flesh, took place of the purpose of existing and of knowing, and for expressly manifesting, because by assuming flesh the Word was made man and brought us to a complete knowledge of God: ‘For this was I born, that I should give testimony of the truth’ (Jn. 18:37). And he clearly manifests Himself to us: ‘Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men’ (Bar. 3:38). Thus, therefore, although God speaks in the New and the Old Testaments, He speaks more perfectly in the New, because in the Old he speaks in the minds of men, but in the New through the Son’s Incarnation. Furthermore, the Old Testament was handed down to the Fathers looking on from afar and seeing God from a distance; the New has been handed down to us, namely, to the apostles, who have seen Him in His very person: ‘That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled the Word of life, we declare unto you’ (1 Jn. 1:1); ‘He made not the covenant with our fathers but with us who are present and living. He spoke to us face to face’ (Dt. 5:3). Hence, it is clear that that speaking was a promise: ‘To Abraham were the promises made’ (Gal. 3:16); but the New was a manifestation: ‘Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (Jn. 1:17). Also, in the Old He spoke in the prophets; in the New in His Son, Who is the Lord of the prophets: ‘The only begotten, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him’ (Jn. 1:18). Sed numquid omnes, per quos loquitur Deus, sunt prophetae? Ad quod dicendum est, quod quinque requiruntur ad hoc quod aliquis sit verus propheta. Primum est revelatio eorum, quae excedunt humanam cognitionem, alias non dicitur propheta, sed sapiens, sicut Salomon, cuius mens illuminata est ad ea quae sunt secundum rationem humanam. Unde nec a Iudaeis propheta dicitur, sed sapiens. Secundum est intelligentia revelatorum, alias, nisi revelata intelligeret, non esset propheta. Intelligentia opus est in visione, Dan. X, 1, et inde est, quod Nabuchodonosor revelationem sibi factam non intelligens, propheta non dicitur, sed Daniel, qui eam intellexit. Tertium est, quod propheta in rebus visis, quibus alienatur, non detineatur in ipsis rebus, sed tamquam in figuris, alias non esset propheta, sed phreneticus, qui imaginata apprehendit, ut ipsas res. Ier. XXIII, v. 28: qui habet somnium, narret somnium, et qui habet sermonem meum, narret sermonem meum. Quartum est, ut cum certitudine revelata percipiat, quasi per demonstrationem sciens, alias esset somnium, et non prophetia. Is. l, v. 5: dominus aperuit mihi aurem, ego autem non contradico, retrorsum non abii. Quintum est, ut adsit voluntas annunciandi quae revelata sunt; unde et Daniel a quibusdam dicitur quod non est propheta, quia non accepit revelata per modum enunciabilem; unde non dicitur, quod factum est verbum domini ad Danielem, sicut de aliis prophetis dicitur. Ier. XX, 8 s.: factum est verbum domini mihi in opprobrium, et in derisum tota die, et dixi: non recordabor eius, neque loquar ultra in nomine illius, et factus est in corde meo sicut ignis aestuans. 16. – Does this mean that all the ones through whom God spoke were prophets? I answer that five things are required of a true prophet: first, the revealing of things which transcend human knowledge; otherwise, he would not be called a prophet but a sage, as Solomon, whose mind was enlightened in regard to things within the ken of human reason. Hence, not even the Jew called him a prophet but a sage. Secondly, the understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, he would not be a prophet: ‘There is need of understanding in a vision’ (Dan. 10:1). That is why Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who did understand it, was called a prophet. Thirdly, it is required that in the things he sees and by which he is alienated not be held as though by things themselves, but as in figures; otherwise, he would not by a prophet by a lunatic, who apprehends imaginary things as though they were real: ‘The prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream: and he that has my word, let him speak my word with truth’ (Jer. 23:28). Fourthly, that he perceive the things revealed, with certitude, as though known through demonstration; otherwise, it would be a dream and not a prophecy: ‘The Lord God has opened my ear and I do not resist: I have not gone back’ (Is. 50:5). The fifth requirement is that he has the will to announce the thing revealed; accordingly, some claim that Daniel is not a prophet, because he does not receive the thing revealed in an expressible way. Hence, it is not said that the word of the Lord was made to Daniel, as it said of the other prophets: ‘The word of the Lord is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the day. Then I said: I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name; and there came in my heart as a burning fire’ (Jer. 20:8). Sed rursum quaeritur quare dicit in prophetis, cum potius debuisset dicere per prophetas. Ad hoc dicendum est, quod hoc fecit, ut excluderet quorumdam errorem. Primo quidem errorem Porphyrii dicentis, quod prophetae ea, quae dixerunt fingendo, non ex spiritu sancto dixerunt. Et contra hoc dicit in prophetis, quasi non ipsi locuti sunt ex se, sed Deus locutus est in eis. II Pet. I, 21: non enim voluntate humana allata est prophetia, sed spiritu sancto inspirati, locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Secundo ad excludendum errorem quorumdam, dicentium prophetiam esse quid naturale et haberi per naturalem dispositionem, sicut cum aliquis melancholicus est adeo fortis imaginationis, quod imaginata apprehendat ut certa et res ipsas. Et ideo dicit locutus est in prophetis; quasi dicat: non habetur prophetia per modum naturalis dispositionis et passionis, sed per locutionem internam a Deo. Io. III, 8: spiritus ubi vult spirat. Tertio contra errorem dicentium haberi prophetiam per modum habitus sicut scientiam, ut scilicet quandocumque vult homo prophetet. Quod non est verum, cum prophetiae spiritus non adsit prophetis semper, sed cum eorum mens illustratur divinitus. Unde, IV Reg. IV, 27 dicit Eliseus: anima eius in amaritudine est, et dominus celavit a me. Et ideo dicit in prophetis, quasi dicat: non habetur ab omnibus, et semper, ut habitus, sed ab illis, in quibus placet Deo loqui. Quarto ad excludendum errorem Priscillae, et Montani, dicentium prophetas non intelligere ea quae dicebant, quod non est verum. Unde dicitur Aggaei I, 3: factum est verbum domini in manu Aggaei prophetae; in manu, id est, in potestate. Et I Cor. XIV, 32: spiritus prophetarum prophetis subiecti sunt. Et ideo dicit in prophetis, id est, in intellectu et potestate prophetarum. Sic ergo patet Christi proprietas, quia filius est naturalis. Io. XIV, 10: pater in me est, et ego in patre. 17. – But another question arises: Why does he say, in the prophets, when he might better have said: ‘by the prophets?’ The answer is that he did this because he wished to exclude certain errors: first, the error of Porphyry, who claimed that prophets invented their statements and were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. To counter this the Apostle says, he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: They were not speaking of themselves, but God was speaking in them: ‘For prophecy came not by the will of men at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pt. 1:21). Secondly, to exclude the error of those who maintained that prophecy is something natural and can be possessed by one’s natural disposition, as a melancholy person might have a very strong imagination; so strong, indeed, that he considers the things he imagines to be real. Hence, it says, he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: Prophecy does not come about through a natural disposition but by an inward utterance of God: ‘The Spirit breathes where he will’ (Jn. 3:8). Thirdly, against the error of those who claim that prophecy can be possessed like a habit, as science is possessed, so that whenever a person decides to do so, he can prophesy. But this is not true, because the spirits of prophecy are not always present in the prophet, but only when their minds are enlightened by God; hence, in 2 Kg. (4:27), Elisha says: ‘Her soul is in anguish, and the Lord has hid it from me.’ Therefore, the Apostle says, in the prophets. As if to say: Not that prophecy is possessed by all or always, as habits are, but only in those in whom it pleases God to speak. Fourthly, to exclude the error of Priscilla and Montanus, who maintained that prophets do not understand their utterances. But this is not true; hence, it is stated in Hag (1:3): ‘The word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai, the prophet’; and in 1 Cor. (14:32): ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.’ That which he says, in the prophets, i.e., in the understanding and power of the prophets. Thus, therefore, is clear Christ’s unique property, namely, that He is the natural Son: ‘The Father is in me and I in the Father (Jn. 14:10). Sed numquid est de illis filiis, de quibus dicitur in Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi: dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes? Absit, quia illi dicuntur filii cum universitate, iste est constitutus haeres, et dominus universorum. Numquid est de illis filiis, de quibus dicitur Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri? et cetera. Non quidem, quia illi dicuntur facti filii, iste vero est filius, per quem fecit et saecula. Numquid est de illis filiis, qui gloriantur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei? Rom. V, 2. Non quidem, quia illi sunt filii per spem gloriae Dei, quam habent, iste vero ipsius gloriae splendor. Alii dicuntur filii, quia facti ad imaginem huius filii. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii eius; iste autem est ipsa imago, et figura substantiae eius. Alii dicuntur filii, ut in se verbum Dei continentes, secundum illud Phil. II, 15: ut sint sine querela, et simplices filii Dei, sine reprehensione in medio nationis pravae et perversae, inter quos lucetis sicut luminaria in mundo, verbum vitae continentes. Iste autem filius portat omnia verbo virtutis suae. Ergo patet Christi excellentia quantum ad proprietatem originis, et diffuse quantum ad alios filios Dei; per quod ostenditur eminentia novi testamenti ad vetus.] 18. – But is He one of those sons of whom it is said: ‘I have said: you are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High’ (Ps. 81:6). No; because these are called sons in a general sense, but He is the Son Who was appointed heir and lord of all things. Is He one of those sons of whom it is said (Jn. 1:12): ‘He gave them the power to become the sons of God, i.e., who believe in his name?’ No; those are said to become the sons; but Christ is the Son through whom he made the world. Is he one of those sons who glory ‘in the hope of the glory of the sons of God’ (Rom. 5:2)? No, because they are sons through the hope they have of God’s glory, but He is the splendor of that glory. Others are called sons, because they were made to the image of this Son: ‘Whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son’ (Rom. 8:29), but He is the image itself and the figure of His substance. Others are called sons inasmuch as they contain within themselves the Word of God: ‘That you may be blameless and sincere children without reproof in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world. Holding for the word of life’ (Phil. 2:15). But He is the true Son Who carries all things by the word of His power. Therefore, Christ’s supereminence is clear from His unique origin and from His relationship to other sons of God. It is these things which make the New Testament greater than the Old. Sed tamen utrobique dicit locutus est, vel loquens, et denotat eumdem esse actorem veteris et novi testamenti contra Manichaeum. Eph. II, 18: per ipsum habemus accessum ambo in uno spiritu, et cetera. Rom. III, v. 29: an Iudaeorum Deus tantum? Nonne et gentium? Item illud fuit traditum patribus nostris, sed istud nobis, id est, apostolis, qui Christum in propria persona vidimus. Deut. V, 3: non cum patribus nostris inivit pactum, sed nobiscum, qui in praesentiarum sumus et vivimus. Item illud per prophetas, sed istud in filio, id est, per filium, qui est dominus prophetarum. Io. I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Et ista occasione apostolus introducit eum esse filium. 19. – Yet in regard to both testaments he says, ‘speaking’, or ‘has spoken’, in order to indicate that both have the same author. This is against the Manicheans: ‘By him we have access both in the same Spirit to the Father’ (Eph. 2:18); ‘Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?’ (Rom. 3:29). Again, the Old was given to our fathers, but the New to us, i.e., through his Son, Who is the Lord of the prophets: ‘The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ (Jn. 1:18). Consequenter ostendit magnitudinem dominationis Christi, cum dicit quem constituit haeredem; quia, ut dicitur Gal. IV, 7: si filius, et haeres per Deum. In Christo autem sunt duae naturae, scilicet divina et humana. Secundum ergo, quod est filius naturalis, non est constitutus haeres, sed est naturalis; sed inquantum homo, factus est filius Dei. Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Et secundum hoc est constitutus haeres universorum, sicut verus filius patris. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas. Et hoc quantum ad totam creaturam in qua accepit dominationem. Item non tantum quo ad unum genus hominum, sed universorum, scilicet tam Iudaeorum, quam gentium. Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et cetera. 20. – Then he shows the greatness of Christ’s power when he says, whom he appointed the heir of all things; for as it says in Gal. (4:7): ‘And if a son, an heir also through God.’ But in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human: insofar as He is the natural son, He is not appointed heir, (He is so naturally;) but inasmuch as He is man and has become a son of God: ‘Concerning his Son who was made to him of the seed of David’ (Rom. 1:3). Indeed, as a man, He has been appointed heir of all things, just as He has become a son of God: ‘All power is given to me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18) and it extends to every creature that He has taken under His rule. It extends, therefore, not only to one type of man, but to all, i.e., both Jews and Gentiles: ‘Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles for your inheritance.’ (Ps. 2:8). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Quem constituit haeredem universorum. Ostensa excellentia Christi quantum ad proprietatem originis, hic ostendit excellentiam eius quantum ad maiestatem dominii, et quidem congrue coniungit locutus est in filio, et constitutus est haeres, quia si filii, et haeredes, Rom. VIII, 17. Sciendum est autem, quod in Christo sunt duae naturae, divina scilicet et humana; sed secundum divinam naturam, sicut non est constitutus filius cum sit filius naturalis ab aeterno; ita nec est constitutus haeres, sed ab aeterno est haeres naturalis. Secundum vero naturam humanam, sicut est factus filius Dei Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem ita et factus est haeres universorum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit quem constituit haeredem, id est, dominum, universorum. Matth. XXI, 38: hic est haeres, venite et occidamus eum. Mich. I, 15: adhuc haeredem adducam tibi, qui habitas in Maresa, usque ad Odollam, veniet gloria Israel. Et quidem secundum divinam naturam competit Christo, quod sit haeres genitus, et dominus. Et primo quidem, quia ipse est Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia, I Cor. I, 24, per quem pater omnia facit. Et ideo si pater dicitur dominus omnium, ratione creationis, similiter et filius, per quem omnia producuntur in esse, dominus est. Prov. VIII, 30: cum eo eram cuncta componens. Secundo quia filius est patris sapientia, qua omnia gubernat. Sap. VIII, 1 dicitur de sapientia: attingit a fine usque ad finem, et cetera. Si ergo pater dicitur dominus ratione gubernationis Sap. XIV, 3: tu autem, pater, gubernas omnia, etc., et filio competit dominium. Item pater est dominus, inquantum ad ipsum omnia ordinantur, sicut ad primum principium, et finem omnium; similiter et filius, qui est Dei sapientia, praecedens omnia, dominus est. Eccli. I, 3: sapientiam Dei praecedentem omnia, quis investigabit? Prov. XVI, v. 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est dominus. Secundum humanam vero naturam competit etiam Christo, quod sit constitutus haeres et dominus universorum. Primo quidem ratione unionis, ex hoc scilicet ipso, quod assumptus est homo ille in persona filii Dei. Act. V, 31: hunc Deus dominum salvatorem constituit. Eph. I, 21: constituit eum super omnem principatum, et potestatem, et cetera. Secundo ratione potestatis, quia omnia ei obediunt, et serviunt. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo, et cetera. Tertio ratione subiectionis. Phil. II, 10: in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, et cetera. Sed dicit universorum, quod refertur ad totius naturae universitatem, in qua accepit dominium, secundum illud Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius. Item refertur ad omne genus hominum, ut sit sensus: universorum, id est, tam Iudaeorum, quam etiam omnium aliorum hominum, secundum illud Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et cetera. Et de hoc dicitur Esth. XIII, 11: dominus omnium tu es.] 21. – Having shown Christ’s excellence as to His unique origin, he now shows His excellence as to the majesty of His dominion. It is suitable that these two be joined: He has spoken to us through his Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things: ‘If a son, then an heir’ (Rom. 8:17). But it should be noted that in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human. But according to the divine nature, since He was not appointed Son, since He is the natural Son from all eternity, so neither was He appointed heir, since He is the natural heir from all eternity. But according to His human nature, just as He was made Son of God: ‘He was descended from David according to the flesh’ (Rom. 1:3), so He was made heir to all things: Whom he appointed the heir of all things: ‘This is the heir, come, let us kill him’ (Mt. 21:38). ‘I will again bring an heir to you, inhabitants of Mareshah; the glory of Israel shall come to Adullam’ (Mic. 1:15). Indeed, according to His divine nature it belongs to Christ to be the begotten heir of the Lord. First, because He is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18) through Whom the Father makes all things. Therefore, if the Father is called the God of all by reason of creation, the Son also, through Whom all things were brought into existence, is called Lord. ‘I was with him forming all things’ (Pr. 8:30). Secondly, because the Son is the Father’s wisdom, by which He governs all things. In Wis. (8:1) it says of wisdom: ‘She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other and she orders all things well.’ Therefore, if the Father is called Lord by reason of governing: ‘You, the Father, govern all things’ (Wis. 13:3), the Son, too, has dominion. Furthermore, the Father is Lord inasmuch as all things are ordained to Him as to first principle and end of all things. So, too, the Son, Who is the wisdom of God preceding all things, is Lord: ‘Wisdom was created before all things. Who can search it out?’ (Sir. 1:3). But according to His human nature it also belongs to Christ to be heir and Lord of all things. First, by reason of the union, i.e., from the fact that that man was assumed in the person of the Son of God: ‘The Lord God exalted him as Savior’ (Ac. 5:31).; ‘He set him over every principality and power and dominion’ (Eph. 1:19). Secondly, by reason of power, because all things obey and serve him: ‘All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18). Thirdly, by reason of subjection: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven, on earth and, below the earth’ (Phil. 2:10). But he says, of all things, which refers to the totality of all nature, in which he obtains dominion, as it says in Ps. 8 (v. 8): ‘You have subjected all things under his feet.’ It also refers to the whole human race, so that the sense would be: of all things, i.e., not only the Jews but also other men, as it says in Ps. 2 (v. 8): ‘Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession.’ And of this it is said (Est. 13:11, Vulgate): ‘You are Lord of all.’ Consequenter cum dicit per quem fecit et saecula, ostendit virtutem operationis Christi, quare sit constitutus haeres universorum, non quod ipse sit factus in tempore et hoc meruerit merito bonae vitae, sicut dicit Photinus, sed quod aeque omnia facta sunt per ipsum, sicut et per patrem. Per ipsum enim fecit pater saecula. Sed sciendum est, quod ista praepositio per denotat causam actus. Sed hoc est dupliciter: uno modo, quia est causa factionis ex parte facientis, ut cum scilicet causale cui adiungitur, est causa actionis secundum quod exit ab agente. Semper enim factio est medium inter faciens et factum. Potest ergo denotare circa agens causam finalem, ut artifex operatur per lucrum; aliquando causam formalem, ut ignis calefacit per calorem; aliquando vero causam efficientem, ut balivus operatur per regem. Nullo istorum modorum est filius causa patris, quod per illum operetur, sicut nec quod ab ipso sit. Aliquando vero causale est causa actionis, secundum quod terminatur ad factum, ut artifex operatur per martellum. Martellus enim non est causa artificis, quod agat; sed est causa artificiato, quod ab artifice procedat, ut ferro, quod recipiat operationem ab artifice, et sic filius est causa facti, et pater operatur per filium. 22. – Then (v. 2) when he says, by whom also he made the world, he shows the power of Christ’s activity, i.e., why He has been appointed heir of all things. It was not because He was born at a certain moment of time and merited this by leading a good life, as Photinus says, but because all things were originally made by Him, as they were made by the Father. For it was through Him that the Father made all things. For through Him the Father made the world. But it should be noted that the grammatical object of the preposition ‘by’ or ‘through’ designates the cause of an act: in one way, because it causes a making on the part of the maker. For the making is midway between the maker and the thing made. In this usage the object of ‘by’ can designate the final cause motivating the maker, as an artisan works by gain; or the formal cause, as fire warms by heat; or even the efficient cause, as a bailiff acts through the king. But the Son is not the cause making the Father act through Him in any of these ways any more than He is the cause of His proceeding from the Father. But sometimes the object of ‘by’ designates the cause of the action, taken from the viewpoint of the thing made, as an artisan acts through a hammer; for the hammer is not the cause of the artisan’s action, but it is the cause why an artifact made of iron should proceed from the artisan, i.e., why iron [which the hammer strikes] be worked on by the artisan. This is the way the Son is the cause of things made and the way the Father works through the Son. Sed numquid filius est minor patre? Videtur quod sic, quia illud quod est causa facti, ut fiat, videtur habere rationem instrumenti. Sed ad hoc dicendum est, quod si non esset eadem virtus numero in filio et patre, et eadem operatio, teneret obiectio. Nunc ergo eadem est virtus et operatio patris et filii, sicut et eadem natura et esse, et dicitur pater per eum facere saecula, quia genuit eum operantem saecula. Io. V, 19: quaecumque pater facit, et filius facit. Saeculum dicitur spatium rei temporalis. Saecula ergo sunt successiones temporum; non ergo fecit tantum tempora sempiterna, secundum quod philosophi aliqui dixerunt Deum tantum fecisse sempiternum, et Angelos creasse temporalia, sed etiam fecit temporalia, quae vocat hic saecula. Infra XI, 3: fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula. Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. In hoc ergo removet errorem Manichaei dupliciter. Primo in hoc quod dicit eum actorem veteris testamenti; secundo quod dicit ipsum fecisse temporalia. 23. – But is the Son inferior to the Father? It seems so, because that which is the cause of a thing’s being made seems to be an instrument. The answer is that if the power in the Father and in the Son were not the same numerically, and the activity not the same numerical activity, the objection would hold. But the fact is that the power and activity, as well as the nature and the esse of the Father and of the Son are the same. Therefore, the Father is said to make the world through Him, because He begot Him forming the world: ‘Whatever the Father does, the Son also does’ (Jn. 5:19). ‘World’ (saeculum) here means the temporal span of a created thing. Worlds, i.e., saecula, therefore, are successions of times. Therefore, he made not only sempiternal times (in the sense in which philosophers say that God alone made eternal things, and angels created temporal things), but also temporal things, which the Apostle calls worlds (saecula): ‘By faith we understand that the world was framed by the Word of God’ (Heb. 11:3); ‘All things were made by him’ (Jn. 1:3). Thus he removes the Manichean error in two ways: first, in calling God the author of the Old Testament; secondly, in saying that He made temporal things.
1-2
Heb 1:3Superius ostendit apostolus Christi excellentiam quantum ad originis proprietatem, quantum ad dominii maiestatem, et quantum ad operationis virtutem, hic autem ostendit eius excellentiam quantum ad gloriae et dignitatis sublimitatem. Et pars ista dividitur in duas. Primo enim ostendit Christum esse idoneum ad dignitatem istam; secundo ponit ipsam dignitatem, ibi sedet ad dexteram. Idoneitatem vero ostendit ex duobus, quae reddunt aliquem idoneum ad aliquid magnum: unum est facilitas administrandi, aliud est industria et strenuitas exequendi. Primo ergo ostendit eius facilitatem; secundo eius strenuitatem, ibi purgationem peccatorum faciens. 24. – Having shown Christ’s greatness in regard to His unique origin, the majesty of His dominion and the power of His activity, the Apostle now shows His greatness in regard to the sublimity of His glory and dignity. This is divided into two parts: in the first he shows that Christ is worthy of His dignity; in the second he discloses this dignity (v. 2c). But he shows Him worthy of this dignity for two reasons: one is the ease with which He acts; the other is His diligence and strenuousness in acting: first, therefore, he describes this ease: secondly, His strenuousness (v. 2b). Circa primum sciendum est, quod tria requiruntur, quae faciunt facilitatem ad dignitatem aliquam ministrandam. Primum quidem sapientia, ne erret gubernando. Eccle. c. X, 5: est et malum quod vidi sub sole, quasi per errorem egrediens a facie principis: positum stultum in dignitate sublimi. Prov. c. VIII, 15: per me reges regnant. Secundum est generis prosapia, ne contemnatur praecipiendo. Prov. ult.: nobilis in portis vir eius, cum sederit cum senatoribus terrae. Tertium, virtutis potentia in exequendo. Eccli. c. VII, 6: noli quaerere fieri iudex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates. Et quantum ad ista tria apostolus ostendit in Christo facilitatem ad dignitatem praedictam. Primo quia non solum est sapiens, sed etiam ipsa sapientia; unde dicit cum sit splendor gloriae. Secundo quia non solum est nobilis, sed est ipsa nobilitas, quia est figura substantiae eius. Tertio quia non solum est potens, sed est ipsa potentia portans omnia verbo, et cetera. Tria autem sunt, ut supra dictum est, quae faciunt hominem idoneum ut magnam dignitatem assequatur. 25. – In regard to the first it should be noted that three things are required for a high dignity to be administered with ease: the first is wisdom, to avoid mistakes in governing: ‘There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, as it were be an error proceeding from the face of the prince: a fool set in high dignity’ (Ec. 10:15); ‘Through me kings reign’ (Pr. 8:15). Secondly, a person must be of noble stock, lest his commands be scorned: ‘Her husband is honorable in the gates, when he sits among the senators of the land’ (Pr. 31:33). The third requirement is power in acting: ‘Seek not to be made a judge, unless you have strength enough to extirpate iniquities’ (Sir. 7:6). These are the three marks the Apostle uses to show that Christ is worthy of His dignity: first, because He is not only wise but is Wisdom itself; hence, he says, he reflects the glory of God; secondly, because He is not only noble but is nobility itself, because he bears the very stamp [figure] of his substance; thirdly, because He is not only powerful but is power itself: upholding all things by his word of power. But these are the three things which make a person worthy to possess great dignity. Primum est sapientiae claritas. Prov. c. III, 35: gloriam sapientes possidebunt. Et ideo ostendit Christi sapientiam, dicens qui cum sit splendor gloriae. Ubi est considerandum, quod, secundum Ambrosium, gloria est clara cum laude notitia, quasi quaedam manifesta notitia, quae de bonitate alicuius habetur. Sed, sicut dicitur Matth. XIX, 17: nemo bonus, nisi solus Deus, et etiam Lc. XVIII, 19, unde ipse est bonitas antonomastice et per essentiam. Alia vero bona sunt per participationem, et ita soli Deo convenit gloria antonomastice. Is. XLII, 8: gloriam meam alteri non dabo. I Tim. I, 17: regi autem saeculorum immortali, invisibili, soli Deo honor et gloria. Cognitio ergo divinae bonitatis, excellenter et antonomastice dicitur gloria, id est, clara cum laude notitia bonitatis divinae. Ista aliqualiter habetur ab homine, quia nunc cognosco ex parte, I Cor. XIII, 12, sed habetur excellentius ab Angelis, sed a solo Deo perfecte. Deum enim nemo vidit unquam, Io. I, 18, verum est, nec Angeli comprehensive, sed ipse solus seipsum comprehendit. Ergo sola cognitio Dei de seipso perfecte dicitur gloria, quia perfectam notitiam habet et clarissimam de seipso. Quoniam autem splendor est illud quod a fulgente primo emittitur, sapientia vero est quiddam fulgens Eccli. VIII, 1: sapientia hominis lucet in vultu eius inde est quod prima conceptio sapientiae est quasi quidam splendor. Verbum ergo patris, quod est quidam conceptus intellectus eius, est splendor sapientiae, qua se cognoscit. Et ideo apostolus filium vocat splendorem gloriae, id est, divinae clarae notitiae. In quo ostendit ipsum non solum sapientem, sed sapientiam genitam. Is. LXII, 1: donec egrediatur ut splendor iustus eius, et cetera. 26. – The first is clarity of wisdom: ‘The wise shall possess glory’ (Pr. 3:35). Hence, he shows Christ’s wisdom when he says, he reflects the glory of God. Here it should be noted that according to Ambrose: ‘Glory is fame accompanied by praise’, i.e., public knowledge of someone’s goodness. But as it says in Lk. (18:19): ‘No one is good but God alone.’ Hence, He is good par excellence and essentially, but other things are good by participation, so that God alone is good par excellence: ‘My glory I give to no other’ (Is. 42:8); ‘To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever’ (1 Tim. 1:17). Therefore, knowledge of God’s goodness is called glory in a most excellent sense, i.e., clear knowledge of the divine goodness accompanied by praise. Such knowledge is possessed by men up to a certain point: ‘I know now in part’ (1 Cor. 13:12), but perfectly by God alone: ‘No one has ever seen God’ (Jn. 1:18). It is true that not even the angels, but God alone comprehends it. Therefore, only God’s knowledge of Himself is glory in the full sense, because He has perfect and clearest knowledge of Himself. But because splendor is that which is first emitted by a bright object, and His wisdom is something bright: ‘The wisdom of a man shines in his countenance’ (Ec. 8:1), it follows that the first conception of wisdom is, as it were, a splendor. Therefore, the Word of the Father, which is a certain concept of His intellect, is the splendor and wisdom by which He knows Himself. That is why the Apostle calls the Son the splendor of glory, i.e., of the clear divine knowledge. Thus, he identifies Him not only as wise but as begotten wisdom: ‘I will not rest till her just one comes forth as brightness, and her savior be lighted as a lamp’ (Is. 62:1). Secundum quod facit hominem idoneum ad magnam dignitatem, est generis nobilitas. Et hoc ostendit esse in Christo, quia dicit, quod est figura substantiae eius. Decet enim cum sapientia esse nobilitatem in principe. Deut. I, 15: tulique de tribubus vestris sapientes et nobiles, et constitui eos principes, et cetera. Figura hic ponitur pro charactere, vel imagine; quasi dicat: imago substantiae. Sciendum tamen, quod licet imago dicat similitudinem, non tamen quaelibet similitudo est imago. Albedo enim in pariete non est imago albedinis meae, sed imago et similitudo in specie. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Illud ergo proprie dicitur esse imago alicuius, quod habet similitudinem speciei eius, vel expressum signum speciei.] Inter accidentia vero nihil ita est expressum signum, sicut speciei est figura. Unde qui describit figuram animalis, describit imaginem eius. Filius ergo, qui est imago invisibilis Dei, Col. I, 15, proprie dicitur figura. 27. – The second mark which makes a man worthy of great dignity is noble birth, which he shows is in Christ, because he is the very stamp of his substance. For it is proper that along with wisdom there be nobility in a prince: ‘And I took out of your tribes men over fifties and over tens, who might teach you all things’ (Dt. 1:15). The word stamp [figure] here is used to denote a mark or an image. As if to say: the image of His substance. Yet it should be noted that although an image implies a likeness, not every likeness is an image: for the whiteness on a canvas is not my whiteness; but an image is a likeness in species. Therefore, that is properly called an image of someone, which bears a likeness to his species, or is an expressed sign of the species. But among the accidents none is such an expressed sign of a species as a thing’s figure. Hence, one who draws the figure of an animal draws its image. Therefore, the Son ‘Who is the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15) is properly called the figure. Sed cuius? Substantiae eius. Imago enim alicuius est multiplex. Aliquando enim est signum repraesentans speciem in nullo cum ipsa conveniens, sicut imago hominis in pariete, quae in nullo habet veram speciem hominis. Aliquando vero assimilatur ei in specie, non tantum in repraesentando, sed etiam in essendo, sicut filius est imago vera patris. Gen. V, 3: Adam genuit filium ad imaginem suam, id est, in natura speciei. Et ideo addit substantiae eius, quia, secundum Augustinum, filius dicitur imago patris, quia est eiusdem naturae cum ipso. Dicit ergo, quod est figura substantiae. 28. – But the figure of what? Of his nature [substance]. For there are many images of things: sometimes it is a sign representing the species but yet not agreeing with it in any way; as the image of a man on canvas, which in no sense possesses the true species of man. Sometimes it is similar to it in species not only in representing, but even in being, as the Son is the true image of His Father: ‘Adam begot a son in his own image’ (Gen. 5:3), i.e., in the nature of his species. Therefore, the Apostle adds, of his substance, because according to Augustine a son is called the image of the father, because he is of the same nature as he. He says, therefore, that he is the figure of his nature [substance]. Sed quare non dicit quod est figura naturae? Quia possibile est, quod natura speciei multiplicetur ad multitudinem individuorum in compositis ex materia et forma. Unde filius Socratis non habet eamdem naturam numero cum patre suo. Substantia vero numquam multiplicatur. Non enim alia est substantia patris, alia filii. Nec enim dividitur secundum diversa individua. Quia ergo una et eadem est numero natura in patre et filio Dei, ideo non dicit naturae, quae dividitur, sed substantiae indivisibilis. Io. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Et c. XIV, 10: ego in patre, et pater in me est. 29. – But why does he not say that He is the figure of His nature? Because it is possible for the nature of a species to be multiplied according to the multitude of individuals composed of matter and form. Hence, the son of Socrates does not have the same numerical nature has his father. But the substance is never multiplied; for the substance of the father is not distinct from the substance of the son: for substance is not divided according to diverse individuals. Therefore, because there is one and the same numerical nature in the Father and in the Son of God, he does not say ‘the figure of His nature’, but of his substance, which is indivisible: ‘I and the Father are one’ (Jn. 10:30); ‘I in the Father and the Father in me’ (Jn. 14:10). Tertium quod facit hominem idoneum, est virtus et potestas. Unde Eccli. VII, v. 6: noli quaerere esse iudex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates. Et ideo ostendit virtutem, cum dicit portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae. Proprium autem principum et potentum est portare. Iob IX, 13: sub quo curvantur, qui portant orbem. Ipse ergo portat. 30. – The third factor which makes a man worthy is strength; hence, it is stated in Sir. (7:6): ‘Seek not to be made a judge, unless you have strength enough to extirpate iniquities.’ Therefore, he shows this strength when he says, upholding all things by his word of power. For it is proper to princes and potentates to uphold: ‘Under whom they stoop that bear up the world’ (Jb. 9:13). Therefore, he upholds. Sed videndum est quid portat, et quo, vel per quid. Quantum ad primum sciendum est, quod id, quod de se nec stare nec ambulare potest, indiget portari. Omnis autem creatura de se nec subsistere, nec operari potest. Primum patet, quia remota causa, removetur effectus, Deus autem est causa omnis substantiae, quia non minus est causa substantiae rei quantum ad fieri, quam domificator est causa fieri domus, inde, sicut ad absentiam domificatoris cessat fieri domus et ad absentiam solis cessat fieri et esse luminis in aere: ita ad subtractionem virtutis divinae cessat et esse, et fieri, et subsistere omnis creaturae. Portat ergo omnia quantum ad suum esse. Portat etiam omnia quantum ad operari, quia subtracta influentia eius, cessat omnis motio causarum secundarum, cum ipse sit causa prima, et causa prima plus influit, quam secunda. Iob XXXVIII, 6: super quo bases illius solidatae sunt. Sic ergo patet, quod omnia portat. 31. – But what does He uphold, and by what agency? In regard to the first it should be noted that anything which cannot stand by itself or walk needs to be upheld. But no creature of itself can subsist or act. The first statement is clear, because once the cause is removed, the effect is removed. But God is the cause of all subsistence, because He is no less the cause of a things’ continuance in existence and of its coming into existence than a builder is the cause of a house’s coming into existence. Hence, just as the house ceases coming into existence when the builder ceases to act, and just as the air ceases to be illuminated when the sun no longer shines; so, when the divine power is removed, the being, the coming-to-be and the substance of every creature is removed. Therefore, He upholds all things in their existence and in their activity: because when the divine influence is removed, all the activities of secondary causes are removed, because He is the first cause; and the first cause does more than the second: ‘Upon what are its bases grounded?’ (Jb. 38:6) Sed per quid portat? Verbo virtutis suae. Quia enim apostolus loquens de creatione rerum dixit, quod Deus omnia fecit per filium, quia scilicet dixerat, per quem fecit et saecula. Ille autem per quem aliquis operatur, non videtur virtute sua operari, sed virtute eius, qui per eum operatur; sicut balivus, per quem rex operatur, non operatur virtute propria. Ergo per hoc videtur, quod filius non operetur virtute propria. Ideo dicit apostolus quod portat verbo virtutis suae, quia, cum idem sit causa essendi et conservandi, cum dicit quod filius virtute sua est causa conservationis, ostendit quod etiam est causa essendi. 32. – But through what agency does he support them? By his word of power. For since the Apostle, when speaking of the creation of things, said that God made all things through the Son: By whom also He made the world, and since that through which a thing acts does not seem to act by its own power but by the power of the one through whom it acts, as the bailiff through whom the king acts by His own power. Hence, the Apostle says, he upholds all things by his word of power. For since the cause of existence and of conservation are the same, when he says that the Son is the cause of conservation, he is showing that He is also the cause of existence Sed numquid non virtute patris? Utique, et eius virtute, quia eadem est virtus utriusque. Operatur ergo et virtute propria, et virtute patris, quia virtutem suam habet a patre. Nec tamen dicit apostolus virtute sua, sed verbo virtutis suae, ad ostendendum quod sicut pater omnia per verbum produxit Ps. XXXII, 9: ipse dixit et facta sunt, etc., in quo ostenditur maxima virtus patris ita filius eodem verbo, quod est ipse, omnia fecit. Et in hoc ostendit apostolus potentiam virtutis suae, quia eamdem habet cum patre, quia eadem operatur et per idem, quo ille. 33. – But is it not also by the Father’s power? It is also by His power, because the power of both is identical. He works, therefore, both by His own power and by the Father’s power, because His power comes from the Father. Yet the Apostle does not say, ‘by His power’, but by his word of power, in order to show that just as the Father produced all things by the Word: ‘He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created’ (Ps. 32:8), so the Son by the same Word that He is, made all things. By these words, therefore, the Apostle shows the strength of His power, because He has the same power as the Father: for the power by which the Father acts is the same as the power by which the Son acts. Sed tunc est dubium: quia pater, cum dicit, producit verbum. Ergo filius cum dicit, produceret verbum, et sic verbum patris esset verbum filii. Et ad hoc dicunt Graeci, quod sicut filius est imago patris, ita spiritus sanctus est imago filii. Et sic exponit Basilius portans verbo virtutis suae, id est, spiritu sancto. Nam sicut filius est verbum patris, ita ut dicunt spiritus sanctus est verbum filii. Et ideo per ipsum facit filius, sicut per filium pater. Verumtamen proprie loquendo, verbum non dicitur nisi quod procedit ut conceptus ab intellectu, ad quod sequitur procedere in similitudinem speciei. Spiritus autem sanctus, et si sit similis, non tamen habet hoc ex modo suae processionis, quia non procedit ut conceptus ab intellectu, sed ut amor a voluntate. Aliter autem exponit Glossa verbo virtutis suae, id est, imperio suo. 34. – But a question arises here, because the Father, when He speaks, produces a Word; when the Word speaks, He should produce a word; and so the Word of the Father should be the word of the Son. The Greeks answer this by saying that just as the Son is the image of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. This is the way Basil explains the phrase, supporting all things by his word of power, i.e., by the Holy Spirit. For just as the Son is the Word of the Father; so the Holy Spirit, they say, is the Word of the Son; consequently, the Son acts through Him just as the Father acts through the Son. Yet, properly speaking, an utterance is not called a word, unless it proceeds as something conceived by the intellect in such a way that, as consequence, it proceeds in a likeness of species. But the Holy Spirit, even though He is like, is not like by reason of the way He proceeds, because He does not proceed as a concept issuing from an intellect, but as Love issuing from the will. Sed hic adhuc est dubium de isto verbo quid sit, quia imperium hominis vel est exterius per vocem prolatum: et hoc non potest dici in divinis, quia nihil est extrinsecum a natura divina, procedens a filio, per quod omnia portentur; vel illud imperium est interius in corde conceptum: sed nec etiam hoc potest stare, quia nihil in mente Dei concipitur, nisi verbum aeternum. Ergo istud imperium, sic conceptum in mente filii, esset verbum aeternum, et sic essent duo verba aeterna, quod nefas est dicere. Ideo ad argumentum est dicendum, sicut exponit Augustinus illud Io. XII, 48: sermo quem locutus sum, ille iudicabit eum, id est, ipse ego, qui sum verbum patris, iudicabo eum. Et similiter, in proposito, verbum virtutis suae, id est, seipso, qui est verbum virtuosum. 35. – But a question still remains about that Word. What is it? For a human command is either externally expressed by a sound, and this has no place in the godhead, because nothing is external to the divine nature, so as to proceed from the Son by Whom all things are upheld; or that command is inwardly conceived in the heart. But even that cannot stand, because nothing is conceived in God’s mind but the eternal Word. Consequently, there would be two eternal Words, which it is blasphemous to say. Therefore, the answer to this argument as Augustine says in explaining Jn. (12:48): ‘The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day’, is that I myself, Who am the Word of the Father, shall judge him. Similarly, in the phrase, by the word of his power, i.e., by himself Who is the powerful Word. Per ista ergo tria, ostendit tria de Christo. Per hoc enim quod est splendor, ostendit eius coaeternitatem cum patre. In creaturis enim splendor est coaevus, sed ille est coaeternus. Et hoc est contra Arrium. Sed cum dicit imago substantiae, ostendit eius consubstantialitatem. Quia enim splendor non est eiusdem naturae cum resplendente, ne forte aliquis credat, quod non sit similis in natura, dicit quod est imago, vel figura substantiae. Sed quia filius, et si sit eiusdem naturae cum patre, si tamen sit infirmus, deficit a virtute patris; ideo subdit portans omnia verbo virtutis suae. Apostolus ergo in his tribus commendat Christum a tribus, scilicet a coaeternitate, a consubstantialitate, et ab aequalitate potestatis. 36. – Consequently, by those three characteristics he shows three things of Christ: for by the fact that he is the brightness, he shows his co-eternity with the Father; for in creatures splendor is coeval, and the Word is co-eternal. This is against Arius. But when he says, the image of his substance, he shows the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. For since splendor is not of the same nature as the resplendent thing, then lest anyone suppose that it is not similar in nature, he says that it is the image or figure of His substance. But because the Son, even though He is of the same nature with the Father, would be lacking power, if He were weak, he adds, supporting all things by the word of his power. Therefore, the Apostle commends Christ on three points, namely, co-eternity, consubstantiality and equality of power. Deinde cum dicit purgationem peccatorum faciens ostendit, secundum, quod facit ad idoneitatem dignitatis eius, scilicet strenuitas, et industria, quam habuit in operando. Fuit enim hoc magnae industriae, ut quod ei competebat ex natura, qua Deus est, ipse meruerit per passionem in natura assumpta. Unde Phil. II, 8 s.: factus est obediens usque ad mortem, propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum. Purgare ergo peccata, etsi conveniat ei ex natura divina, tamen convenit ei etiam ex merito passionis. Unde Eccli. XLVII, v. 13: Christus purgavit peccata eius, et exaltavit in aeternum cornu eius, et cetera. Matth. I, v. 21: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. 37. – Then (v. 3b) he shows the second trait, which makes one worthy of great dignity, namely, strenuousness and industry in acting. For it was a display of great industry to merit by His suffering sin the assumed nature that which he already possessed by His own divine nature. Hence it is stated in Phil (2:8): ‘he became obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross: for which cause God also exalted him.’ Therefore, to purify from sin, even tough it belongs to Him in virtue of His divine nature, belongs to Him also by the merit of His Passion; hence Sir. (47:13) says: ‘The Lord took away his sins and exalted his horn forever’; ‘he will save his people from their sins’ (Mt. 1:21). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Convenit etiam Christo purgare, ratione divinae naturae, et ratione proprietatis filii. Ratione divinae naturae, quia culpa seu peccatum proprie est malum rationalis creaturae. Hoc autem malum, sive peccatum non potest reparari nisi per Deum. Nam peccatum in voluntate consistit, voluntatem autem solus Deus potest movere. Ier. XVII, 9 s.: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus, et cetera. Et huiusmodi ratio est, quia quod est immediatius fini, non reducitur ad ipsum finem, nisi a prima causa agente. Voluntas autem est ultimi finis, quia scilicet ad fruendum Deo: et ideo a Deo tantum movetur et reducitur. Cum ergo Christus sit verus Deus, manifestum est, quod purgationem peccatorum facere potest. Is. XLIII, 25: ego sum qui deleo iniquitates vestras propter me, et cetera. Lc. c. II, 7: quis potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? 38. – It belongs to Christ to cleanse by reason of His divine nature and by reason of His special sonship. By reason of His divine nature, because guilt or sin is uniquely an evil of the rational creature, and God alone can repair such an evil. For sin lies in the will, which God alone can move: ‘The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable; who can know it? I am the Lord who searches the heart and proves the reins’ (Jer. 17:9). The reason for this is that something close to the end is brought to its end only by the first cause. But the will is concerned with the ultimate end, because it is made for enjoying God; therefore, it is moved by God alone. Therefore, since Christ is true God, it is obvious that He can cause purification from sins: ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ (Lk. 5:21) Ratione vero proprietatis competit etiam Christo. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod in peccato, primo quidem est transgressio legis aeternae et iuris divini, cum omne peccatum sit iniquitas, quae est transgressio legis. Is. c. XXIV, 5: mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum. Cum ergo lex aeterna et ius divinum sit a verbo aeterno, manifestum est quod ad Christum competit purgatio peccatorum, inquantum est verbum. Ps. CVI, 20: misit verbum suum, et sanavit eos. Secundo est in peccato amissio luminis rationis, et per consequens sapientiae Dei in homine, cum huiusmodi lumen sit participatio quaedam divinae sapientiae. Bar. III, 28: et quia non habuerunt sapientiam, ideo perierunt. Prov. XIV, 22: errant omnes qui operantur malum. Et secundum philosophum, omnis malus est ignorans. Rectificatio autem ad divinam sapientiam, competit ei qui est divina sapientia. Hic autem est Christus. I Cor. I, 23 s.: praedicamus Christum, Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam. Sap. IX, 19: nam per sapientiam sanati sunt, quicumque placuerunt tibi, domine, a principio. Tertio in peccato est deformatio similitudinis Dei in homine. Prov. XV, 7: cor stultorum dissimile erit. Unde dicitur Lc. XV, 13 de filio prodigo, quod abiit in regionem longinquam. De filio prodigo, quod abiit in regionem longinquam. Et ideo competit huiusmodi deformationi rectificari per filium, qui est imago patris. I Cor. XV, 49: sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus imaginem caelestis. Quarto amissio aeternae haereditatis, in cuius signum homo post peccatum exclusus est a Paradiso, Gen. III, 23. Reparatio autem ad hoc proprie convenit filio, qui est haeres. Rom. VIII, 17: si filii, et haeredes. Gal. c. IV, 4 s.: misit Deus filium suum, natum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, redimeret, et adoptionem filiorum Dei reciperemus. Sic ergo patet, quod Christo competit purgare peccata, et ratione humanae naturae, et ratione divinae. 39. – But by appropriation it belongs also to Christ. To understand this it should be noted that in sin is involved, first of all, a transgression of the eternal law and of God’s rights, since all sin is an iniquity which transgresses the law: ‘They have transgressed the law, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant’ (Is. 24:5). Therefore, since the eternal law and divine right stem from the eternal Word, it is clear that cleansing from sins is Christ’s prerogative, inasmuch as He is the Word: ‘he sent his Word and healed them’ (Ps. 106:20). Secondly, sin involves a loss of the light of reason and, consequently, of God’s wisdom in man, since such a light is a participation of divine wisdom: ‘And because they had not wisdom, they perished in their folly’ (Bar. 3:28); ‘They err that work evil’ (Pr. 14:22). Furthermore, according to the Philosopher, all evil is ignorance. Therefore, to set aright according to divine wisdom belongs to the One who is divine wisdom. But this is Christ: ‘We preach Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. 1:24); ‘For by wisdom they were healed’ (Wis. 9:19). Thirdly, in sin is a deformity of the likeness of God in man: ‘The heart of fools shall be unlike’ (Pr. 15:13). Therefore, it belongs to the Son to correct this deformity, because He is the image of he Father: ‘Therefore, as we have born the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly’ (1 Cor. 15:49). Fourthly, there is a loss of the eternal inheritance, the sign of which was man’s expulsion from Paradise: ‘God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons’ (Gal. 4:4). Therefore, it is obvious that it belongs to Christ to purge sins both by reason of His human nature and by reason of the divine. Sed quomodo fecit purgationem peccatorum? Ex hoc patet. In peccato enim primo est perversitas voluntatis, qua homo recedit a bono incommutabili, et ad hanc rectificandam, exhibuit Christus gratiam iustificantem. Rom. III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Secundo est macula relicta in anima ex perversitate voluntatis, et ad hanc lavandam praebuit sanguinem suum. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis, et cetera. Tertio est reatus poenae cui homo addicitur ex culpa, et ad satisfaciendum per hanc obtulit semetipsum Dei hostiam in ara crucis. Eph. V, 2: Christus dilexit Ecclesiam, et tradidit semetipsum pro ea, ut illam sanctificaret. Quarto servitus Diaboli, cui homo efficitur obnoxius peccando, quia qui facit peccatum servus est peccati, et ad eripiendum nos ab hac, redemit nos. Ps. XXX, 6: redemisti me, domine Deus veritatis.] 40. – But how did He effect this purgation? It is clear from this. For in sin is a perversity of will by which man withdraws from the unchangeable good. To correct this, Christ bestowed sanctifying grace: ‘Justified freely by his grace’ (Rom. 3:24). Secondly, there is in the soul a stain left by the perversity of the will. To remove this stain He gave His blood: ‘He loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood’ (Rev. 1:5). Thirdly, there is a debt of punishment, which a man must pay. To satisfy this debt He offered Himself as a victim on the altar of the cross: ‘Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it in order to sanctify it’ (Eph. 5:25). Fourthly, there is slavery under the devil, to whom man subjected himself by sin, because ‘whoever commits sin is the servant of sin’ (Jn. 8:34). To save us from this slavery He redeemed us: ‘You have redeemed me, O Lord, the God of truth’ (Ps. 30:6). Consequenter cum dicit sedet ad dexteram, subiungit ipsam dignitatem, quasi dicat: non videtur indecens si sedet, et cetera. Quia ipse est splendor et figura, et portat omnia, et cetera. In verbo autem sessionis tria solent importari. Unum est sedentis auctoritas. Iob c. XXIX, 25: cumque sederem quasi rex circumstante exercitu, et cetera. In divina autem curia multi assistunt, quia Dan. VII, 10: millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies centena millia assistebant ei. Sed nullus legitur ibi sedere; quia omnes sunt ibi servi et ministri. Infra eodem: omnes sunt administratorii spiritus in ministerium missi. Sed solus iste habet regiam dignitatem. Dan. VII, v. 22: et usque ad antiquum dierum venit, et postea sequitur: et dedit ei potestatem, et honorem, et regnum, et cetera. Matth. XXV, 31: cum venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua, et omnes Angeli eius cum eo, tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae, et post sequitur: tunc dicet rex his, et cetera. Secundum est sedentis stabilitas. Lc. ult.: sedete in civitate, et cetera. Dan. VII, v. 14: potestas eius potestas aeterna, etc. et infra XIII, 8: Christus Iesus heri et hodie, ipse in saecula. Item aliquando sedere importat humilitatem, quia sedens inferior est stantibus. Ps. CXXXVIII, 2: tu cognovisti sessionem meam. Et sic non accipitur hic, sed primis duobus modis. 41. – Then (v. 3c) he describes His dignity. As if to say: It does not seem improper for Him to sit on the right hand of majesty, because He is the splendor and the figure and the upholder of all things. But in the word sit three things are usually implied: One is the authority of the one seated: ‘When I sat as a king with the army standing about him’ (Jb. 29:25). In the divine court there are many who serve, because Dan. (7:10) says: ‘Thousands of thousands ministered to him and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him.’ But no one is described as sitting there, because all present are servants and ministers: ‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them’ (Heb. 1:14); but He alone has royal dignity: ‘And he came even to the ancient of days: and he gave him power and glory and a kingdom’ (Dan. 7:13); ‘When the Son of man shall come in his majesty and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty’ (Mt. 25:3). Then he continues: ‘Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: ‘Come, you blessed of my father’ (Mt. 25:34). The second implication is the stability of the one sitting: ‘Stay you in he city till you be endued with power from oh high’ (Lk. 24:49; ‘His power is an everlasting power’ (Dan. 7:14); ‘Jesus Christ, yesterday and today and the same for ever’ (Heb. 13:8). Furthermore, sitting sometimes implies humility, because the person seated is below those who stand: ‘Thou hast known my sitting down’ (Ps. 138:2). But that is not the sense in which it is taken here, but in the first two. Sed contra, Act. VII, 56: ecce video caelos apertos, et Iesum stantem, et cetera. Et dicendum est, quod sedere, et stare, et huiusmodi dispositiones de Deo dicuntur, secundum similitudinem. Et ideo secundum diversa, dicitur et sedens, et stans. Sedens quidem propter immobilitatem; sed stans propter utilitatem ad fortiter resistendum. Unde stabat quasi paratus iuvare Stephanum, in agone constitutum. 42. – But on the other hand, it says in Ac. (7:55): ‘I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.’ The answer is that sitting and standing and all such postures are said of God metaphorically. Consequently, there are various reasons why He is said to be standing and sitting. He is seated because of His immortality, but standing because that posture is best for resisting firmly. Hence, He stood as though prepared to help Stephen in his agony. Sed addit apostolus, quod sedet ad dexteram. Quod, si referatur ad divinam naturam, est sensus: ad dexteram, id est ad aequalitatem patris. Si vero ad humanam, est sensus: ad dexteram, id est in potioribus bonis patris. Mc. ult.: sedet a dextris Dei. Ps. CIX, 1 et Matth. XXII, 44: dixit dominus domino meo: sede a dextris meis. Sed inter eos qui habent assessores, quidam sunt simpliciter maiores, ut rex vel imperator; quidam vero non simpliciter maiores, sed secundum quid, ut praepositi, vel balivi. Sed Christus non sedet ad dexteram alicuius inferiorum iudicum, sicut alicuius praepositi, ut balivi, sed simpliciter maioris, quia ad dexteram maiestatis. Maiestas proprie est summa potestas. Is. VI, 3: plena erat omnis terra maiestate eius. Prov. XXV, 27: qui scrutator est maiestatis, opprimetur a gloria. Christus autem etsi sic sedeat ad dexteram maiestatis, habet tamen et ipse maiestatem, quia habet eamdem cum patre. Matth. XXV, v. 31: cum venerit filius hominis in maiestate sua. Lc. IX, 26: hunc filius hominis erubescet cum venerit in maiestate sua et patris. 43. – But the Apostle continues, that he sits at the right hand. If this is referred to the divine nature, the sense is this: at the right hand, i.e., on a par with the Father; but if it is referred to the human nature, the sense is at the right hand, i.e., in the more excellent goods of the Father: ‘He sits on the right hand of God’ (Mk 16:19); ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand’ (Ps. 109:1). But among those who have assistants some are simply greater, as the king and emperor; others are not absolutely greater, but only in some sense, as overseers and bailiffs. But Christ is not seated on the right of any of His inferior judges, as though He were a bailiff, but on the right of one absolutely great, because He sits on the right hand majesty’ (Pr. 25:27). But Christ, even though He is seated on the right hand of majesty, has a majesty of His own, because He has the same majesty as the Father: ‘When the Son of man comes in his majesty’ (Mt. 25:31): ‘Of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he comes in his majesty and that of the Father’ (Lk. 9:26). Dicit etiam non solum maiestatis, sed etiam in excelsis, id est, super omnem creaturam. Eccli. XXIV, 7: ego in altissimis habito. Sic ergo sedet in excelsis, quia elevatus est super omnem creaturam. Ps. VIII, v. 2: quoniam elevata est magnificentia tua super caelos. Et secundum quod dicit Chrysostomus, apostolus in loco isto tenet modum volentis instruere parvulum, qui non statim proponit ei summa, sed paulatim perducit eum, modo loquendo ardua, modo proponendo infima; ita etiam modo proponit divina, cum dicit in filio, modo humana, cum dicit quem constituit haeredem, et cetera. Et sic de aliis, ut patet in Glossa. 44. – But he does not say of his majesty alone, but on high, i.e., above every creature: ‘I dwell in the highest places’ (Sir. 24:7); therefore, He sits on high, because He is raised above all creatures: ‘For your magnificence is elevated above the heavens’ (Ps. 8:2). According to Chrysostom, the Apostle is speaking here after the manner of one who is teaching a child, who cannot bear to have everything proposed to him, but must be led gradually, now saying difficult things, now proposing easy things. So here, he says divine things, when he says, by a Son, and human things when he says, whom he has appointed heir of all things (v.2).
1-3
Heb 1:4-7Sicut supra dictum est, apostolus in toto capitulo intendit praeferre Christum Angelis quantum ad excellentiam, unde posuit quatuor pertinentia ad excellentiam Christi, scilicet quantum ad originem quia filius, quantum ad dominationem quia haeres, quantum ad operationem quia ipse fecit saecula, quantum ad honorem quia sedet ad dexteram maiestatis. Modo apostolus in parte ista ostendit, quod Christus quantum ad ista quatuor excedit Angelos; et primo quantum ad filiationem; secundo quantum ad dominationem, ibi et cum iterum introducit; tertio quantum ad operationem creationis, ibi et tu in principio, domine, terram fundasti; quarto quantum ad patris confessionem, ibi ad quem autem Angelorum. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo praemittit intentum; secundo propositum probat, ibi cui enim dixit. 45. – As mentioned above, the Apostle devotes this entire first chapter to extolling Christ over the angels by reason of His excellence; hence he lists four things pertaining to Christ’s excellence: first, His origin, because He is the Son; secondly, His dominion, because He is the heir; thirdly, His power, because He made the world; fourthly, His honor, because He sits on the right hand of majesty. But now the Apostle shows that Christ exceeds the angels in these four points: first, in His sonship; secondly, in His dominion (v.6); thirdly, in the work of creation (v.10); fourthly, in regard to the Father’s confession (v.13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v.5). Dicit ergo tanto melior Angelis, id est sanctior, et ideo propinquior, in quo proponit excellentiam Christi ad Angelos. Eph. c. I, 20: constituens eum ad dexteram suam in caelestibus super omnem principatum et potestatem. Sed tunc oritur quaestio quomodo apostolus hoc intelligit, utrum secundum divinam naturam, vel humanam, quia secundum divinam non videtur verum, quia secundum illam genitus est, non factus; secundum vero humanam non est melior Angelis, ut infra, II cap.: eum autem, qui modico quam Angeli, et cetera. Sed dicendum est, quod Christus secundum humanam naturam duo habuit in vita ista, scilicet infirmitatem carnis, et sic fuit minoratus ab Angelis. Infra II cap.: eum qui modico, et cetera. Item, habuit gratiae plenitudinem, et sic etiam in humanitate maior fuit Angelis in gratia et gloria. Io. I, 14: vidimus eum quasi unigenitum a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Sed hic non est intellectus. Apostolus enim non intelligit, quod melior fuerit quantum ad gratiam, sed propter unionem humanae naturae ad divinam: et sic dicitur factus, inquantum per illius unionis factionem pervenit ad hoc quod esset melior Angelis, et diceretur et esset filius Dei. 46. – He says, therefore: [Being made] having become as much superior to the angels, i.e., holier and nearer to God. In these words he suggests Christ’s excellence as compared with the angels: ‘Setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places above all principality and power’ (Eph. 1:20). But here a question arises. How does the Apostle mean this? Is it according to the divine nature or the human: because according to the divine it does not seem to be true, for according to that nature he was begotten, not made; whereas according to the human nature He is not better than the angels: ‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels’ (Heb. 2:9). The answer is that Christ had two things according to the human nature in this life, namely, the infirmity of the flesh; and in this way He was lower than the angels: but He also had fullness of grace, so that even in His human nature he was greater than the angels in grace and glory: ‘We have seen him as it were the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14). But this is not how the Apostle understood it, for he does not mean that He was made better in regard to grace, but by reason of the union of human nature with the divine; so He is said to be made, inasmuch as by effecting that union He became better than the angels, and should be called and really be the son of God. Et ideo subdit quanto differentius prae illis nomen haereditavit. Et quantum ad hoc nomen, ostendit differentiam quantum ad tria, scilicet quantum ad nominis significationem, quia proprium nomen Angelorum est quod dicuntur Angeli, quod est nomen ministri. Angelus enim idem est quod nuntius. Nomen autem proprium Christi est, quod dicitur filius Dei. Et hoc nomen est valde differentius ab illo, quia quantamcumque differentiam ponis, adhuc est maiorem dare, cum distent in infinitum. Prov. c. XXX, 4: quod nomen eius? Et quod nomen filii eius, si nosti? Est enim nomen filii eius sicut et patris incomprehensibile. Phil. II, 9: et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen. Sed forte dices, quod etiam Angeli dicuntur filii Dei. Iob I, 6 et II, 1: cum assisterent filii Dei coram domino, et cetera. Dicendum est, quod si dicuntur filii Dei, hoc non est essentialiter et per naturam, sed per quamdam participationem. Ipse autem est essentialiter filius Dei, et ideo habet nomen differentius prae illis: et hoc est secundum, quia differunt quantum ad modum. Ps. LXXXVIII, 7: quis est similis Deo in filiis Dei? Quasi dicat: nullus per naturam. Quantum ad tertium dicit, quod illud nomen haereditavit. Haereditas enim consequitur originem. Unde Christus, quod filius sit, habet ex origine, et per naturam; Angeli autem ex dono gratiae. Matth. XXI, 38: hic est haeres. Unde ipse nomen haereditavit, non autem Angeli, et haec est tertia differentia. 47. – Hence, he continues, as he has obtained a more excellent name than they. In regard to this name he discloses three differences: first, as to the signification of the name, because the proper name of angels is that they are called angels, which is the name of a messenger. For an angel is a messenger. But the proper name of Christ is that He is called the Son of God; and this name is vastly different from ‘angel’, because no matter how great a difference you might imagine, there would still remain a greater difference, because they are infinitely apart: ‘What is his name, and what is the name of his son, if thou knowest?’ (Pr. 30:4). For the name of the Son, as that of the Father, is incomprehensible: ‘He gave him a name which is above every name’ (Phil. 2:9). But one might say that even the angels are called sons of God: ‘On a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord’ (Jb. 1:6). I answer that if they are called sons of God, they are not so essentially and by nature, but by a certain participation. But He is essentially the Son of God and, therefore, has a name more excellent than the others. And this is the second difference, because they differ as to mode: ‘Who among the sons of God shall be like to God?’ (Ps. 88:7). As if to say: No one by nature. As to the third he says that He inherited that name; for inheritance follows upon origin. Hence, Christ is the Son by origin and by nature, but the angels by a gift of grace: ‘Here is the heir:’ (Mt. 21:38). Hence, He inherited that name, but not so the angels: and this is the third difference. Deinde cum dicit cui enim dixit aliquando Angelorum, probat quod dixit; et primo agit de nomine secundum quod convenit Christo secundum divinitatem; secundo secundum humanitatem, ibi et rursum, ego ero, et cetera. 48. – Then (v.5) he proves what he has said: first, he discusses the name inasmuch as it belongs to Christ according to His divinity; secondly, inasmuch as it belongs to Him according to His human nature (v. 5b). Quantum ad primum inducit auctoritatem Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me, et cetera. Et hoc est cui enim Angelorum, etc., quasi dicat: nulli Angelorum dicta sunt haec verba, sed tantum Christo. Ubi tria possunt notari. Primo modus originis in verbo dixit; secundo singularitas filiationis, ibi filius meus es tu; tertio eius auctoritas, ibi ego hodie. Modus iste non est carnalis, sed spiritualis et intellectualis. Deus enim spiritus est, Io. c. IV, 24, et ideo non generat carnaliter, sed spiritualiter et intellectualiter. Intellectus autem dicendo, generat verbum, quod est conceptus eius, et ideo signanter dixit, quod dominus dixit ad me, id est, pater dixit filio. Dicere ergo intellectus patris, nihil aliud est, quam in corde verbum concipere. Ps. XLIV, v. 2: eructavit cor meum verbum bonum. Iob XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur, et secundo idipsum non repetit. Eccli. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore altissimi prodii. Sed quantum ad secundum, generatio ista est singularis, quia dicit filius meus es tu, quasi dicat: etsi multi alii filii dicuntur, tamen esse filium naturalem est sibi proprium; alii autem dicuntur filii Dei, quia sunt participes verbi Dei. Io. X, 35 illos dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est; sed Christus est ipsum verbum. Matth. XVII, 5: hic est filius meus dilectus. Sed quantum ad tertium, ista generatio non est temporalis, sed aeterna, quia hodie genui te. Differt autem tempus ab aeternitate, quia tempus variatur sicut motus, cuius mensura est in variatione et successione. Et ideo nominatur per successionem praeteriti et futuri. Aeternitas autem est mensura rei immobilis, et ideo non est ibi variatio per successionem, sed semper est praesens; et ideo notatur per adverbium praesentis temporis, scilicet hodie, id est, in aeternitate. Verum quia illud quod fit, quia nondum est, incompletum per consequens est; quod autem factum est, completum est, et ita perfectum; ideo non dicit genero te sed genui, quia perfectus est. Sed tamen ne putetur esse generatio eius tota in praeteritione, et per consequens in defectione, addit, hodie. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Et coniungit praesenti praeteritum, scilicet hodie et genui, ut scias ipsam generationem semper esse, et perfectam esse, et sic in hodie permanentia, in genui vero perfectio designatur.] Ut sit sensus: perfectus es, fili, et tamen generatio tua aeterna est, et semper a me generaris: sicut lumen in aere perfectum est, et tamen semper procedit a sole. Mich. V, 2: egressus eius a principio a diebus aeternitatis. Ps. CIX, 3: ex utero ante Luciferum genui te. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Posset etiam hoc exponi de generatione temporali, ut dicat hodie, id est in tempore, genui te.] 49. – In regard to the first he adduces the authority of Ps. 2 (v.7): ‘The Lord said to me: You are my son; this day have I begotten you.’ And this in answer to the question: To what angel has God ever said, You are my son? As if to say: He never said these words to any of the angels, but to Christ alone. Here three thing are to be noted: first, the manner of His origin, in the word, said; secondly, the uniqueness of His sonship, in the words, You are my son; thirdly, its eternity when he says, This day have I begotten you. But the manner of His origin is not carnal, but spiritual and intellectual: ‘For God is spirit’ (Jn. 4:29); consequently, He does not engender in a carnal way, but in a spiritual and intellectual way. But the intellect, when it speaks, engenders a word, which is its concept; therefore, it is significant that he says that the Lord said to me, i.e., that the Father said to the Son. Consequently, for the Father’s intellect to speak is to conceive the Word in His heart: ‘My heart has uttered a good word’ (Ps. 44:1); ‘God speaks once, and repeats not the selfsame thing the second time’ (Jb. 33:14); ‘I came out of the mouth of the Most High’ (Sir. 24:5). But if many others are called sons, nevertheless, it is His unique property to be the natural Son of God; but others are called sons of God, because they partake of the word of God: ‘He called gods those who heard the word of God’ (Jn. 10:35). But in regard to the third, that generation is not temporal, but eternal, because this day I have begotten you. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as the motions whose measure it is; therefore, it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of an unchangeable thing; consequently, in eternity there is not variation due to succession of past and future, but there is only the present. Therefore, it is signified by an adverb of the present tense: this day, i.e., in eternity. But that which is coming to be, because it does not yet exist, is incomplete; and that which has come to be is complete and, therefore, perfect. Consequently, He does not say, ‘I begot you’, but I have begotten, because He is perfect. Yet, lest it be supposed that His entire engendering took place in the past, he adds, today, and joins the past to the present, saying, I have begotten you today. This teaches us that this engendering is always going on and is always complete. Consequently, in the word, today, permanence is designated; but in I have begotten, perfection. As if to say: You are perfect, Son; and yet your generation is eternal and you are always being engendered by me, as light is perfect in the air and yet is always proceeding from the sun: ‘His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity’ (Mic. 5:2): ‘From the womb before the day star I have begotten you’ (Ps. 109:3). But this could be explained also of temporal generation. As if to say: today, i.e., in time I have begotten you. Consequenter cum dicit et rursum: ego ero illi in patrem, etc., propositum ostendit, secundum quod convenit Christo secundum humanitatem, et hoc per aliam auctoritatem. Secundum Glossam istud dicitur in Isaia ego ero illi in patrem, sed tamen non invenitur aliquid huic simile in Isaia nisi illud: et filius datus est nobis. Sed II Reg. c. VII, 14 et I Par. XXII, 10 habentur ista eadem verba domini dicentis ad David de Salomone, per quem figurabatur Christus. 50. – Then (v. 5b) he clarifies his conclusion that this belongs to Christ according to His human nature. And he does this by another authority. According to a Gloss, Isaiah says: ‘I will be to him a Father’, yet nothing like this is to be found in Isaiah, except the statement: ‘A son has been given to us’ (Is. 9:6). But in 2 Sam. (7:14) and (1 Chr. 28) we find these very works spoken by the Lord to David in regard to Solomon, through whom Christ was prefigured. Sciendum est autem, quod in veteri testamento quaedam dicuntur de eo quod est figura, non inquantum quaedam res, sed inquantum est figura, et tunc non exponitur de illo, nisi inquantum refertur ad figuratum. Verbi gratia in Ps. LXXI quaedam dicuntur de David, vel de Salomone, inquantum figurabant Christum tantum. Quaedam vero etiam secundum quod sunt homines quidam, et istorum dicta de ipsis possunt exponi et de Christo; sicut illud: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da: quia illud potest convenire Salomoni. Illa vero quae dicuntur de ipsis inquantum sunt figura, numquam de ipsis possunt exponi, sicut illud: et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare, etc.; quia nullo modo verificari potest de Salomone. Sic et in proposito, licet ista dicta sint de Salomone, tamen possunt exponi de Christo, qui praefigurabatur per illum. 51. – Yet it should be noted that in the Old Testament some things are said of figures not insofar as they are things, but insofar as they are figures; and then they do not apply to Christ, except insofar as He is prefigured. For example in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David or of Solomon, only inasmuch as they prefigured; but other things are said of them, inasmuch as they are men. Such things can then be considered as applying to them as well as to Christ. Thus, ‘and he will rule from sea to sea’ can never be verified of Solomon. So, in the present instance, although certain things are said of Solomon, they can also be said of Christ, Who was prefigured by him. Dicit ergo ero quod est futuri temporis, ad denotandum quod incarnatio filii futura erat in tempore. Gal. IV, 4: at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, et cetera. Supra vero cum loquebatur de aeterna generatione, dixit es tu, quasi sine motu; hic autem cum loquitur de temporali, dicit in filium, quod denotat terminum alicuius motionis. Assumptio enim importat motum in filiationem. Et quia omnis motio fit per operationem alicuius terminatam ad aliquem effectum, ideo primo ponit operationem facientis, quia non virtute humanitatis facta est assumptio, sed divinitatis, cum dicit ego ero illi in patrem, id est, assumam eum ad unionem personae filii. Et subiungit effectum consecutum, quia scilicet est susceptus in unitatem personalem filii, erit mihi in filium. De primo dicitur Lc. I, 35: virtus altissimi, scilicet facientis assumptionem, obumbrabit tibi. De secundo Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. 52. – He says, therefore, I will be, which is in the future tense, to denote that the Incarnation of the Son was to occur at some future time: ‘But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a woman’ (Gal. 4:4). But above, when He spoke of the eternal generation, He said, You are, without implying any movement; but here, when He speaks of the temporal, He says, unto me a Son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies a movement toward sonship. And because every movement occurs through the action of something heading toward a definite effect, he first mentions the action of the maker, because the assumption was not made in virtue of the human but of the divine, when he says, I will be to you a Father, i.e., I will assume him into a union with the person of the Son. Then he mentions the effect which resulted, because he was assumed into a personal union with the Son: He shall be to me a Son. Luke says of he first: ‘The power of the Most High’, i.e., of the One making the assumption, ‘will over-shadow you’ (Lk. 1:35). Of the second it says in Rom. (1:3): ‘Who was made to him of the seed of David.’ [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Iterum ego ero illi, id est, ad honorem et utilitatem suam clarificabo ipsum. Io. XVII, 5: clarifica me, pater. Et ipse erit mihi, id est, ad honorem meum, manifestando nomen meum hominibus. Io. XVII, v. 6: manifestavi nomen tuum, et cetera.] 53. – Again, I will be to him, i.e., I will glorify him to his honor and profit: ‘Glorify me, Father’ (Jn. 17:5). And he will be to me, i.e., to my honor, by manifesting my name to men: ‘I have manifested your name to the men’ (Jn. 17:6). Deinde cum dicit et cum iterum, etc., agit de dominatione Christi, qua est haeres universorum. Ubi tria facit, quia primo ostendit dominium eius, et praecipue super Angelos; secundo ponit rationem dominii illius ex parte Angelorum, ibi et ad Angelos; tertio ex parte Christi, ibi ad filium autem. 54. – Then (v.6) he speaks of Christ’s dominion, whereby He is heir of all things. Here he does three things: first, he describes His dominion, particularly over the angels; secondly, the nature of that dominion on the part of the angels (v.7); thirdly, on the part of Christ (v.8). Quantum ad primum inducit auctoritatem Ps. XCVI, 7 cum dicit: adorate eum, omnes Angeli eius; hoc habetur in Ps. XCVI, v. 1: dominus regnavit, exultet, et cetera. Adoratio enim non fit nisi domino; ergo si Angeli eum adorant, dominus illorum est. Volens apostolus inducere hanc auctoritatem, primo tangit intentionem Psalmistae, cum dicit et cum iterum introducit, etc., ut Psalmista loquatur de adventu Christi in mundum. Et ideo dicit: et cum Scriptura introducit, id est introducendum, dicit primogenitum, etc.; quasi dicat: iam dictum est, quod Christus est filius prae Angelis; ergo est principaliter a patre genitus. Est ergo dicendus primogenitus. Rom. VIII, 29: ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Hic autem primogenitus debebat introduci in orbem, et cetera. Et vide quam ordinate loquatur apostolus. Primo enim dicit ipsum esse a patre, ibi ego ero illi in patrem; secundo assumptum in unitate personae, ibi et ipse erit mihi in filium; 55. – In regard to the first he adduces the authority of a psalm when he says, And let all God’s angels worship him. This is from Ps. 96: ‘The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice.’ For worship is paid only to the Lord; therefore, if the angels worship Him, He is their Lord. The Apostle, when he adduces this authority, first touches on the Psalmist’s intention when he says, and again, when he brings the first-born into the world. Thus the Psalmist is speaking of Christ’s coming into the world; consequently, he says, and when the Scripture brings in, i.e., was to bring in the first-born into the world. As if to say: ‘We have already said that Christ is a Son above the angels; therefore, He is principally begotten by the Father. Hence, He deserves to be called the first-born: ‘That he might be the first-born among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29). But this first-born would have to be introduced into the world. And note how precisely the Apostle speaks: for he first says that He is from the Father, I will be to him a Father; secondly, that He was assumed into a unity of person, and he will be to me a Son. sed modo proponit eum in notitiam hominum. Vocat autem incarnationem introductionem in mundum. Sed contra. Ipse Christus vocat eam exitum. Io. XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum. Et dicendum est, quod exitus est etiam introductio. Sicut si aliquis reconciliandus sit principi, primo exit ad eum mediator et post introducit eum. Simile habetur I Reg. XX, 5 ss. de David ad Ionatham. Sic Christus mediator Dei et hominum, primo exiit ad homines, et postea introduxit eos reconciliatos. Infra II, 10: qui multos filios adduxerat in gloriam, et cetera. Vel introducit, id est, inducit eum usque in corda hominum, quia Scriptura loquens de adventu Christi, dicit eum suscipiendum intra corda hominum. Ista autem receptio fit per fidem. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Ps. XCV, 3: annuntiate inter gentes gloriam eius. Quando enim Scriptura dicit, quod gentes debent credere, dicit quod Christus intraturus est in corde ipsorum. 56. – But now he brings Him to the notice of men, calling the Incarnation His introduction to the world. But on the other hand, Christ calls it a departure: ‘I have come out of the Father, and am come into the world’ (Jn. 16:28). The answer is that His going out is also an introduction, for if a person seeks to be reconciled to a prince, a mediator first goes out to him and later introduces him. A like situation is found in 1 Sam. (20:42) between David and Jonathan. Thus, Christ, the mediator of God and men, first went to the men and then brought them back reconciled: ‘For it became him who had brought many children into glory’ (inf. 2:10). Or He introduces Him to men’s hearts, because the Scripture, speaking of Christ’s coming, says that he must be acceptable to men’s hearts. But this acceptance takes place by faith: ‘That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts’ (Eph. 3:17): ‘Declare his glory among the Gentiles’ (Ps. 95:3). For when Scripture says that the Gentiles should believe, it says that Christ is about to enter their hearts. Hoc autem quod dicit iterum, multipliciter exponitur. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, quod de incarnatione verbi, quae dicitur introductio, non loquitur Scriptura semel, sed iterum atque iterum. Vel aliter, quia ipse primo erat in mundo per potentiam divinitatis invisibiliter, sed iterum introducit eum in mundum, secundum praesentiam humanitatis visibiliter. Vel aliter, quia supra dixerat ero illi in patrem, id est, assumam in unitatem personalem mei. Et cum iterum introducit, eum, scilicet istum primogenitum et assumptum ad unitatem personae: quia non sufficeret dicere, quod introducitur, nisi dicatur qualiter introducatur, quia non quasi unus de mundo, nec sicut Angeli, sed super omnes. Ideo dicit adorent eum omnes Angeli. Nehem. IX, 6: exercitus caeli te adorat. Apoc. VII, 11: omnes Angeli stabant in circuitu throni, et ceciderunt, et adoraverunt, et cetera. 57. – The use of the word, again, is explained in a number of ways. Chrysostom says that the Scripture speaks of the Incarnation of the Word, which is an introduction, not once but again and again. Or another way: He was first in the world invisibly by the power of His divinity, but He introduces Him into the world again according to a visible presence of His humanity. Or another way: because he had said above, to him a Father, i.e., I will assume Him to my personal unity; and when He introduced Him again, namely, the first-born, He is introduced to the unity of person, because it is not enough to say that He is introduced, unless mention is made how He is introduced, because He is not introduced as though belonging to the world or as the angels, but above all: ‘The host of heaven adored you’ (Neh 9:5); ‘All the angels stood round about the throne, and the ancients fell down before the throne and adored God’ (Rev. 7:11). Deinde cum dicit et ad Angelos, etc., ponitur ratio ex parte Angelorum, quare eum adorant, quasi dicat: iustum est quod adorent, quia sunt ministri. Unde dicit qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis. Deus enim aliquando operatur illuminando intellectum. Io. I, 9: illuminat omnem hominem, et cetera. Aliquando vero movet ad opus. Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis. Et primum facit Deus in nobis, mediantibus Angelis. Ps. LXXV, 5: illuminans tu mirabiliter a montibus aeternis. Secundum etiam facit in nobis ipsis mediantibus, sicut dicit Dionysius IV cap. caelestis hierarchiae. Inquantum ergo illuminat per ipsos, dicuntur nuntii. Nuntii enim est nuntiare ea quae sunt in corde domini sui. Inquantum vero sunt mediatores operum divinorum, dicuntur ministri. Ps. CII, 21: ministri eius, qui faciunt voluntatem eius. Sunt ergo et nuntii et ministri. Sed quales sint, describit eos per duas res corporales maxime ad hoc idoneas. Una est aer, cuius proprietas multum convenit nuntio, ministro autem proprietas ignis. Aer enim est receptibilis luminis et impressionis; item optime reddit recepta; item habet velocem motum. Haec autem debet habere bonus nuntius, ut scilicet bene recipiat dicta, bene referat recepta, et utrumque velociter faciat. Ista bene conveniunt Angelis. Optime enim recipiunt divinas illuminationes. Sunt enim Angeli specula munda, secundum Dionysium. Matth. XVIII, 10: et Angeli eorum in caelis, et cetera. Item optime reddunt, quod significatum est Apoc. I, 1: significavit Deus, quae oportet fieri cito; loquens per Angelum suum servo suo Ioanni, et cetera. Item sunt veloces. Is. XVIII, v. 2: ite, Angeli veloces, et cetera. Isti autem dicuntur spiritus, quia omnis substantia invisibilis dicitur spiritus. Unde et aer dicitur spiritus. Item sunt ignis, inquantum ministri. Ignis autem, inter omnia elementa, est maxime activus et efficax ad agendum. Unde in Ps. CIII, 4 de Angelis ubi dicuntur ministri eius, ibi additur et ministros tuos ignem urentem. Item ignis calorem causat, per quod designatur charitas. Cant. VIII, 6: lampades ignis atque flammarum. Unde describuntur in igne, et dicuntur Seraphim, Is. VI, 2. Item ignis semper movetur sursum; ita Angeli et boni ministri, omnia quae agunt, semper referunt in gloriam Dei, sicut patet de Angelo Tob. XII, 6: benedicite Deum caeli, et cetera. Non dicit: benedicite me, sed Deum caeli. Non sic de malo Angelo, qui dicit Matth. IV, 9: si cadens adoraveris me. Sed Angelus bonus tamquam bonus minister dicit Apoc. ult.: vide ne feceris, et sequitur: Deum adora. 58. – Then (v. 7) the reason is given on the part of the angels, why they adore Him. As if to say: It is just that they adore, because they are ministers; hence, he says, he makes his angels winds [spirits] and his servants flames of fire [ministers]. For God sometimes acts by enlightening the intellect: ‘He enlightens every man coming into the world’ (Jn. 1:9); but sometimes he moves a man to His work: ‘You have worked our works in us’ (Is. 26:9). God does the first of these by means of His angels: ‘You enlighten wonderfully from the everlasting hills’ (Ps. 75:5). He also does the second in us through His angels, as Dionysius said. Inasmuch as he enlightens through them, they are called messengers; for it is the office of a messenger to declare the things which are in his master’s heart. But inasmuch as they are mediators of divine works, they are both messengers and ministers. But what sort they are is described by bodily things best suited for this: one is air, whose properties are well, suited to a messenger, although the property of fire best suits a minister. For air is receptive of light and of impressions; it gives a true picture of what it receives, and it moves rapidly. These are the characteristics that a good messenger should have, namely, that he receive the news well, report it accurately and do so swiftly. And these characteristics are found in angels: for they receive divine illuminations well, since they are clean mirrors, according to Dionysius: ‘Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 18:10). Furthermore, they best transmit what they receive: ‘God signified the things which must shortly come to pass, sending by his angel to his servant, John’ (Rev. 1:1). And they are swift: ‘Go, you swift angels, to a nation rent and torn to pieces’ (Is. 18:2). But they are called spirits, because every invisible substance is called a spirit; hence, even the air is called a spirit. Furthermore, they are fire, inasmuch as they are ministers. But of all the elements fire is the most active and most efficacious for acting; hence in Ps. 103 (v. 5) is says of angels: ‘You make your ministers a burning fire. Fire also causes heat, by which charity is signified: ‘The lamps thereof are fire and flames’ (S of S 8:6). Again, fire always moves upward; so, too, the angels and good ministers always refer what they do to God’s glory, as is clear of Tobias’ angel: ‘Bless the God of heaven’ (Tob. 12:6). He does not say, ‘Bless me’, but ‘bless the God of heaven.’ Not so the evil angel who says: ‘All these will I give you, if falling down you will adore me’ (Mt. 4:9). But the good angel, as a good minister, says: ‘See you do it not’ (Rev. 22:9); and he continues: ‘Adore God’ (Rev. 22:9).
1-4
Heb 1:8-9Supra probavit apostolus per auctoritatem Angelos esse ministros, hic probat hoc per rationem sumptam ex parte ipsius Christi. Unde intendit hic probare regiam dignitatem Christi; ubi duo facit. Primo enim commendat regiam dignitatem ipsius Christi; secundo eius ad illam dignitatem ostendit idoneitatem, ibi propterea unxit te Deus. Circa primum tria facit; primo commendat Christi regiam auctoritatem; secundo eius regiminis aequitatem, ibi virga aequitatis; tertio regiminis bonitatem, ibi dilexisti iustitiam. 59. – Having proved by scriptural authority that the angels are spirits, the Apostle now proves this with a reason taken on the part of Christ. Hence, he intends here to prove Christ’s royal dignity. He does two things: first, he commends Christ’s royal dignity; secondly, he shows His fitness for it (v. 9b). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he commends Christ’s royal dignity; secondly, the equity of His rule (v. 8b); thirdly, the goodness of His rule (v. 9a). Dicit ergo: ad filium autem dicit thronus tuus, et cetera. Et sunt verba Dei patris loquentis per linguam prophetae, sicut per calamum Scribae. Dicit ergo: o Deus fili, thronus tuus, et cetera. In quo denotatur regia maiestas. Est enim thronus regis sedes, sed cathedra magistri, tribunal autem sedes iudicis. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Quae omnia conveniunt Christo, quia ipse est rex noster: Lc. I, 32: regnabit in domo Iacob et ideo convenit ei thronus. Ps. LXXXVIII, v. 30: thronus eius sicut sol. Ipse est magister, Io. III, 2: scimus, quia a Deo venisti magister, ideo competit ei cathedra. Ipse iudex noster, Is. XXXIII, 22: dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, et ideo congruit sibi tribunal. II Cor. V, 10: omnes nos oportet manifestari ante tribunal Christi et cetera.] Competit autem thronus Christo secundum naturam divinam, inquantum est Deus, Ps. XLVI, 8: rex omnis terrae Deus, sed secundum quod homo, convenit sibi ex merito passionis, victoriae, et resurrectionis. Apoc. c. III, 21: qui vicerit, dabo ei sedere mecum in throno meo, sicut ego vici et sedi in throno patris mei cum eo. Hic thronus est perpetuus. Lc. I, 33: et regni eius non erit finis. Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius potestas aeterna, quae non auferetur. Patet autem quod regnum illud est aeternum, et inquantum sibi convenit ex natura, quia est Deus. Ps. CXLIV, 13: regnum tuum, regnum omnium saeculorum. Item, inquantum sibi convenit ut homo, et hoc duplici ratione. Una, quia regnum illud non ordinatur ad temporalia, sed ad aeterna. Io. XVIII, 36: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Ad hoc enim regnat, ut homines dirigat ad vitam aeternam. Non autem sic est de regno hominum; unde regnum illorum finitur cum vita praesenti. Alia ratio est, quia Ecclesia, quae est regnum eius, durat usque ad finem mundi, et tunc tradet Christus regnum Deo et patri consummandum et perficiendum. 60. – He says, therefore, But of the Son he says: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. These are the words of the Father speaking through the tongue of a prophet as by a writer’s pen. He says, therefore: ‘O God, the Son, your throne is for ever and ever’. In this is denoted the royal majesty; for a throne is the king’s seat, a chair is the teacher’s seat and a tribunal the judge’s seat. All of these belong to Christ, because He is our king: ‘He will reign in the house of Jacob’ (Lk. 1:32) and, therefore, deserves a throne: ‘His throne is as the sun’ (Ps. 88:38). He is a teacher and, therefore, needs a chair: ‘We know that you have been sent a teacher from God’ (Jn. 3:2). He is also our judge: ‘The Lord, our judge, the Lord our lawgiver’ (Is. 33:22). Therefore, he deserves a tribunal: ‘All of us must be manifested before the tribunal of Christ’ (2 Cor. 5:10). The throne belongs to Him according to His divine nature, inasmuch as He is God: ‘The king of the whole earth is God’ (Ps. 46:8). But as man it belongs to Him as a result of His Passion, victory and resurrection: ‘To him that shall overcome I will give to sit with me in my throne; as I also have overcome and am set down with my Father in His throne’ (Rev. 3:21). This throne is eternal: ‘And of his kingdom there shall be no end’ (Lk. 1:33); ‘His power is an eternal power, which shall not be taken away’ (Dan. 7:14). But it is clear that that kingdom is eternal and that it belongs to Him, because He is God: ‘Your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages’ (Ps. 144:13). It also belongs to Him as man, and this for two reasons: one, because that kingdom is not ordained to temporal affairs, but to eternal: ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (Jn. 18:36). For He reigns in order to direct men to eternal life. But this is not so of human kingdoms; hence, their kingdoms end with the present life. Another reason is that the Church, which is His kingdom, will last until the end of the world, when Christ will deliver the kingdom to God and to the Father to be consummated and made perfect. Consequenter commendat regnum eius ab aequitate, cum dicit virga aequitatis, et cetera. Convenienter autem describitur regnum per virgam. Differt enim regimen tyrannicum a regimine regis, quia regimen tyrannicum est ad utilitatem suam cum gravamine subditorum; regimen autem regis principaliter ordinatur ad utilitatem subditorum. Et ideo rex est pater et pastor. Pastor enim non corrigit cum gladio, sed cum virga. Ps. LXXXVIII, 33: visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum. Item pastor utitur virga in directione gregis. Mich. c. VII, 14: pasce populum tuum in virga tua. Virga etiam sustentat infirmos. Ps. XXII, 4: virga tua et baculus tuus ipsa me consolata sunt. Item virga conturbat hostes. Num. XXIV, v. 17: consurget virga de Israel, et percutiet duces Moab. Sed est haec virga aequitatis. Is. XI, 4: arguet in aequitate pro mansuetis terrae. Sed sciendum est, quod aliquando aliquis regit in rigore iuris, sicut quando servat ea quae iusta sunt secundum se. Contingit autem, quod aliquid de se iustum est, quod tamen comparatum ad aliquid inducit detrimentum si servetur; et ideo oportet, quod ius commune ad hoc applicetur, et si hoc fiat, tunc est regimen aequitatis. Regnum veteris testamenti erat secundum rigorem iustitiae. Act. XV, 10: onus quod nec nos, nec patres nostri portare potuimus. Sed regnum Christi est regnum aequitatis et iustitiae, quia in ipso non imponitur nisi suavis observantia. Matth. XI, v. 30: iugum enim meum suave est et onus meum leve. Et Ps. XCV, 13: iudicabit orbem terrae in aequitate. 61. – Then he commends his kingdom on its equity when he says, a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. And this kingdom is fittingly described by the scepter: for a tyrannical kingdom differs from that of a king, because the former exists for the tyrant’s benefit with great harm to the subjects; but a kingdom is particularly ordained to the benefit of the subjects. Consequently, the king is father and shepherd: for a shepherd does not correct with a sword but with a scepter: ‘I will visit their iniquities with a rod’ (Ps. 88:33). Furthermore, a shepherd uses a rod to direct his flock: ‘Feed your people with your rod’ (Mic. 7:14). For a rod sustains the infirm: ‘your rod and your staff have strengthened me’ (Ps. 22:2). Furthermore, it troubles the enemy: ‘A scepter shall spring up from Israel and shall strike the chiefs of Moab’ (Num. 24:17). But this is the scepter of justice: ‘He shall reprove with equity for the meek of he earth’ (Is. 11:4). But it should be noted that sometimes a person rules according to the rigor of the law, as when he observes things that according to themselves are just. But it happens that something is just according to itself, but when compared to something else, it causes suffering, if it is observed; consequently, it is necessary that the common law be applied, and if this is done, then there is a rule of equity. But the kingdom of the Old Testament was ruled according to the rigor of justice: ‘A yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear’ (Ac. 15:10). But the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of equity and justice, because in it only sweet observance is imposed: ‘My yoke is sweet and my burden is light’ (Mt. 11:30); ‘He shall judge the world with justice’ (Ps. 95:13). Consequenter cum dicit dilexisti, etc., bonitatem regentis commendat. Quidam enim servant aequitatem, non tamen propter amorem iustitiae, sed magis propter timorem, vel gloriam, vel metum, et tale regimen non durat. Sed iste servat aequitatem propter amorem iustitiae. Dicit ergo dilexisti iustitiam, quasi dicat: hoc quod virga est aequa et directa, hoc est quia dilexisti iustitiam. Sap. I, 1: diligite iustitiam, qui iudicatis terram. Non autem est iustus, qui non amat iustitiam. Matth. V, 6: beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam. Sed aliqui quidem diligunt iustitiam, sed sunt remissi in correctione iniquitatis; sed Christus odit, id est, reprobat iniquitatem. Ps. CXVIII, 113: iniquos odio habui. Sap. XIV, v. 9: similiter odio sunt Deo impius et impietas eius. Eccli. XII, 3: altissimus odio habet peccatores, et misertus est poenitentibus. Et ideo dicit et odisti iniquitatem. 62. – Then (v. 9) he commends the goodness of the ruler. For some observe equity not for the love of justice but from fear or for glory. And such a kingdom does not last. But He observes equity for the love of justice. He says, therefore, You have loved justice. As if to say: Your scepter is just, because you have loved justice: ‘Love Justice, you that judge the earth’ (Wis. 1:1). But one who does not love justice is not just: ‘Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice’ (Mt. 5:6). Yet some love justice but are lax in correcting injustice. However, Christ hates, i.e., reproves justice: ‘I have hated the unjust’ (Ps. 118:113). Similarly, He hates the wicked and his wickedness: ‘The highest hates sinners, and has mercy on the penitent’ (Sir. 12:3). Therefore, he says, you have hated iniquity. Deinde cum dicit propterea unxit te Deus, ostendit Christi idoneitatem ad exequendum et gubernandum, ubi dubitatio est de hoc, quod dicit propterea, et cetera. In verbis istis agitur de spirituali unctione, quia Christus est repletus spiritu sancto. Numquid enim ideo repletus est, quia dilexit iustitiam? Ergo meruit gratiam, quod est contra illud Rom. XI, 6: si ex operibus, iam non ex gratia; et haec est ratio communis. Sed specialiter ad propositum, quia Christus in ipsa conceptione fuit plenus spiritu sancto, Io. I, 14: plenum gratia et veritate, non ergo meruit. Respondeo. Hic est cavendus error Origenis. Voluit enim, quod omnes spirituales creaturae, etiam anima Christi, a principio creatae fuerunt, et secundum quod plus vel minus adhaeserunt Deo, vel diverterunt ab ipso per libertatem arbitrii sui, facta est distinctio inter Angelos et etiam animas. Unde in periarchon dicit, quod anima Christi quia vehementius adhaesit Deo, diligendo iustitiam, et odiendo iniquitatem, quod meruit maiorem plenitudinem gratiae prae cunctis substantiis spiritualibus. Sed hoc est haereticum dicere, quod scilicet quaecumque anima, vel etiam anima Christi, creata fuerit ante corpus, quod etiam specialem rationem in Christo habet, quia in primo instanti simul creata fuit anima, et formatum corpus, et totum est assumptum a filio Dei. Quid ergo dicit propterea? Una Glossa videtur sentire cum Origene. Sed si volumus eam salvare, dicemus quod in Scriptura dicitur aliquid fieri quando innotescit; sicut cum dicitur Phil. II, 8 s.: factus est obediens, etc., propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et dedit illi nomen, et cetera. Numquid Christus merito passionis meruit esse Deus? Absit: hic enim est error Photini. Dicendum est ergo, quod Christum esse Deum, excedit omne meritum, sed per passionem meruit, quod manifestetur ubique esse Deum, et quod Deus dederat illi tale nomen, et cetera. Ita hoc quod dicit hic propterea unxit te Deus, et cetera. Ut sit sensus: ex hoc quod tu dilexisti iustitiam, meruisti quod hoc innotescat. Vel aliter et melius ita quod ly propterea, non dicat causam meritoriam, sed finalem; quasi dicat: ad hoc quod illa haberes, scilicet thronum perpetuum, virgam aequitatis, etc., quae dicta sunt, propterea unxit te Deus oleo, scilicet sanctificationis, quod dominus mandavit fieri, Ex. XXX, 24 ss.: quo ungebantur vasa et sacerdotes, Lev. VIII, 2 et IX, v. 1 s., et reges, ut patet de David, I Reg. c. XVI, 13, et Salomone, III Reg. I, 39; item prophetae, ut patet de Eliseo, III Reg. XIX, v. 16. 63. – Then (v. 9b) he shows Christ’s fitness for accomplishing and governing. But a question arises here concerning the statement, Therefore, God your God has anointed you. In those words He is speaking of a spiritual anointing, whereby Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit. But is He so filled, because He loved justice? Then He merited grace. But this is contrary to Rom. (11:6): ‘If from works, then not from grace.’ And this is a general reason, because Christ in His conception was filled with the Holy Spirit: ‘Full of grace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14). Therefore, He did not merit. I answer that here one must avoid Origen’s error. For he wished all spiritual creatures, and even the soul of Christ, to have been created from the beginning, and according as they have clung to God more or less, or withdrew from Him in the freedom of their judgment, a distinction exists between them and souls. Hence, in the Periarchon he says that the soul of Christ, because it adhered more strongly to God by loving justice and hating iniquity, merited a greater fullness of grace than other spiritual substances. But it is heretical to say that any soul, even Christ’s soul, was created before its body. And this is especially true of Christ, because His soul was created and His body formed in the same instant. And the totality was assumed by the Son of God. Why, then, does he say, therefore? One Gloss seems to feel with Origen. But if we would save it, we must say that in Scripture something is said to come to be, when it is being made known; as when it is stated in Phil (2:8): ‘He was made obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. Wherefore, God has exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name.’ Did Christ, then, merit to be God by the merit of His Passion? Not at all. For this is Photinus’ error. Therefore, it should be said that Christ, being God, exceeds all merit; but by the Passion He merited to be manifested everywhere as God, and that God gave Him such a name that would be above every name. Therefore, the fact that he says here, therefore, God has anointed you, has the following sense: Since you have loved justice, you deserve to have this matter known. Or, another way and better, he therefore does not refer to a meritorious case, but to a final cause. As if to say: In order that you might have these things, namely, a perpetual throne, a scepter of justice, and the other things mentioned, God has anointed you with the oil of holiness, which the Lord commanded to be done, when the vessels and priests were anointed, as well as the kings, as is clear in regard to Solomon and the prophets, namely, Elisha. Sed quare fiebat ista sanctificatio per unctionem? Ratio est litteralis. Homines enim Orientales pro celebritate ungebantur, ne consumerentur, eo quod sunt in regione multum calida. Pauperes etiam ungebantur ad festivitatem. IV Reg. IV, 2: non habeo ancilla tua nisi parum olei quo ungar. In Scriptura autem divina traduntur nobis per modum quo homines solent uti. Quia ergo tunc ungebantur homines, vel propter celebritatem festi, vel propter celebritatem personae, ideo ad ostendendum excellentiam Christi, dicit eum unctum oleo exultationis. Ipse enim est rex. Is. XXXII, 1: ecce in iustitia regnabit rex. Et XXXV: dominus enim iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster, ipse veniet et salvabit nos. Est etiam sacerdos. Ps. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Fuit etiam propheta. Deut. c. XVIII, 15: prophetam de gente tua et de fratribus tuis sicut me suscitabit tibi dominus. Et convenit sibi ungi oleo sanctificationis et exultationis. Ab ipso autem sunt sacramenta, quae sunt vasa gratiae. Is. XXII, 24: suspendam super eum omnem gloriam domus patris eius vasorum diversa genera, et cetera. Convenit etiam ista unctio Christianis. Sunt enim reges et sacerdotes. I Petr. II, 9: vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium. Apoc. c. V, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes. Item habet spiritum sanctum, qui est prophetiae spiritus. Ioel II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, et cetera. Et ideo omnes uncti sunt, invisibili unctione. II Cor. I, 21: qui autem confirmat nos vobiscum in Christo, et qui unxit nos Deus, et qui signavit nos, et dedit, et cetera. I Io. II, 20: vos unctionem habetis a sancto, et nostis omnia. 64. – But why was that sanctification brought about by anointing? The reason is literal. For oriental men were anointed before celebrations to prevent exhaustion, because they live in a very warm climate. But poor people were anointed at festivities: ‘I, thy handmaid, have nothing in my house, but a little oil to anoint me’ (1 Kg 4:2). But in the Scripture men were anointed either for the celebration of a feast or for a celebrated person: then to show Christ’s excellence, he says that He was anointed with the oil of gladness. For He is a king: ‘Behold the king shall reign in justice’ (Is. 32:1); ‘For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is out lawgiver, and he shall save us’ (Is. 33:32). He is also a priest: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedech’ (Ps. 109:4). He was also a prophet: ‘The Lord, your God, will raise up to you a prophet of your nation and of your brethren like unto me’ (Dt. 18:15). It also befits Him to be anointed with the oil of holiness and gladness: for the sacraments, which are vessels of grace, were instituted by Him: ‘And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, diverse kind of vessels’ (Is. 22:24). This anointing also befits Christians, for they are kings and priests: ‘You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood’ (1 Pt. 2:9); ‘You have made us a kingdom and priests for our God’ (Rev. 3:10). Furthermore, He has the Holy Spirit, Who is the spirit of prophecy: ‘I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy’ (Jl 2:28). Therefore, all are anointed with an invisible anointing: ‘Now he that has confirmed us with you in Christ and that has anointed us is God: who has also sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts’ (2 Cor. 1:21); ‘But you have the unction from the Holy One and know all things’ (1 Jn. 2:20). Sed quae comparatio est inter Christum unctum, et Christianos unctos? Ista, scilicet quia ipse habet eam principaliter et primo, nos autem et alii ab ipso effusam. Ps. CXXVII: sicut unguentum in capite, et cetera. Et dicit prae participibus tuis. Io. c. I, 16: de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus. Unde alii dicuntur sancti, ipse vero sanctus sanctorum. Ipse enim est radix omnis sanctitatis. Dicit autem oleo laetitiae, vel exultationis, quia ex ista unctione procedit spiritualis laetitia. Rom. XIV, 17: non est regnum Dei esca et potus, sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in spiritu sancto. Gal. V, 22: fructus autem spiritus est charitas, pax, gaudium. Ps. CIII, v. 15: ut exhilaret faciem in oleo. Is. LXI, v. 3: oleum gaudii pro luctu, et cetera. 65. – But what comparison is there between the anointed Christ and anointed Christians? This comparison, namely, that He has it principally and first, but we and others have it from Him: ‘Like the precious ointment on the head that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron’ (Ps. 132:2). And, therefore, he says, beyond thy comrades: ‘Of his fullness we have all received’ (Jn. 1:16). Hence, others are called holy, but He is the Holy of holies; for He is the root of all holiness. But he says, with the oil of gladness, because spiritual gladness proceeds from that anointing: ‘The kingdom of God on not meat and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom. 14:17); ‘The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace…’ (Gal. 5:22); ‘That he may make the face cheerful with oil’ (Ps. 103:15); ‘The oil of joy for mourning’ (Is. 61:3). Illud autem, quod bis dicit Deus, Deus, dupliciter exponitur. Uno modo, quod repetatur nominativus casus, ut sit sensus: unxit te Deus per seipsum Deum, nos autem per te, mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum. II Pet. I, 4: per quem magna et pretiosa nobis promissa donavit. Alio modo, quia, secundum Augustinum in Glossa, alterum est nominativi casus, alterum vocativi, ut sit sensus: o Christe, qui es Deus filius, Deus pater unxit te, et cetera. Et quod debeat sic exponi magis patet in Graeco. Sed cum Christus non sit unctus secundum quod Deus, quia sic non convenit sibi recipere spiritum sanctum, sed magis aliis dare, secunda expositio non videtur esse vera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod idem est in persona et Deus et homo, tamen unctus est inquantum homo. Et cum dicitur: o Deus, etc., et ungens est Deus et homo, et unctus similiter est Deus et homo, et unum cum ipso in persona. 66. – The fact that he says, God, your God, is explained in two ways: in one way as being a repetition of the nominative case. As if to say: God has anointed you with God Himself, but we through you, the mediator of God and men, the man Christ: ‘By whom he has given us most gracious promises’ (2 Pt. 1:4). In another way according to Augustine, so that one is in the nominative case and the other in the vocative. As if to say: O God Who art God the Son, God the Father has anointed you with the oil of gladness. But since Christ was not anointed as God, (for as God it is not fitting that He receive the Holy Spirit, but rather should give Him), the second explanation does not seem to be true. I answer that He is the same person, both God and man: but He was anointed as man. And when it is said, God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness, the one anointing is God and man, and the one anointed is God and man, and one with Him in person.
1-5
Heb 1:10-12Supra praemiserat apostolus quatuor, in quibus Christus excellit Angelos, et probavit duo illorum, scilicet et quod excedit eos, quia est filius, et quia est haeres, nunc probat tertium, scilicet quod excedit eos in virtute operationis, quia per eum pater fecit et saecula. Hoc autem probat apostolus ex auctoritate eiusdem prophetiae, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit virtutem operationis inquantum creator; secundo quantum ad differentiam creatoris ad creaturam, ibi ipsi peribunt. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ponit creationem terrae; secundo caelorum, ibi et opera manuum. 67. – Above, the Apostle mentioned four things in which Christ excelled the angels, and he proved two of them, namely, that He excels them, because He is the Son and because He is the heir. Now he proves the third, namely, that He excels them in His power of acting, because through Him the Father made the world. But the Apostle proves this on the authority of the same prophet. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the power of His activity inasmuch as he is Creator; secondly, inasmuch as there is a difference between Creator and creature. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the creation of earth; secondly, of the heavens (v. 10b). Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod hoc potest dupliciter legi: uno modo, ut sit sermo prophetae directus ad patrem, ut sit sensus tu, domine, scilicet Deus pater, fundasti terram in principio, id est in filio tuo, qui est principium. Io. VIII, 25: ego principium, qui et loquor vobis. Et hoc tantum valet ac si dixisset: tu fundasti terram per filium: Ps. CIII, 24: omnia in sapientia fecisti. Filius autem est sapientia genita, unde supra dixit eum splendorem gloriae. Et hoc quod dicit hic, respondet huic quod supra dixit per quem fecit et saecula. Alio modo, quod sit sermo directus ad filium, sic: et tu, domine, scilicet fili, fundasti terram in principio, scilicet temporis, ut excludat opinionem ponentium aeternitatem mundi; vel in principio, scilicet productionis rerum, ut excludat opinionem dicentium, corporalia non fuisse creata cum spiritualibus, sed post. Gen. I, 1: in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Eccli. XVIII, 1: qui vivit in aeternum, creavit omnia simul. 68. – It should be noted in regard to the first that this can be interpreted in two ways: in one way, so that it is taken to be a word of the prophet directed to the Father. As if to say: You, Lord, namely God the Father, founded the earth in the beginning, i.e., in your Son, Who is the beginning: ‘I am the beginning who also speak to you’ (Jn. 8:25). And this is the same as saying: You founded the earth through the Son: ‘You have made all things in your wisdom’ (Ps. 103:24). But the Son is Wisdom begotten: hence, above he called him the splendor of His glory. And what he says here corresponds to what he had said above: by whom also he made the earth. In another way, so that it is a word directed to the Son. As if to say: And you, O Lord, founded the earth in the beginning, namely of time. This is to exclude the opinion of those who say that the world is eternal; or in the beginning, namely, of the production of things, to exclude the opinion of those who say that bodily things were not created with spiritual things, but after: ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ (Gen. 1:1); ‘He that lives forever created all things together’ (Sir. 18:1). Sciendum est autem, quod tripliciter potest distingui terra a caelo. Uno modo et ad litteram quod per terram intelligatur elementum terrae, per caelum autem superiora corpora; ut sicut Moyses non facit mentionem de aere, quia est cum aqua, ita hic intelligit per caelum, ipsum caelum et alia duo elementa, scilicet aerem et ignem, quae magis accedunt ad naturam caeli, quod patet ex loco ipsorum. Sic etiam accipit Moyses. Et dicit fundasti, [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] ut ostendat tria ad terram pertinere, primo quidem terrae quietem; omnia enim alia participant motum, sola autem terra secundum totalitatem suam immobilis perseverat, ut sit sensus fundasti, id est, firmasti. Ps. CIII, 5: qui fundavit terram super stabilitatem suam. Secundo, ut ostendat terrae perpetuitatem, nam fundamentum aedificii inter alias eius partes stabilius est. Terra autem in aeternum stat, Eccle. I, 4. Et secundum hoc dicit fundasti terram, id est, perpetuo solidasti. Tertio, ut ostendat terrae ordinem,] quia sicut fundamentum, quod est prima pars aedificii, est in imo, ita terra inter omnia elementa tenet locum imum. Is. XLVIII, v. 13: manus mea fundavit terram. Ps.: aridam fundaverunt manus eius. Non autem dicit fecisti caelos, sed opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, quia illud quod aliquis facit manibus, magis diligenter videtur facere. Et ideo sic loquitur ad designandum nobilitatem et pulchritudinem ipsorum. Is. XLVIII, 13: dextera mea mensa est caelos. 69. – But it should be noted that the earth can be distinguished from heaven in three ways: in one way, so that by the earth is understood the element earth, and by heaven the higher bodies; so that just as Moses made not mention of the air, because it exists with water, so here he understood by heaven the very heaven and the other two elements, namely, air and fire, which most resemble the nature of the heavens and which is clear from their place. And this is the way Moses took it (Gen. 1:1). And he says, you didst found, to show that three things pertain to the earth: first, the earth’s rest, for all other things partake of motion, but the earth alone according to its totality remains motionless. As if to say: You have founded, i.e., firmly established: ‘Who has founded the earth upon its own bases’ (Ps. 103:5). Secondly, to show the perpetuity of the world, for the foundation of a building is its most enduring part: ‘But the earth remains for ever’ (Ec. 1:4). And according to this he says, You have founded, i.e., established for ever. Thirdly, to show the order of the earth; because, just as the foundation, which is the first part of a building, is below, so earth holds the lowest place among the elements: ‘My hand also has founded the earth’ (Is. 48:13); ‘His hands formed the dry land’ (Ps. 94:5). He does not say, ‘You made the heavens’, but the works of your hands are the heavens, because that which a person makes with his hands, he seems to make with greater care. Consequently, he speaks this way to signify their nobility and beauty: ‘My right hand measured the heavens’ (Is. 48:13). Aliter vero quod per terram intelligat totam naturam corporalem. Et sic terram fundasti, quia materia est locus et fundamentum formarum; per caelos autem, spirituales substantias. Ps. CXLVIII, 4: laudate eum, caeli caelorum. Et hi sunt opera manuum eius, quia fecit eos ad imaginem et similitudinem suam. Vel per terram imperfecti in Ecclesia, quia sunt fundamentum aliorum; quia nisi esset activa in Ecclesia, contemplativa non subsisteret. Per caelos contemplativi. Et haec facta in Ecclesia in principio, id est per filium. Is. LI, 16: posui verba mea in ore tuo, ut fundes terram, id est, imperfectos, et plantes caelos, id est, perfectos. 70a. – In another way, so that by earth he understands every bodily nature; then you founded, because matter is the place and foundation of forms; but by heavens, spiritual substances: ‘Praise him, you heavens of heavens’ (Ps. 148:5). And these are the works of His hands, because He made them to His own image and likeness. Or, by earth those who are imperfect in the Church and are the foundation of the others (for if there were no active life in the Church, the contemplative life could not exist), and by heavens, the contemplatives. And these were made in the Church in the beginning, i.e., by the Son: ‘I have placed my words in your mouth, that you might found the earth, i.e., the imperfect, and plant the heavens’ (Is. 51:16). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Quantum autem ad caelos dicit opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Dicit autem opera manuum tuarum, et non simpliciter, caelos fecisti, propter quatuor rationes. Primo, ut excludat errorem dicentium Deum esse animam caeli, et per consequens totum mundum et partes eius debere coli ut Deus, quod et idololatrae faciebant; et hoc excludit, cum dicit opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, quasi dicat: non sunt proportionati tibi, ut corpus animae, sed subiecti et proportionati virtuti, et voluntati tuae. Deut. IV, 19: ne forte oculis ad caelum elevatis, videas solem et lunam et omnia astra caeli, et errore deceptus, adores ea. Secundo ut designet caelorum dignitatem et pulchritudinem, quia illud dicimus manibus facere, quod diligenter facimus; ut ergo ostendat caelos excellentiori modo quam alias creaturas corporales divina sapientia conditos esse, dicit opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Et hoc patet; quia diversitas in istis inferioribus potest reduci ad dispositionem materiae, sed diversitas corporum caelestium nullo modo potest reduci nisi ad sapientiam divinam. Et inde est, quod quandocumque fit mentio de creatione caeli, additur ibi, prudenter, vel intellectus vel aliquid huiusmodi, secundum illud Ier. IV: stabilivit caelos prudenter, et secundum illud Ps. CXXXV, 5: qui fecit caelos intellectu. Tertio ut ostendat, quod in caelis magis refulget virtus divina creatoris, secundum Glossam; nihil enim est in creaturis, in cuius conditione appareat tantum virtutis Dei, et hoc propter magnitudinem ipsorum et ordinem. Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae, cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator videri. Quarto ad ostendendum, quod inter omnia corpora, corpus caeleste immediatius recipit influentiam a Deo, et per ista derivatur in ista inferiora. Iob XXXVIII, 33: numquid nosti ordinem caeli, et pones rationem eius in terra? Quasi dicat: si bene consideras dispositionem caeli, non potes attribuere causam dispositionis eius alicui rei terrenae, sed Deo. 70b. – But in regard to the heavens, he says, the works of your hands are the heavens. He says, the works of your hands, and not simply, you made the heavens, for four reasons: first, to exclude the error of those who say that God is the soul of the world and, consequently, what the whole earth and its parts should be worshipped as God, as idolaters did. But he excludes this when he says, the works of your hands are the heavens. As if to say: They are not proportioned to you as the body is to the soul, but they are subject and proportioned to your power and will: ‘Lest perhaps, lifting up your eyes to heaven, you see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, you adore them’ (Dt. 4:19). Secondly, to designate the dignity and beauty of the heavens, because we say that we make that with our hands which we make carefully. Therefore, to show that the heavens were made by divine wisdom in a more excellent way than the other bodily creatures, he says, the works of your hands are the heavens, and this is clear; because the diversity in those lower things can be reduced to the disposition of the matter, but the diversity of heavenly bodies can be reduced only to divine wisdom. That is why, whenever mention is made of he creation of the heavens, prudence and understanding or something of that sort are also mentioned: ‘The Lord has established the heavens by prudence’ (Pr. 3:19); ‘Who made the heavens in understanding’ (Ps. 135:5). Thirdly, to show that in the heavens the divine power of the Creator is more striking; for there is nothing in creatures in whose condition so much of God’s power appears; and this is because of their magnitude and order: ‘For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen’ (Wis. 13:5). Fourthly, to show that of all bodies the heavenly body receives God’s influence more directly: ‘Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason thereof on the earth’ (Jb. 38:33)? As if to say: ‘If you consider carefully the disposition of the heavens, you cannot attribute the cause of its order to any earthly thing, but to God.’ Alio modo potest exponi, ut per terram accipiatur tota materia corporalis, per caelos vero spirituales substantiae. Et sic est sensus: in principio temporis terram, id est, materiam corporalem, fundasti, id est, quasi fundamentum formarum stabilisti; et sic intelligitur illud Ps. CXLVIII, 7: laudate dominum de terra, et cetera. Sed caeli, id est substantiae spirituales, Ps. CXLVIII, 4: laudent illum caeli, etc., sunt opera manuum tuarum, quia scilicet fecisti eos ad imaginem et similitudinem tuam. 70c. – It can be explained in another way, so that by earth is meant all bodily matter, and by heavens, spiritual substances. Then the sense is this: In the beginning of time you founded the earth, i.e., corporeal matter, i.e., you have established it as the foundation of forms. This is the way to understand the statement of Ps. 148 (v. 7): ‘Praise the Lord from the earth, you dragons and all you deeps.’ But the heavens, i.e., spiritual substances: ‘Praise him, you heavens of heavens’ (Ps. 148:4) are the works of your hands, because you made them to your image likeness. Tertio modo potest exponi, ut per terram intelligantur infimi in Ecclesia, per caelos vero supremi, et sic est sensus in principio, id est per filium, terram fundasti, id est activos et infimos in Ecclesia; et dicuntur fundati, quia sunt quasi fundamentum aliorum, nam nisi essent activi in Ecclesia, viri contemplativi non sustentarentur. Sed caeli, id est contemplativi et perfectiores, sunt opera manuum tuarum, id est, excellentiori praeeminentia praediti. Ps. XVIII, 2: caeli enarrant gloriam Dei; et Is. I, 2: audite, caeli, id est, maiores; auribus percipe, terra, id est, minores.] 70d. – It can be explained a third way, so that by earth are understood the lowly ones in the Church. And they are said to be founded, because they are, as it were, the foundation of the others: for unless there were actives in the Church, the contemplatives would have no subsistence; but the heavens, the contemplatives and more perfect, are the work of your hands, i.e., endowed with a more outstanding excellence: ‘The heavens published the glory of God’ (Ps. 18:2); ‘Hear, O you heavens, and give ear’ (Is. 1:2). Consequenter cum dicit ipsi peribunt, ostendit differentiam inter creatorem et creaturam, et hoc quantum ad duo, quae sunt propria creatori; primum est aeternitas; secundum est immutabilitas, de qua ibi et omnes ut vestimentum veterascent, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ponit terminationem creaturae; secundo interminationem Dei, ibi tu autem permanebis. 71. – Then (v. 11) he shows the difference between Creator and creature, and this in regard to two things which are proper to the Creator; the first is eternity; the second is immutability (v. 11c). In regard to the first he dos two things: first, he puts a limitation on the creature; secondly, no limitation on God (v. 11b). Dicit ergo primo: ipsi, scilicet caeli, peribunt. Sed contra Eccle. I, 4: terra in aeternum stat; ergo videtur, quod multo plus caeli. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod secundum Augustinum et philosophum, in qualibet mutatione est generatio et corruptio. Unde quicquid mutatur, perit a statu in quo erat. Ergo quod dicit quod caeli peribunt, non intelligitur quantum ad substantiam, de qua Iob XXXVII, 18: qui solidissimi quasi aere fusi sunt, sed quantum ad statum quem nunc habent. Apoc. XXI, 1: vidi caelum novum et terram novam. I Cor. VII, 31: praeterit figura mundi huius. Sed quomodo mutabunt statum? Diversimode, quia caeli superiores moventur quidem secundum locum, sed non alterantur. Inferiores vero, scilicet ignis et aer, et moventur et alterantur, et corruptioni sunt subiecti. Sic ergo status omnium caelorum est mutabilis; sed tunc motus cessabit in superioribus, et corruptio in inferioribus, quia aer igne conflagrationis purgabitur. II Pet. III, 7: caeli qui nunc sunt et terra eodem verbo repositi sunt, igni reservati in diem iudicii, et cetera. Omnes peribunt a statu in quo nunc sunt, et sic quodammodo peribunt, sed tu, domine, permanebis. Ps. ci, 13: tu autem, domine, in aeternum permanebis. 72. – He says, therefore: they, i.e., the heavens, shall perish. But Ec. (1:4) says that ‘the earth stands forever’. Therefore, it seems that it will last longer than the heavens. I answer according to Augustine and the Philosopher that in every change there is a coming into existence and a ceasing to exist. Therefore, when he says that the heavens shall perish, this is not to be understood of their substance, concerning which Jb. (37:18) says: ‘The heavens are most strong, as if they were of molten brass’, but of their state which they now have: ‘I saw a new haven and a new earth’ (Rev. 21:1); ‘The fashion of this world passes away’ (1 Cor. 7:31). But how will they change their state? In various ways, because the higher heavens are moving in regard to place, but are not altered, whereas the lower heaven, namely, fire and air, are moved and altered and subject to corruption. Therefore, the state of all the heavens is changeable; but then, movement will cease in the higher heavens and corruption in the lower heavens, because the air will be purged by fire: ‘But the heavens and the earth which exist now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men’ (Ps. 101:13). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Hic ostendit permanentiam creatoris, quasi dicat: in te nulla est transmutatio nec vicissitudinis obumbratio, ut Iac. I, 17 dicitur, et Thren. V, 19: tu autem, domine, in aeternum permanebis, solium tuum in generatione et generationem, quod potest etiam intelligi de Christo homine. Infra ult.: Iesus Christus heri et hodie ipse et in saecula.] 73. – Here he shows the permanence of the Creator. As if to say: ‘In you there is no change nor shadow of change’ (Jas. 1:17). This can be understood of Christ as man: ‘Jesus Christ, yesterday and today and forever’ (Heb. 13:8). Deinde cum dicit et omnes, etc., ostendit differentiam Dei ad creaturam quantum ad immutabilitatem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponit mutabilitatem creaturae; secundo immutabilitatem Dei, ibi tu autem idem. Et adhuc circa primum duo facit, quia primo describit rationem mutabilitatis creaturae; secundo subdit illam mutabilitatem, ibi et velut amictum. 74. – Then (v. 11b) he shows the difference between God and creature so far as immutability is concerned. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the mutability of the creature; secondly, the immutability of God (v. 12b). In regard to the first he does two things: first he describes the nature of the creature’s mutability; secondly, he mentions that mutability (v. 12). Circa primum autem sciendum est, quod vetus et novum consequuntur tempus. Unde veterascere non potest, nisi quod aliqualiter mensuratur tempore. Motus autem caelorum mensuratur tempore, sed ipsum mobile mensuratur ipso nunc temporis; ergo in caelo possunt inveniri novitas et vetustas. Unde non veterascent caeli, quasi substantia eorum minuatur, vel corrumpatur in aliquo, sed tantum quantum ad diuturnitatem temporis, quo amplius non mensurabuntur. Et ideo dicit sicut vestimentum, etc., quia causa mutationis caelorum non erit propter defectum virtutis ipsorum, quae in aliquo minuatur. Quia si motus ipsorum cessaret propter defectum virtutis, iam cessatio haberet causam naturalem, et posset deprehendi ratione naturali, cuius contrarium dicitur Matth. c. XXIV, 36: de die autem et hora illa nemo scit, neque Angeli in caelo, et cetera. Ergo erit propter necessitatem finis: quia omnes creaturae corporales ordinantur ad spirituales, et totus motus deserviens generationi et corruptioni ordinatur ad generationem hominis. Cessante ergo generatione hominis, quod erit quando completus erit numerus electorum et praedestinatorum, cessabit motus ille. Et ideo dicitur vestimentum, quod sumitur ad usum, et cessante usu deponitur, sicut homo calidum vestimentum deponit, veniente aestate, et frigidum, veniente hieme. Sic ergo status mundi, qui nunc est commodatus isti fini, cum completus fuerit numerus ille electorum, iam amplius non erit accommodatus nec necessarius, et ideo sicut vestimentum deponetur. Lc. XXI, 33: caelum et terra transibunt. 75. – In regard to the first it should be noted that old and new follow upon time. Hence only that can grow old which is somehow measured by time, whereas the mobile thing is measured by the ‘now’ of time. Therefore, newness and oldness can be found in the heavens. But the heavens do not grow old as though their substance shrank or were changed into something else, but only in regard to the length of time by which they will no longer be measured. Therefore, he says, as a garment shall you change them, not as though the cause of their change will be the loss of their power; for if the motion of the heavens ceased from a lack of power, that cessation would have a natural cause and could be isolated by natural reason, the contrary of which is stated in Mt. (24:36): ‘Of that day and hour no one knows, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.’ Therefore, it will be due to some end that this motion will cease, because all bodily creatures are ordained to spiritual creatures, and all changed which serve generation and ceasing-to-be are ordained to the generation of man. Therefore, when the generation of men ceases, i.e., when the number of the elect and predestined is filled, that motion will cease; hence, it is called a garment, which is put on to be used and cast off, when it can be used no more. Thus, a man removes a warm garment in summer and a cool one with the coming of winter. Thus, therefore, the state of the world, which is now adjusted to that end, will no longer be adjusted, when the number of the elect is filled. Then it will be cast aside as a garment: ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away’ (Lk. 21:33). Consequenter ponit ipsam mutabilitatem, cum dicit et velut amictum mutabis eos, scilicet caelos. Et bene dicit, mutabis tu, Deus, quia non propria virtute, nec per se, sed virtute Dei mutabuntur a motu, sicut amictum, qui ad usum sumitur, et post usum deponitur secundum congruentiam temporis et finis. Et dicit amictum, quia per amictum gloria hominis et manifestatur et tegitur. Ita etiam Deus per creaturas et occultatur nobis et manifestatur. Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator videri, et cetera. Et dicit mutabuntur, quia in perpetuum mutati permanebunt. Item quantum ad caelos spirituales, qui pereunt a vita praesenti per mortem corporis. Rom. XIV: omnes morimur, et quasi aquae dilabimur in terram, quae non revertentur. Is. LVII, 1: iustus perit, et nemo est, et cetera. Item veterascent, quia, ut dicitur infra VIII, v. 13, quod antiquatur et senescit, prope interitum est. Et mutabis, scilicet secundum corpora, quando corporale hoc induet incorruptionem. I Cor. XV, 54. Et mutabuntur secundum mentem, quando a visione aenigmatica assumentur ad speciei visionem. Iob c. XIV, 14: cunctis diebus quibus nunc milito, expecto donec veniat immutatio mea. 76. – Then he posits that mutability when he says, and as a garment shall you change them, i.e., the heavens. Well does he say, you shall change them, because it will not be by their own power, nor of themselves, but by God’s power that they will be changed from motion, as a garment which is put on to be used, and after it is used, is put off, as the seasons require. He says, a garment, because man’s glory is both disclosed and hidden by a garment. So, too, God is both revealed and hidden by creatures: ‘The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood’ (Rom. 1:20); ‘For by the glory of the beauty and of the creature, and the Creator of them may be seen’ (Wis. 13:5). He says, they shall be changed, because they will remain changed for ever. The same is true of the spiritual heavens, which will perish from the present life through the death of the body: ‘We all die and like waters that return no more, we fall down into the earth’ (2 Sam. 14:14); ‘The just perishes, and no man lays it to heart’ (Is. 57:1). Likewise, they shall fail, because as it says below (8:13): ‘That which decays and grows old is near its end.’ And you shall change, namely, their bodies, when this bodily thing puts on incorruption (1 Cor. 15:53); and they shall be changed, namely, as to their mind, when they pass from seeing in a dark manner to seeing face to face: ‘All the days in which I am now in warfare I expect until my change come’ (Jb. 14:14). Deinde subiungit immutabilitatem Dei, cum dicit tu autem idem ipse es. Ubi duo facit. Primo enim ponit intentum; secundo ostendit hoc per signum, ibi et anni tui. Dicit ergo ipsi peribunt, tu autem, scilicet Dei filius, et hoc contra Arrianos, idem ipse es, id est, idem perseveras, et numquam mutaris. Mal. III, 6: ego Deus, et non mutor. Iac. I, 17: apud quem non est transmutatio, et cetera. Et signum huius immutabilitatis ponit, cum dicit anni tui non deficient. Ubi sciendum est, quod anni Dei dicuntur duratio eius, sicut anni hominis duratio hominis: duratio autem hominis deficit dupliciter, scilicet secundum partes, et secundum totum; secundum partes quidem, quia cum sit temporalis, una pars succedit alteri, et una adveniente, deficit altera. Deficit etiam secundum totum, quia ex toto desinit esse. In duratione vero Dei neutrum horum est, quia non deficit secundum totum, quia est semper. Ps. XCI, 9: tu autem altissimus in aeternum, domine. Item nec secundum partes, quia aeternitas est tota simul, et quid stans. Iob XXXVI, 26: numerus annorum eius inaestimabilis, et cetera. 77. – Then he mentions God’s immutability when he says, but you are the same. Here he does two things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he shows this by a sign; and your years will never end. He says, therefore, they shall perish, but you, namely, the Son of God, are the same, i.e., you continue the same and are never changed: ‘I am the Lord and I change not’ (Mal 3:6); ‘With whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration’ (Jas. 1:17). He gives the sign of this immutability when he says, your years never end. Here it should be noted that God’s years are His duration, just as a man’s years are. But a man’s duration fails in two ways: first, in its parts, because, since he is temporal, one part succeeds another, and when one succeeds, the predecessor fails; secondly, as a whole, because it ceases altogether. But neither of these failures is found in God’s duration, because He continues for ever, and the parts of His duration are eternal, and all exist together without succession: ‘The number of his years cannot be computed’ (Jb. 36:26). Sed cum sit una et immutabilis, quare anni vocantur in plurali, et non annus in singulari? Ratio huius est, quia intellectus noster accipit cognitionem intelligibilium per sensibilia, quia omnis nostra cognitio incipit a sensu. Unde et Deus, qui est omnino simplex, describitur sub similitudine corporalium, Is. VI, v. 1: vidi dominum sedentem, et cetera. Ita etiam duratio eius a nobis describitur per aliqua nobis nota, cum tamen sit uniformis et simplex. Unde aliquando dicitur annus, aliquando dies et mensis, quia omnes differentias temporis includit. 78. – But if His duration is one and unchangeable, why say years in the plural and not year in the singular? The reason is that our intellect takes its knowledge of intelligible through the sensible, because all our knowledge is drawn from the senses; hence even God, Who is absolutely simple, is described under a likeness of bodily things: ‘I say the Lord sitting upon a throne lofty and elevated’ (Is. 6:1). So, too, His duration is described by us in terms of what is familiar, even though it is uniform and simple. Hence, it is sometimes called a year, and sometimes a day or a month, because it includes all of time’s differences.
1-6
Heb 1:13-14Supra probavit apostolus tria de Christo, in quibus excedit Angelos, hic probat quartum, quod praemiserat de ipso, scilicet quod sedet ad dexteram maiestatis, quod pertinet ad dignitatem eius. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim inducit auctoritatem David hoc ostendentem; secundo ostendit Angelos ab hac dignitate deficere, ibi nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus? Circa primum duo facit, quia primo describit dignitatem Christi; secundo ostendit per signum, ibi quoadusque ponam. 79. – Above, the Apostle proved three things in which Christ excels the angels; here he proves a fourth, namely, that He sits on the right hand of majesty, which pertains to His dignity. In regard to this he does two things: first, he adduces David’s authority to show this; secondly, he shows that the angels lack this dignity (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes Christ’s dignity; secondly, he manifests this with a sign (v. 13b). Dicit ergo ad quem autem Angelorum dixit aliquando Deus, quasi dicat: non invenitur, quod hoc Deus dixerit Angelo, sed dixit Christo. Et ipse Christus, Matth. XXII, v. 43 ss., inducit hoc de se dictum. Hoc autem, quod dicit sede a dextris meis, potest referri ad divinam naturam, in qua Christus aequalis est patri, quia habet et iudiciariam et regiam potestatem aequalem patri. Io. XVI, 15: omnia quae habet pater, mea sunt. Ipse vero pater ab aeterno dixit, quia dicendo filium generavit, et generando dedit ei aequalitatem patris. Potest etiam referri quantum ad humanam naturam, secundum quam sedet in bonis potioribus patris. Tunc autem pater dixit, quando humanae naturae verbum suum univit. Hoc autem magis supra expositum est, ubi dixerat sedet ad dexteram. 80. – He says, therefore: to what angel has he, namely, God, ever said? As if to say: It is not found that God said this to an angel, but He said it to Christ. And Christ Himself claims that this was said of Him. But what He says, namely, sit at my right hand, can be referred to the divine nature in which Christ is equal to the Father, because He has judiciary and royal power equal to the Father: ‘All that the Father has are mine’ (Jn. 16:15). Indeed, the Father Himself said this from eternity, because He engendered the Son by speaking, and by engendering gave Him equality with the Father. It can also be referred to the human nature, according to which He sits near the transcendent goods of the Father. In this case the Father spoke, when He joined His Word to a human nature. Consequenter cum dicit quoadusque, ostendit per signum dignitatem Christi; ubi occurrit duplex dubitatio. Una, quia ab aeterno omnia sunt subiecta filio inquantum Deus. Item, quia in resurrectione Christus dicit: data est mihi omnis potestas. Quid ergo expectat subiiciendum scabello suo? Et sciendum est, quod aliquid potest esse in potestate alicuius dupliciter. Uno modo quantum ad auctoritatem, et sic omnia ab aeterno quantum ad praeordinationem fiendorum et in tempore quo fuerunt, subiecta sunt filio Dei inquantum Deus, sed a principio conceptionis inquantum homo. Alio modo quantum ad exercitium potestatis, et sic non sunt ei omnia subiecta, sed tantum in fine mundi, quia nondum exercet potestatem in omnia, subiiciendo sibi omnia. Phil. c. III, 21: secundum operationem qua possit etiam subiicere sibi omnia. Sed quid est quod dicit scabellum? Potest dici quod per hoc nihil aliud intelligitur quam plena et perfecta subiectio. Illud enim dicitur perfecte subiectum alicui, quod ipse potest conculcare pedibus. Aliter etiam, et faciendo vim in verbo, quia sicut Deus est caput Christi I Cor. XI, 3: caput Christi Deus ita pedes Christi, humanitas eius. Ps. CXXXI, v. 7: adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius. Ponam ergo scabellum, id est, non solum subiiciam inimicos tuos tuae divinitati, sed etiam humanitati tuae. 81. – Then (v. 13b) he shows Christ’s dignity with a sign. But two questions arise here: first of all, because from all eternity all things are subject to the Son inasmuch as He is God; secondly, because in the resurrection Christ said: ‘All power is given to me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18), what does He expect shall be subjected to His footstool? But it should be noted that something can be in someone’s power in two ways: in one way in regard to his authority, and then all things have been subject to the Son of God from all eternity, inasmuch as they were decreed to be done, and in the time they existed, they were subject to the Son of God as God, but to Him as man they were subject from the time of His conception as man. In another way, in regard to the exercise of His power; and then all things are not yet subject to Him, but only at the end of the world, because He does not yet exercise His power over all things by subjecting them to Him: ‘According to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things to Himself’ (Phil. 3:21). But why does he say, footstool? Perhaps because that word signifies nothing more than full and perfect subjection, for that is said to be perfectly subject to someone which he can tread under foot; or because just as God is the head of Christ, as it says in 1 Cor. (11:3), so Christ’s feet would be His humanity: ‘We shall adore in the place where his feet stood’ (Ps. 131:7). I will make them your footstool, i.e., not only will I subject you enemies to your divinity, but even to your humanity. In hoc autem erravit Origenes. Ipse enim voluit et intellexit tantum unum modum subiectionis, dicens: sicut enim nihil aliud est subiici luci, quam illuminari, ita cum Christus sit veritas, iustitia, et bonitas, et quicquid tale potest dici, nihil est aliud subiici salvatori, quam salvari. Et ideo voluit, quod in fine omnia, etiam Daemones, salvarentur, quia aliter non subiicerentur omnia Christo. Sed hoc est contra illud quod dicitur Matth. c. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Unde sciendum est, quod duplex est modus subiectionis. Unus per voluntatem subditorum, sicut boni ministri subiiciuntur domino suo, puta regi, et sic soli boni subiiciuntur Christo. Alius per voluntatem domini, et sic est quaedam violentia ex parte subditorum. Et sic mali subiicientur Christo, non quod velint dominium eius, sed quia Christus faciet de ipsis voluntatem suam, puniendo eos, qui noluerunt hic facere voluntatem suam. Et hoc proprie designatur per scabellum, quia quod calcatur, comprimitur. Is. LXVI, 1: caelum mihi sedes est, id est, caelestes et boni, sed terra, id est, terreni et mali, scabellum pedum meorum. 82. – Origen erred on this point, for he understood only one type of subjection, saying that just as being subject to the light is nothing more than being enlightened, so, since Christ is truth, justice and goodness and whatever else He can be called, to be subjected to the Savior is nothing less than to be saved. Therefore, he desired that in the end all things, including the devils, would be saved, because otherwise all things would not be subjected to Christ. But this is contrary to what is stated in Mt. (25:41): ‘Depart, you accursed, into everlasting fire.’ Hence, it should be noted that there are two types of subjection: one by the will of the subjects, as good ministers are subject to their master, as to their king; in this way, only the good are subject to Christ. The other is by the will of the master, so that some force is exerted on the subjects. This is how the wicked are subject to Christ, not that they desire His dominion, but because Christ will accomplish His will in their regard by punishing them, who refused to do His will here. And this is what is designated by the footstool, because whatever is tread upon is crushed: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool’ (Is. 66:1). Alia dubitatio est de hoc, quod dicit quoadusque, etc., quia si sedebit quoadusque ponat, ergo cum posuerit, non sedebit. Respondeo quod huiusmodi dictiones, donec, et quoadusque, quandoque ponuntur finite, quando scilicet designant terminum eius cui coniunguntur, sicut cum dico: sede hic donec veniam. Aliquando autem tenentur infinite, quando scilicet non ponitur terminus, ut cum dicitur: iste non poenituit donec vixit, quia nec post mortem poenituit. Sicut enim dicit Hieronymus, illud oportet designari de quo posset esse dubium. Illud autem, quod non est dubium, relinquitur intelligenti. Dubium autem est de aliquo utrum in vita sua poeniteat, sed quod non post mortem suam, nulli est dubium. Sic et in proposito; cum enim modo multi impugnent et blasphement Christum, videtur dubium utrum modo sedeat; sed non est dubium, utrum sedeat, quando omnia subiecta erunt ei, et ideo non exprimitur illud. 83. – Another question concerns the statement, until I make your enemies your footstool, because if He sit until they are made his footstool, then when they are made his footstool, He will no longer sit. I answer that words as until or as long as are sometimes used finitely, namely, when they designate the end of that to which they are joined, as when I say, ‘Sit here till I come’; but sometimes they are used infinitely, when no end is mentioned, as when I say: ‘He did not repent as long as he lived’, because he did not repent even after death. For, as Jerome says, that would be designated about which there might be doubt, but that which is not in doubt is left to the one understanding. But there is doubt whether a person will repent in this life, but not so after death. So, too, in the present case: for since many now attack and blaspheme Christ, there is doubt whether He is sitting now, but there is not doubt that He will sit, when all things are subject to Him; therefore, it is not expressed. Consequenter ostendit quod dignitas haec Angelis non convenit, cum dicit nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, et cetera. Ubi tria facit, quia primo ostendit ipsorum officium; secundo executionem officii, ibi in ministerium; tertio fructum executionis, ibi ut haereditatem. 84. – Then he shows that this dignity does not belong to the angels, when he says, Are they not all ministering spirits? Here he does three things: first, he indicated their function; secondly, the performance of that function (v. 14b); thirdly, the fruit of that performance (v. 14c). Dicit ergo nonne omnes, et cetera. Ps. CII, 21: ministri eius qui facitis voluntatem eius. Sed contra Dan. VII, 10: millia millium ministrabant ei, etc., ubi dicit Gregorius: aliqui ministrant, alii sunt qui assistunt. Non ergo omnes ministrant. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod sicut videmus in artificibus quod duplex est genus artificum, quidam enim sunt quasi manu exequentes ut manu artifices; alii autem non exequuntur nec operantur manu, sed sunt artifices disponentes, et quasi praecipientes quid agendum sit. Ita et in Angelis est, quia quidam sunt quasi exequentes ea quae a divina iussione procedunt circa nos agenda, quidam vero quasi praeceptores, praecipientes ea quae agenda sunt. Accipiendo ergo largo modo administratores, tam pro exequentibus quam etiam pro imperantibus, sic omnes sunt administratores vel administratorii, [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] inquantum superiores exequuntur Dei voluntatem circa medios, medii circa infimos, infimi circa nos.] Sed si dicantur administratorii qui exequuntur, alii autem qui immediate accipiunt a Deo assistentes, sic quidam ministrant, quidam assistunt et tradunt aliis. 85. – He says, therefore: Are they not all ministering spirits? ‘His ministers who do his will’ (Ps. 102:21). But Dan. (7:10) says: ‘Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him.’ Therefore, there are some who minister and some who stand about. Consequently, not all minister. I answer that just as in the case of artifacts there are two kinds of artisans (for some work with their hands, and others do not, but oversee and direct what is to be done), so, too, with the angels, because some carry out the divine commands, while others oversee and direct their performance. Therefore, if we take ministers in a broad sense to include both the executors and the directors, than all are ministers, inasmuch as the higher ones carry out God’s will in regard the middle ones, and these in regard to the lower, and the lower in regard to us. But if those who perform are called ministers, while those who are immediately enlightened by God are called assistants, then some minister and some assist and direct the others. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Assistentes igitur sunt qui immediate accipiunt illuminationes divinas ab ipso Deo; unde et nominibus relatis ad Deum nuncupantur, sicut Seraphim, id est, amantes Deum, Cherubim cognoscentes, throni portantes. Ministrantes non sunt qui ab istis accipiunt, et aliis tradunt. Sed contra hoc esse videtur illud quod dicit Gregorius, quod assistere dicuntur, qui intima Dei contemplatione fruuntur. Cum ergo omnes Angeli videant Deum per essentiam, secundum illud Matth. XVIII, 18: Angeli eorum semper vident faciem patris mei; ergo videtur quod omnes sint assistentes. Respondeo. Dicendum quod quidam de primis studentibus in libris Dionysii, volens salvare et dictum apostoli et dictum Gregorii, dixit quod Angeli inferiores non vident Deum per essentiam, cum non sint assistentes. Et iste fuit Ioannes Scotus, qui primo commentatus est in libros Dionysii. Sed haec opinio haeretica est, quia cum beatitudo perficiatur in visione Dei, sequeretur quod Angeli inferiores non videntes Deum per essentiam, non essent beati. Est etiam dictum domini dicentis, Matth. XVIII, 10: Angeli eorum, et cetera. Et ideo dicendum quod omnes vident Deum per essentiam, non tamen omnes assistunt. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est, quod sicut Deus cognoscendo essentiam suam, etiam seipsum cognoscit, et omnia alia a se, ita et Angeli videntes Dei essentiam, et ipsum cognoscunt, et res omnes in ipso; in qua quidem visione, ideo solum sunt beati, quia Deum vident, non ideo quia res in ipso cognoscunt. Unde Augustinus in libro confessionum: beatus qui te videt, etiam si illa non videat. Qui autem te et illa cognoscit, non propter illa beatior, sed propter te solum beatus. Visio autem qua Deum vident per essentiam, est omnibus beatis communis. In visione autem qua res cognoscunt in Deo, unus Angelorum praeeminet aliis; nam superiores, utpote altioris naturae et intellectus, plura vident in Deo, quam medii; et medii quam infimi. Unde isti vident omnia quae ad eorum officium pertinent, et quae sunt exequenda per alios, quae non ita perfecte vident inferiores, et ideo aliis exequenda tradunt, et propter hoc isti solum assistunt, et tamen omnes vident Deum, et in huius signum dicit Dionysius, quod quibusdam Angelis quaerentibus ipse Deus immediate respondet, sicut Is.: quis est iste qui venit de Edom? Et respondet ipse: ego qui loquor iustitiam. Quibusdam vero respondet per Angelos, sicut illud Ps. XXIII, 8: quis est iste rex gloriae? Respondent Angeli, et non Deus, et dicunt: dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae. Sic ergo patet Angelorum officium.] 86. – Therefore, the assistants are those who receive God’s illumination directly from God Himself, and they receives names related to God, such as Seraphim, i.e., those who love God, Cherubim, those who know God, and Thrones, who carry. But the ministering spirits are those who receive from them and deliver to the others. But this seems to be contrary to Gregory’s statement that those who stand about are the ones who enjoy the beatific vision. Therefore, since all the angels see God’s essence, according to Mt. (18:10): ‘Their angels always see the face of my Father in heaven’, it seems that all assist. I answer that one of the first scholars to study Dionysius’ books strove to preserve both the Apostle’s and Gregory’s opinions and said that the lower angels do not see God fact to face, since they are not standing near. But this opinion is heretical, because, since happiness is made complete in the vision, it would follow that since the lower angels do not see God, they are not happy. Furthermore, the Lord Himself said: ‘Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father’ (Mt. 18:10). Therefore, it must be admitted that all see God’s essence; just as God by knowing His essence also knows Himself and all things not Himself, so, too, the angels, seeing the essence of God, know it and all things in it. In this vision they are happy only because they see Him; not because they see other things in Him. Hence, Augustine says in the Confessions: ‘Blessed is he that sees you, even if he does not see others. But he that sees you and other things in not any the happier for seeing the other things, but only for seeing you.’ But the vision by which they see God’s essence is common to the beatified. In the vision by which they know all other things in God one angel is above another, for the higher angels, being of a higher nature and intellect, see more in God than the intermediate do, and these more than the lowest. Hence, they see everything which pertains to their office and which are to be accomplished by the others. These things the lower angels do not see as perfectly; therefore, some apprise the others of their duties, and they alone stand about. Nevertheless, all see God. The sign of this, according to Dionysius is that to some angels who ask, God answers: ‘I that speak justice’; but to the question: ‘Who is king of glory’? The angels and not God answer: ‘the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory’. Thus, the function of the angels is clear. Sed contra hoc est, quia hic tangitur executio officii cum dicit in ministerium missi; ergo videtur per hoc quod omnes exequantur. Ps. XXXIII, 8: immittit Angelus domini in circuitu eius, et cetera. Is. VI, 6: volavit ad me unus de Seraphim, qui sunt in supremo ordine. Ergo si illi mittuntur, multo fortius alii. Sed contra hoc est Dionysius, qui dicit quod accepit ab apostolo, quod soli inferiores mittuntur, et non superiores. Respondeo. Quidam dicunt quod superiores mittuntur et exeunt aliquando aliquibus causis subortis ad exteriora. Sed videtur mihi quod superiores quatuor, scilicet Seraphim, Cherubim, throni, et dominationes numquam mittuntur, sed inferiores mittuntur, quod patet ex eorum nominibus. Virtutes enim mittuntur ad mirabilia facienda; potestates ad arcendum potestates aereas; principatus ad gubernandum communitatem vel regnum, et sic de aliis. Dominationes autem dicuntur, quia ordinant omnia haec inferiora; alii autem tres ordines accipiunt nomina ex operatione, quam immediate exercent circa Deum, et illam dispensant in alios. Quod ergo dicit, missi, dicendum est quod duplex est missio: una quae motum localem importat, et sic mittuntur solum inferiores. Alia est missio, quae fit per applicationem et directionem novi effectus in creatura, et sic mittuntur filius et spiritus sanctus; et hoc modo mittuntur superiores, quia virtus eorum immittitur in inferiores immittenda aliis. Et quod dicit volavit, etc., dicendum quod inferiores utuntur nominibus illorum quorum virtute et auctoritate agunt, et eis attribuunt operationes suas. Et quia ille inferior officium suum exequebatur in virtute Seraphim, ideo vocatus est nomine Seraphim, non quod esset natura Seraphim. 87. – But this seems to be a description of the function they perform, when he says, sent forth to serve. Therefore, it seems that all are performers: ‘The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him: and shall deliver them’ (Ps. 33:8; Is 6:6): ‘One of the seraphim flew to me.’ But the seraphim belong to the highest order. Therefore, is they are sent, then a fortiori so are the others. But this is contrary to Dionysius, who repeats what he received from the Apostle, namely, that only the lower angels are sent. I answer that some say that the higher are sent and they depart when certain cases arise. But it seems to me that the four highest orders, namely, the Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones and Dominations are never sent, but the lower are sent. This is obvious from their names: for the Virtues are sent to work wonders; the Powers to restrain the ethereal powers. But the Dominations are so called, because they ordain all these lower ones. But he other three orders receive their name from the action they immediately perform in regard to God, and they dispense it to the others. Hence, if they are said to be sent, it is because there are two kinds of mission: one implies local motion, and this is the way the lower angels are sent; the other is he mission which involves the application and direction of a new effect in the creature, and this is the way the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent. It is also the way the higher angels are sent, because their power is sent to the lower ones to be sent to others. And if he says: ‘One of the seraphim flew to me’ (Is. 6:6), it is because the lower angels use the names of those by whose power and authority they act, and they attribute their actions to them. And because that lower angel performed his office in virtue of the Seraphim, he was called by the name of Seraphim, even though he was not by nature a seraph. Deinde subiungit fructum officii, cum dicit qui haereditatem capiunt salutis. Et licet omnes sint vocati, non tamen omnes capiunt haereditatem. Qui ergo capiunt, illi percipiunt fructum missionis. Ier. LI, 9: curavimus Babylonem, et non est sanata. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Vel rursus cum dicit propter eos qui haereditatem, etc., ponitur executionis fructus, qui est, ut homines haereditatem capiant salutis. Propter hoc enim est totus ordo actionis circa nos, ut compleatur numerus electorum. Ps. XC, 11: Angelis suis Deus mandavit de te, et cetera. Et dicit propter eos, non propter omnes, quia licet omnes sint vocati, pauci tamen sunt electi, ut dicitur Matth. cap. XXIV. Et dicit haereditatem, quia ad ipsam soli filii perveniunt; quod si filii, et haeredes. Dicit vero capiunt, quia oportet quod labore, et studio, et sollicitudine acquirant regnum Dei. Matth. XI, 12: regnum caelorum vim patitur. Illi ergo capient qui student in se dominicas illuminationes et inspirationes immissas per Angelos bonos custodire, et effectui demandare, alias dicetur eis quod dicitur Ier. LI, 9: curavimus Babylonem, et non est sanata.] 88. – Then he mentions the fruit of their activity when he ways, for the sake of those who are to receive [the inheritance of] salvation. And although all are called, not all receive the inheritance. Therefore, the ones who do receive, obtain the fruit of the mission: ‘We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed’ (Jer. 51:9). Or again when he says, for them that shall receive [the inheritance of] salvation, the fruit of their performance is mentioned, which is that men receive the inheritance of salvation. For the purpose of their actions toward men is that the number of the elect be filled. And he says, for them, and not for all, because, although all are called, few are chosen, as it says in Mt. (22:14). He says, the inheritance, because only the sons obtain it: ‘But if sons, then heirs also’ (Rom. 8:17). He says, receive, because the kingdom of God is obtained by labor and sweat and solicitude: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence’ (Mt. 11:12). Therefore, they will be saved, who take care to guard the divine illuminations and inspirations impressed by the good angels and to make them fructify; otherwise, they will hear what said in Jer (51:9): ‘We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed.’
2-1
Heb 2:1-4Supra ostendit apostolus multipliciter eminentiam Christi ad Angelos, hic ex hoc concludit, quod magis obediendum est doctrinae Christi, scilicet novo testamento, quam veteri testamento. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim ponit conclusionem intentam; secundo inducit rationem ad conclusionem intentam; tertio confirmat consequentiam rationis. Primum in principio; secundum, ibi si enim qui per Angelos; tertium, ibi non enim Angelis. 89. – After showing in a number of ways Christ’s superiority over the angels, the Apostle here concludes that Christ’s doctrine, namely, the New Testament, deserves more obedience than the Old Testament. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states the conclusion intended; secondly, he supports this conclusion with a reason (v. 2); thirdly, he confirms the consequence (v. 5). Circa primum sciendum est, quod Ex. XXIII, 20, datis praeceptis legis iudicialibus et moralibus, subiungit: ecce ego mitto Angelum meum, etc., et sequitur: observa igitur et audi vocem eius, et cetera. Si igitur mandatum Angeli, per quem lex data est, servaretur, introitus disponeretur ad patriam. Unde et Matth. XIX, 17 dictum est: si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. Oportet ergo servare mandata illa legis, ergo oportet magis obedire mandatis eius, qui maior est Angelis, per quos lex data est. Et hoc est quod dicit propterea abundantius observare oportet ea, quae audivimus. Abd. I, 1: auditum audivimus a domino. Hab. III, 2: domine, audivi auditum tuum, et timui. Oportet ergo observare abundantius. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Et dicit abundantius propter tria: primo propter dicentis auctoritatem, quia iste creator et filius Dei, et ille creatura et Dei minister. Act. V, 29: obedire oportet magis Deo quam hominibus, et etiam Angelis. Secundo propter dictorum utilitatem, quia sunt verba vitae aeternae, Io. VI, 69: domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae habes, etc., illa bonorum temporalium. Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis, et cetera. Tertio propter observantiae suavitatem, quia haec sunt suavia I Io. V, 3: mandata eius gravia non sunt, et Matth. XI, 30: iugum meum suave est, etc. illa gravia, Act. XV, 10: hoc est onus quod neque nos, neque patres nostri portare potuerunt.] 90. – In regard to the first it should be noted that after giving the judicial and moral precepts of the Law in Ex. (chap. 25), He continues in verse 20: ‘Behold, I shall send my angel, who shall go before you and shall bring you into the land;’ and then adds, ‘Take notice of him and hear his voice, and do not think him one to be condemned’ (Ex. 23:21). Therefore, if the commandment of an angel, through whom the Law was delivered, is obeyed, they will enter heaven. Hence, it says in Mt. (19:17): ‘If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.’ Therefore it is necessary to keep those commandments of the Law; but much more to obey the commandments of Him Who is higher than the angels, through whom the Law was delivered. And this what he says, therefore, we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard: ‘We have heard a rumor from the Lord’ (Ob. 1:1); ‘O Lord, I have heard your hearing and was afraid’ (Heb. 3:1). Therefore, we ought to observe more closely for three reasons: first, because of the authority of the one speaking, for He is the Creator and the Son of God and not a creature of God’s minister: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men’ (Ac. 5:29); secondly, because of the usefulness of the commands, for they are the words of eternal life: ‘Lord, to whom shall go, you have the words of eternal life’ (Jn. 6:69); others are words of temporal goods: ‘If you would hear me, you would eat the good things of the earth’ (Is. 1:19); thirdly, because of the sweetness of their observance, for they are sweet: ‘His commandments are not heavy’ (1 Jn. 5:3); ‘My yoke is sweet and my burden light’ (Mt. 11:30); ‘This is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear’ (Ac. 15:10). Secundo ostendit idem ex periculo imminente, cum dicit ne forte pereffluamus, id est, aeternaliter damnemur. Ubi sciendum est, quod aliquis fluit per poenas corporales, II Reg. XIX, 14: quasi aquae dilabimur super terram: effluit per culpam, sed pereffluit corporaliter per damnationem aeternam, quia nec testa remanet. Is. XXX, 14: comminuetur sicut comminuitur lagena figuli contritione pervalida, nec invenietur de fragmentis eius testa. 91. – Secondly, he shows the same thing from the threatening danger when he says, lest we drift away from it, i.e., be eternally damned. Here it should be noted that someone drifts away by bodily punishments: ‘Like waters that return no more, we fall down into the earth’ (2 Sam. 14:14). He drifts away worse through guilt; but he drifts away worst by eternal damnation, because not a shard remains: ‘And it shall be broken small as the potter’s vessel, broken all to pieces with a mighty breaking, and there shall not a shard be found of the pieces thereof’ (Is. 30:14). Consequenter inducit rationem ad hoc, quae continet unam conditionalem continentem comparationem novi et veteris testamenti. In antecedenti ponitur conditio veteris testamenti; in consequenti conditio novi testamenti. Circa vetus autem tria ponit, scilicet legis auctoritatem; secundo firmitatem veritatis, ibi qui factus est firmus; tertio necessitatem observandi, ibi et omnis praevaricatio. 92. – Then he adduces the reason, which contains a conditional sentence with a comparison between the New and Old Testaments. In the antecedent is mentioned the condition of the Old Testament, and in the consequent the condition of the New Testament. In regard to the Old he mentions three things: first, the authority of the Law; secondly, the solidity of truth (v. 2b); thirdly, the necessity of obeying (v. 2c). Primo ponit auctoritatem, quia non humana ratione data est lex, sed per Angelos. Gal. III, 19: ordinata per Angelos, et cetera. Act. VII, 38: hic Moyses qui fuit in Ecclesia in solitudine cum Angelo qui loquebatur ei in monte Sina, et cetera. Nec hoc est mirum, quia, ut probat Dionysius, revelationes divinarum illuminationum ad nos perveniunt mediantibus Angelis. 93. – First, he mentions the authority, because the Law was not delivered by human authority but by angels: ‘Being ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator’ (Gal. 2:19); This is he that was in the Church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sion and with our fathers’ (Ac. 7:38). Nor is this strange, because, as Dionysius proves, the revelation of divine illuminations reach us through the medium of angels. Firmitatem vero veritatis ostendit, cum dicit qui factus est firmus, quia omne quod fuit praenuntiatum in lege veteri, totum impletum est. Matth. V, 18: iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege donec omnia fiant; [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] et Prov. XII, 19: labium veritatis firmum erit in perpetuum; et Ps.: quae procedunt de labiis meis, non faciam irrita. Factus est ergo firmus, quia non fuit irritatus.] 94. – He shows the firmness of the truth when he says, was valid, because everything foretold in the Old Law has been fulfilled: (Pr. 12:19) ‘The lip of truth shall be steadfast for ever;’ ‘Not one dot or one iota of the law shall pass away until all be fulfilled’ (Mt. 5:18); ‘The words that proceed from my mouth, I will not make void’ (Ps. 88:35). Therefore, it was made valid, because it was not made void. Necessitatem ostendit qua puniuntur praevaricantes. Unde dicit et omnis praevaricatio et inobedientia, et cetera. Ubi ponit unum quod respondet duplici culpae, scilicet peccato omissionis et transgressionis. Primum respondet praeceptis affirmativis, aliud negativis. Primum notatur nomine inobedientiae. Sed numquid inobedientia est peccatum generale? Et videtur quod sic, per hoc quod dicitur hic. Ad quod dicendum est, quod peccatum dicitur esse speciale ex intentione specialis finis. Unde quando aliquis non servat praeceptum hac intentione, ut contemnat praeceptum, sic est speciale peccatum; sed quando ex aliqua causa, puta quando ex concupiscentia, tunc est conditio consequens peccatum, non tamen speciale peccatum. Aliud autem vocatur praevaricatio. Ps. CXVIII, 115: praevaricantes reputavi, et cetera. Item aliud ponit ex parte poenae, cum dicit accepit iustam mercedis retributionem. Retributio enim respicit quantitatem culpae, ut qui magis peccavit, magis puniatur. Merces vero respicit qualitatem, ut qui igne libidinis peccaverit, igne crucietur. Accipiet ergo mercedem bonam pro bonis, et malam pro malis. Et sic merces accipitur in bonum et in malum, inquantum importat iustitiam distribuendi. Iustam dicit propter aequalitatem poenae, ut scilicet secundum mensuram peccati sit plagarum modus. De poenis autem habetur Lev. XXVI et Deut. XXVIII. Glossa dicit: iustam, ne putetur perire iustitia propter misericordiam. 95. – Then he shows the necessity of obeying, because the disobedient are punished: and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution. Here he mentions one thing which corresponds to a double guilt, namely, to the sin of omission and of transgression. The first corresponds to affirmative precepts; the other to negative precepts. The first is identified by the name, disobedience. But is disobedience a general sin? It seems so: for a sin is specific, because it has a special end. Hence, when someone does not obey a precept with the intention of scorning it, it is a special sin; but when there is another reason, say, concupiscence, then it is a condition following the sin, but it is not a special sin. The other is called a transgression: ‘I have counted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators’ (Ps. 118:119). Then he mentions something on the part of the punishment: received a just retribution. For retribution depends on the amount of guilt, so that one who sins more gravely receives a greater punishment; but the wages depend on the quality, so that one who sins from the fires of lust will be punished with fire. There, he will receive a good wage for good acts and an evil wage for wicked actions. Consequently, retribution is received for good and for evil, inasmuch as it implies distributive justice. It is called just because of the equality of punishment, so that according to the amount of sin there is a certain amount of punishment. Consequenter cum dicit quomodo nos effugiemus, etc., ponit consequens suae conditionalis, in quo describit conditionem novi testamenti, ubi tria facit. Primo enim ostendit necessitatem observandi; secundo originem novi testamenti; tertio firmitatem veritatis ipsius. Secundum, ibi quae cum initium accepisset. Tertium, ibi contestante Deo. 96. – Then (v. 3) he places the consequent of his conditional, in which he describes the condition of the New Testament. Here he does three things: first, he shows the need to obey; secondly, the origin of the New Testament (v. 3b); thirdly, the firmness of its truth (v. 4). Dicit ergo. Si sermo factus per Angelos punit praevaricatores et inobedientes, quomodo nos effugiemus, et cetera. In quo denotat periculum quod imminet non observantibus. Supra autem vetus testamentum vocavit salutem. Cuius ratio est, quia sermo ordinatur ad cognitionem tantum, hoc enim facit vetus testamentum, quia per ipsum est cognitio peccati. Rom. III, 20: per legem cognitio peccati. Item cognitio Dei. Ps. CXLVII, 9: non fecit taliter omni nationi. Et alibi LXXV, 1: notus in Iudaea Deus, et cetera. Non tamen conferebat gratiam, sed in novo testamento confertur gratia Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, quae ducit ad salutem aeternam. Io. VI, 69: domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes. Ps. CXVIII, 140: ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer. Item, commendat ipsam ex quantitate. Et dicit tantam, id est valde magnam. Et certe valde magna est, si consideres a quibus periculis liberat: quia non solum liberat a periculis mortis corporalis, sed etiam spiritualis. Matth. I, 21: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Item magna est, quia est universalis, id est, non unius populi tantum, nec ab uno periculo, sed est omnium hominum et ab hostibus omnibus. I Tim. IV, 10: qui est salvator omnium, maxime autem fidelium. Lc. I, 74: sine timore de manu inimicorum nostrorum liberati, et cetera. Item magna est, quia aeterna. Is. XLV, 17: salvatus est Israel in domino salute sempiterna. Et ideo non est negligenda, sed debemus esse solliciti ad obtinendum eam. Iud. XVIII, v. 9: vidimus terram valde opulentam et uberem. Et sequitur: nolite negligere, nolite cessare, et cetera. Et vere non debemus negligere, quia si negligentes fuerimus, puniemur, non tantum perdendo bonum, sed etiam incurremus malum, scilicet aeternae damnationis, quod effugere non poterimus. Ideo dicit quomodo nos effugiemus? Matth. III, 7: quis demonstrabit vobis fugere a ventura ira? Iob XI, v. 20: effugium peribit ab eis. Ps. CXXXVIII, v. 6: quo ibo a spiritu tuo, et quo a facie tua fugiam? 97. – He says, therefore: If the word spoken by angels punishes transgressors, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? In this he denotes the danger which threatens those who do not obey. But above he called the Old Testament salvation. The reason for this is that a word is ordained to knowledge only; for this is what the Old Testament did, since by it there came knowledge of sin: ‘By the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Rom. 3:20). Also the knowledge of God: ‘He has not done in like manner to every nation’ (Ps. 75:2). But it did not confer grace, for grace is conferred in the New Testament: ‘Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (Jn. 1:17), which leads to eternal salvation: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life’ (Jn. 6:69); ‘Your word is exceedingly refined’ (Ps. 118:140). Then he commends salvation, because it is so great. And certainly it is very great, if you consider the danger from which it frees us, because it frees us not only from the dangers of bodily death but of spiritual: ‘He will save his people form their sins’ (Mt. 1:21). It is also great, because it is universal, i.e., not confined to one nation or to one danger, but it is for all men and from all enemies: ‘He is the savior of all men, but especially of the faithful’ (1 Tim. 4:10); ‘That being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him without fear’ (Lk. 1:74). It is also great, because it is eternal: ‘Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation’ (Is. 45:17). Therefore, it should not be neglected, but we should be careful to obtain it: ‘We have seen the land which is exceedingly rich and fruitful’ (Jg. 18:9); then he continues: ‘Neglect not; lose no time; let us go and possess it: there will be no difficulty’ (Jg. 18:9) And of course we should not neglect it, because if we are negligent, we shall be punished not only by losing what is good but also by incurring evil, namely, eternal damnation, which we shall not be able to escape.’ Hence, he said, How shall we escape? ‘Who has shown you to flee the wrath to come’ (Mt. 3:7)? ‘The way to escape shall fail them’ (Jb. 11:20); ‘Wither shall I go from your spirit; or whither shall I flee from your face’ (Ps. 138:7)? Originem doctrinae novi testamenti ostendit, cum dicit quae cum initium accepisset, et cetera. Ubi ponit duplicem eius originem. Prima fuit non per Angelos, sed per ipsum Christum. Supra I, 2: locutus est nobis in filio. Io. I, 18: unigenitus qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Et ideo dicit quae cum accepisset initium enarrandi per dominum, quia habet duplex initium: unum simpliciter, et illud est ab aeterno, et hoc est per seipsum verbum. Eph. I, 4: elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Aliud est initium enarrationis, et istud fuit in tempore per verbum incarnatum. Secunda origo fuit per apostolos qui audierunt a Christo. Unde dicit ab eis qui audierunt, id est, per ipsorum praedicationem. I Io. I, 1: quod fuit ab initio, quod vidimus et audivimus, et cetera. Lc. I, 2: sicut narraverunt nobis, qui ab initio ipsi viderunt. 98. – Then (v. 3b) he shows the origin of the doctrine of the New Testament. Here he mentions a double origin: first of all, that it came not by angels but by Christ: ‘He has spoken to us in his Son’ (Heb. 1:2); ‘The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ (Jn. 1:18). Hence, he says, it was declared at first by the Lord, because it has two beginnings: one is absolute and from all eternity; and this is through the Word: ‘He chose us in him before the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4). The other is the beginning of the declaration, and this occurs in time through the Incarnate Word. The second origin was through the apostles, who head from Christ; hence, he says, was attested to us by them that heard him, i.e., by its preachers: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen, we declare unto you’ (1 Jn. 1:1); ‘Who from the beginning were eyewitnesses’ (Lk. 1:2). Firmitatem deinde eius ponit, quae maior est quam firmitas veteris testamenti, quod ostendit ex testimonio Dei qui mentiri non potest. Unde dicit confirmata est, Deo contestante, et cetera. Sciendum est autem quod testimonium est per loquelam: loquela est signum sensibile. Deus autem duplici signo sensibili contestatus est, scilicet miraculis et donis spiritus sancti. Quantum ad primum dicit, quod confirmata est, contestante Deo signis, quoad minora miracula, ut sanatio claudi, vel febris. De primo Act. III, 6 et XIV, 7; de secundo autem Act. ult. Portentis, quantum ad maiora, sicut suscitatio mortui. Act. c. IX, 40: Thabita, surge, et cetera. Dicitur autem portentum, quasi porro vel procul tensum, quod scilicet aliquid in longinquum demonstrat. II Par. XXXII, 31: in legatione principum Babylonis, qui missi fuerant ad eum, ut interrogarent de portento, quod scilicet fuerat sol retrogressus, et cetera. Praecipuum vero portentum est, quod Deus factus est homo. Is. VIII, 18: ego et pueri mei, quos mihi dedit Deus in portentum, quod scilicet ego sum homo, et quod pueri mei hoc crederent. Mirum enim fuit quod cor humanum hoc potuit credere. Dicit variis virtutibus, ut signa et portenta referantur ad ea, quae excedunt virtutem naturae. Ut signum dicatur quod est praeter et supra naturam, non tamen contra; sed portentum est, quod est contra naturam, ut partus virginis, suscitatio mortui. Sed virtus referatur ad ea quae sunt secundum naturam quantum ad substantiam facti, sed non quantum ad modum fiendi, sicut sanatio febris, quod utique possunt medici, licet non statim. Vel virtutes referantur ad virtutes mentis, quas dominus suis praedicatoribus dedit, scilicet fides, spes, et charitas. Sed quantum ad secundum, scilicet quantum ad dona, dicit et spiritus sancti distributionibus. Sed contra, ut dicitur Sap. VII: spiritus sanctus unus est. Quomodo ergo distribuitur? Dicendum est quod non distribuitur secundum essentiam, sed inquantum dona eius distribuuntur. I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem spiritus. Omnes autem gratiae attribuuntur spiritui sancto, quia dantur ex amore. Amor vero appropriatur spiritui sancto. Gregorius: certe spiritus sanctus amor est. 99. – Then he mentions its solidity, which is greater than that of the Old Testament, as God testifies, Who cannot lie; hence he says, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders. But it should be noted that testimony is made by speech, which is a sense-perceptible sign. But God gave testimony with two sense-perceptible signs, namely, by miracles and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In regard to the first he says, while God bore witness by signs as to lesser miracles, such as healing a fever or curing a lame person (Ac. 3) and wonders, as to greater miracles, such as the raising of the dead: ‘Tabitha, arise’ (Ac. 9:40). But the greatest wonder was that God became man: ‘Behold, I and my children whom the Lord has given me for a sign’ (Is. 8:18), namely, that I who am a man and my children should believe this. For it was a marvel that the human heart should believe this. He said, by various miracles, so that signs and wonders refer to acts which exceed the power of nature, namely, a sign would be something beyond and above nature, though not contrary to it; while a wonder is something contrary to nature, as the raising of the dead. In regard to the second, i.e., the gifts, he says, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will. This seems to be contrary to Wis. (7:27): ‘The spirit is one’ how is he distributed. The answer is that He is not distributed as to His essence, but as to His gifts: ‘There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:4). For all gifts are attributed to the Holy Spirit, because they proceed from love, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, as Gregory says: ‘Truly the Holy Spirit is love.’ Vel distributionibus, id est, per distributiones, quae fiunt a spiritu sancto, quia alii datur sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae, alii operatio miraculorum, alii prophetia, et sic de aliis. Et hoc totum non pro meritis, nec ex necessitate naturae, sed per ipsius voluntatem. Io. III, 8: spiritus ubi vult spirat, etc., et I Cor. XII, 11: haec omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus, et cetera. Mc. ult.: domino cooperante et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis. Another interpretation of "distributions": —that is, through distributions which come from the Holy Spirit, for to one is given speech about wisdom, to another speech about knowledge, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, and so forth. And this does not come from merits, or from the necessity of nature, but by his own will: John 3:8 "The Spirit breaths where he wills" etc. and 1 Cor 12:11 "One and the same Spirit works all these things" etc. and the end of Mark: "The Lord cooperated, and confirmed their speech by the following signs."
2-2
Heb 2:5-8Supra fecit apostolus quamdam comparationem, ostendens esse maiorem necessitatem observandi praecepta Christi quam legis datae per Angelos, hic confirmat consequentiam, ubi duo facit. Primo enim confirmat dictam consequentiam, ostendens maiorem esse potestatem Christi quam Angelorum; secundo probat idem per auctoritatem, ibi testatus est autem quidam. 100. – Having made a comparison to show that it is more necessary to observe the commandments of Christ than those of the Law delivered by angels, the Apostle now confirms the consequence. First, he confirms this consequence by showing that Christ’s power is greater than that of the angels; secondly, he proves this on the authority of Scripture (v. 6). Dicit ergo, quod maiora supplicia sustinebunt qui faciunt contra mandata Christi, quam qui faciunt contra mandata Angelorum, quia ipse Christus dominus est, et magis punitur qui peccat contra dominum, quam qui peccat contra servos. Et quod Christus sit dominus, ostendit, quia non subiecit Deus orbem terrae futurum subiectum Christo, Angelis. Et duo facit. Primo ostendit quia orbis non est subiectus Angelis; secundo ostendit de quo orbe intendit, ibi de quo loquimur. 101. – He says, therefore, that they will undergo severer punishments who act against Christ’s commandments than those who act against the commandments of angels, because Christ is Lord, and a person who offends his Lord is punished more than one who sins against a servant. That Christ is Lord is shown by the fact that God has not subjected the earth to angels but to Christ. He does two things: first, he shows that the earth is not subject to angels; secondly, he shows which earth he means (v. 5c). Orbis enim non est subiectus Angelis. Iob XXXIV, 13: quem constituit alium super terram, aut quem posuit super orbem quem fabricatus est? Sed contra Dan. X, 20 dicitur Angelus princeps regni Graecorum et Persarum. Et Deut. c. XXXII, 8: constituit fines populorum iuxta numerum filiorum Dei, secundum aliam litteram. Et dicendum est, quod non est eis subiectus vice dominii, sed vice cuiusdam ministerii. Tota enim creatura corporalis ministratur per Angelos. Ps. CII, 21: ministri eius qui facitis, et cetera. Supra I, 14, omnes administratorii dicuntur. Vel enim non subiecit orbem terrae Angelis, orbem dico futurum, scilicet mundum istum, qui dicitur futurus, quia in Scriptura quandoque dicitur futurum non respectu nostri, sed respectu eius cui comparatur, sicut idem apostolus dicit, Rom. V, 14, de Adam respectu Christi, qui est forma futuri; Christus enim non est futurus respectu sui, sed respectu Adae. Sic hic orbis futurus dicitur, non respectu nostri, sed respectu Christi, qui est ab aeterno, cum orbis sit in tempore. 102. – The earth is not subject to angels: ‘What other has he appointed over the earth, or whom has he set over the world he made’ (Jb. 34:13)? But Daniel (chap. 10) says that an angel was the prince of the Greeks and of the Persians, and in Dt. (32:8) it says: ‘He appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel.’ But it should be noted that they are not subject to them as to a lord, but as to a vicegerent: for all visible creation is administered by angels: ‘His ministers who do his will’ (Ps. 102:21). Or, it was not to angels that God has subjected the world to come, i.e., that world which is to come, because in Scripture something is described as coming, not in relation to us but in relation to that to which it is compared, as the Apostle says of Adam in relation to Christ: ‘Who is the form of the future’, (Rom. 5:14), for Christ is not future in relation to Himself, but in relation to Adam. So, here, this earth is said to come not in relation to us but in relation to Christ, Who exists from all eternity, whereas the earth exists in time. Et quia Manichaei dicunt orbem subiectum malo Deo, non autem bono, ideo subdit de quo loquimur, quia non de alio, sed de isto. Vel supra I, 11 s. dixerat ipsi peribunt, scilicet caeli, et mutabuntur, quod, sicut ibi dictum fuit, intelligitur quo ad statum, non quo ad substantiam, ita quod duplex est status mundi. Unus, qui nunc est praesens. II Pet. III, 7: caeli qui nunc sunt, etc., eodem verbo repositi, sunt reservati igni, et cetera. Et alius est futurus. In orbe autem isto qui nunc est, nec omnia sunt ei subiecta, ut supra dictum est, et hoc per executionem potentiae, licet subiecta sint per auctoritatem; sed tunc in illo statu futuro erit ei orbis subiectus. Et ideo subdit de quo loquimur. 103. – And because the Manicheans say that the earth is subject to an evil god and not to the good God, he adds, of which we speak, namely not of some other world, but of this one; or because he had said above, they shall perish, namely, the heavens, and they shall be changed, which, as was explained there, is understood of the state but not of the substance of the world Hence, there are two states of the world: one is its present state: ‘But the heavens and the earth which are not, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment’ (2 Pt. 3:7); the other is its future state. But in the world which now exists not all things are subject to Him as far as the execution of His power is concerned, although they are subject to His authority; but in that future state the earth will be subject to Him; hence, he says, of which we speak. Consequenter probat per auctoritatem, cum dicit testatus est autem quidam. Ubi tria facit. Primo enim commendat auctoritatem testimonii inducendi; secundo inducit testimonii veritatem, ibi quid est homo quod memor es eius? Tertio explicat sensum testimonii, ibi in eo enim quod ei omnia. 104. – Then he proves by an authority, when he says, it has been testified somewhere. Here he does three things: first, he commends the value of the testimony to be adduced; secondly, he adduces it (v. 6b); thirdly, he explains the meaning of the testimony (v. 8b). Circa testimonium vero ponit primo, quod verba veteris testamenti sunt quaedam testimonia Christi. Io. V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas, et cetera. Et paulo post: et illae sunt, quae testimonium perhibent de me. Et ideo dicit testatus est autem. Secundo, quia apud Iudaeos erant quaedam Scripturae minus notae, et quaedam magis notae, et ideo maioris dignitatis sunt Scripturae Psalmorum, quibus ipsi utebantur in omnibus sacrificiis suis. Et ideo dicit in quodam loco, noto scilicet et manifesto. Tertio ponit auctoritatem dicentis, scilicet David, qui scilicet fuit maximae auctoritatis. II Reg. XXIII, 1: dixit vir cui constitutum est de Christo Dei Iacob, egregius psaltes Israel. 105. – In regard to the testimony he states first that the words of the Old Testament are witnesses to Christ: ‘Search the Scriptures: the same are they that give testimony of me’ (Jn. 5:39). Therefore, he says, for it has been testified somewhere. Secondly, because among the Jews there were some writings less known and some better known, the Scriptures of the Psalms are of greater value than those they used in all their sacrifices; hence, he says, somewhere, known and manifest. Thirdly, he gives the authority of the speaker, namely, David, who enjoyed the greatest authority: ‘The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob, the excellent Psalmist of Israel said’ (2 Sam. 23:1). Deinde inducit testimonium, cum dicit quid est homo, et cetera. Ubi tria facit. Primo enim ponit mysterium incarnationis; secundo passionis, ibi minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis; tertio mysterium exaltationis, ibi gloria et honore. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Circa primum duo tangit: primo causam incarnationis, secundo ipsam incarnationem, ibi aut filius hominis. 106. – Then he adduces the authority (v. 6b). Here he does three things: first, he hints at the mystery of the Incarnation; secondly, of the Passion (v. 7); thirdly, the mystery of the exaltation (v. 7b). In regard to the first he touches on two things: first, the cause of the Incarnation; secondly, the Incarnation itself (v. 6c). Causa autem incarnationis est memoria Dei de homine, et ideo dicit] quid est homo, ut legatur despective; quasi dicat: homo valde modicum quid est respectu Dei. Is. XL, 17: omnes gentes quasi non sint sic coram eo, et quasi nihilum et inane reputatae sunt ei. Si enim aliquis diligit aliquem, et dimittit eum diu in miseriis, nec subvenit, videtur eius oblivisci. Deus autem humanum genus dilexit, et quia ipsum fecit ad imaginem suam, et quia in medio Paradisi ipsum posuit. Sed post peccatum, quia non statim ei subvenit, videtur eius fuisse oblitus. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Sed tunc videtur eius memor fuisse cum reparatorem misit.] Ps.: memento nostri, domine, in beneplacito tuo, et cetera. Et ideo dicit quid est homo, etc., quasi dicat: si consideremus vilitatem hominis, mirum est, quod memor es eius, [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] qui tam vilis et parvus est; vilis, inquam, et parvus in natura, maxime quantum ad vilem substantiam. Gen. II, 8: formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae. Is. LXIV, 8: et nunc, domine pater noster es tu, nos vero lutum, et cetera. Vilis in culpa. Unde Augustinus super Ioannem: nihil fiunt homines cum peccant. Abd.: ecce parvulum dedi te in gentibus, contemptibilis tu es valde, et cetera. Vilis et infirmus in poena. Iob XIV, 1: homo natus de muliere, brevi vivens tempore. Am. c. VII, 5: quis suscitabit Iacob? Scilicet prostratum, quia parvulus est.] 107. – But the cause of the Incarnation is God’s care of man. Therefore, he says: What is man? as though in contempt. As if to say: Man is so unimportant when compared to God: ‘All nations are before him as if they had no being at all, and are counted to him as nothing and vanity’ (Is. 40:17). For if a person loves another and leaves him in wretchedness for a long time, he seems to have forgotten. But God loved the human race, both because He made it according to His own image and because He placed man in the midst of paradise. But after sin, because He did not come to his aid immediately, He seems to have forgotten. But later he seems to have become mindful of him, when He sends a Redeemer: ‘Remember us, O Lord, in the favor of your people; visit us with your salvation’ (Ps. 105:4). Therefore, he says, What is man that you are mindful of him? As if to say: If we consider man’s vileness, it is strange that You should be mindful of him who is so vile and so small. I say vile and small in nature, especially in regard to his substance: ‘God formed man from the slime of the earth (Gen. 2:7); ‘And now, O Lord, you are our Father and we are clay’ (Is. 64:8). Vile in his sins; hence, Augustine says on John: ‘Men accomplish nothing when they sin;’ ‘Behold, I have made you small among the nations, you are exceedingly contemptible’ (Ob 1:2). Vile and weak in his punishment: ‘Man born of a woman, living for a time is filled with many miseries’ (Jb. 14:1); ‘Who shall raise up Jacob, for he is very little’ (Am 7:5). Secundo ponit ipsam incarnationem, cum dicit filius hominis. Ubi sciendum est, quod in Scriptura sacra Christus vocatur filius hominis, sicut patet Dan. VII, 13, et in Evangelio in multis locis; et huius ratio est, quia alii sunt filii hominum Ps.: filii hominum usquequo gravi corde? Sed Christus tantum filius est hominis, scilicet virginis beatae. Et ipse a Deo visitatur. Aliquando visitatio in Scriptura refertur ad beneficium, sicut dicitur Gen. XXI, 1: visitavit dominus Saram, et cetera. Quandoque autem ad poenam. Ps.: visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum. Hic autem refertur ad beneficium. Visitas, id est, excellentissimum beneficium ei confers, quia facis eum filium Dei, ex hoc scilicet quod humanitas assumpta est a verbo in unitatem suppositi. Vel hoc dicit propter plenitudinem Christi. Io. I, 14: plenum gratia et veritate, et cetera. Vel referendum est utrumque ad Christum, ut sit sensus: memor es eius in incarnatione, in qua humanitas assumpta est a Christo, sed visitas in resurrectione. Vel referendum est utrumque ad humanum genus. Quilibet autem filius hominis est homo, non autem quilibet homo est filius hominis, Adam enim non fuit filius hominis. Dicitur ergo homo qui gerit imaginem hominis terreni, Adae scilicet. Et iste homo dicitur peccator. Sed filius hominis dicitur, qui gerit imaginem hominis caelestis, scilicet Christi, qui dicitur filius hominis. I Cor. XV, 49: sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus et imaginem caelestis. Homo ergo simpliciter dicitur peccator. Et quia iste longe est a Deo, quia longe a peccatoribus salus, dicitur Deus eius esse memor, sicut homo memoratur eius, quod longe est ab ipso. Sed cum de peccatore fit iustus, sic filius hominis visitatur per gratiam. Iob X, 12: visitatio tua custodivit spiritum meum. 108. – Secondly, he mentions the Incarnation when he says, the son of man. Here it should be noted that in Sacred Scripture Christ is called the Son of man, as is clear from Daniel and from the Gospel. The reason for this is that others are sons of men: ‘O you sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart?’ (Ps. 4:3); but Christ alone is the son of man, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, and He is visited by God. Sometimes in Scripture a visitation refers to a benefit, as when ‘the Lord visited Sarah as He had promised and fulfilled what He spoke’ (Gen. 21:1). Sometimes it refers to a punishment: ‘I will visit their iniquities with a rod’ (Ps. 88:33). But here it refers to the benefit: You care for [visit] i.e., confer a most excellent gift on man, because you make him a son of God, when His humanity is assumed by the Word. Or he says this because of Christ’s fullness: ‘Full of grace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14). Or both can be referred to Christ, so that the sense is this: You were mindful of him in the Incarnation, when humanity was assumed by Christ, but you visit him in the resurrection. Or both should be referred to the human race. But every son of man is a man, although not every man is a son of a man. For Adam was not a son of man. A man, therefore, is one who bears the image of the earthly man, namely, of Adam; and this man is called a sinner; but a son of man is one who bears the image of the heavenly man, namely Christ, Who is called the Son of man: ‘Therefore, as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly’ (1 Cor. 15:49). Man, therefore, is called a sinner; and because he is far from God, ‘for salvation is far from sinners’ (Ps. 118:155), God is said to be mindful of him, as a man is mindful of one far away. But when he is changed from sinner to just, the son of man is visited by grace: ‘Your visitation has guarded my spirit’ (Jb. 10:12). Consequenter ponit mysterium passionis, cum dicit minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis. Ubi sciendum est, quod ordine naturae, corruptibilia ac passibilia minora sunt incorruptibilibus et impassibilibus. Angeli autem secundum naturam sunt impassibiles et immortales. Unde quando Christus dignatus est passionem et mortem sustinere, minoratus est ab ipsis, non quod plenitudinem suam amiserit, vel in aliquo diminutus fuerit, sed parvitatem nostram sibi assumpsit. Et hoc significatum fuit Lc. XXII, 43, ubi dicitur, quod apparuit illi Angelus domini confortans eum, non quod indigeret ipso, sed ut ostenderet se minoratum ab ipsis per passionem. Dicit autem paulo minus propter duo. Primo quia omnis creatura corporea est modicum quid, per comparationem ad rationalem, quia corporea comprehenditur certis limitibus quantitatis, non autem rationalis, sed semper plus potest in magis intelligibile: Christus autem est minoratus ab Angelis, non quantum ad divinitatem, nec quantum ad animam, sed solo corpore. Et sic dixit, paulo minus, propter quantitatem. Secundo dicitur paulo minus quantum ad durationem, quia modicum duravit. Is. LIV, 7: in modico dereliqui te, et cetera. 109. – Then (v. 7) he mentions the mystery of the Passion. Here it should be noted that in the order of nature corruptible things are lower than incorruptible things. But angels are incorruptible and immortal according to their nature; hence, when Christ deigned to suffer and undergo death He was made a little less than they: not that He had lost His fullness or was diminished in any way, but because He joined our smallness to Him self. This was signified in Lk. (22:4): ‘There appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him’, not because He needed him, but to show that He was less than they by suffering. He says, little less, for two reasons: first because every bodily creature is slight when compared with the rational, because bodily things are confined within the fixed limits of their quantity, but not rational things, which can grow and grown in intelligence. But Christ was made less than the angels, not in regard to his divinity nor in regard to His soul, but in regard to His body. Therefore, he said, a little less, i.e., quantitatively. Secondly, he is a little less according to duration, because He lasted a short time: ‘For a small moment have I forsaken you’ (Is. 54:7). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Nec mirum est quod in passibilitate corporis est minoratus ab Angelis, cum etiam in hoc sit minoratus ab homine, secundum illud Ps. XXI, 6: ego autem sum vermis et non homo, et hoc propter turpitudinem mortis, de qua Sap. II, 20: morte turpissima condemnemus eum. Si autem quod dictum est: quid est homo, etc., utrumque referatur ad hominem, sic homo dicitur minoratus ab Angelis tripliciter: primo quantum ad cognitionem, sed paulo minus, quia non quantum ad cognitionis genus, quia et homo et Angelus communicant in uno genere cognitionis, sed quantum ad modum, quia excellentiori modo cognoscunt Angeli quam homines. Secundo vero quo ad corpus, quia licet Angelus et anima sint unius naturae, scilicet intellectualis, anima tamen unitur corpori, sed etiam in hoc modicum, quia non tollitur dignitas animae per huiusmodi unionem, sed aliquo modo aggravatur et impeditur ab altiori contemplatione. Sap. IX, 15: corpus quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam. Tertio quantum ad dona, et hoc paulo minus, non quantum ad dona gratuita, Matth. XXII, 30: erunt sicut Angeli Dei in caelis, sed quantum ad naturalia.] 110. – Nor is it strange, if He was made less than the angels in his suffering body, since in this respect He was made less than man: ‘I am a worm and not a man’ (Ps. 21:7), and this because of His shameful death: ‘Let us condemn him to a most shameful death’ (Wis. 2:20). But if the question, What is man that you are mindful of him? is referred to man, then man is said to be a little less not in regard to the kind of knowledge, because both man and angel share the same kind of knowledge, but according to the manner, because the angels know in a more excellent way than men. Secondly, as to the body, because, although an angel and a soul are of one nature, namely, intellectual, nevertheless, the soul is united to a body; but even in this he is a little less, because the dignity of the soul is not destroyed by this union, but it is dulled and impeded from higher contemplation: ‘The corruptible body is a load upon the soul’ (Wis. 9:15). Thirdly, as to gifts; and in this respect man is a little less not as to gratuitous gifts, in which ‘they will be as the angels in heaven’ (Mt. 22:30), but as to natural gifts. Deinde cum dicit gloria et honore, etc., ostendit mysterium exaltationis, ubi tria facit. Primo ostendit eius gloriam; secundo honorem, ibi et honore, etc.; tertio potestatem, ibi constituisti eum, et cetera. Apoc. V, 12 s.: dignus est agnus qui occisus est, accipere virtutem, et divinitatem, et sapientiam, et fortitudinem, et honorem, et gloriam, et benedictionem in omnem creaturam, et cetera. 111. – Then (v. 7b) he presents the mystery of exaltation. Here he does three things: first, he shows its glory; secondly, the honor (v. 7c); thirdly, the power (v. 8). ‘The lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and divinity and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and benediction; and every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea’ (Rev. 5:12). Dicit ergo primo coronasti eum gloria, id est, claritate. Gloria enim claritatem importat. Christus autem duplici gloria coronatus est, scilicet claritate corporis. Ad Phil. III, 21: qui reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. Ista claritas sibi promittitur Io. XII, 28: et clarificavi animam, scilicet implendo splendoribus gratiae, et iterum clarificabo, scilicet corpus immortalitatis gloria. Alia claritas est in confessione omnium populorum. Phil. II, 11: et omnis lingua confiteatur. Ps. XX, 5: gloriam et magnum decorem impones super eum. 112. – He says, therefore, You have crowned him with glory, i.e., with brightness: for glory implies brightness. But Christ was crowned with a double glory, namely, with the glory of the body: ‘Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory’ (Phil. 3:2). This glory is promised Him in Jn (12:18): ‘I have both glorified it, namely, your soul, by filling it with the splendors of grace, and will glorify it again’, namely, the body with the glory of immortality.’ Another brightness comes from the confession of all people: ‘Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father’ (Phil. 2:11); ‘Glory and great beauty shall you lay upon him’ (Ps. 20:6). Consequenter ostendit eius honorem, cum dicit et honore, et cetera. Differt autem honor a gloria, sicut effectus a causa. Est enim honor reverentia exhibita in testimonium excellentiae, unde est testificatio bonitatis eius. Honor ille est, ut omnis creatura revereatur ipsum sicut et patrem. Io. V, 23: ut omnes honorificent filium sicut et patrem. Et dicit coronasti, scilicet in signum victoriae, quia corona datur vincenti. I Cor. IX, v. 25: illi quidem ut corruptibilem coronam accipiant, et cetera. II Tim. II, 5: non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit. Christus autem per certamen passionis meruit hanc gloriam et honorem. Phil. II, 8: factus est obediens usque ad mortem, et sequitur: propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et cetera. Ista autem prout conveniunt Christo inquantum Deus est, non sunt praemium, sed magis illi naturalia; sed inquantum homo est, sunt praemium victoriae passionis eius. 113. – Then (v. 7b) he shows His honor. Now honor differs from glory as effect from cause: for honor is reverence shown in view of some excellence; hence, it is a testification of one’s goodness. But that honor consists in every creature’s revering Him as the Father is revered: ‘That all men may honor the Son as they honor the Father’ (Jn. 5:23). he says, crowned, namely, as a sign of victory, because a crown is given to a victor: ‘They, indeed, that they may receive a perishable crown: but we an imperishable one’ (1 Cor. 9:25); ‘He is not crowned, except he strive lawfully’ (2 Tim. 2:5). But Christ won this crown by the struggle of His Passion: ‘He was made obedient unto death: for which cause God also has exalted him and given him a name which is above every name’ (Phil. 2:8). But things which belong to Christ as God are not a reward but are natural to Him; yet inasmuch as He is man, they are the reward for the victory of his Passion. Sed potestatem eius ostendit, primo quantum ad auctoritatem eius; secundo quantum ad effectum, ibi omnia subiecisti, et cetera. 114. – Then he shows His power: first, as to its authority; secondly, as to its effect (v. 8). Quantum ad primum dicit constituisti, quod potest tripliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod constitutus est super omnia loca, et hoc in ascensione. Eph. IV, 10: ascendit super omnes caelos, ut adimpleret omnia. Secundo dignitate. Eph. I, 20 s.: constituens eum ad dexteram suam super omnem principatum et potestatem, et cetera. Tertio potestate, quia super omnem creaturam. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo, et cetera. Sed Christus inquantum Deus non est constitutus, sed natus; sed constitutus est inquantum homo. Supra I, 2: quem constituit haeredem universorum, et cetera. 115. – In regard to the first he says: You have set him over the works of your hands. This can be taken in three ways: in one way, as meaning that He was set over all places; and this in the Ascension: ‘He ascended above all the heavens’ (Eph. 4:10); secondly, over all dignities: ‘Setting him on his right hand above all principality and power and virtue and dominion’ (Eph. 1:21); thirdly, over all power, because He is set above every creature: ‘all power is given to me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18). But Christ as God is not appointed but born; yet He is appointed as man: Whom he appointed heir of all things (above 1:2). Effectus potestatis est, quia omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius. Utitur autem propheta praeterito pro futuro propter maiorem certitudinem. Iam enim factum est in aeterna Dei praedestinatione. Et dicit sub pedibus eius, id est, humanitate, vel cum omnimoda subiectione. Ps. CIX, v. 2: donec ponam inimicos tuos, et cetera. 116. – The effect of His power is that all things are subject to him [under his feet]. The prophet uses the past for the future because of His authority, for it has already taken place in God’s eternal predestination. He says, under his feet, i.e., under His humanity or with all subjection: ‘Till I make your enemies your footstool’ (Ps. 109:1). Vel sub pedibus eius, id est, sub humanitate eius; sicut enim per caput Christi intelligitur Deus, I Cor. XI, 3, ita etiam per pedes Christi intelligitur humanitas eius. Ps.: adorabimus in loco, ubi steterunt pedes eius. 117a. – That is, under His humanity: for just as the head of Christ is God, so by the feet of Christ is understood his humanity: ‘We shall adore in the place where his feet stood’ (Ps. 131:7). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Si vero exponatur hoc sic, homo dicitur coronatus gloria quantum ad cognitionem intellectualem, qua praeeminet caeteris animalibus. I Cor. XI, 7: vir quidem gloria et imago Dei est, et cetera. Iob XXXV, 11: qui docet nos super iumenta terrae. Item honore, inquantum ipse solus super omnia animalia est dominus suorum actuum, et non subiicitur necessitati rerum mutabilium quantum ad animam, cum sit liberi arbitrii. Item potestate, quia constituisti eum super omnia opera, uno modo, ut per ly omnia intelligantur omnes creaturae quae sunt infra hominem. Gen. I, 26: praesit piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli, et cetera. Alio modo ut ly omnia supponat pro tota universitate creaturae, quia etiam caelestia corpora et Angeli deserviunt homini. Ps. XC, 11: Angelis suis Deus mandavit de te, ut custodiant te, et cetera.] 117b. – But if it is understood that way, then man is said to be crowned with glory as to intellectual knowledge, in which he excels the other animals: ‘The man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God’ (1 Cor. 11:7); ‘Who teachers us more than the beasts of the earth’ (Jb. 35:11). He is crowned with honor, inasmuch as he along of all the animals is master of his own actions and is not subject to the necessity of changeable things in regard to his soul, because he has free will. He is crowned with power, because you have set him over all your works: ‘Let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air and the beasts and the whole earth’ (Gen. 1:26). Consequenter cum dicit in eo enim, etc., exponit sensum testimonii. Ubi apostolus duo facit. Primo enim exponit quantum ad eius sublimitatem; secundo quantum ad minorationem, ibi eum autem qui modico. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ostendit qualiter dictum prophetae sit intelligendum; secundo ostendit illud nondum esse impletum, ibi nunc autem. 118. – Then (v. 8) he explains the meaning of the testimony. Here he does two things: first, he explains it as to His sublimity; secondly, as to His diminution (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how the prophet’s statement is to be understood; secondly, that it has not yet been fulfilled (v. 8b). Cum ergo dicit in eo enim quod ei subiecit, ostendit qualiter sit intelligendum; quia enim Scriptura dicit omnia subiecta esse Christo, nihil dimisit non subiectum ei. Unde ly omnia non est distributio accommoda ad aliqua genera, sed absolute ad omnia, quia omnia generaliter ei et universaliter subiecta sunt. Verum est praeter eum qui subiecit sibi omnia, ut dicitur I Cor. XV, 28; sicut dicitur caelum tegit omnia. Verum alia a se. Sed tunc arguit sic Arrius: pater omnia subiecit filio, ergo filius minor est ipso patre. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod verum est quod pater omnia subiecit filio secundum naturam humanam, in qua minor est patre, Io. XIV, 28: pater maior me est; sed secundum naturam divinam ipse Christus subiecit sibi omnia. 119. – Therefore, (v. 8a) he shows how the statement is to be understood. For since Scripture says that all things have been subjected to Christ, there is nothing outside his control. Hence, the all is not limited to certain genera, but applies absolutely to all, because all are generally and universally subject to Him. But then Arius argues: The Father has subjected all things to the Son; therefore, the Son is inferior to the Father. I answer that it is true that the Father subjected all things to the Son according to His human nature, in which He is inferior to the Father: ‘The Father is greater than I (Jn. 14:28); but according to the divine nature Christ Himself subjected all things to Himself. Consequenter cum dicit nunc autem necdum videmus omnia subiecta ei, ostendit hoc nondum esse impletum, quia infideles peccatores et Daemones nondum sunt ei subiecti. Rom. X, 16: sed non omnes obediunt Evangelio. Ex. X, 3: usquequo non vis mihi subiici, et cetera. Et sic peccatores non sunt subiecti Christo, per rebellionem voluntatis, sed per potentiam omnes subiiciuntur ei modo quantum ad auctoritatem, sed in futuro omnes quantum ad executionem. Unde haec est expositio eius quod supra dixit orbem terrae futurum. 120. – Then when he says, as it is, we do not yet see all things subject to Him, he shows that this has not yet been fulfilled, because unbelievers, sinners and devils are not yet subject to Him: ‘But not all obey the Gospel’ (Rom. 10:16); ‘How long do you refuse to submit to me?’ (Ex. 10:3). Consequently, sinners are not subject to Christ by reason of their rebellious wills; but in regard to his power all are subject to Him: now in regard to its authority, but later in regard to obedience. Hence, this is an explanation of the phrase, the world to come (v. 5).
2-3
Heb 2:9-13Supra apostolus volens probare excellentiam Christi super Angelos, induxit auctoritatem prophetae, in qua aliquid erat quod pertinet ad Christi dignitatem, sicut illud omnia subiecisti, et cetera. Et ipse illud exposuit. Aliquid autem quod pertinet ad eius passionem, scilicet minuisti eum, et cetera. Istud autem videtur repugnare suo principali intento, quo scilicet intendit Christum praeferre Angelis. Et ideo hoc in parte ista diffuse exponit. Ubi duo facit, quia primo ostendit secundum quid sit ista minoratio intelligenda, quia scilicet secundum passionem; secundo agit de convenientia passionis, ibi decebat enim. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ostendit illud quod est dictum; secundo describit ipsam passionem, ibi ut gratia Dei. 121. – Above, the Apostle, desiring to prove Christ’s eminence over the angels, relied on the authority of a prophet who said something pertaining to Christ’s dignity, such as, ‘you put everything in subjection under his feet’, and something pertaining to His Passion, namely, ‘you have made him a little less than the angels’. But this seems to militate against his chief intention, which is to prefer Christ over the angels. Consequently, he explains this more fully in this section, where he does three thing: first, he shows in what sense that lessening is to be understood; secondly, he describes the suitability of the Passion (v. 10) In regard to the first he does two things: first, he explains a statement he made; secondly, he describes the Passion (v. 9b). Dicit ergo eum autem, et cetera. Continuetur sic: ita dictum est quid est homo, etc. gloria et honore, etc. omnia subiecisti, etc. minuisti eum, etc. et haec propheta de Christo praedixit, sed iam multa de istis videmus impleta. Pro certo ergo tenemus, quod quae restant sunt implenda, scilicet quod omnia subiicientur ei, et cetera. Gregorius: praeteritorum exhibitio, futurorum est certitudo. Et potest sic construi nos eum qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est, videmus esse Iesum: nec solum hoc, sed gloria et honore coronatum, propter passionem mortis, quae fuit causa illius exaltationis. Phil. II, 9: propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et cetera. Et dicit mortis, quia non qualemcumque passionem sustinuit, sed acerrimam et turpissimam. Sap. II, v. 20: morte turpissima condemnemus eum. Vel aliter nos videmus Iesum, et quasi quaereretur ab ipso quem diceret, ideo respondens dicit: scilicet eum qui per passionem mortis modico minoratus est quam Angeli, cum gloria et honore coronatum; quasi dicat: haec minoratio non est intelligenda in Christo nisi propter passionem mortis. Nec est mirum, quia quantum ad hoc non solum Angelis, sed etiam hominibus est minor. Is. c. LIII, 2 s.: desideravimus eum novissimum virorum, et cetera. Dicit autem Glossa, et est Augustini contra Maximinum, quod Christus non est minoratus ab Angelis propter conditionem naturae humanae, sed propter passionem. Natura enim mentis humanae, quam Christus sine peccato assumpsit, nihil est maius quam sola Trinitas. Minor ergo Angelis corpore, quia passio est secundum corpus. Quod videtur esse contra Dionysium qui dicit, quod Angeli naturali participatione luminis maiores sunt quam homines. Et dicendum est, quod de natura mentis humanae et angelicae dupliciter possumus loqui. Uno modo secundum naturalia sola, et sic natura Angelorum excellentior est et nobilior, quam natura mentis humanae, quia Angelus accipit cognitionem divinae veritatis in quadam excellentia et plenitudine intellectualis luminis, sed homo ex creaturis. Alio modo possumus accipere naturam utriusque sine peccato, in ordine ad beatitudinem obtinendam, et sic sunt aequales. Lc. XX: erunt sicut Angeli in caelo. Christus tamen quantum ad excellentiam gratiae, secundum mentem humanam maior est Angelis. Ista igitur minoratio non est secundum naturam divinitatis, nec absolute secundum naturam humanam, nisi inquantum passus est secundum illam. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Possumus autem dicere quod Christus triplici gloria fuit coronatus, scilicet gloria sanctificationis, quam habuit in primo instanti suae conceptionis; item gloria divinae fruitionis, quia ab ipso instanti suae conceptionis fuit comprehensor; item gloria impassibilitatis, quam meruit post passionem.] 122. – He said therefore: What is man that you are mindful of him? You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have subjected all things under his feet. You have made him a little lower than the angels. These are the things the prophet predicted of Christ, and already we see many of them fulfilled. Hence, it is certain that the rest will be fulfilled, namely, that all things will be subjected under his feet. ‘The accomplishments of the past give assurance for the future’ (Gregory). Then he continues, but we see Jesus, who for a little while, was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor for suffering death, which was the cause of His exaltation: ‘For which cause God also exalted him’ (Phil. 2:9). He says, of death, because He did not endure just any death, but the bitterest and most shameful: ‘Let us condemn him to a most shameful death’ (Wis. 2:20). Or, another way: We see Jesus, and when asked Who He is, answers: He Who by suffering death was made a little lower than the angels and then crowned with honor and glory. This lessening was due only to His suffering of death. Nor is this strange, because in this respect He is not only lower than the angels, but lower than men: ‘Despised and the most abject of men’ (Is. 53:2). A Gloss of Augustine against Maximus says that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, not because of a condition of His nature but because of the Passion. For as to the nature of the human mind, which Christ assumed without sin, nothing is greater but the Trinity alone. In body He is less than the angels, because He suffered in his body. But this seems to be contrary to Dionysius, who says that angels are greater than men by reason of their natural participation in light. The answer is that we can speak two ways about the nature of the human mind and the angelic mind: in one way, according to what is natural, and then the angelic mind is more excellent and more noble than the nature of the human mind, because an angel receives knowledge of divine truth in a more excellent and fuller intellectual light, but man from creatures. In another way, we can consider the nature of each without sin in relation to happiness; they are then equal: ‘They will be as the angels in heaven’ (Mt. 22:30). Yet by reason of His excellent grace Christ in His human nature is greater than the angels. Consequently, His lessening is not in relation to the nature of His divinity nor absolutely according to His human nature, but in the sense that He suffered according to it. But we can say that Christ was crowned with a triple glory, namely, with the glory of holiness, which He had in the first instant of His conception; secondly, with the glory of the beatific vision, because from the first instant of His conception He possessed it; thirdly, with the glory of incorruptibility, which He merited after the Passion. Deinde cum dicit ut gratia Dei, describit ipsam passionem, et describit eam tripliciter. Primo ex causa, cum dicit ut gratia Dei; secundo ex utilitate, cum dicit pro omnibus; tertio ex modo, cum dicit gustaret. 123. – Then (v. 9b) he describes Christ’s Passion from three viewpoints: first, from its cause; secondly, from its utility; thirdly from the manner. Causa enim fuit sola gratia Dei. Unde continuatur sic: videmus Iesum qui minoratus est, ex hoc ut gratia Dei, et cetera. Ex ipsa enim factum est, quod filium suum unigenitum dedit. Io. III, 16: sic enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Rom. V, 8: commendat autem Deus charitatem suam in nobis, quia cum adhuc peccatores, et cetera. Vel secundum quod dicit Glossa Augustini, ut gratia, id est, ipse Christus, qui est gratia Dei. Et sic gratia est nominativi casus. Dicitur autem Christus gratia, quia auctor est gratiae. Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Vel quia est gratis datus. Is. IX, 6: filius datus est nobis. Ut sit sensus, quod ipse minoratus est, ut ipse qui gratia Dei, et cetera. Utraque positio est secundum Glossam. 124. – Only God’s grace was the cause, for that alone led Him to give His only begotten Son: ‘God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son’ (Jn. 3:16); ‘But God commends his charity toward us, when as yet we were sinners according to the time Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5:8). Or, according to a Gloss of Augustine, that the grace of God, i.e., Christ Himself, Who is the grace of God, might taste death for all. Here grace is in the nominative case. But Christ is called grace because He is the author of grace: ‘Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (Jn. 1:17). Or, because He is given freely: ‘A son has been given to us’ (Is. 9:6). Then the sense is this: He was made a little lower in order that He Who is the grace of God might taste death for all. Pro omnibus, ecce utilitas. Pro omnibus autem dupliciter potest intelligi. Vel ut sit distributio accommoda, scilicet pro omnibus praedestinatis, pro istis etiam tantum habet efficaciam. Vel absolute pro omnibus quantum ad sufficientiam. Sufficiens enim quantum ad se omnibus est. I Tim. IV, v. 10: qui est salvator omnium, maxime autem fidelium. Chrysostomus: pro omnibus hominibus generaliter mortuus est, quia omnibus pretium sufficit. Et si omnes non credunt, ipse tamen quod suum est implevit. 125. – For all: behold the usefulness. But for all can be understood in two ways: first, as applying to all the predestined, since it is only in the predestined that it is efficacious. Secondly, as applying absolutely to all so far as sufficiency is concerned; for of itself it is sufficient for all: ‘Who is the savior of all, but especially of the faithful’ (1 Tim. 4:10); ‘He died for all in general, because the price was sufficient for all. And if all do not believe, he nevertheless fulfilled His part’ (Chrysostom). Gustaret, ecce modus. Gustat enim qui non multum comedit, nec bibit. Quia ergo Christus non perseveravit in morte, sed statim surrexit, ideo gustavit. Ps. CIX, 7: de torrente in via bibit, et cetera. Viator festinat. Item gustus est discretivus saporis, unde qui gustat magis discernit quam qui bibit. Ut ergo designet quod mortem et dolorem sensit, et sic mors non fuit phantastica, ut dicit Manichaeus et Apollinaris, ideo dicit gustavit. Thren. I, 12: o vos omnes qui transitis per viam, et cetera. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Modus vero ponitur cum dicitur gustaret. Simile habetur Matth. XXVI, 39: pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste; et hoc propter tres rationes. Primo propter mortis amaritudinem exprimendam, cuius experientia est per gustum. Thren. I, 12: o vos omnes qui transitis per viam. Is. XXIV, 9: amara erit potio bibentibus eam. Secundo quia sicut gustare vel non gustare est in potestate gustantis, sic et passio Christi fuit voluntaria. Io. X, 18: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam. Tertio quia gustare est parum sumere, Christus autem parum perseveravit in morte, secundum illud Ps. XV, 10: non derelinques animam meam in Inferno, et cetera.] 126. – Might taste: behold the manner. For a person who has not eaten or drunk much is said to have tasted. Therefore, because Christ did not continue in death but rose at once, He tasted death: ‘He shall drink of the torrent in the way’ (Ps. 109:7). One who is on the way hurries. Furthermore, taste is a discerner of flavor; hence one who tastes discerns more than one who drinks. Therefore, to indicate that He tasted death and pain, and that His death was not imaginary, as Mani and Apollinaris claim, he says, that he might taste death: ‘O, all you that pass by the way, attend and see, if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow’ (Lam. 1:12). But the manner is mentioned when he says, taste. Matthew (26:39) says the same thing: ‘If it be possible, let this chalice pass from me.’ He says this for two reasons: first, to express the bitterness of death, which is experienced by taste: ‘O, all you that pass by the way, attend and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow’ (Lam 1:12); ‘The drink shall be bitter to them that drink it’ (Is. 24:9); secondly, because just as tasting or not tasting lie in the power of the taster, so also the Passion of Christ was voluntary: ‘I have the power to lay down my life’ (Jn. 10:18). Deinde cum dicit decebat enim eum, etc., ostendit convenientiam ex utilitate. Deus enim pater est qui fuit causa mortis. Ipse enim est per quem omnia, sicut per causam efficientem, et propter quem omnia, sicut per causam finalem. Propter ipsum enim sunt omnia, quia propter bonitatem suam communicandam. Et haec fuit causa movens ad producendum res, et ita finaliter sunt omnia propter Deum. Prov. XVI, 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est dominus. Sunt etiam effective per ipsum. Ps. CXLV, 4: qui fecit caelum et terram, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt. Est ergo omnium principium et finis. Apoc. I, 8: ego sum alpha et omega, principium et finis. Rom. XI, 36: ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia. Decebat ergo ipsum, quia actor est omnium, omnibus providere. Sap. VI, 8: aequaliter illi cura est de omnibus. Secundo conveniens fuit ex parte causae, quae, ut dictum est, fuit gratia Dei; gratia vero ordinatur ad gloriam. Rom. VI, 23: gratia Dei, vita aeterna, Deus autem ab aeterno praedestinavit quos debet adducere in gloriam. Et isti sunt omnes illi, qui sunt participes filiationis filii eius, quia si filii, et haeredes, Rom. VIII, 17. Et ideo dicit qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat, quasi dicat: ipse habet unum filium perfectum naturaliter. Mc. XII, 6: adhuc ergo habens filium unum charissimum, et cetera. Qui est naturaliter splendor gloriae, supra I, 3. Alii autem sunt adoptivi, et ideo adducendi sunt in gloriam. Unde dicit qui adduxerat, id est, adducendos praeordinaverat. 127. – Then (v. 10) he shows the suitability from its usefulness. For God the Father is the cause of Christ’s death, since He is the One by whom all things exist as by an efficient cause, and for whom all things exist, as for a final cause. All things are for Him, because they are for communicating His goodness: and this was the cause inducing Him to produce things, and thus all things are finally for God: ‘The Lord has made all things for himself’ (Pr. 16:4). But effectively, all things are by Him: ‘Who made heaven and the sea and all things in it’ (Ps. 145:6); ‘I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end’ (Rev. 1:8). ‘Of him and by him and in him are all things’ (Rom. 11:36). Therefore, it became Him as the author of all things to provide for all: ‘He has equally cared for all’ (Wis. 6:8). Secondly, it was fitting on the part of the cause, which, as has been stated, was the grace of God. But grace is ordained to glory: ‘The grace of God, life everlasting’ (Rom. 6:23). But God from all eternity predestined those whom He would lead to glory, i.e., all those who are adopted sons of God, because ‘if sons, heirs also’ (Rom. 8:17). Therefore, he says, who had brought many sons to glory. As if to say: He has one perfect Son naturally: ‘Therefore, having yet one son most dear to him’ (Mk 12:6); but the others are adopted and, therefore, must be brought into glory. Hence, he says: who had brought, i.e., foreordained them to be brought. Et quid decebat eum? Hoc scilicet quod ipse est auctor salutis eorum, et cetera. Salus ista in duobus consistit, scilicet quod fiant filii, et quod inducantur in haereditatem. Quod autem sint filii, habent per filium naturalem. Quos praescivit et praedestinavit, conformes fieri imaginis filii sui, Rom. VIII, v. 29. Gloriam autem et haereditatem non consequuntur nisi per eum, cuius naturaliter est haereditas, qui est splendor gloriae. Quia ergo per filium consequimur ista duo, ideo ipse convenienter dicitur auctor salutis. Matth. c. I, 21: ipse salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Infra XII, 2: aspicientes in auctorem fidei, et consummatorem Iesum. Decebat ergo quod pater auctorem salutis mitteret, scilicet filium, ut expositum est, qui multos filios adduxerat per ipsum in gloriam. Et sic patet convenientia ex parte causae. Per passionem consummari, id est, per fidem. Ipse enim inquantum est filius naturalis, est totaliter perfectus, sed quia in passione minoratus fuit, debuit per meritum passionis perfici. Ex ista ergo consummatione, patet convenientia modi, de quo dixerat quod gustavit. Tantum enim gustavit mortem, quia non accepit eam, nisi ut per meritum passioni consummaretur. Ipsa enim eius consummatio est eius glorificatio. Lc. ult.: oportet Christum pati, et ita intrare in gloriam suam. Gustavit etiam, quia, cum ipse adduxerit filios in gloriam, sicut medicus gustat medicinam ne infirmus abhorreat sed ut securius bibat, ita ipse gustavit mortem, ut quia sine morte ingrediente necessitate, non est salus, nullus mortem refugiat. 128. – And what was fitting for Him? This, namely, that he should make perfect the pioneer of their salvation, which consists in two things, namely, that they become sons and be brought into their inheritance. That they are sons they owe to the natural Son: ‘Whom he foreknew he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his son’ (Rom. 8:29). But they obtain glory and the inheritance only through Him Whose inheritance it is by right and Who is the brightness of glory. Therefore, because we obtain those two things through the Son, He is fittingly called the pioneer of salvation: ‘He will save his people from their sins’ (Mt. 1:21); ‘Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith’ (Heb. 12:12). Therefore it was fitting that the Father send the author of salvation, namely, His Son, Who had brought many sons into glory. To be perfected through suffering, i.e., by merit. For He, as the natural Son, is altogether perfect, but because He was lessened in the Passion He had to be made perfect by the merit of the Passion: ‘Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so to enter into his glory’ (Lk. 24:26)? [He also tasted, since he was to lead his sons to glory, as a doctor tastes medicine, lest the patient turn it down, but that he might have more confidence to drink it. So he tasted death, so that no one would run away from death, which is a necessity for salvation.] Consequenter cum dicit qui enim sanctificat, probat quod dixerat. Ubi duo facit, quia primo probat propositum suum ex parte patris consummantis; secundo ex parte Christi consummati, ibi quia ergo pueri. Adhuc circa primum duo facit, quia primo proponit intentum; secundo probat per auctoritatem, ibi propter quam causam. 129. – Then (v. 11) he proves what he had said. Here he does two things: first, he proves his conclusion on the part of the Father sanctifying; secondly, on the part of the Son sanctified (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his conclusion; secondly, he proves it by an authority (v. 11b). Dicit ergo qui enim sanctificat, et qui sanctificantur, ex uno omnes. Sciendum est autem quod supra apostolus tria dixerat. Primo quod Christus est causa salutis, in quo ostendit nos dependere ab ipso, sicut a salvatore; secundo, ostendit quod pater est consummator ipsius Christi per meritum passionis, et in hoc Christus dependet a patre; tertio, quod pater nos adducit in gloriam, in quo etiam nos dependere a Deo ostendit; et secundum hoc apostolus hic tria facit. Primo enim ostendit quod dependemus a Christo. Sanctificatus enim dependet a sanctificato, Christus autem est sanctificans. Infra XIII, 12: Iesus ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem, et cetera. Bene ergo dictum est, quod quia est actor et sanctificator, dependemus ab ipso, ipse vero a patre, a quo habet quod sanctificet, quod est secundum. Sed omnes, ipse scilicet qui sanctificat et nos qui sanctificamur, ex uno, scilicet ex patre, quod est tertium. Rom. VIII, 17: haeredes Dei, cohaeredes autem Christi. 130. – He says, therefore: For both he that sanctifies and they that are sanctified have one origin. But it should be noted that the Apostle had said three things above: first, that Christ is the cause of salvation, in which he shows that we depend on Him as on a Savior; secondly, he shows that the Father is the finisher of Christ by the merit of the Passion, so that in this, Christ depends on the Father; thirdly, that the Father brings us into glory, which also shows that we depend on God. Accordingly, the Apostle does three things here: first he shows that we depend on Christ, for the one sanctified depends on the sanctifier: ‘Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate’ (Heb. 13:12). Therefore, it has been well said that because He is the author and sanctifier, we depend on him; but He depends on the Father, from Whom He has power to sanctify; which is the second. But all, namely, He that sanctifies and we who are sanctified, have one origin, namely, of the Father; this is the third: ‘Heirs of God; co-heirs with Christ’ (Rom. 8:17). Consequenter ista tria probat per tres auctoritates. Et primo quod Christus tamquam mediator et actor salutis ea, quae Dei sunt, in nos refert. Unde dicit: propter quam causam, quia scilicet nos et ipse ex patre dependemus et sumus ex uno Deo patre, non confunditur eos vocare fratres, quia scilicet ex eodem patre. Mal. II, 10: numquid non pater unus omnium nostrum? Rom. VIII, 29: ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Ideo dicitur in Ps. XXI, 22: nuntiabo nomen tuum fratribus meis. Et Io. XX, 17: vade ad fratres meos. Sed nota quod dicit non confunditur, etc.; quia aliqui de vili plebe nati, si promoventur, confunduntur cognoscere consanguineos suos. Prov. XIX, 7: fratres hominis pauperis oderunt eum. Non sic autem Christus, sed dicit nuntiabo nomen tuum fratribus meis. Io. XVII, 5 s.: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus quos dedisti mihi. Io. I, 18: unigenitus qui est in sinu patris, et cetera. 131. – Then he proves there points with three authorities: first, that Christ, as the mediator and author of salvation, brings God’s gifts to us; hence, he says, that is why, namely, because He and we depend on the Father, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because all are of the same Father: ‘Have we not all one Father’ (Mal 2:10); ‘That he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29). Therefore, it is stated in Ps. 21 (v. 23): ‘I will declare your name to my brethren;’ ‘Go to my brethren’ (Jn. 20:17). But note that he says, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because some born of an ignoble race are ashamed to recognize their brethren, if they are promoted: ‘The brethren of a poor man hate him’ (Pr. 19:7). But not Christ, for He says, I will proclaim your name to my brethren: ‘Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me’ (Jn. 17:6); ‘The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ (Jn. 1:18). Istius Annuntiationis ostendit fructum, cum dicit in medio Ecclesiae laudabo te, quasi dicat: per hoc congregatur tibi magna Ecclesia, in cuius medio laudabo te. Et dicit in medio, quia sicut columna in medio domus ipsam sustentat, lucerna in medio domus illuminat, cor in medio corpus vivificat, ita Christus in medio Ecclesiae. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Item in medio, quia non ad unum populum tantum, sicut Moyses, missus fuit, Ps. LXXV, 1: notus in Iudaea Deus, sed ad salutem totius mundi, Ps. LXXIII, 12: operatus es salutem in medio terrae, et ideo dicitur Lc. ult.: stetit Iesus in medio discipulorum. Sciendum est circa hoc, quod ante legem consuetudo erat, quod omnes primogeniti erant sacerdotes, et hoc pertinebat ad ius primogeniturae. Christus autem est frater sicut primogenitus, et ideo est sacerdos. Sacerdos autem populum sanctificans, medius est inter Deum et populum. Deut. V, 5: ego illo tempore sequester fui. Et ideo pertinet ad ipsum nunciare quae Dei sunt ad populum; secundo, quae populi sunt referre in Deum. Primum facit dicendo, et ideo dicit nuntiabo nomen tuum fratribus meis, id est, ducam eos in notitiam tui, et hoc est sanctificare eos. Io. XVII, 17: sanctifica eos in veritate, et cetera. Secundum faciendo, dum facit homines ex affectu in Deum prorumpere in laudem Dei, et ideo dicit in medio Ecclesiae.] 132. – Then he shows the fruit of this manifestation when he says, in the midst of the congregation will I praise you. As if to say: This forms a great Church in the midst of which I will praise you. He says, in the midst, because just as a pillar in the midst of a house supports it and a lamp in the midst of a house gives light and the heart in the midst of the body gives life, so Christ is in the midst of the Church. Furthermore, in the midst, because He was not sent to one people, as Moses was: ‘In Judea God is known; his name is great in Israel’ (Ps. 75:2), but He was sent for the salvation of all: ‘He has wrought salvation in the midst of the earth’ (Ps. 73:12). Therefore, it is stated in Lk (24:36) that Jesus stood in the midst of His disciples. On this point it should be noted that before the Law it was the custom that all the firstborn were priests, and this pertained to the right of primogeniture. But Christ is a brother and firstborn; therefore, He is a priest. But a priest who sanctifies the people is a mediator between God and the people: ‘I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time’ (Dt. 5:5). Therefore, it pertains to him to announce the things of God to the people and to bring the things of the people to God. He does the first by preaching; hence, he says, I will proclaim your name to my brethren, i.e., I will bring them to know you, and this to sanctify them: ‘Sanctify them in the truth’ (Jn. 17:17). The second He accomplishes by doing, when He makes men burst forth in praise of God. Hence, he says, in the midst of the congregation will I praise you. Deinde cum dicit et iterum, etc., ostendit quod ipse Christus dependet ex patre per hoc quod dicit ego ero fidens in eum. Hoc secundum Hieronymum habetur Is. VIII, 17, ubi nos habemus: expectabo dominum, qui abscondit faciem suam a domo Iacob, et cetera. Sed Is. XII, 2 expresse habetur: fiducialiter agam, et non timebo. Ego ero fidens in ipso pro gloria capitis et membrorum, quod supra dixit consummationem. Ps. XXX, 1: in te, domine, speravi. Ostendit autem quam spem habet, quia non quamcumque, sed firmam, quae dicitur fiducia. Spes enim et si non sit de impossibili, tamen habet timorem coniunctum quandoque, et tunc proprie dicitur spes. Spes quandoque est firma et sine timore, et tunc proprie dicitur fiducia. Et istam habuit Christus. 133. – Then when he says, and again, he shows that Christ Himself depends on the Father by the fact that He says, I will put my trust in him: ‘In you, Lord, have I hoped; let me never be confounded’ (Ps. 30:2). But he shows the kind of hope He has, namely, firm hope, which is called trust: for hope, even though it is not concerned with the impossible, sometimes has fear joined to it, and then it his properly called hope. But sometimes hope is firm and without fear; then it is called trust. This is the hope Christ had. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Dicit ergo fidens ero in eum, id est, habebo fiduciam in adiutorio eius, scilicet patris, pro gloria corporis quod resuscitabit, et membrorum et animae. Ps. XXXI, v. 1: in te, domine, speravi, et cetera. Ier. XVII: beatus vir qui confidit in domino. Sed contra, sancti dicunt, quod in Christo nec fides, nec spes est, sed sola charitas. Respondeo. Dicendum, quod aliud est spes, aliud fiducia; nam spes est expectatio futurae beatitudinis, et haec non fuit in Christo, quia ab instanti suae conceptionis beatus fuit; fiducia autem est expectatio cuiuscumque auxilii; et secundum hoc fuit in Christo fiducia, inquantum secundum humanam naturam, expectabat a patre auxilium in passione. Unde cum ibi invenitur quod Christus dicatur habere spem, non est intelligendum ratione principalis obiecti, quod est beatitudo, sed ratione gloriae resurrectionis, et gloriae corpori collatae.] 134. – He says, therefore, I will put my trust in him, i.e., I will have confidence in His help. But the saints say that in Christ there is neither faith nor hope, but only charity. I answer that hope is one thing and trust another: for hope is the expectation of future happiness; and this was not in Christ, because He was happy from the instant of His conception. But trust is the expectation of help, and in regard to this there was hope in Christ, inasmuch as He awaited help from the Father during His Passion. Therefore, whenever we read that Christ had hope, this is not to be understood as referring to its principal, which is happiness, but as referring to the glory of the resurrection and of the glory conferred on His body. Deinde cum dicit et iterum, etc., ostendit tertium, scilicet quod refert nos in Deum, dicens ecce ego. Et habetur Is. VIII, v. 18. Quasi dicat: relatus sum in Deum, ego, inquam, qui sum fidens. Et similiter pueri mei, quos in Deum reduco, scilicet discipuli mei. Io. ult.: pueri, numquid pulmentarium habetis? Quos dedit mihi Deus. Io. XVII, 6: tui erant, et mihi eos dedisti. Isti dicuntur pueri propter puritatem. I Reg. XXI, 4: si mundi sunt pueri et maxime a mulieribus; et paulo post, ibidem, 5, sequitur: fuerunt vasa puerorum sancta. Item propter simplicitatem. I Cor. XIV, 20: nolite pueri effici sensibus, sed malitia parvuli estote. Item propter humilitatem. Matth. XVIII, 3: nisi conversi fueritis, et efficiamini sicut parvuli, et cetera. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Item propter facilitatem ad bonum: sinite parvulos venire ad me. Et ostendit quod non solum ipse est a Deo, sed etiam pueri; unde subdit quos dedit mihi dominus, et sic verum fit quod dixit: qui sanctificat et qui sanctificantur ex uno omnes,] quia Io. VI, 44: nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater qui misit me traxerit eum. 135. – Then when he repeats, and again, he shows that we depend on the Father: Here am I and the children whom God has given me: ‘Yours they were and to me you gave them’ (Jn. 17:6); ‘Children, have you any fish’ (Jn. 21:5)? They are called children on account of their purity: ‘If the young men be clean especially from women’ (1 Sam. 21:4); and a bit later he continues: ‘The vessels of the young men were holy.’ They are called children because of their purity: ‘Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts’ (Is. 8:18). Also on account of their simplicity: ‘Brethren do not become children in sense: but in malice be children’ (1 Cor. 14:20); also because of their humility: ‘unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 18:3). He shows that not only is He from God, but also the children; hence he continues, whom God has given me. This shows that both he that sanctifies and they that are sanctified have all one origin, because it says in Jn (6:44): ‘No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him.’
2-4
Heb 2:14-18Supra ostendit apostolus convenientiam mortis Christi ex parte patris mortem imponentis, hic ostendit idem ex parte ipsius Christi mortem patientis. De Christo vero dixit quod erat auctor salutis fidelium, ideo hic intendere quomodo per passionem effectus est auctor salutis eorum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim ostendit conditionem naturae, per quam mori potuit et pati; secundo ostendit utilitatem quam per mortem attulit, ibi ut per mortem; tertio probat quod proposuerat, ibi nusquam enim Angelos. 136. – Having shown the suitableness of Christ’s death from the standpoint of the Father causing it, the Apostle now shows the same thing from the standpoint of Christ enduring it. Therefore, he intends to show how He was made the author of salvation by his Passion: first, he shows the condition of the nature through which He could suffer and die; secondly, the benefits He obtained by dying (v. 14b); thirdly, he proves what he had proposed (v. 16). Dicit ergo primo: ita dixi quod ipse et pueri sunt ex uno omnes et quod vocavit eos fratres, ergo conveniens fuit quod esset eis similis, non tantum quia impartitur eis participationem naturae divinae, quod est ex dono gratiae, sed etiam quia ipse naturam eorum assumpsit. Unde dicit quia ergo pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini, et ipse similiter participavit eisdem. 137. – He says, therefore, I have said that He and the children have all one origin and that He called them brethren. Consequently, it was fitting that He be like them, not only because He confers on them a participation in the divine nature, which is from grace, but also because He assumed their nature. Hence, he says, therefore, because the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature. Ubi notandum est, quod nomine carnis et sanguinis, aliquando ipsa natura carnis et sanguinis intelligitur, Gen. II, 23: hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea, [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] ut sic per carnem intelligas corpus, secundum illud Iob X, 11: pelle et carnibus vestisti me; per sanguinem vero intelligas animam, non quod anima sit ipse sanguis, sed quia non conservatur in corpore sine sanguine. Aliquando vero per carnem et sanguinem intelliguntur vitia carnis et sanguinis. Matth. XVI, 17: caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi.] Aliquando vero ipsa corruptibilitas carnis et sanguinis. I Cor. XV, 50: caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt, neque corruptio incorruptionem. Sed hic non intelligitur de vitiis: Christus enim assumpsit naturam sine peccato, sed cum passibilitate, quia assumpsit carnem similem peccatrici. Rom. VIII, v. 3: in similitudinem carnis peccati. Ipse ergo communicavit vel pueris, vel etiam carni et sanguini, et totum similiter, quia scilicet non carni phantastice, ut dixit Manichaeus, nec accidentaliter, ut dixit Nestorius, sed verae carni et sanguini, sicut et pueri, et in unitate personae. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] 138. – Here it should be noted that by the name flesh and blood is sometimes understood the nature of flesh and blood: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ (Gen. 2:23); then by flesh is understood the body: ‘You have clothed me with skin and flesh’ (Jb. 10:11) and by blood the soul: not as though the soul were blood, but because it is not preserved in the body without blood. Sometimes by flesh and blood are understood the vices of flesh and blood: ‘Flesh and blood have not revealed it to you’ (Mt. 16:17). But sometimes they signify the corruptibility of flesh and blood: ‘Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, not corruption incorruption’ (1 Cor. 15:50). But here it does not refer to vices, for Christ assumed a nature without sin, but with the possibility of suffering, because He assumed a flesh similar to the sinner: ‘In the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3). Therefore, like the children, He is partaker of flesh and blood, and all in the same way: for it was not imaginary flesh, as the Manicheans say, not was it assumed in the accidental way, as Nestorius said. But true flesh and blood, such as children have, were assumed into the unity of the person. Quod autem hic dicitur quod Christus communicavit carni et sanguini, non est intelligendum secundum quod dicunt vitia carnis et sanguinis, quia non assumpsit culpam, nec commisit; sed secundum quod dicunt ipsam substantiam carnis animatae, quia carnem et animam assumpsit. Item est intelligendum de passibilitate carnis, quia assumpsit naturam nostram passibilem. Ut sit sensus quia pueri, idest fideles, habuerunt naturam passibilem, et ipse, scilicet Christus, participavit eisdem, vel pueri, scilicet in natura carnis et sanguinis, vel eisdem, id est, carni et sanguini, non quidem phantastice, ut delirat Manichaeus, nec accidentaliter, ut fingit Nestorius, sed similiter, scilicet nobis, id est, eo modo quo nos participamus, id est, secundum rei veritatem, scilicet personaliter et substantialiter. Nos enim participamus eis in persona, et Christus etiam similiter assumpsit ea in unitatem personae. Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est. Potest etiam per carnem et sanguinem intelligi caro et sanguis Christi, secundum illud Io. VI, 55: qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem: quibus pueri, scilicet apostoli, communicaverunt in coena, et Christus similiter participavit eisdem, scilicet carni et sanguini, quia ipse similiter sumpsit, ut Chrysostomus expresse dicit super Matth. XXVI: ipse (inquit) Christus bibit sanguinem suum. Unde Lc. XXII, 15: desiderio desideravi, et cetera.] 139. – That Christ is a partaker of flesh and blood is not to be understood as referring to the vices of flesh and blood, because He did not take on sin or commit any; but as referring to the very substance of animated flesh, because He assumed flesh and soul. It also included the possibility of suffering, because He assumed our nature capable of suffering. Therefore, the sense is: Because the children, i.e., the faithful, has a nature capable of suffering, Christ Himself partook of the same, i.e., of flesh and blood. But we partake of them through our person; and Christ in like manner assumed them to His person: ‘The Word was made flesh’ (Jn. 1:14). By flesh and blood can also be understood the flesh and blood of Christ according to the statement: ‘He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood’ (Jn. 6:55), of which the children, i.e., the apostles, partook at the last supper and of which Christ partook: ‘He drank His own blood’, as Chrysostom says. Consequenter ostendit utilitatem quam per mortem attulit, cum dicit ut per mortem destrueret, et cetera. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit utilitatem istam ex parte Diaboli, qui tenebat; secundo ex parte nostra, qui tenebamur, ibi ut liberaret eos. 140. – Then (v. 14b) he shows the benefits His death brought. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows its usefulness on the part of the devil, who had the power; secondly, on our part who were held (v. 15). Dicit ergo: ideo participavit carni et sanguini, id est, assumpsit naturam in qua posset pati et mori, quod non poterat in divina, ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium, id est Diabolum. Sed quomodo habet Diabolus mortis dominium? Hoc enim est solius Dei. I Reg. II, 6: dominus vivificat, et mortificat, et Deut. c. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod aliter habet dominium mortis iudex, quia scilicet quasi mortem infligens, cum per mortem punit; aliter latro, quasi scilicet mortem sibi ex demerito acquirens. Primo modo Deus habet mortis imperium. Gen. II, 17: quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. Secundo modo Diabolus, qui suadendo homini peccatum, morti ipsum addixit. Sap. II, 24: invidia Diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum. Dicit autem destrueret, non quantum ad substantiam quam habet incorruptibilem, non quantum ad malitiam, ut aliquando Diabolus bonus fiat (ut dicit Origenes), sed quantum ad potestatis dominium. Io. XII, 31: nunc iudicium est mundi, nunc princeps mundi huius eiicietur foras. Col. II, 15: expolians principatus et potestates traduxit confidenter, palam triumphans illos in semetipso. 141. – He says, therefore: He partook of flesh and blood, i.e., He assumed a nature in which He could suffer and die, which he could not do in the divine nature, that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, i.e., the devil. But how does the devil have the power of death? For this is God’s prerogative: ‘The Lord kills and makes alive’ (1 Sam. 2:6); ‘I will kill and I will make to live’ (Dt. 32:39). I answer that a judge has the power of death in one way, because he inflicts death, when he punishes with death; but a thief has it another way in the sense of deserving death because of demerit. God has the power of death in the first way: For in what day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death’ (Gen. 2:17). But the devil in the second way, because by persuading men to sin, he yielded him over to death: ‘by the envy of the devil, death came into the world’ (Wis. 2:24). But he says, that he might destroy him, not as to his substance, which is indestructible, nor as to his malice, so that the devil would become good at some time, but as to his power: ‘Despoiling the principalities and powers’ (Col. 2:15). Et hoc factum est per mortem Christi triplici ratione. Una est ex parte Christi. Iustitiae enim est vera ratio, ut victor victum sibi subiiciat. II Pet. II, 19: a quo enim quis superatus est, huius et servus est. Christus enim vicit Diabolum. Apoc. V, 5: vicit leo de tribu Iuda. Et ideo iustum est Diabolum sibi esse subiectum. Lc. XI, 21: cum fortis armatus custodit atrium suum, et cetera. Alia ratio est ex parte Diaboli. Iustitia enim exigit, quod qui male utitur potestate sibi concessa, amittat eam. Diabolo autem data est permissive in peccatores quos seduxit, sed non in bonos. Quia ergo hanc extendere praesumpsit etiam in ipso Christo, qui peccatum non fecit Io. XIV, 30: venit princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quicquam ideo meruit illam perdere. Tertia ratio est ex parte nostri, quia iustum est, quod victus sit servus victoris, ut dictum est. Homo autem per peccatum servus erat Diaboli Io. VIII, 34 s.: qui facit peccatum servus est peccati et ita subiectus Diabolo, et obnoxius peccato. Christus autem solvit pretium pro peccato nostro. Ps.: quae non rapui, tunc exsolvebam. Sublata ergo causa servitutis, scilicet peccato, per Christum est homo liberatus. 142. – This was accomplished by the death of Christ in three ways: first, on the part of Christ, for the true nature of justice is that the victor subject the vanquished to himself: ‘For by whom a man is overcome, of the same is he the slave’ (2 Pt. 2:19). But Christ overcame the devil: ‘The Lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed’ (Rev. 5:5). Therefore, it is just that the devil be subject to Him: ‘When a strong man armed keeps his court, those things are in peace which he possesses (Lk. 11:21). Secondly, on the part of the devil: for justice requires that a person who unjustly uses power granted him should lose it. But the devil has been given power over the sinners he seduced, but not over the good. Therefore, because he presumed to extend this power even to Christ, Who did not sin: ‘The prince of this world comes, and in me he has nothing’ (Jn. 14:30), he deserved to lose it. The third reason is on our part: for it is just that the vanquished be the servants of the victor. But man by sin was the servant of the devil: ‘Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin’ (Jn. 8:34); consequently, he was subject to the devil and liable to sin. But Christ paid the price for our sin: ‘Then did I pay that which I took not away’ (Ps. 68:5). Therefore, when the cause of servitude was taken away, man was set free by Christ. Sciendum est autem, quod nulla alia satisfactio fuit conveniens. Homo enim erat debitor, unus autem bene potest satisfacere pro alio ex charitate. Nullus autem pro tota humana natura, quia non habet potestatem super illam. Nec etiam ipsum humanum genus sufficienter poterat satisfacere, quia totum erat peccato obnoxium. Nec etiam Angelus, quia ista satisfactio est ad gloriam, quae excedit facultatem naturae Angeli. Oportuit ergo esse hominem qui deberet satisfacere, et Deum, qui solus habet potestatem super totum humanum genus, qui posset pro toto humano genere satisfacere. Per mortem ergo Dei et hominis destruxit eum qui habet mortis imperium. 143. – But it should be noted that another satisfaction was suitable. For man was in debt; but one man can satisfy for another out of charity, although no one can satisfy for the entire human race, because he does not have power over it, nor could the entire human race satisfy sufficiently, because it was entirely subject to sin; nor could an angel, because this satisfaction was unto glory, which exceeds the power of an angel. Therefore, it was necessary that the one who satisfied be man and God, Who alone has power over the whole human race. By the death of God and man, therefore, He destroyed him who had the empire of death. Consequenter cum dicit ut liberaret eos, etc., ponitur alia utilitas ex parte nostra. Circa quod sciendum est, quod homo intantum est servus peccati, inquantum inducitur ad peccandum. Inter omnia vero duo sunt, quae inducunt ad peccandum efficacissime, scilicet praesentium bonorum amor male inflammans, praesentium etiam poenarum timor male humilians. De his Ps. LXXIX, 17: incensa igni, quantum ad primum, et suffossa, quantum ad secundum. Haec autem duo in idem reducuntur, quia quanto quis amat bonum aliquod, tanto timet malum sibi contrarium. Ista sunt quibus homo ligatur et detinetur in peccato, magis tamen per timorem movetur, quam per amorem. Unde videmus, quod saevae bestiae poenarum timore retrahuntur a maximis voluptatibus, et sic timor maxime ligat homines. Inter omnes autem, timor mortis est maximus. Est enim finis terribilium. Unde si homo timorem istum superat, superat omnes; et hoc superato, superatur omnis amor mundi inordinatus. Et ideo Christus per mortem suam fregit hoc ligamen, quia abstulit timorem mortis, et per consequens amorem vitae praesentis. Quando enim considerat homo, quod filius Dei, dominus mortis, mori voluit, non timet mori. Et inde est quod ante mortem Christi dicebat ille in Eccli. XLI, 1: o mors, quam amara est memoria tua. Sed post mortem Christi clamat apostolus, Phil. I, 23: desiderium habens dissolvi et esse cum Christo. Unde Matth. X, 28: nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, et cetera. Dicit ergo ut liberaret eos, qui timore mortis obnoxii erant servituti, scilicet peccati, per totam vitam, quam nimis appetebant. Vel aliter: homo enim duplici servituti erat obnoxius, scilicet legis et peccati. Unde Act. XV, 10 lex dicitur iugum, quod nec nos, nec patres nostri portare potuimus. Manus enim Moysi erant graves, Ex. c. XVII, 12; Gal. IV, 5: ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. Erant enim obnoxii servituti peccati. 144. – Then (v. 15) another advantage on our part is mentioned. In regard to this it should be noted that a man is a servant of sin to the extent that he is induced to sin. But the most effective inducements to sin are the love of transitory goods and the fear of present punishments: ‘Things set on fire, as to the first and dug down as to the second, shall perish at the rebuke of your countenance’ (Ps. 79:17). But these two amount to the same thing, because the more a person loves something, the more he fears its evil contrary. Hence, we see that savage beasts are kept from the greatest pleasures through fear of punishment; thus fear makes cowards of us all. Hence, if a man overcomes his fears, he overcomes everything; and when fear is overcome, all disordered love of the world is overcome. Thus Christ by His death broke this fear, because He removed the fear of death, and, consequently the love of the present life. For when a person considers that the Son of God, the Lord of death, willed to die, he no longer fears death. That is why before the death of Christ, it was said: ‘O death, how bitter is the remembrance of you’ (Sir. 41:1); but after Christ’s death the Apostle expresses a desire to be dissolved and be with Christ: Hence, we are told: ‘Fear not them that kill the body’ (Mt. 10:28). He says, therefore, and deliver all those who through the fear of death were subject to lifelong service, namely, the servitude of sin. Ab ista duplici servitute Christus nos liberavit. Differentia autem inter novum et vetus testamentum est timor, et amor. In novo est amor. Io. XIV, 15: si diligitis me, mandata mea servate. Vetus autem fuit lex timoris. Rom. VIII, 15: non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore. Et ideo dicit ut liberaret eos qui timore mortis corporalis, quam infligebat lex, per totam vitam obnoxii erant servituti legis. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] 145. – But Christ freed us from a double servitude, namely, that of the Law and that of sin, since the law is called a yoke which neither we not our fathers were able to bear (Ac. 15:10). Now the difference between the Old and the New Law is fear and love. In the New there is love: ‘If you love me, keep my commandments’ (Jn. 14:15). But the Old was the law of fear: ‘You have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear’ (Rom. 8:15). Therefore, he sways, and deliver them who through the fear of bodily death, which the Law inflicted, were all subject to lifelong servitude. Sed quaeritur cur statim non liberavit a morte, sed a timore mortis? Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod statim liberavit nos a morte quantum ad causam, sed ab ipsa morte nondum, quamvis liberaverit a timore mortis. Cuius ratio est, quia si liberasset a morte corporali, homines servirent Christo tantum propter bonum corporale, et sic periret meritum fidei et spei; similiter etiam ipsae poenae sunt nobis meritoriae ad vitam aeternam. Act. XIV, 21: per multas tribulationes, et cetera. Et notandum, quod liberavit nos a timore mortis, primo ostendendo futuram immortalitatem, et ex hoc homo parvipendit mortem temporalem. I Cor. XV, 20: Christus resurgens primitiae dormientium, et cetera. Secundo praegustando voluntarie mortem, ex quo promptiores efficimur ad subeundum mortem pro Christo. I Pet. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, et cetera. Tertio aperiendo aditum ad gloriam, qui ante mortem suam non patebat, et ex hoc non solum non timemus mortem, sed desideramus eam. Phil. I, 23: desiderium habens dissolvi et esse cum Christo, et cetera.] 146. – But why did He not free us at once from death but only from the fear of death? I answer that He freed us immediately from the cause of death, but not from death itself, although He freed us from the fear of death. The reason for this was that if he had freed us from bodily death, men would serve Christ only for their bodily good, and then the merit of faith and hope would be destroyed. Furthermore, bodily evils enable us to merit eternal life: ‘Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God’ (Ac. 14:21). It should be noted that He freed us from the fear of death, first of all, by showing the immortality that awaited us. As a result, man could scorn temporal death: Christ is risen from the dead, the first-fruits of them that sleep’ (1 Cor. 15:20); secondly, by giving us a foretaste of death He made us more ready to undergo death for Christ: ‘Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example’ (1 Pt. 2:2). Thirdly, by opening the gate to glory, which was closed before His death; as a result, we not only do not fear death, but we desire it: ‘Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which is much better’ (Phil. 1:23). Consequenter cum dicit nusquam enim Angelos apprehendit, probat apostolus utilitatem, quam mors Christi attulit. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim ostendit, quod Christus per mortem nos liberavit, quod probat ex conditione naturae passibilis quam assumpsit; secundo concludit similitudinem, ibi unde debuit; tertio ostendit similitudinis utilitatem, ibi ut misericors fieret. 147. – Then (v. 16) the Apostle proves the benefits which Christ’s death obtained. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows that by His death Christ freed us by reason of the condition of the nature he assumed; secondly, he concludes a likeness (v. 17); thirdly, he shows the benefit of the likeness (v 17b). Dicit ergo: ita dixi quod Christus per mortem suam liberavit nos a peccatis et morte. Nec est dubium, quod quantum ad conditionem naturae Angelus maior est homine, sed quia Angelus non fuit obnoxius servituti, nec dignus morte, ideo non assumpsit Angelum. Quod si assumpsisset Angelum, hoc utique fuisset propter dignitatem naturae; sed nusquam legimus quod assumpsit eum, sed tantum semen Abrahae, id est, humanam naturam, non tamen idealem, sed in individuo et atomo, et ex semine Abrahae. Matth. I, 1: filii Abraham, et cetera. Et hoc addit, ut Iudaei qui gloriantur se esse de genere Abrahae, magis venerentur Christum. Signanter vero dicit apprehendit, quia illud proprie dicitur apprehendi quod fugit. Non solum autem ipsa natura humana fugiebat a Deo, sed etiam ipsi filii Abrahae. Zac. VII, v. 11: averterunt scapulam, et cetera. Ista autem apprehensio naturae humanae in unitatem personae filii Dei, naturam nostram supra modum exaltat; unde dicit Chrysostomus: magnum revera et mirabile et stupore plenum est, carnem nostram sursum sedere, et adorari ab Angelis et Archangelis. Hoc ego saepius in mente versans excessum patior, magna de genere humano imaginans. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] 148. – He says, therefore: So I have stated that Christ by His death freed us from sin and death. Nor is there any doubt that in regard to the condition of its nature an angel is greater than man; but because the angels were not subject to servitude or deserving of death, He did not assume an angel. But if he had, this would have been on account of the dignity of its nature. But we have never read that he assumed an angel, but only of the seed of Abraham, i.e., a human nature, not in the abstract but in an individual, and from the seed of Abraham. He adds this in order that the Jews, who glory in being of the seed of Abraham, might venerate Christ more. But he says significantly [take hold of], because that is properly said to be taken hold of, which flees. But not only the human nature fled from God, but also the children of Abraham: ‘But they would not hearken, and they turned away the shoulder to depart; and they stopped their ears not to hear’ (Zech. 7:11). This taking hold of human nature unto the unity of the person of the Son of God exalts our nature beyond measure. Hence, Chrysostom says: ‘It is a great and marvelous thing for our flesh to be seated above and to be adorned by angels and archangels. As I turn this over in my mind, I experience excessive joy, imagining great things about the human race.’ Sed videtur quod magis debuerit naturam angelicam apprehendere quam humanam naturam: similitudo enim est ratio faciens ad congruitatem incarnationis divinae personae. In natura autem angelica invenitur expressior similitudo Dei quam in humana, quia ipsa est signaculum similitudinis, Ez. c. XXVIII, 12. Magis ergo videtur quod debuerit apprehendere Angelum, quam semen Abrahae. Praeterea: in natura angelica invenitur peccatum sicut in humana. Iob IV, 18: in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem. Si ergo apprehendit naturam humanam ut liberaret eam a peccato, videtur quod multo magis apprehendere debuerit angelicam. Respondeo. Dicendum, quod assumptibilis dicitur aliqua natura a filio Dei secundum congruentiam ad unitatem personae. Ista autem congruentia attenditur quantum ad duo, scilicet quantum ad dignitatem, ut illa natura sit assumptibilis, quae nata est attingere ipsum verbum per suam operationem, amando et cognoscendo ipsum, et quantum ad necessitatem, ut scilicet subiaceat peccato remediabili. Primum et secundum sunt in humana natura, quae apta nata est Deum amare et cognoscere, et peccatum ipsius remediabile fuit, et ideo est assumptibilis. Naturae autem angelicae licet adsit primum, deest tamen secundum; nam peccatum est irremediabile, non quidem ex gravitate culpae, sed ex conditione naturae seu status. Quod est hominibus mors, est Angelis casus, ut dicit Damascenus. Manifestum autem quod omnia peccata hominis, sive sint parva, sive sint magna, ante mortem sunt remissibilia, post mortem vero sunt irremissibilia et perpetuo manent, et ideo natura angelica inassumptibilis est. Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta, quia licet in natura angelica sit congruentia dignitatis, deest tamen congruentia necessitatis.] 149. – But it would have seemed better to assume an angelic nature than a human nature. For likeness is the reason making the Incarnation of a divine person becoming. But a more express likeness of God is found in the angelic nature than in the human, because the former is the seal of resemblance. Therefore, it would seem more fitting to take hold of an angel than of the seed of Abraham. Furthermore, sin is found in the angelic nature as in the human nature. Therefore, if he took hold of human nature to free it from sin, it seems there was more reason to take hold of the angelic. I answer that a nature is assumable by the Son of God depending on its fitness to be united to the person of the Word. But this fitness depends on the dignity, so that the nature is assumable which is likely to attain to the Word Himself by knowing and loving Him; and also depending on the need, in the sense that it is subject to a reparable sin, although the first is found in the angelic nature, the second is not found. But the first and second are found in human nature, which is capable of knowing and loving God, and which has a reparable sin; consequently, it is assumable. But although the first is found in an angelic nature, it lacks the second: for a sin is irreparable not by reason of its gravity, but by reason of the condition of the nature. But what death was to men, the fall was to the angels. But it is clear that all the sins of man, whether they be small or great, are reparable before death; after death they are irreparable and remain for ever. Therefore, the angelic nature is not assumable. Deinde cum dicit unde debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari, ex praedictis concludit similitudinem, quasi dicat: quia ergo non apprehendit Angelos, sed semen Abrahae, ideo debuit per omnia assimilari fratribus. Per omnia inquam, in quibus sunt fratres, non in culpa, sed in poena, et ideo debet habere passibilem naturam. Unde infra IV, 15: tentatum autem per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato, quantum scilicet ad poenam, non tentationem culpae. Item sunt fratres quantum ad gratiam. I Io. III, 1: videte qualem charitatem dedit nobis Deus pater, ut filii Dei nominemur et simus. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri, et cetera. 150. – Then (v. 17) he concludes to a likeness. As if to say: Therefore, because He did not assume an angel but the seed of Abraham, it behooved him in all things to become like unto his brethren. In all things, I say, in which they are brethren, not in guilt but in punishment. Therefore, it behooved Him to have a nature that could suffer; hence ‘one tempted in all things as we are, without sin’ (Heb. 4:15). Likewise, they are brethren as to grace: ‘Behold, what love God showed to us: that we should be called and be sons of God (1 Jn. 3:1); ‘Those whom be foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son’ (Rom. 8:29). Consequenter ponit utilitatem istius similitudinis, dum dicit ut misericors fieret, ubi duo facit, quia primo ponit eam; secundo exponit ipsam, ibi in eo enim, et cetera. 151. – Then he shows the usefulness of that resemblance when he says, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest. Here he does two things: First, he mentions the likeness; secondly, he explains it (v. 18). Nam Christus secundum quod mediator est, duplex habet officium. Unum quo praeponitur toti humano generi sicut iudex. Io. V, 27: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, et cetera. Aliud per comparationem ad Deum, apud quem pro nobis quasi advocatus interpellat, quia assistit vultui eius pro nobis, infra VII, 25 et I Io. II, 1: advocatum habemus apud patrem Iesum Christum, et cetera. In iudice autem maxime desideratur misericordia, et praecipue a reis; in advocato desideratur fidelitas. In Christo autem insinuat apostolus illa duo esse per passionem eius. Humanum enim genus in Christo, inquantum est iudex, desiderabat misericordiam; inquantum advocatus, fidelitatem. Et ista duo exhibuit Christus per passionem. Unde quantum ad primum dicit quod per passionem assimilatus est fratribus, ut misericors fieret. 152. – Christ as mediator has two functions: one sets Him over the whole human race as judge: ‘He gave him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man’ (Jn. 5:27); the other is in relation to God, before Whom He intercedes for us as our advocate. In a judge mercy is desired particularly by the guilty; but in an advocate fidelity. Now both of these qualities were exhibited by Christ during His Passion. Hence, in regard to the first, he says that by His Passion He was made like unto his brethren, that he might become merciful. Sed numquid non fuit misericors ab aeterno? Videtur quod sic, quia miserationes eius super omnia opera eius, Ps. CXLIV, v. 9. Item, ab initio habuit misericordiam. Iob XXXI, 18: ab infantia crevit mecum miseratio. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod miseratio dicitur quasi miserum cor super aliena miseria, et hoc est dupliciter. Uno modo per solam apprehensionem, et sic Deus sine passione nostram miseriam apprehendit. Ipse enim cognovit figmentum nostrum, ut dicitur in Ps. CII, 14. Alio modo per experientiam, et sic Christus potissime in passione expertus est miseriam nostram. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Et sic dicitur, ut qui erat misericors per apprehensionem nostrae miseriae, fieret misericors per experientiam. Is. LVIII, 9: clamabo et dicam: ecce adsum, quia misericors sum dominus Deus tuus. Et inde est, quod misericordiam fecit, ut patet de muliere deprehensa in adulterio. Misericordiam docuit, Matth. V, 7: estote misericordes, et cetera. Misericordiam mandavit, Matth. c. XII, 7: discite quid est, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, et cetera. Item ipse est fidelis advocatus.] Et ideo dicitur fidelis pontifex. Infra IX, v. 11: Christus assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum. Et requiritur quod sit fidelis. I Cor. c. XIV, 2: hic iam quaeritur inter dispensatores ut fidelis quis inveniatur. Et hoc totum, ut repropitiaret delicta populi, scilicet pro quo mortem sustinere voluit. Ipsa enim passio allegatio est, et fidelium interpellatio. 153. – But wasn’t He merciful from all eternity? It seems so, because ‘his mercies are above all his works’ (Ps. 144:9). For mercy consists in having a heart grieved at another’s misfortune: in one way, by merely recognizing the misfortune, which is the way God recognized our wretchedness without suffering; in another way, by experiencing our misfortune, which is how Christ experienced our misery, especially during the Passion. In addition He is a faithful advocate; hence, he is called a faithful high priest. ‘But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come’ (Heb. 9:11); and it is required that He be faithful: ‘Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful’ (1 Cor. 4:2): and all this that He might be a propitiation for the sins of the people, for whom He willed to die. Deinde cum dicit in eo enim, etc., exponit istam utilitatem et continuatur sic, quasi dicat: non loquor de Christo inquantum Deus, sed inquantum est homo. Et ideo in eo, idest, in illa natura quam assumpsit, ut experiretur in se nostram causam esse suam. Unde dicit et tentatus et passus est; ideo potens est et eis qui tentantur auxiliari. Vel aliter: ideo factus est misericors et fidelis, quia in eo quod passus et tentatus est, habet quamdam convenientiam ad hoc quod misereatur. Et dicit tentatus, non a carne, sed ab hoste. Matth. IV, 1: ductus est Iesus in desertum a spiritu, ut tentaretur a Diabolo. In ipso enim non fuit aliqua rebellio partis inferioris ad superiorem, sed passus est in carne pro nobis. I Pet. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, et cetera. Et IV, 1: Christo ergo in carne passo, et vos eadem cogitatione armamini. 154. – Then when he says, For in that wherein he himself has suffered and been tempted, he shows its utility. As if to say: I do not speak of Christ as God, but as man. Therefore, in that, i.e., in that nature which He assumed, in order to experience in Himself that our cause is His own. Hence he says, he suffered and was tempted; therefore, he is able to succor them also that are tempted. Or, another way: He became merciful and faithful, because in suffering and being tempted He has a kinship to mercy. He says, tempted, not by the flesh but by the enemy: ‘Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil’ (Mt. 4:1). For in Christ there was no rebellion of the lower powers against the higher, but He suffered for us in the flesh: ‘Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps’ (1 Pt. 2:21); ‘Christ, therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought’ (1 Pt. 4:1).
3-1
Heb 3:1-6Sicut supra dictum fuit, lex vetus ex tribus habuit auctoritatem, scilicet ex Angelo, ex Moyse, et ex Aaron pontifice. Apostolus autem supra praetulit Christum auctorem novi testamenti Angelis, per quos lex data fuit, hic intendit ipsum praeferre Moysi, qui fuit promulgator, et quasi legislator veteris testamenti. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim praefert Christum Moysi; secundo concludit ex hoc, quod sit efficacissime obediendum Christo, ibi quapropter sicut. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit dignitatem Christi; secundo ostendit quid sit commune Christo et Moysi, ibi amplioris. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ponit conditionem eorum ad quos loquitur; secundo ponit conditionem eius de quo loquitur, ibi considerate. 155. – As was said above, the Old Law derived its authority from three sources, namely, from angels, from Moses, and from Aaron, the high priest. But the Apostle preferred Christ, the Author of the New Testament, to the angels through whom the Law was given. Here he intends to prefer Him to Moses, who was the promulgator and, as it were, the lawgiver of the Old Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he prefers Christ to Moses; secondly, he concludes from this that Christ is most deserving of obedience (v. 7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions Christ’s dignity; secondly, he shows what is common to Christ and Moses (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: First, he describes the condition of those to whom he speaks; secondly, of the one of whom he speaks (v. 3b). Illos autem ad quos loquitur describit tripliciter. Primo ex charitate. Unde dicit fratres, quasi diceret: quia ex semine Abrahae fratres estis et Christi, et inter vos ad invicem. Matth. XXIII, 8: omnes vos fratres estis, et cetera. Item fratres Christi. Supra II, 11: non confunditur eos vocare fratres. Hanc autem fraternitatem facit charitas. Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum, et cetera. Secundo etiam describit eos ex sanctitate, cum dicit sancti. Et hoc propter sacramentorum perceptionem, qua sanctificamur a Christo. I Cor. VI, 11: sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, et cetera. Tertio describit eos ex vocatione, cum dicit vocationis caelestis participes. Ista autem vocatio dupliciter potest intelligi caelestis esse. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Vel ratione finis, vel ratione principii. Ratione quidem finis, quia vocati sunt non ad terrena, sicut in veteri testamento, sed] vocati sunt ad caelestia regna. I Thess. II, v. 12: vocavit nos ad suum regnum et gloriam. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] I Petr. II, 9: qui de tenebris vocavit in admirabile lumen suum. Ratione vero principii, quia non est ex meritis nostris,] nec ex humana adinventione, sed sola caelesti gratia. Gal. I, 6: vocavit per gratiam suam. Rom. VIII, 30: quos autem praedestinavit, hos et vocavit. Is. XLI, 2: qui suscitavit ab oriente iustum, vocavit eum, ut sequeretur se. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Dicit autem participes, quia non solum Iudaei vocati sunt ad gratiam fidei et novi testamenti, sed etiam gentes. Col. I, 12: dignos nos fecit in partem sortis sanctorum in lumine. Quia ergo estis in charitate, et sancti, et vocati ad caelestia, debetis libenter audire loqui de eo, per quem ista vobis proveniunt.] 156. – He describes those to whom he speaks, first, from their charity; hence, he says, brethren, as if to say: Because you are brothers of Christ and of one another: ‘All you are brothers’ (Mt. 23:8); ‘He is not ashamed to call them brethren’ (above 2:11). But charity causes this brotherhood: ‘Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity’ (Ps. 132:1). Secondly, he describes them from their sanctity when he says, holy; and this because they receive the sacraments by which we are made holy: ‘But you are washed, but you are sanctified’ (1 Cor. 6:11). Thirdly, he describes them from their vocation when he says, who share in a heavenly call. Now this call can be understood to be heavenly in two ways: by reason of its end or by reason of its source. By reason of the end, because they are not called to an earthly reward as in the Old Testament, but to a heavenly kingdom: ‘He has called you to his kingdom and glory’ (1 Th. 2:12); ‘Who called us from darkness into his marvelous light’ (1 Pt. 2:9). By reason of its source, because it is not due to our merits but to grace: ‘He called us by his grace’ (Gal. 1:15); ‘Who has raised up the just one from the east, has called him to follow him’ (Is. 41:2). But he says, who share in, because not only the Jews have been called to the faith and the New Testament, but also the Gentiles: ‘who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light’ (Col. 1:12). Therefore, because you have charity and are saints and called to heavenly things, you should gladly hear one speak of Him through Whom those things come to you. Consequenter describit illum de quo loquitur, cum dicit considerate. Infra c. XII, 2: aspicientes in auctorem fidei et consummatorem Iesum, et cetera. Sed quem? Apostolum, inquit, et pontificem confessionis nostrae Iesum. Apostolus enim in sequentibus praefert Christum Moysi et Aaron, et ideo adscribit ei utriusque dignitatem; Moysi, scilicet quia missus fuit a Deo. Ps.: misit Moysen servum suum. Aaron vero, qui pontifex fuit. Ex. XXVIII, 1: applica quoque ad te Aaron, et cetera. Christus autem excellentius missus fuit apostolus, quam Moyses. Ex. IV, 13: obsecro, domine, mitte quem missurus es, quasi dicat: alium digniorem missurus es. Item ipse est pontifex et sacerdos. Ps. CIX, 5: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Quasi ergo praemittit hic conditionem suam principalem, dicens unde, id est, ergo, fratres, considerate apostolum, quasi dicat: praetermittatis considerare illum apostolum, id est, missum Moysen et pontificem Aaron, et considerate apostolum et pontificem confessionis nostrae, id est, illum quem nos confitemur. Hoc est enim necessarium ad salutem, ut confiteamur eum. Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Vel confessionis, id est, sacrificii spiritualis. Omnis enim sacerdos ordinatur ad sacrificia offerenda. Duplex autem est sacrificium, scilicet corporale vel temporale. Et ad hoc institutus fuit Aaron. Aliud autem est sacrificium spirituale, quod est in fidei confessione. Ps. XLIX, 23: sacrificium laudis honorificabit me. Et ad istud sacrificium institutus est Christus, non ad tauros. Is. I, 11: holocausta arietum et adipem pinguium, et sanguinem vitulorum, et agnorum, et hircorum nolui. Et paulo post, sequitur: ne offeratis ultra sacrificium frustra. 157. – Then he describes Him of Whom he speaks when he says, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession: ‘Look on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith’ (Heb. 12:2). For the Apostle prefers Christ to Moses and Aaron and, therefore, ascribes to Him the dignity of both: of Moses, because He was sent by God: ‘He sent Moses, his servant’ (Ps. 104:26); of Aaron, because he was a high priest: ‘Take unto you also Aaron, your brother with his sons from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office’ (Ex. 28:1). But Christ was sent in a more excellent manner than Moses: ‘I beseech the Lord, send whom you will send’ (Ex. 4:13). As if to say: You will send one more worthy. He will be a high priest and a prophet: ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedech’ (Ps. 104:4). No need to consider that apostle, i.e., Moses, and the high priest Aaron; but consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, i.e., Him Whom we confess. For it is necessary to salvation to confess Him: ‘With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation’ (Rom. 10:10). Or of confession, i.e., of the spiritual sacrifice. For every priest is ordained to offer sacrifice. But there are two kinds of sacrifice, namely, the corporal or temporal, for which Aaron was appointed; the other is spiritual, which consists in the confession of faith: ‘A sacrifice of praise will honor me’ (Ps. 49:25). For this sacrifice Christ was appointed: ‘I desire not holocausts of rams and fat of fatlings and blood of calves and lambs and buck goats’ (Is. 1:11). Then he continues: ‘Offer sacrifice no more in vain.’ Deinde cum dicit qui fidelis, etc., comparat Christum Moysi. De Aaron infra facit mentionem specialem. Et ponit primo hic, ut dictum est, illud in quo conveniunt; [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] secundo, in quo Christus superat Moysen, ibi amplioris enim gloriae. 158. – Then (v. 2) he compares Christ to Moses; first, he mentions that in which they agree; secondly, that in which Christ excels Moses (v. 3). Commune Christo et Moysi est fidelitas ad Deum; et ideo dicit qui fidelis est. Ubi] sciendum est, quod totum hoc, quod hic dicitur de Moyse, fundatur super illud quod habetur Num. XII, 7, ubi dominus ostendit excellentiam Moysi, postquam iurgati sunt contra ipsum Aaron et Maria, ubi ponuntur haec verba, quae apostolus hic allegat. Ibi enim dicitur sic: at non talis servus meus Moyses, qui in omni domo mea fidelissimus est. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Ubi, si bene attendimus, magis commendatur Moyses, quam in aliquo loco Bibliae. Et ideo apostolus tamquam excellentissimum ad commendationem Moysi hoc accipit.] Hoc autem potest convenire et Christo et Moysi. De Moyse enim patet ex ipsa historia allegata. De Christo etiam intelligitur, quia ipse secundum quod homo, fidelis est ei qui fecit eum, scilicet Deo patri, [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] qui fecit eum, scilicet apostolum et pontificem, non secundum divinam naturam, quia sic non est factus, nec creatus, sed genitus, sed secundum humanam. Rom. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Fidelis autem fuit Deo patri, primo non attribuens sibi quod habebat, sed patri. Io. c. VII, 16: mea doctrina non est mea. Secundo quia gloriam eius quaerebat, non suam. Io. VIII, 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero. Et VII, 18 dicitur: qui quaerit gloriam eius, qui eum misit, hic verax est, et iniustitia in illo non est. Tertio, quia perfecte obedivit patri. Phil. II, 8: factus obediens usque ad mortem.] Fidelis ergo est Christus ei qui fecit eum. Sicut et Moyses, et hoc in omni domo eius, quae domus est universitas fidelium, de qua Ps. XCII, 7: domum tuam decet sanctitudo, domine. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Vel in omni domo eius, id est, in toto mundo non tantum in Iudaea, sicut Moyses. Is.: dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terrae.] 159. – What is common to Christ and Moses is fidelity to God; hence he says, He was faithful to him who appointed him. Here it should be noted that everything said here of Moses is based on the statement found in Num. (12:7), where the Lord shows the excellence of Moses, after Aaron and Miriam spoke against him. We find these words, which the Apostle cites here: ‘If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision or I will speak to him in a dream. But it is not so with my servant Moses, who is most faithful in all my house’ (Num. 12:7). Here we find Moses commended more highly than in any other place in the Bible. Therefore, the Apostle accepts this as the highest commendation of Moses. But this can apply to Christ and to Moses: that it is true of Moses is clear from history. But it is true of Christ, because as man He is faithful to Him Who appointed Him, namely, to God the Father, Who made him an apostle and high priest, not, of course, according to His divine nature, because in that way He was not made or created, but begotten; but according to the human: ‘Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh’ (Rom. 1:3). But He was faithful to God the Father, first, by not attributing to Himself what He had, but to the Father: ‘My doctrine is not mine’ (Jn. 6:16). Secondly, He sought the Father’s glory and not His own: ‘He that seeks the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him’ (Jn. 7:18). Thirdly, because He obeyed the Father perfectly: ‘He was made obedient unto death’ (Phil. 2:8). Therefore, Christ is faithful to Him Who made Him, as Moses was, and this is God’s house—this house being the totality of the faithful: ‘Holiness becomes your house, O Lord, unto length of days’ (Ps. 93:5). Or, in all of God’s house, i.e., in the whole world and not only in Judea, as Moses: ‘I have given you to be the light of the Gentiles, that you may be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth’ (Is. 49:6). Deinde cum dicit amplioris enim gloriae, praefert Christum Moysi, et hoc quantum ad duo. Primo quantum ad potestatem; secundo quantum ad conditionem, ibi et Moyses. Commendando autem Christum, commendat ipsum habuisse honorem in omni domo, sicut Moyses; sed quod Christus ipsum excellat ostendit. Ubi primo ponit rationem; secundo manifestat, ibi omnis namque. 160. – Then (v. 3) he prefers Christ to Moses in two respects; first, as to power; secondly, as to condition (v. 3b). But in commending Christ, he commends Him as having honor in all His house, as Moses had: Yet Christ excels him: first, he gives the reason; secondly, he explains it (v. 4). Ratio autem apostoli est, quod maior gloria debetur illi qui fecit domum, quam illi qui eam inhabitat; Christus autem fabricavit domum. Ps. LXXIII, 16: tu fabricatus es auroram et solem. Prov. IX, 1: sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, id est, Ecclesiam. Ipse enim Christus, per quem gratia et veritas facta est, tamquam legislator aedificavit Ecclesiam. Moyses autem tamquam legis pronuntiator; et ideo solum ut pronuntiatori debetur gloria Moysi. Unde et resplenduit facies eius, de qua Ex. XXXIV, 29 et II Cor. III, 7: ita ut non possent filii Israel intendere in faciem Moysi propter gloriam vultus eius. Continuatur ergo sic littera: tu dicis quod Christus est fidelis sicut Moyses, quare ergo dimittemus ne consideremus? Certe quia amplioris gloriae dignus est habitus prae Moyse, quanto ampliorem gloriam habet dominus domus qui fabricavit illam. Quasi dicat: etsi Moyses multum sit honorabilis, tamen Christus honorabilior est, sicut fabricator domus, et sicut legislator principalis. Iob XXXVI, 22: ecce Deus excelsus in fortitudine sua, et nullus ei similis in legislatoribus. Si ergo debetur gloria Moysi, ampliori dignus est Christus. II Cor. III, 9: si ministratio damnationis in gloria est, multo magis ministerium iustitiae erit in gloria. 161. – But the Apostle’s reason is that more glory is due Him Who built the house, than to him that dwells in it. But Christ built the house: ‘You have made the morning light and the sun’ (Ps. 73:16); ‘Wisdom has built herself a house’, i.e., the Church (Pr. 9:1). For Christ by Whom grace and truth came, built the Church, as legislator; but Moses, as promulgator of the Law: therefore, it is only as promulgator that glory is due Moses. Hence, his face became bright: ‘So that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance’ (2 Cor. 3:7). Therefore, the sequence of thought is this: You say that Christ is faithful as Moses was. Why then overlook Him? Certainly this man was counted worthy of greater glory than Moses, by so much as he that has built the house has greater honor than the house. As if to say: Even though Moses deserves mention, Christ is more honorable, because He is the builder of the house and the chief lawgiver: ‘Behold, God is high in his strength, and none is like him among the lawgivers’ (Jb. 36:22). Therefore, if Moses is deserving of glory, Christ is more deserving: ‘For is the ministration of condemnation be in glory, much more the ministration of justice abounds in glory’ (2 Cor. 3:9). Consequenter probat minorem suae rationis, cum dicit omnis namque domus fabricatur ab aliquo. Minor autem est, quod Christus fabricavit domum istam; et hoc probat primo, quia omnis domus indiget fabricatore; secundo, quia ista domus de qua loquitur, a Christo fabricata est, ibi qui autem omnia. 162. – Then he proves the minor premise of his reason when he says: For every house is built by some man. But the minor is that Christ built that house. He proves this, first, because every house needs a builder; secondly, because the house of which he speaks was built by Christ, the builder of all things is God. Primo ergo probat quod ista domus sicut et quaelibet alia indiget fabricatore, quia diversa non coniunguntur nisi ab aliquo uno, sicut patet de domo artificiali, in qua ligna et lapides, ex quibus composita est, uniuntur ab aliquo. Aggregatio autem fidelium, quae est Ecclesia et domus Dei, ex diversis collecta est, scilicet Iudaeis et gentibus, servis et liberis. Et ideo Ecclesia sicut et omnis domus ab aliquo uniente fabricatur. Huius rationis ponit tantum conclusionem, supponens veritatem praemissarum ex facti evidentia. I Pet. II, 5: ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini domos spirituales, et cetera. Eph. II, 20: superaedificati supra fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum, et cetera. 163. – First, therefore, he proves that this house, as any other, needs a builder, because its various parts are put together by someone. This is obvious in a structure in which the wood and stones, of which it is composed, are united by someone. But the assembly of the faithful, which is the Church and the house of God, is composed of various elements, namely, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free. Therefore, the church, as any other house, is put together by someone. He gives only the conclusion of this syllogism, supposing the truth of the premises as evident: ‘Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood’ (1 Pt. 2:5); ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone’ (Eph. 2:20). Deinde cum dicit qui autem creavit omnia, Deus, probat quod Christus sit istius domus aedificator, ipse enim est Deus qui fecit omnia. Et si hoc intelligitur de toto mundo, planum est. Ps. XXXII, 9: ipse dixit, et facta sunt, et cetera. Est autem alia creatio spiritualis, quae fit per spiritum. Ps. CIII, v. 30: emitte spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem, et cetera. Et haec fit a Deo per Christum. Iac. I, 18: voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis, ut simus initium aliquod creaturae eius. Eph. II, 10: ipsius factura sumus, creati in Christo Iesu in operibus bonis. Deus ergo istam domum, scilicet Ecclesiam, ex nihilo, scilicet de statu peccati, in statum gratiae creavit. Ergo Christus per quem fecit omnia supra I, 2: per quem fecit et saecula. Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso, etc., est excellentior, utpote quia habet potestatem factoris, quam Moyses, qui solum fuit pronuntiator. 164. – Then (v. 4b) he proves that Christ is the builder of that house, for He is God, the builder of all things. And if this is understood of the whole world, it is plain: ‘He spoke and they were made; he commanded and they were created’ (Ps. 32:9) But there is another spiritual creation, which is made by the Spirit: ‘Send forth your spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth’ (Ps. 104:30). This is brought about by God through Christ: ‘Of his own will has he begotten us by the word of truth, that we might be some beginning of his creature’ (Jas. 1:18); ‘We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works’ (Eph. 2:10). Therefore, God created that house, namely, the Church, from nothing, namely, from the state of sin to the state of grace. Therefore, Christ, by Whom He made all things, ‘by whom also he made the world’ (Heb. 1:2), is more excellent (since He has the power to make) than Moses, who was only the announcer. Deinde cum dicit et Moyses quidem, praefert Christum Moysi quantum ad conditionem, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponit rationem suam; secundo manifestat eam, ibi quae domus. 165. – Then (v. 5) he prefers Christ to Moses in regard to their state. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his reason; secondly, he explains it (v. 6b). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Ratio autem sua talis est: constat quod amplioris gratiae est dominus et in domo propria, quam famulus et in domo domini. Sed Moyses est fidelis sicut servus et in domo domini, Christus vero sicut dominus et in domo sua, ergo, et cetera. Circa quod sciendum est quod] apostolus valde diligenter notat verba illa, scripta de Moyse, in quibus duo dicuntur de ipso: vocatur enim servus, vocatur etiam fidelis non in domo propria, sed in domo Dei nostri. Et quantum ad ista duo, praefert Christum Moysi. Primo enim ostendit quid conveniat Moysi; secundo quid conveniat Christo, ibi Christus vero tamquam filius. 166. – His reasoning is this: It is obvious that the master is of more value in his own house than a servant in the master’s house. But Moses was faithful as a servant in the house of his master, but Christ as the master in His own house, therefore, etc. Here it should be noted how carefully the Apostle notes the words written of Moses, in which things are said of him: for he is called a servant and he is called faithful, not in his own house, but in the house of our Lord. And in regard to those two things he prefers Christ to Moses: first, he shows what is true of Moses; secondly, of Christ (v. 6). Dicit ergo quod Moyses fidelis erat tamquam servus, id est, sicut fidelis dispensator. Matth. XXV, 21: euge, serve bone et fidelis, quia in pauca fuisti fidelis, supra multa te constituam. Christus autem quodammodo servus est, scilicet secundum carnem, Phil. II, v. 7: formam servi accipiens, sed Moyses fuit famulus Dei in verbis Dei proponendis filiis Israel. Ex quo patet, quod quia erat fidelis famulus, illa quae dicebat ordinabantur ad alium, scilicet ad Christum. Et hoc erat in testimonium eorum, quae dicenda erant. Io. V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, de me enim ille scripsit. Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. Quia ergo erat famulus, ideo erat non in domo propria, sed in aliena; et quia ea quae dicebat erant in testimonium eorum quae dicenda erant de Christo, ideo Moyses omniquaque minor fuit Christo. 167. – He says, therefore, that Moses was faithful as a servant, i.e., as a faithful dispenser: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant: because you have been faithful over a few things, I will place you over many things’ (Mt. 25:21). But Christ is a servant in a sense, namely, according to the flesh: ‘Taking the form of a servant’ (Phil. 2:7). But Moses was God’s servant in proposing God’s words to the children of Israel. From this it is clear that because he was a faithful servant, the things he said were ordained to another, namely, to Christ: to testify to the things which were to be spoken later: ‘If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me’ (Jn. 5:46). Therefore, because he was a servant, he was not in his own house but in another’s house, and because of the things he said were a testimony of those thing which were to be said of Christ, Moses was in respects lower than Christ. Deinde cum dicit Christus vero, ostendit quid conveniat Christo, quia scilicet Christus non est sicut servus, sed tamquam filius in domo patris, et per consequens sua, quia haeres naturalis. Supra I, 2: quem constituit haeredem universorum, et cetera. Ecclesia enim est domus Christi. Prov. XIV, 1: sapiens mulier aedificat domum. Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu, et cetera. Matth. III, v. 17: filius meus dilectus, et cetera. Est ergo non servus, sed filius, et in domo sua: sed Moyses est servus, et in domo aliena. Io. VIII, 35: filius manet in aeternum. 168. – Then (v. 6), But Christ was faithful over God’s house as a son, he shows what belongs to Christ, namely, that Christ is not as a servant but as a Son in His Father’s house and, consequently, in His own, because He is the natural heir: ‘Whom he has appointed heir of all things, by Whom also he made the world’ (Heb. 1:2). For the Church is Christ’s house: ‘A wise woman builds her house’ (Pr. 14:1); ‘The Lord has said to me: You are my son, this day have I begotten you’ (Ps. 2:7); ‘My beloved son in whom I am well pleased’ (Mt. 3:17). Therefore, He is not a servant but a Son, and in His own house, whereas Moses is a servant in another’s house: ‘The son abides forever’ (Jn. 8:55). Deinde cum dicit quae domus sumus nos, ostendit quae sit ista domus. Ista domus sunt fideles, et sunt domus Christi, qui credunt in Christum. I Tim. III, v. 15: in domo Dei, quae est Ecclesia. Et etiam quia Christus habitat in ipsis. Eph. III, v. 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Haec ergo domus nos fideles sumus. Ad hoc autem, quod simus domus Dei, quatuor oportet, quae requiruntur circa domum, quae non sunt in tabernaculo. Et ista tangit apostolus. Primo, quod spes nostra et fides sit certa et permanens: tabernaculum autem etsi sit firmum, tamen cito moveri potest. Et significat illos qui ad tempus credunt, et in tempore tentationis recedunt; sed illi sunt domus, qui verbum Dei retinent. Et ideo dicit si retineamus fiduciam. Dictum est supra, quod fiducia est spes cum expectatione firma et sine timore. II Cor. III, 4: fiduciam talem habemus per Christum ad Deum. Secundo quod sit ordinate disposita. Et ideo dicit spei gloriam, id est, ad gloriam Dei ordinatam, ita quod, contemptis aliis, gloriemur in spe gloriae. Ier. IX, 24: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. Tertio quod perseverans. Unde dicit usque in finem. Matth. X, 22: qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. Quarto quod sit firma, ut scilicet nulla adversitate moveatur. Unde dicit firmam. Infra c. VI, 18 s.: confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem, quam sicut anchoram habemus animae tutam et firmam. 169. – Then when he says, We are his house, he shows what that house is; for that house is the faithful, who are the house of Christ, because they believe in Christ: ‘In the house of God which is the Church’ (1 Tim. 3:15) and also because Christ dwells in them: ‘That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts’ (Eph. 3:17). Therefore, this house is we, the faithful. But in order that we be the house of God four things are required, which are necessary in a house and are not in a tent: first, that our hope and faith be firm and permanent; but a tent, even though it be form, can be quickly moved and signifies those who believe for a while, but in time of temptation fall away. But they are the house who retain the word of God. Therefore, he says, if we hold fast our confidence. For it has been stated above that confidence is hope with firm expectation and without fear: ‘And such confidence we have thorough Christ towards God’ (2 Cor. 3:4). Secondly, that it be properly ordained; therefore, he says, and pride in our hope, i.e., ordained to the glory of God, so that scorning all else, we may take pride in the hope of glory: ‘Let him who glories, glory in knowing and having known me’ (Jer. 9:14). Thirdly, that it be preserving; hence, he says, unto the end: ‘He that perseveres to the end, he shall be saved’ (Mt. 10:22). Fourthly, that it be firm and not dislodged by any adversity; hence, he says, hold fast: ‘Who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm’ (Heb. 6:18).
3-2
Heb 3:7-11Supra probavit apostolus, quod Christus est maioris excellentiae quam Moyses, hic concludit quod magis est obediendum Christo. Et hoc facit per auctoritatem prophetae David in Ps. XCIV. Ubi tria facit, quia primo proponit auctoritatem, quae continet quamdam exhortationem; secundo exponit eam, ibi videte, fratres; tertio ex auctoritate et expositione arguit, c. IV, ibi timeamus ergo. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim insinuat auctoritatem verborum sequentium; secundo ponit exhortationem, quae est in auctoritate, ibi hodie si vocem; tertio ponit quamdam similitudinem, ibi sicut in exacerbatione, et cetera. 170. – Having proved that Christ is greater than Moses, the Apostle now concludes that Christ is more deserving of our obedience. He does this by the authority of David the prophet in Psalm 94. He does three things: first, he proposes the authority which contains an exhortation; secondly, he explains it (v. 12); thirdly, he argues from the authority and the explanation (chap. 4). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he hints at the authority of the following words; secondly, he makes the exhortation which is the authority (v. 7b); thirdly, he presents a similitude (v. 8b). Auctoritas verborum est ex hoc, quod non sunt prolata humana adinventione, sed a spiritu sancto. Unde dicit quapropter sicut dicit spiritus sanctus. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Quasi dicat: Christus est amplioris gratiae quam Moyses; ergo si audivimus Moysen, non debemus obdurare corda nostra ad audiendum Christum.] Ipse autem verba veteris testamenti allegat pro novo, ne credatur, quod tantum sint referenda ad vetus testamentum, imo etiam ad novum, et ad aliud tempus referri debent. Et sunt verba spiritus sancti, quia, ut dicitur II Pet. I, 21: non humana voluntate allata est aliquando prophetia, sed spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Ipse enim David dicit, II Reg. XXIII, 2 de seipso: spiritus domini locutus est per me. In hoc ergo ostendit auctoritatem esse veram, quia scilicet est a spiritu sancto, contra Manichaeum. 171. – The authority of the words consists in the fact that they were not uttered by human lips, but by the Holy Spirit; hence, he says, Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit says. As if to say: Christ has more grace than Moses. Therefore, if we hearken to Moses, we ought not harden our hearts against hearing Christ. But he cites the words of the Old Testament for the New, lest anyone suppose that they refer only to the Old Testament; for they should be referred also to the New and to another time. They are the words of the Holy Spirit, because, as it says in 2 Pt. (1:21): ‘Prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit.’ For David himself says of himself: ‘The spirit of the Lord spoke through me’ (2 Sam. 23: 2). Therefore, in this he shows that the authority is true, because it is from the Holy Spirit—against the Manicheans. Deinde cum dicit hodie si vocem, etc., ponit monitionem, ubi facit tria. Primo enim describit tempus cum dicit hodie; secundo subdit beneficium, ibi si vocem; tertio subiungit monitionem suam, ibi nolite obdurare. 172. – Then (v. 7b) he gives the admonition in which he does three things: first, he describes the time; secondly, he mentions the benefit (v. 7b) thirdly, the admonition (v. 8). Tempus est hodie, scilicet tempus diei. Tempus enim legis veteris dicebatur nox, quia erat tempus umbrae. Infra X, 1: umbram enim habens lex futurorum bonorum. Sed tempus novi testamenti, quia repellit umbram noctis legis, dicitur dies. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Rom. XIII, 12: nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquavit. Dicitur etiam istud tempus dies, propter ortum solis iustitiae. Matth. III: vobis timentibus nomen meum orietur sol, et cetera. Hunc diem non sequitur nox, sed clarior dies, quando scilicet ipsum solem iustitiae videbimus revelata facie in rota sua, quando ipsum videbimus per essentiam.] 173. – The time is today, i.e., day time. For the time of the Old Law was called night, because it was a time of shadows: ‘For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come’ (below 10:1). But the time of the New Testament, because it repels the shadow of the night of the Law, is called day: ‘The night is passed, the day is at hand’ (Rom. 13:12). That time is called day, because it witnessed the rising of the sun of justice: ‘But unto you that fear my name, the Sun of justice shall arise’ (Mal 4:2). This day is not succeeded by night, but by a clearer day, namely, when we shall see the Sun of justice with His face revealed, when we shall see Him by His essence. Et in hac die exhibetur nobis beneficium. Nam sequitur si vocem eius audieritis, quia audimus vocem eius, quod non erat in veteri testamento, in quo audiebantur tantum verba prophetarum. Supra I, 1 s.: olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, novissime vero diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio. Is. LII, 6: propter hoc sciet populus meus nomen meum in die illa, quia ego ipse qui loquebar ecce adsum. Cant. II, 14: sonet vox tua in auribus meis. In hoc enim exhibetur nobis beneficium tantum desideratum. Lc. XIX, 42: in hac die tua, quae ad pacem tibi, et cetera. 174. – And in this day a benefit will be given to us. For he continues, when you hear his voice, because we hear His voice, which was not true of the Old Testament, in which the words of the prophets were heard: ‘In times past God spoke to the Son’ (Heb. 1:1); ‘Therefore, my people shall know my name in that day, because it was I myself that spoke, behold, I am here’ (Is. 52:6); ‘Let your voice sound on my ears’ (S of S 2:14). For in this the benefit so long desired is shown to us: ‘If you had known and in this your day, the things that are to your peace’ (Lk. 19:42). Si ergo tantum est beneficium, ecce monitio: nolite obdurare corda vestra. Cor durum sonat in malum. Durum est quod non cedit, sed resistit impellenti, nec recipit impressionem. Et sic dicitur cor hominis durum, quando non cedit divinae iussioni, nec de facili recipit divinas impressiones. Eccli. c. III, 27: cor durum male habebit in novissimo. Rom. II, 5: secundum duritiam tuam, et cor tuum impoenitens thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae. Haec autem induratio ex duobus causatur. Ex uno quasi negative, scilicet ex Deo non apponente gratiam. Rom. IX, 18: cuius vult Deus miseretur, et quem vult indurat. Ex alio vero positive, et hoc modo indurat peccator seipsum, non obediendo Deo, et non aperiendo cor suum gratiae. Zach. VII, 12: cor suum posuerunt ut adamantem, ne audirent legem et verba, quae misit dominus exercituum spiritu suo per manum prophetarum priorum. Nolite ergo obdurare corda vestra, id est, nolite corda claudere spiritui sancto. Act. VII, 51: vos semper spiritui sancto restitistis. 175. – Therefore, if that is the benefit, here is the admonition, harden not your hearts. For a hard heart smacks of evil. That is hard which does not yield, but resists and does not receive an impression. Therefore, man’s heart is hard, when it does not yield to God’s command nor easily receive divine impressions: ‘A hard heart shall fear evil at the last’ (Sir. 3:27); But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you treasure up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath’ (Rom. 2:5). But this hardening is caused by two things: first, by God not offering grace: ‘He has mercy on whom he will, and whom he wills, he hardens’ (Rom. 9:18); secondly, by the sinner hardening himself by not obeying God and by not opening his heart to grace: ‘And they made their heart as the adamant stone, lest they should hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts sent in his spirit by the hand of the former prophets’ (Zech 7:12). Therefore, harden not your hearts i.e., do not close your hearts to the Holy Spirit: ‘You always resist the Holy Spirit’ (Ac. 7:51). Consequenter ponit similitudinem cum dicit: sicut in exacerbatione. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Et haec est similitudo ex facto praeterito; nam fideles instruuntur de his, quae sunt agenda in novo testamento ex iis quae facta sunt in praeterito, secundum illud] Rom. c. XV, 4: quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. Facit autem duo circa hoc, quia primo proponit exemplum in generali, ponendo culpam; secundo in speciali, ibi ubi tentaverunt me, et cetera. 176. – Then he presents the resemblance when he says, as in the rebellion. This is a resemblance based on a past event: for the faithful are instructed about the things to be done in the New Testament from the things that occurred in the past, as Rom. (15:4) testifies: ‘What things soever were written, were written for our learning.’ In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives an example in general by citing their guilt; secondly, he gives specific examples (v. 9). Ut autem sequamur expositionem apostoli, oportet ponere in ista littera sensus, qui conveniunt expositioni. Legimus autem inter alias duas culpas filiorum Israel gravissime punitas. Una fuit inobedientiae quam habuerunt in facto exploratorum: de quo Num. XIII et XIV. Pro quo facto indignatus dominus voluit totum populum delere. Unde iuravit quod nullus intraret terram promissionis, exceptis duobus, scilicet Caleb et Iosue. Istud autem vocat specialiter exacerbationem, quia licet per alia peccata offendissent Deum, tamen per illud exacerbaverunt ipsum, quia sicut fructus acerbus, qui opponitur maturo, non est aptus ad cibum, sic tunc ira Dei fuit inflexibilis. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Ps. LXXVII, 40: exacerbaverunt eum in deserto, et tentaverunt eum in inaquoso.] Bar. IV, 7: exacerbastis eum qui fecit vos. Aliud peccatum fuit peccatum tentationis. Frequenter enim tentaverunt Deum, quia quandoque pro aqua, quandoque pro carnibus, quandoque vero pro pane: ita quod decies tentaverunt ipsum. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Num. XIV, 22: tentaverunt me iam per decem vices. Iob XIX, 3: en decies confunditis me. Et ideo dicit secundum diem tentationis.] Posset autem aliquis putare quod idem esset peccatum exacerbatio et tentatio, ita quod vellet apostolus dicere: nolite obdurare corda vestra sicut in exacerbatione, quae fuit in die tentationis. Sed hoc est contra expositionem apostoli. Ideo dicendum est sic: nolite obdurare corda vestra sicut in exacerbatione, et iterum sicut in die tentationis, ita quod sint duo peccata. Unde Ps. LXXVII, v. 41: conversi sunt, et tentaverunt Deum, et sanctum Israel exacerbaverunt. 177. – If we are to follow the Apostle’s explanation, we must use the senses which fit the explanation. Thus we read that among others there were two sins committed by the Jews which were severely punished: one was the disobedience of the spies mentioned in Num. (13 & 14), for which the Lord wished to wipe out the people. Hence, He swore that no one but Caleb and Joshua would enter the promised land. He calls this a rebellion, because, although they had offended God in other ways, this sin was particularly bitter; for just as bitter fruit, not being ripe, is not suitable for eating, so then God’s anger was inflexible: ‘How often did they provoke him in the desert, and move him to wrath in the place without water’ (Ps. 77:40)? ‘You have provoked him who made you’ (Bar. 4:7). The other sin was that of tempting God. For they frequently tempted Him, sometimes for water, sometimes for meat, and sometimes for bread, so that they tempted Him ten times: ‘They have tempted me now ten times’ (Num. 14:22); ‘Behold, these ten times you confound me’ (Jb. 19:2). Hence he says, in the day of testing. But someone might suppose the signs of rebellion and testing are the same, and that the Apostle should say: ‘Harden not your hearts as in the rebellion, which occurred in the day of testing.’ But this does not agree with the Apostle’s explanation. Therefore, we should say, Harden not your hearts as in the rebellion, and again, as in the day of testing, so that there are two sins; hence, Ps. 77 (v. 41) says: ‘And they turned back and tempted God; and grieved the Holy One of Israel.’ Consequenter prosequitur culpas in speciali, cum dicit ubi tentaverunt me patres vestri, et cetera. Et circa hoc duo facit, quia primo ponit peccatum tentationis; secundo peccatum exacerbationis, ibi et dixi semper. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim ponit peccatum tentationis; secundo ostendit eius gravitatem, ibi probaverunt; tertio ponit poenam, ibi propter quod offensus fui. 178. – Then (v. 9) he considers their specific sins. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the sin of testing; secondly, the sin of rebellion (v. 10b). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the sin of testing; secondly, he shows its gravity (v. 9b); thirdly, the punishment (v. 10). [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Dicit ergo, quod in eis fuit peccatum tentationis in deserto, quia ibi tentaverunt me patres vestri: et loquitur in persona domini. Ubi sciendum est, quod] tentare est experimentum sumere de re quam quis ignorat. Unde quod quis tentat Deum, procedit ex infidelitate. Sed sciendum est quod aliquando aliquis tentat Deum, non cum intentione tentandi et experiendi, verumtamen se habet ad modum tentantis. Qui enim utitur re sua propter utilitatem, non tentat proprie: puta si aliquis fugiens currat super equum suum, et si tentat, non tamen cum intentione tentandi. Sed quando ad nihil utile est quod facit, tunc tentat. Item si aliquis exponat se alicui periculo compulsus necessitate, sub spe divini auxilii, non tentat Deum. Si autem sine aliqua necessitate, tunc tentat Deum. Et sic dicit ipse, Matth. IV, 7: non tentabis dominum Deum tuum, quia necessitas nulla erat quod mitteret se deorsum. Sic isti tentaverunt dominum, quia dubitaverunt de potestate Dei, clamantes contra Moysen, ac si Deus non posset eis dare cibum, [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] cum potentiam suam in maioribus experti fuissent: et ideo erat peccatum infidelitatis, quod est maximum.] 179. – He says, therefore, that they were guilty of the sin of testing Him in the desert, because your fathers tempted me there; and I speak in the Lord’s person. Here it should be noted that temptation is an act of testing about something one does not know. Hence, it is from unbelief that a person tempts God, yet it should be noted that sometimes one tempts God, not with the intention of trying and testing, although it is done after the manner of testing. For one who uses an object of his own, because it is useful, is not, properly speaking, testing it; for example, if someone fleeing were to ride on his own horse he would be testing it, but not with the intention of testing; but when his action is useless, then he is testing. Likewise, if someone were to expose himself to danger, compelled by necessity in the hope of divine help, he would not be tempting God; but if without necessity, he would be tempting God; hence the Lord says in Mt. (4:7): ‘You shall not tempt the Lord, your God’, because there was not need to cast Himself down. So, they tempted the Lord, because they doubted His power, complaining against Moses, as if the Lord could not give them food, even though they had witnessed His power in greater matters; therefore, they were guilty of the sin of unbelief, which is the greatest. Deinde ponitur gravitas culpae, cum dicit probaverunt me, et cetera. Quanto enim aliquis maiora beneficia Dei recipit, et maiorem certitudinem divinae potestatis habet, et postmodum dubitat, tanto gravius peccat. Isti vero viderunt signa et prodigia in terra Aegypti, apertionem maris et alia miracula, et tamen non crediderunt. Unde Num. XIV, 22: homines qui viderunt maiestatem meam, et signa quae feci in Aegypto et in solitudine, et tentaverunt me iam decem vices, et cetera. Et ideo dicit probaverunt, id est, experiri voluerunt, et viderunt, id est, experti sunt, opera mea, id est, effectus qui non poterant esse, nisi virtutis infinitae esset ille qui opera faciebat. Et hoc totum non uno die, sed quadraginta annis, quibus scilicet manserunt in deserto, quia semper habuerunt manna et columnam ignis et nubis; vel probaverunt quod viderunt me, quia scilicet in nulla defeci eis. Illud tamen quod dicit, quadraginta annis, secundum intentionem apostoli refertur ad priora, sed secundum intentionem Psalmistae refertur ad sequentia, ut dicatur quod offensus vel infensus ei fuit quadragesimo anno. Et sic habet littera Hieronymi. 180. – Then he mentions the gravity of their sin when he says, they proved and saw my works. For the greater the benefits one receives from God and the greater the certitude he has of God’s power, if he later doubts, he sins more gravely. But they had seen signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, the dividing of the sea, and other miracles, and yet they did not believe; hence, it is stated in Num. (14:22): ‘Yet all the men that have seen my majesty and the signs that I have done in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now ten times, have not obeyed my voice’. Hence he said, proved, i.e., wished to experience, and saw, i.e., experienced my works, i.e., effects which not have taken place, unless they had been performed by one with infinite power. And all this not for one day, but for forty years, during which they remained in the desert, because they always had manna and the pillar of fire and the cloud. Or, they proved and saw me, because He never failed them. Deinde cum dicit propter quod offensus fui, ponitur poena peccati: et est duplex littera, scilicet offensus, vel proximus, et idem est. Propter quod, id est, propter peccatum, fui offensus, id est, indignatus, non quod ira sit in Deo, nisi similitudinarie, quia punit sicut iratus: de qua poena frequenter habetur in Ex. XXII: dimitte me, ut irascatur furor meus, etc., et in Lib. numerorum. Saepe enim prostrati sunt. Unde I Cor. X, 5 agit de poena istius peccati. Vel proximus fui, scilicet puniendo ipsos. Quando enim dominus subvenit bonis, et punit malos, tunc est prope ipsos; sed quando dissimulat peccata hominum propter poenitentiam, et dissimulat afflictionem iustorum, ut crescat ipsorum meritum, tunc videtur etiam longe. Iob XXII, 14: nubes latibulum eius, nec nostra considerat, et circa cardines caeli perambulat. Vel proximus, quantum ad divinam misericordiam, quia hoc ipsum, quod punit eos temporaliter, magnum misericordiae signum est. Augustinus: hic ure, hic seca, ut in aeternum parcas. 181. – Then (v. 10b) he describes the punishment for their sin. For which cause, i.e., for which sin, I was provoked, i.e., outraged: not that there is anger in God except metaphorically, because He punishes as one in anger does. This punishment is frequently mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, for they were often prostrated. Hence in 1 Cor. (10:5) he speaks of the punishment of that sin. Or I was near, namely, by punishing them. For when the Lord helps the good and punishes the wicked, He is near them; but when He conceals men’s sins because they repent, and dissembles the affliction of the just in order that their merit may increase, then He seems to be far away: ‘The clouds are his covert, and he does not consider our things, and he walks about the poles of heaven’ (Jb. 22:14). Or, near, in regard to divine mercy, because the fact that he punishes them in this life is a sign of great mercy: ‘Here burn, here cut, but spare me in eternity’ (Augustine). Deinde cum dicit et dixi, etc., ponit peccatum exacerbationis in speciali. Et hoc patet per hoc quod infra dicitur quibus iuravi non introire, et cetera. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ponit culpam; secundo subdit poenam, ibi quibus iuravi in ira mea, et cetera. Culpam autem duplicem ponit. Una est in obstinatione in malo; alia est in recessu a bono. Et istam ponit, ibi ipsi vero non cognoverunt vias meas. 182. – Then (v. 10c) he describes the sin of provocation in detail. And this is clear from (v. 11). In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the sin; secondly, he adds the punishment (v. 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions their persistence in evil; secondly, their departure from the good (v. 10d). Dicit ergo: ego sic fui eis proximus, scilicet puniendo eos. Et dixi, scilicet praevisione aeterna, hi errant corde semper. Deut. c. XXXI, 27: semper contentiose egistis contra dominum. Ier. XIII, 23: si potest Aethiops mutare pellem suam, et cetera. Sic ergo uno modo aliquis exacerbat Deum quando obstinate adhaeret malo; alio modo, quando contemnit bonum. Unde dicit ipsi vero non cognoverunt vias meas, hoc est, non quantum ad simplicem ignorantiam, sed ad affectatam, ut sit sensus: non cognoverunt, id est, cognoscere noluerunt. Iob c. XXI, 14: scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus. Ps. XXXV, 3: noluit intelligere ut bene ageret. Vel non cognoverunt, id est, non approbaverunt, sicut dicit apostolus II Tim. II, v. 19: cognovit dominus qui sunt eius. 183. – He says, therefore, I was always near them, namely, by punishing them, and I said, namely, in the eternal plan: They always go astray in heart: ‘You have always been rebellious against the Lord’ (Dt. 31:27); ‘If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots: you also may do well, when you have learned evil’ (Jer. 13:23). Thus, therefore, a person provokes God in one way, when he obstinately clings to evil; in another way when he scorns the good. Hence, he says, They have not known my ways, i.e. not with simple ignorance, but affected. The sin, therefore, is this: they have not known, i.e., they refused to know: ‘We desire not the knowledge of your ways’ (Jb. 21:14); ‘He would not understand that he might do well’ (Ps. 34:4). Or, they have not known, i.e., they have not approved, as the Apostle says: ‘The Lord knows who are his’ (2 Tim. 2:19). Consequenter ostendit poenam cum dicit quibus iuravi. In quo verbo ponit immobilitatem, in hoc quod vult iuramenta firma. Quando enim Deus vel Angelus inveniuntur iurare, signum est immobilitatis eius de quo iuravit. Ps. CIX, 5: iuravit dominus, et non poenitebit eum, et cetera. Verumtamen aliquando non iurat nisi sub conditione, quia scilicet si non poeniteant, haec mala evenient eis. Ponit etiam quod poena ista non est ad comminationem, sed magis ad exterminationem, quia dicit in ira. Ps. VI, 1: domine, ne in ira tua corripias me. Iuravit ergo in ira si introibunt in requiem meam. Constructio est defectiva ad modum irati, qui truncat verba sua. Et accipitur ly si pro non, id est, non introibunt in requiem meam. Est autem triplex requies. Una est temporalis, de qua Lc. XII, 19: habes multa bona reposita in annos plurimos, requiesce, et cetera. Secunda est requies conscientiae. Eccli. LI, 35: modicum laboravi, et inveni requiem multam. Tertia est requies gloriae aeternae. Ps. IV, 8: in pace in idipsum dormiam et requiescam. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Potest ergo exponi illud, quod dicitur hic de qualibet istarum, ut dicatur: ipsi vero nec in requiem terrae promissionis, nec in requiem conscientiae, nec in requiem fruitionis aeternae introierunt. ] 184. – Then he shows the punishment when he says: As I have sworn in my wrath: they shall never enter my rest. In these words he suggests immutability; for when God or an angel swears, it is a sign of the unchangeableness of that concerning which He swears: ‘The Lord has sworn and he will not repent’ (Ps. 110:4). Yet at times He swears only conditionally, because if He did not repent, these evils would come upon them. Then he suggests that that punishment is not given as a threat but is aimed at their destruction, because he says, in his wrath: ‘Lord, chastise me not in your wrath’ (Ps. 6:2). Therefore, He swore in His wrath, they shall never enter my rest. Now there is threefold rest: one is temporal: ‘You have much goods laid up for many years: take your rest; eat, drink, make good cheer’ (Lk. 12:19). The second is the rest of conscience: ‘I have labored a little and have found much rest to myself’ (Sir. 51:35). The third is the rest of eternal glory: ‘In peace in the self-same. I will sleep and I will rest’ (Ps. 4:9). Therefore, what is stated here can be explained in each of these ways, namely, they have not entered the rest of the promised land or the rest of conscience or the rest of eternal happiness.
3-3
Heb 3:12-19Supra apostolus per auctoritatem Psalmistae ostendit, quod firmiter obediendum est Christo. In auctoritate vero posuit tria, monitionem, culpam, et poenam; hic exponit ista tria per ordinem. Primum facit hic, videte; secundum, ibi quidam; tertium, ibi quibus autem iuravit. In admonitione vero sunt duo, scilicet ipsa monitio, et ipsius monitionis conditio. Unde ista duo exponit. Primo primum, hic; secundo secundum, ibi participes enim Christi. In prima vero admonitione ad duo hortatur, scilicet ad sollicitam considerationem; secundo ad mutuam admonitionem, ibi sed adhortamini. 185. – Above, the Apostle showed on the authority of the Psalmist that Christ must be obeyed strictly. In that authority he found three things, namely, the exhortation, the guilt, and the punishment. These he now explains in that order: first, the exhortation; secondly, the guilt (v. 16); thirdly, the punishment (v. 18). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he exhorts them to be carefully attentive; secondly, to mutual exhortation (v. 12). Dicit ergo videte. Unusquisque enim in se debet considerare in quo statu sit. Gal. VI, 4: opus suum probet unusquisque. Ier. II, 23: vide vias tuas in convalle. Videte ergo, fratres, quantum ad quemlibet in se, quia quilibet est pars societatis, et unicuique mandavit Deus de proximo suo, Eccli. XVII, 12. Videte, id est, probate unus alium, ne forte sit in aliquo vestrum, etc., quasi dicat: multi inter vos sunt in statu perfecto, tamen propter fragilitatem et arbitrii libertatem posset esse malum in aliquo vestrum. Iob IV, 18 s.: ecce qui serviunt ei, non sunt stabiles, et in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem, quanto magis hi qui habitant domos luteas, et terrenum habent fundamentum? Io. VI, 71: nonne ergo duodecim vos elegi, et unus ex vobis Diabolus est? Non ergo aliquis sit tantum sollicitus de se; sed etiam de quolibet suae societatis. Sed quid? Ne sit in aliquo vestrum cor malum incredulitatis. Ecce malum de quo loquitur apostolus, scilicet cor incredulum, id est, non firmum in fide, in quo consistit malitia animae: quia sicut bonum animae est in adhaerendo Deo Ps. LXXII, 27: mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est, quod scilicet est per fidem ita recedere a Deo per incredulitatem est malum hominis. Ier. II, 19: scito et vide, Israel, quia malum et amarum est reliquisse te dominum, et cetera. Et ideo dicit discedendi, quia per incredulitatem recedit a Deo vivo. Ier. II, 13: me dereliquerunt fontem aquae vivae. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Dicit autem a Deo vivo, quia et est vita in se et est vita animae. Io. I, 4: in ipso vita erat. Quod ideo dicit, ut ostendat quod per recessum a Deo, homo incurrit mortem spiritualem.] 186. – He says, therefore, take care. For every man should consider the state in which he is: ‘Let everyone prove his own work’ (Gal. 6:4); ‘See your ways in the valley’ (Jer. 2:23). Take care therefore, brethren, each one to himself, because each is part of the assembly, and ‘to each one God gave commandment concerning his neighbor’ (Sir. 19:12): take care, i.e., let one prove the other, lest there be in any of you an evil unbelieving heart leading you to fall away form the living God. As if to say: many of you are in a perfect state, yet because of weakness and free will, there could be evil in some of you: ‘Behold, they that serve him are not steadfast; and in his angels he found wickedness. How much more shall they that dwell in houses of clay, who have an earthly foundation’ (Jb. 4:18-19)? ‘Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil’ (Jn. 6:71). Therefore no one should be solicitous for himself only, but also for each member of his group. But why? Lest there be in any of you an evil unbelieving heart. This is the evil about which the Apostle speaks, namely, an unbelieving heart, i.e., not firm in faith. In this does wickedness consist, because just as the soul’s good consists in clinging to God, ‘It is good for me to adhere to my God’ (Ps. 72:27), through faith, so man’s evil consists in withdrawing from God: ‘Know and see that it is an evil and a bitter thing for you to have left the Lord, your God’ (Jer. 2:19). And again he says, of falling away, because one departs by unbelief, from the living God: ‘They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water’ (Jer. 2:15). But he says, from the living God, because He is life in Himself and is the life of the soul: ‘In him was life’ (Jn. 1:4). He says this to show that by withdrawing from God, man incurs spiritual death. Sed si inveniatur istud malum in aliquo, numquid desperandum est? Non, sed magis debet exhortari, id est, admoneri: ideo dicit sed adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies, id est, continue scilicet discutiendo conscientiam suam, et inducendo ad bonum, donec hodie cognominatur, id est, donec durat praesens tempus gratiae, quod est totum sicut unus dies. Io. IX, 4: me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, donec dies est. Et hoc ideo ut non obduretur aliquis ex vobis fallacia peccati. Sicut enim supra dictum est cor obduratur per obstinationem in malum. Sed per hoc aliquis firmiter inhaeret peccato, quia fallitur. Naturale enim est appetitui adhaerere bono; sed recedit a bono, quia decipitur. Prov. XIV, 22: errant qui operantur malum; et Prov. XIII, 13, secundum aliam litteram: animae dolosae errant in peccatis. Sap. V, 6: ergo erravimus a via veritatis. 187. – But if that evil should be found in anyone, should he despair? No; he should be admonished all the more. Therefore, he says, but exhort one another every day, i.e., continually, namely, by discussing your conscience and by exhorting to good, as long as it is called today, i.e., while the present time of grace lasts: ‘I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day’ (Jn. 9:4). And this in order that none of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For, as has been stated above, the heart is hardened by persisting in evil. But a person clings to sin because he is deceived. Or, it is natural for the appetite to cling to the good; but it withdraws from good, because it is deceived: ‘They err who work evil’ (Pr. 14:22); ‘I have strayed form the path of truth’ (Wis. 5:6). Consequenter cum dicit participes, etc., exponit conditionem monitionis, quasi dicat: ista conditio magis est efficax quam illa, quia illi tantum audierunt, nos autem participes facti sumus Christi. Et loquitur proprie, quia in veteri testamento erat tantum auditus, nec conferebatur gratia ex opere operato; sed in novo testamento et est auditus fidei et datur gratia ipsi operanti. Unde sumus facti participes Christi. Io. I, 16: de plenitudine eius accepimus omnes. Sumus autem participes gratiae, primo per susceptionem fidei. Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Secundo per sacramenta fidei. Gal. III, 27: quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Tertio per participationem corporis Christi. I Cor. X, 16: panis quem frangimus, nonne participatio corporis domini est? 188. – Then (v. 14) he explains their condition. As if to say: That condition is more powerful than the other, because they only hear, but we share in Christ. And he speaks properly, because in the Old Testament, there was only hearing, and grace was not conferred ex opere operato; but in the New Testament there are both the hearing of faith and the grace given to the very one acting. Hence, we are partakers of grace, first, by accepting the faith: ‘That Christ by faith may dwell in your hearts’ (Eph. 3:17); secondly, by the sacraments of faith: ‘As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ’ (Gal. 3:27); thirdly, by partaking of the body of Christ: ‘The bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:16)? Sciendum autem quod duplex est participatio Christi. Una imperfecta, quae est per fidem et sacramenta; alia vero perfecta, quae est per praesentiam et visionem rei; primam iam habemus in re, sed secundam in spe. Tamen cum hoc spes habet hanc conditionem, scilicet si perseveramus. Unde dicit si tamen initium, et cetera. Quicumque enim in Christo baptizatur, suscipit quamdam novam naturam, et formatur quodammodo Christus in ipso. Gal. IV, 19: filioli mei, quos iterum parturio donec formetur in vobis Christus. Hoc quidem in nobis vere perficietur in patria, sed hic tantum initium, et hoc per fidem formatam, quia informis mortua est. Iac. II, 20: fides sine operibus mortua est. Unde ista non est nobis initium participationis Christi, sed fides formata. Infra XI, 1: est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, id est, fundamentum, et quasi initium. 189. – But it should be noted that there are two ways of sharing in Christ: one is imperfect through the faith and the sacraments; the other is perfect through the presence and vision of the reality. But the first we already possess in reality; the second we possess in hope. But because hope has this condition, namely, that we persevere, he says, if only we hold our first confidence firm unto the end. For whoever is baptized in Christ receives a new nature and Christ is somehow formed in him: ‘My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you’ (Gal. 4:19). This will be truly completed in us in heaven, but here it is only the beginning; and this by formed faith, because unformed faith is dead: ‘Faith without works is dead’ (Jas. 2:26). Hence, unformed faith is not a beginning of partaking of Christ, but formed faith: ‘Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for’, i.e., the foundation and the beginning. Dicit ergo: sumus participes Christi, si tamen tenemus usque in finem firmum initium substantiae eius, scilicet fidem formatam. Sed contra: videtur quod timor magis sit initium, quia dicit Ps. CX, 9: initium sapientiae timor domini. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod fides formatur per charitatem. Charitas autem non est sine timore casto. Et ideo fides formata semper habet timorem istum secum annexum. Unde et fides et timor sunt initium. Illud autem quod addit dum dicitur, hodie, etc., totum expositum est. 190. – He says, therefore, we are partakers of Christ; yet so, if we hold our first confidence firm unto the end. But it seems that fear is the beginning, because it says in Ps. 110: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.’ I answer that faith is formed by charity; but charity does not exist without chaste fear. Therefore, formed faith always has charity annexed to it. Hence, faith and fear are the beginning. Deinde cum dicit quidam enim audientes, exponit quod dixerat de culpa illorum, quasi dicat: vos estis effecti participes Christi, si non obduraveritis corda vestra sicut isti qui audierunt, sed exacerbaverunt, sed non universi, id est, non tamen omnes. Duo enim, scilicet Caleb et Iosue, permanserunt, ut habetur Num. XIV, 6, et alios etiam confortabant. Et per hoc datur intelligi, quod cum non tota Ecclesia cadat, sed tantum aliqui, licet plures, quod nihilominus mali punientur, sed non boni, sicut in illis duobus. III Reg. c. XIX, 18: reliqui mihi septem millia virorum, qui non curvaverunt genua sua Baal. Rom. XI, 5: reliquiae secundum electionem Dei salvae factae sunt. 191. – Then when he says, who were they that heard, he explains what he had said about their sin. As if to say: ‘You are made partakers of Christ, if you do not harden your hearts, as they who have heard and yet were rebellious. Was it not all? No, not all; for two, namely, Caleb and Joshua remained and consoled the others. And by this we are given to understand that, since not the whole Church falls but only some, the wicked are punished, but not the good, as in those two: ‘And I will leave me seven thousand men in Israel, whose knees have not been bowed before Baal’ (1 Kg 19:18); ‘There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace’ (Rom. 11:5). Deinde cum dicit quibus autem, etc., exponit illud quod dixerat de poena. Et primo illud quod dixerat offensus fui; secundo illud quod dixerat iuravi in ira, etc., ibi quibus autem iuravit, et cetera. Dicit ergo quibus autem offensus est quadraginta annis? Nonne, et cetera. Ex quo patet, quod istud quod supra dixit, quadraginta annis, refertur ad illud offensus fui. Unde dicit, quod fuit eis offensus per illos quadraginta annos. Unde sciendum est, quod omnes qui egressi sunt de Aegypto, mortui sunt in deserto, sicut dicitur Ios. V, 4. Non tamen omnes prostrati sunt; sed aliqui vel a Deo, sicut quando aperta est terra, et deglutivit Dathan et Abiron, sicut dicitur in Ps. CV, 17, et de hoc habetur Num. XVI, 31 ss. Aliqui vero prostrati sunt a Moyse, sicut patet in conflatione vituli, sicut patet Ex. XXXII, 16. Aliqui vero ab hostibus, sicut patet in pluribus locis. Et ista satis habentur I Cor. X, 1 ss. Aliqui vero morte propria mortui sunt. Non ergo omnes prostrati sunt. Unde non fuit poena generalis, sed poena specialis fuit. Et nullus praeter illos duos qui dicti sunt, introierunt terram promissionis. 192. – Then (v. 17) he explains what he had said about the punishment. 193. – He says, therefore: With whom was he provoked forty years? Was it not with them that sinned? From this it is clear that forty years, refers to the statement, I was provoked. Hence, he says that he was offended through those forty years. Here it should be noted that all who left Egypt died in the desert, as it is stated in Jos. (5:4), but not all were laid low, but only some: either by God, as when the earth opened and swallowed Dathan and Abiram: (Ps. 77); but others were laid low by Moses, as in the construction of the golden calf (Ex. 32); still others were killed by enemies, and some died a natural death. Therefore, not all were laid low. Hence, it was not a general punishment, although it was general enough so that only two should enter the promised land. Et de ista terra dicit quibus autem iuravit, id est firmiter statuit, non introire in requiem, nisi illis qui fuerunt increduli, verbis scilicet exploratorum? Unde patet, quod propter incredulitatem non potuerunt intrare in requiem ipsius; et propter hoc dicit videmus, quia experti sunt, quod propter incredulitatem suam non potuerunt intrare. Vel videmus nos, scilicet per poenam illam, quae dicta est, quia non potuerunt, et cetera. 194. – And he says of that land, and to whom did he swear, i.e., firmly decree, that they should never enter into his rest, but to them that were incredulous. Hence, it is clear that they could not enter into His rest because of their unbelief. Therefore, he says, we see, because we have experienced that they could not enter because of their unbelief. Or we see by their punishment that they could not enter because of unbelief.
4-1
Heb 4:1-8Praemisit supra apostolus auctoritatem David et exposuit, nunc autem arguit ex ipsa. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim inducit sollicitudinem introeundi; secundo monet quod properemus ingredi; ibi festinemus ergo. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim incutit sollicitudinem timoris; secundo ostendit quod de hoc debet sollicitudo imminere, ibi etenim et nobis. 195. – Having cited the authority and explained it, the Apostle now argues from it. In regard to this he does two things: first, he urges them to be anxious to enter; secondly, he advises them to hasten to enter (v. 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he inspires them with fear; secondly, he shows that anxiety should press them (v. 2). Dicit ergo: dictum est quod infensus est illis, qui non crediderunt, ita quod iuravit quod non introibunt in requiem eius, ergo et nos timeamus, scilicet timore casto et sollicitudinis. Prov. XXVIII, 14: beatus homo qui semper est pavidus. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] I Cor. X, 12: qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat. Timor enim huiusmodi est utilis admonitio ad bonum, et est comes trium spiritualium virtutum, scilicet spei, fidei, et charitatis. Eccli. XXIV, 24: ego mater pulchrae dilectionis, et timoris, et agnitionis et sanctae spei.] Sed quid timere debemus? Ne forte relicta pollicitatione, et cetera. Beatitudo enim, sive felicitas, in hoc consistit, ut homo ingrediatur illam. Tob. XIII, 20: beatus ero, si fuerint reliquiae seminis mei ad videndum claritatem Ierusalem. Infra XII, 15: contemplantes ne forte quis desit gratiae Dei. Quia, ut dicit Chrysostomus, maior est poena damnatis de hoc quod sunt exclusi a visione Dei, quam aliae poenae quas habent. Et dicit existimetur, scilicet divino iudicio. Matth. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Vel existimetur secundum humanam opinionem. Eph. V, 5: hoc scitote intelligentes quod omnis fornicator, aut immundus, aut avarus, quod est idolorum servitus, non habet haereditatem in regno Christi et Dei. Timendum est ergo ne aliquis ex vobis existimetur deesse, quia vobis facta est promissio intrandi. Is. XXXII, 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis, in tabernaculis fiduciae, in requie opulenta. Apoc. XIV, 13: amodo iam dicit spiritus, ut requiescant a laboribus suis. Timendum est ergo ne propter culpam nostram non ingrediamur relicta pollicitatione, id est, promissione, quam relinquimus deserendo spem, fidem et charitatem, per quam possumus introire. Et hoc fit per peccatum mortale. 196. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that He was offended by those who would not believe, so that He swore that they will not enter into His rest. Therefore, let us fear, namely, with a chaste fear and with anxiety: ‘Blessed is the man that is always fearful’ (Pr. 28:14); ‘He that thinks himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall’ (1 Cor. 10:12). For such fear is a useful admonition to give, and it is the companion of three spiritual virtues, namely, of hope, faith, and charity: ‘I am the mother of fair love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope’ (Sir. 24:24). But what should we fear? While the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. For happiness or felicity consists in a man’s entering it: ‘Happy shall I be if there shall remain of my seed to see the glory of Jerusalem’ (Tob. 13:20); ‘Looking diligently, lest any man be wanting to the grace of God’ (Heb. 12:15), because, as Chrysostom says: ‘The punishment of not seeing God is greater than other punishments inflicted on the damned.’ And he says, lest any of you be judged according to God’s judgment: ‘Depart, you accursed, into everlasting fire’ (Mt. 25:41). Or be judged according to human opinion: ‘For know you this and understand that no fornicator or unclean or covetous person (which is a serving of idols) has inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God’ (Eph. 5:5). Therefore, they should fear lest any of them be judged to have failed to reach it, because the promise of entering was made to them: ‘And my people shall sit in the beauty of peace and in the tabernacles of confidence and in wealthy rest’ (Is. 32:18); ‘From henceforth now says the Spirit, that they rest from their labors’ (Rev. 14:13). One should fear, therefore, that on account of his own guilt, he fails to enter, because he abandoned the promise, which we abandon by deserting faith, hope, and charity, through which we can enter. And this is done by mortal sin. Consequenter cum dicit etenim nobis, ostendit quod nobis imminet ista sollicitudo. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim proponit intentionem suam; secundo probat eam, ibi ingrediemur. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ostendit quod nobis facta est ista promissio; secundo quod ista promissio non sufficit, ibi sed non profuit. 197. – Then he shows what anxiety should press us. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he proves it (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that this promise has been made to us; secondly, that that promise is not enough (v. 2b). Dicit ergo etenim nobis nuntiatum, id est, nobis promissum est. Unde sciendum est quod illa quae in veteri testamento promissa sunt temporaliter, intelligenda sunt spiritualiter. Omnia enim in figura contingebant illis, I Cor. X, 11, et Rom. XV, 4: quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. 198. – He says, therefore: for good news came to us as to them. Here it should be noted that the things promised in the Old Testament should be understood spiritually: ‘All things happened to them in a figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11); ‘What things soever were written, were written for our learning’ (Rom. 13:4). Deinde cum dicit sed non profuit, etc., ostendit quod non sufficit promissio, quin nihilominus debeamus esse solliciti. Unde dicit quod sermo auditus et non creditus in nullo eis profuit. Non enim auditores legis iustificabuntur, sed factores, Rom. II, 13. Et dicit non admixtus fidei, quia sicut ex intellectu et intellecto fit unum, ita ex corde credentis et ipsa fide formata fit unum. I Cor. c. VI, 17: qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est. Illud autem quod dicit ex his quae audierunt, potest esse ratio quare sermo non est admixtus fidei. Hoc enim fuit ex his, quae audierunt ab exploratoribus, quibus fuerunt increduli. Vel potest esse determinatio fidei, quae debet esse ex his quae audierunt. Fides enim ex auditu, Rom. X, 17. Verba enim Dei sic sunt efficacia, quod statim audita debent esse credita. Ps. XCII, 7: testimonia tua credibilia facta sunt nimis. 199. – Then when he says, but the message did not benefit them, he shows that the promise is not enough, but that we should be solicitous; hence, he says that the message, which was heard and not believed, profited them nothing: ‘For not the hearers but the doers of the law will be justified’ (Rom. 2:13). And he says, not being met [mixed] with faith, because just as the union of intellect and thing understood make one thing, so the believer’s heart and formed faith make one thing: ‘He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit’ (1 Cor. 6:17). For the words of God are so efficacious that they should be believed as soon as they are heard: ‘your testimonies are become exceedingly credible’ (Ps. 92:5). Deinde cum dicit ingrediemur enim, etc., probat propositum, et circa hoc facit tria. Primo enim ostendit, quod nobis est necessarium credere sicut illis; secundo adducit duas auctoritates ad probandum intentum suum, ibi et quidem operibus; tertio ex illis arguit, ibi quoniam ergo superest. 200. – Then when he says, for we who have believed enter that rest, he proves his conclusion. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows that it is necessary for us to believe, just as it was for them; secondly, he cites two authorities to prove his proposition (v. 3c); thirdly, he argues from them (v. 6). Dicit ergo: nobis factus est sermo sicut et illis, quia ingrediemur in requiem. Ps. IV, 8: in pace in idipsum dormiam et requiescam. Iob XI, 19: requiescet, et non erit qui te excitabit. Est autem duplex requies. Una in bonis exterioribus, et ad istam egreditur homo a requie mentis; alia est in bonis spiritualibus, quae est intima, et ad istam ingreditur. Matth. XXV, 21: intra in gaudium domini tui. Cant. I, 3: introduxit me rex in cellaria sua. Deinde ponit auctoritatem sicut iuravi, etc., et hoc expositum est. 201. – He says, therefore: The word was spoken to us as it was to them that we shall enter into rest: ‘In peace in the selfsame, I will sleep and be at rest’ (Ps. 4:9); ‘You shall rest and there shall be none to make you afraid’ (Jb. 11:19). But there is a twofold rest: one in external goods, and a man passes to it from peace of mind; the other is in spiritual good, which is within, and to it a man enters: ‘Enter into the joy of your lord’ (Mt. 25:21); ‘The kind has brought me into his storerooms’ (S of S 1:3). Then he cites the authority: As I have sworn I my wrath: they shall never enter my rest. Deinde cum dicit et quidem operibus, etc., ponit duas auctoritates. Unam legis, quae habetur Gen. II, 2; aliam quae frequenter posita est, quae habetur in Ps. XCIV, 8. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum et quidem operibus ab institutione mundi perfectis; dixit, et cetera. Hoc potest legi dupliciter: uno modo quod non sit ibi, enim, sed dixit, in quodam loco, et cetera. Et est planior littera, ut sit sensus: dico quod ingrediemur in requiem, quae praefigurata est ab institutione mundi, de qua requie praefigurata per diem septimam dixit, scilicet spiritus sanctus qui loquitur in Scriptura quia spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines, II Pet. I, 21 in quodam loco, famoso, scilicet Gen. II, 2, de die septima: et sic requievit Deus ab operibus suis. Operibus, inquam, ab institutione mundi perfectis. Vel dixit spiritus sanctus in quodam loco de die septima: et hoc dixit postquam narraverat opera sex dierum ipsis perfectis ab institutione mundi. Si vero sit ibi dicit enim, sic est defectiva constructio, et est sensus: nuntiatum est nobis quod ingrediemur, et hoc operibus ab institutione mundi perfectis, sed quando et quomodo nuntiatum est, quia dixit, in quodam loco, et cetera. Dicit autem operibus perfectis, ad denotandum opera sex dierum, quae fuerunt perfecta. Dicit vero ab institutione mundi, quia primo constitutus est mundus, et post sex dies distincte perfectus est in singulis partibus suis. 202. – Then (v. 3b) he cites two authorities: one is from the Law in Genesis (chap. 2) and the other from Ps. 94. He says, therefore, in regard to the first: although his works from the foundation of the world were finished. For he has spoken somewhere of the seventh day. This can be read in two ways: in one way by omitting the for. Then the sense is this: they shall enter into the rest which was prefigured by the seventh day from the foundation of the world. And God rested the seventh day from all his works. Or the Holy Spirit spoke in a certain place of the seventh day. And he spoke after describing the works of the six days, when the works from the foundation of the world were finished. Bu he says, from the foundation of the world, because the world was first established, and after six days it was made perfect in all its parts. De distinctione autem istorum dierum diversimode loquuntur sancti. Aliter enim accepit Augustinus ab aliis sanctis, sicut patet prima parte summae, quaest. LXXIV, art. 2 et 3. Tamen quomodocumque dicatur, manifestum est quod opera illa perfecta fuerunt. Est enim in ipsis duplex perfectio. Una secundum partes mundi, quae sunt caelum, et quatuor elementa. Et haec attenditur penes earum essentias, sicut habetur in prima parte summae, quasi ubi supra. Et hoc fuit per opus creationis, quod fuit prima die; et per opus distinctionis, quod fuit secunda et tertia die. Et in hoc concordat Augustinus cum aliis. Alia perfectio est secundum singulas partes. Et haec perfectio pertinet ad opus ornatus. Et iste ornatus quantum ad superiora fuit quarta die; quantum ad mediam, scilicet aerem et aquam, quinta die; quantum vero ad terram, quae est infimum elementum, fuit sexta die. 203. – In regard to the distinction of the days the saints speak in different ways: for Augustine treats the matter differently from the other saints. Yet no matter how they are treated, it is clear that those works were perfect. For they contain a twofold perfection: one is according to the parts of the world which are heaven and the four elements; and this was wrought by the work of creation, which occurred on the first day, and by the work of distinction, which occurred on the second and third day. In this, Augustine agrees with the others. The other perfection is according to the individual parts. And this pertains to the work of ornamentation which occurred on the fourth day in regard to the higher things, on the fifth day in regard to the intermediate elements, namely, air and water, and on the sixth day in regard to earth, which is the lowest element. Ista vero perfectio convenit numero senario, qui consurgit ex suis partibus aliquotis simul sumptis, quae sunt unum, duo, et tria; quia sexies unum sunt sex, similiter ter bis, et bis ter, et unum, duo, tria, sunt sex; quia ergo senarius est primus numerus perfectus, quia licet ternarius conveniat aliqualiter his quae dicta sunt, quia ter unum, tria sunt, et unum et duo, tria sunt; tamen bis unum non faciunt tria, similiter semel duo non faciunt tria, sed tantum duo. Ideo per ipsum senarium designatur perfectio rerum. Post perfectionem vero promittitur quies, quae nulli datur nisi operanti. Et sic in septima die qua mutatus est status mundi, sicut in qualibet alia erat quaedam variatio. Unde in ipsa incepit status propagationis, propter quod et connumeratur aliis, ideo in septima mundi aetate est status quiescentium. Secundum Augustinum tamen ista septima dies nihil aliud est quam cognitio angelica relata ad quietem Dei ab operibus. [That perfection corresponds to the number 6, because it arises from its parts added together, which are 1, 2, and 3 —because 6 x 1 = 6, the same for 3 x x and 2 x 3; also 1 + 2 +3 = 6. Therefore 6 is the first perfect number. Although 3 resembles 6 to some extent —since 1 x 3 = 3, and 1 + 3 = 3— nevertheless, 1 x 2 does not equal 3, and 2 along does not make 3, but only 2. Therefore 6 represents the perfection of things. After perfection, rest is promised, which is only given to someone who works. Thus it came on the seventh day, when the status of the world was changed, just as in each other day there was some variation. On the sixth day began the status of propagation; therefore it is numbered aong with the others, but on the seventh day was the status of things at rest. According to Augustine, however, the seventh day is none other than angelic knowledge with regard to God's rest from his works.] Sed contra: si quievit die septima, quis ergo fecit eam, si non est opus Dei? Praeterea Io. V, 17: pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod accipitur ibi quies non secundum quod opponitur labori, sed secundum quod opponitur motui. Deus enim etsi producendo non moveatur, tamen quia de ipso non loquimur nisi per sensibilia, in quibus non est operatio sine motu, ideo omnis operatio, large loquendo, dicitur motus, et sic dicitur quievisse, quia cessavit novas species producere: quia illa, quae postea facta sunt, fuerunt in illis rebus tunc productis: vel secundum virtutem activam, sicut in animalibus perfectis, vel secundum rationes seminales, vel secundum materiam, sicut mineralia. Ideo tunc non fuit mortuus suscitatus, sed fuit factum corpus, quod posset suscitari. Quaedam autem fuerunt tunc secundum similitudinem, ut animae rationales, quae tantum fiunt a Deo. Sic ergo requievit Deus ab operibus producendis, quia omnia aliquo modo praecesserunt, ut dictum est, tamen usque modo operatur, conservando et gubernando quae condidit. Et sic septimam diem Deus fecit sicut quamlibet aliam, quia tunc fuit aliquid additum, quia tunc incepit status propagationis. Quaelibet autem additio variabat statum mundi, ut dictum est, et faciebat unum diem. Vel secundum Augustinum non dicit simpliciter requievit, sed requievit ab operibus suis. Ab aeterno enim requievit in seipso, sed tunc etiam requievit non in operibus, sed ab operibus. Aliter enim operatur Deus, et quilibet alius artifex. Artifex enim agit propter indigentiam suam, sicut domificator facit domum, ut in ipsa quiescat. Similiter faber facit cultellum propter lucrum. Unde desiderium cuiuslibet artificis quietatur in opere suo. Sed non sic est de Deo, quia non agit propter indigentiam suam, sed propter bonitatem communicandam. Unde non quiescit in opere, sed ab opere producendo, et quiescit tantum in sua bonitate. 204. – But if he rested on the seventh day, who made it, if it is not a work of God? ‘My father works until now and I work’ (Jn. 5:17). I answer that ‘rest’ is not taken as the opposite of labor, but as the opposition of motion. For even when He creates He is not being moved; yet, because we speak of him only in terms of sensible things in which there is no activity without motion; therefore, every action, broadly speaking, is called a motion, and He is said to have rested because He ceased producing new species. So God rested from producing works, because all in some sense preceded. And so, God made the seventh day as every other day, because something was added then, for that was the time when the state of purgation began. For every addition varied the state of the world, and made one day. It should be noted with Augustine that he does not say simply that He rested, but that he rested from his works. For He rested in Himself from all eternity, but when He rested, it was not in His works, but from His works. For God works in a different manner from other artisans: for an artisan acts because of a need, as a house builder makes a house to rest in it, and a cutlerer a knife for gain; hence, the desire of every artisan comes to rest in his work. But not so with God, because He does not act out of need but to communicate His goodness; hence, he does not rest in His work, but from producing a work; and He rests only in His goodness. Consequenter autem ponit auctoritatem David, quae iam exposita est. Consequenter cum dicit quoniam ergo superest, etc., arguit ex praemissis. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim accipit sensum secundae auctoritatis illius si vocem eius audieritis, etc.; secundo arguit ex primo, ibi itaque relinquitur, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo trahit duo a secunda auctoritate; secundo ostendit quod haec duo intelliguntur in ipsa, ibi nam si eis Iesus. 205. – Then he cites the authority of David, which has already been explained. But when he says, since, then, it remains for some to enter it, he argues from the premises. In regard to this he does two things: first he accepts the sense of the second authority; secondly, he argues form the first (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he extracts two things form the second authority; secondly, he shows that those two things are understood in it (v. 8). Accipit ergo duo quae intelliguntur in ipsa, ibi nam iustum est, scilicet quod antiqui patres non introierunt. Aliud est, quod tempore David adhuc restabat alia quies praestanda. Licet enim ipsi fuisset promissa requies praestanda in terra promissionis, tamen per hoc quod post longum tempus dicit: hodie si vocem, etc., ostendit quod alia requies restat. Aliter enim non faceret mentionem de requie, dicens hodie, et cetera. Est ergo quaedam requies in quam nobis intrandum est, in quam illi non intraverunt propter incredulitatem. Et ideo, quoniam illi non intraverunt, restat ergo quosdam intrare, quibus promissio facta est, quia hi quibus prius nuntiatum est non introierunt, id est, Iudaei quibus promissio facta est. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Restat ergo quosdam intrare, cuius ratio est, quia si Deus creavit hominem ad aeternam beatitudinem, quia ad imaginem et similitudinem suam creavit illum, ideo praeparavit ei requiem. Licet ergo aliquis ex merito culpae suae excludatur, non tamen vult Deus quod illa praeparatio sit frustra. Et ideo superest ut quidam intrent, ut patet de vocatis ad nuptias. Matth. XXII, 8: nuptiae quidem paratae sunt, sed qui invitati fuerant, non fuerunt digni, et cetera.] Et ideo terminat, id est, determinat nobis, diem septimam, id est, diem gratiae, dicendo in David: hodie si vocem, et cetera. Et repetit auctoritatem, quae exposita est. Sciendum est autem, quod Deus homini praeparavit beatitudinem pro requie, nec vult istam praeparationem esse frustra; sed si unus non intrabit, alius intrabit, sicut ostenditur in illa parabola de nuptiis. Matth. XXII, v. 2 ss.: tene quod habes, ut nemo accipiat coronam tuam; quasi dicat: si tu non accipias, alius habebit. Iob XXXIV, 24: conteret multos, et innumerabiles, et stare faciet alios pro eis. 206. – Therefore, he extracts two things: one is well known, namely, that the ancestral fathers did not enter; the other is that during the time of David there remained another rest to be given. For although the promised rest was to be obtained in the promised land, yet by the fact David so long afterward says, Today, if you hear his voice, harden not your hearts, he shows that another rest remains. Otherwise, he would have made no mention of the rest, saying, Today if you hear his voice, harden not your hearts. There is, therefore, a rest into which we are to enter, but which they did not enter because of unbelief. Therefore, because they did not enter, others to whom the promise was made must enter, because they to whom it was first preached, did not enter. Therefore, it remains for others to enter. The reason for this is that if God created man for eternal happiness, for he created him according to His own image and likeness, He prepared a rest for him. Therefore, although someone might be excluded because of his sin, God does not wish that preparation to have been made in vain. Therefore, some will enter, as is clear from those invited to the marriage feast: ‘The marriage, indeed, is ready, but they that were invited are not worthy. Go, therefore, into the highways and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage’ (Mt. 22:8). Deinde cum dicit nam si eis Iesus, etc., probat quod supersit alios intrare, quia si Iesus Nave, id est Iosue, filiis Israel, finalem requiem praestitisset, numquam de alia, etc., id est, non immineret nobis alia requies, nec de alia aliqua propheta David loqueretur post illam diem. Unde manifestum est, quod illa requies fuit signum requiei spiritualis. 207. – Then when he says, For if Joshua had given them rest, God would never have afterwards spoken of another day, he proves that it remains for others to enter, because if Jesus Nave, i.e., Joshua, had given the children of Israel final rest, God would never have spoken of another day, i.e., another rest would not remain for us, nor would David have spoken of another rest after that day. Hence, it is clear that that rest was a sign of spiritual rest.
4-2
Heb 4:9-13Supra apostolus duas auctoritates assumpsit, unam de Gen. II, 2, aliam vero de Ps. XCIV, 8, et conclusit intentionem suam ex secunda auctoritate, scilicet Psalmi. Hic concludit idem ex prima. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ponit conclusionem; secundo ponit rationem consequentiae, ibi qui enim ingressus. 208. – Having cited two authorities: one from Genesis (2) and the other from Ps. 94, and drawn his conclusion from the second authority, the Psalm, the Apostle now concludes the same from the first. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the conclusion; secondly, he gives the reason for the consequence (v. 10). Circa primum sciendum est quod apostolus in serie omnium istorum verborum facit mentionem de triplici requie. Prima est requies Dei ab operibus suis; secunda est requies temporalis, quam habuerunt filii Israel in terra promissionis; tertia est requies aeterna, quae per istas duas designatur. Sed apostolus hic, antequam faciat mentionem de requie aeterna, dicit quod post terrenam adhuc relinquitur, idest remanet, sabbatismus populo Dei, qui in veteri lege per sabbatum repraesentabatur, scilicet requies aeterna. Is. LVIII, 13: vocaberis sabbatum delicatum et sanctum domini. Is. LXVI, 23: erit mensis ex mense et sabbatum ex sabbato, idest requies perpetua. Et dicit sabbatismus, quia sicut in veteri lege sabbatum repraesentabat requiem Dei ab operibus suis, de qua dicitur Gen. II, 2, ita illa requies erit sanctorum ab operibus suis. Apoc. XIV, 13: amodo iam dicit spiritus, ut requiescant a laboribus suis. 209. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle has so far mentioned a triple rest: the first is God’s rest from His works, the second is a temporal rest, which the children of Israel had in the promised land; the third is eternal rest, which is designated by the first two. But the Apostle, before mentioning eternal rest, says that after the earthly rest there remains a day of rest for the people of God. This was represented in the Old Law by the Sabbath, namely, eternal rest: ‘If you call the Sabbath delightful, and the holy of the Lord glorious’ (Is. 58:13); ‘And there shall be month after month and Sabbath after Sabbath’ (Is. 66:23), i.e., eternal rest. And he says, a Sabbath rest, because just as in the Old Law the Sabbath represented God’s rest form His works, so that rest will be that of the saints from their labors’ (Rev. 14:13). Unde subdit qui enim ingressus est in requiem eius, quia sicut Deus sex diebus operatus est, et septima requievit, ita per sex dies praesens tempus propter perfectum numerum significatur. Qui ergo perfecte operatur, in septima requiescit ab operibus suis, sicut et a suis Deus, non autem a quibuscumque operibus, quia sunt ibi quaedam opera perpetua, videre scilicet, amare, et laudare: Apoc. IV, 8: non habebant requiem nocte ac die, dicentia: sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, etc. sed ab operibus laboriosis. Is. XL, 31: qui sperant in domino, habebunt fortitudinem, assument pennas ut aquilae, current et non laborabunt, ambulabunt et non deficient. 210. – Hence, he adds, For whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his works: because just as God worked six days and rested on the seventh, so by the six days the present time is signified, because it is a perfect number. Therefore, one who works perfectly, rests from his works on the seventh day, as God did form His; but not from all works, because there are certain works, for example, to see, to love and to praise: ‘And they rested not day and night saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty’ (Rev. 4:8), but from laborious works: ‘But they who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall work and not faint’ (Is. 40:31). Deinde cum dicit festinemus, inducit ad festinationem. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ponit monitionem; secundo subdit rationem de introitu illius requiei, ibi vivus est. Item circa primum duo facit. Primo enim monet ad festinandum; secundo ostendit tardantis periculum, ibi ut ne in idipsum. 211. – Then (v. 11) he exhorts us to hurry. In regard to this he does two things: first, he give the advice; secondly, the reason for entering that rest (v. 12). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he urges us to hurry; secondly, he shows the danger in delay (v. 11b). Dicit ergo: quia igitur relinquitur sabbatismus, etc., festinemus ergo ingredi in illam requiem. Et signanter dicit ingredi, quia non est in bonis exterioribus ad quae est egressus, sed est in bonis interioribus. Ex. XV, 17: introduces eos, et plantabis, et cetera. Matth. XXV, v. 21: intra in gaudium domini tui. Est ergo multiplex ratio, quare festinandum est intrare. Una est, quia longinqua est via. Prov. VII, 19: abiit via longissima. Lc. XIX, v. 12: homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam. Dicitur autem longinqua propter distantiam status, quia ibidem plenitudo omnis boni, et immunitas ab omni malo; est etiam desideranti perfecta visio et tentio, hic autem sunt omnia contraria istis. Item festinandum est, quia tempus est valde breve. Iob XIV, 5: breves dies hominis sunt. Item, quia istud tempus cum hoc, quod est breve et modicum, est etiam incertum. Eccle. c. IX, 12: nescit homo finem suum. Item, propter urgentem vocationem. Interior enim vocatio urget nos per stimulum charitatis. Is. c. LIX, 19: cum venerit quasi fluvius violentus, quem spiritus domini cogit, et cetera. II Cor. c. V, 14: charitas Christi urget nos. Ps. CXVIII, 32: viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri. Item, propter periculum tardantis, sicut patet de fatuis virginibus, Matth. XXV, 1 ss., quae tarde venientes intrare non potuerunt. 212. – He says, therefore, Because there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, let us strive [hurry] to enter that rest. He says, enter, because it does not consist in external goods, to which one goes out, but in internal goods: ‘You shall bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance’ (Ex. 15:17); ‘Enter into the joy of the Lord’ (Mt. 25:21). Therefore, there are many reasons for striving to enter: one is that the way is long: ‘A certain nobleman went into a far country’ (Lk. 19:12). It is said to be long because of the difference of condition, because the fullness of all good and immunity from all evil is there, and also perfect vision and possession, whereas here we find the opposite. Furthermore, we must hurry, because the time is very short: ‘The days of man are short’ (Jb. 14:5), and because that time, besides being short and brief, is uncertain: ‘Man knows not his own end’ (Ec. 9:12) and because the call is urgent: for an inner call drives us with the goad of charity: ‘When he shall come as violent stream, which the spirit of the Lord drives on’ (Is. 59:19); The charity of Christ presses us’ (2 Cor. 5:14); ‘I have run the way of your commandments’ (Ps. 118:32), and because there is a danger in delay, as is clear form the foolish virgins who arrived late and could not enter. Et ideo dicit ut ne in idipsum quis incidat incredulitatis exemplum. Quasi dicat: antiqui non potuerunt ingredi propter incredulitatem. Unde caveamus, alienae culpae exemplo, ne simus increduli, et exemplo poenae, ut scilicet non excludamur sicut ipsi. Lc. c. I, 39: abiit in montana cum festinatione. Ad hoc enim ostenduntur nobis praeteritae poenae aliorum, ut caveamus. Prov. XIX, 25: pestilente flagellato, stultus sapientior erit. Glossa: peius est, nisi caveatis. 213. – Therefore, he says, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. As if to say: the ancients could not enter because of unbelief. Hence, we must beware of the example set by another’s sin, lest we become incredulous, or by another’s punishment, lest we be excluded as they were: ‘she went into the hill country with haste’ (Lk. 1:39). For the punishment of others is brought to our notice as a warning: ‘The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser’ (Pr. 19:25). Ex hoc videtur quod ille qui non corrigitur punitione alterius, gravius punietur. Sed contra, quia iam peccatum Adae, quia non peccavit exemplo alterius, esset minus grave. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod semper istae locutiones intelligendae sunt caeteris paribus. Contingit enim duo peccata in se considerata, non esse unum gravius altero, tamen propter aliquam circumstantiam advenientem, aggravatur unum et non aliud: sicut duo adulteria de se aequalia sunt, tamen illud quod est ex certa malitia gravius est, quam illud quod est ex passione vel infirmitate. Et similiter verbum otiosum gravius est, quando fit ex certa malitia. 214. – From this it seems that a person who is not corrected by another’s punishment will be punished more severely. But this would mean that the sin of Adam, who did not sin by following another’s example, would be less grave. I answer that these sayings are always to be understood, when other things are equal. For it sometimes happens that one is not graver than another; yet, because of some attendant circumstance, one becomes graver and not another. For example, two adulteries are of themselves equal; yet one which is committed with malice aforethought is graver than one which is committed through passion or weakness. In like manner, an idle word is more grievous when it is spoken from malice. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Quomodo autem festinandum sit, docet apostolus I Cor. IX, 25, quia qui currit, et qui certat ab omnibus se abstinet. Festinandum est ergo, deponendo impedimenta, non solum ut abstineamus a peccatis, sed etiam ut occasiones peccatorum vitemus. Prov. IV, 11: ducam te per semitas, et cetera. Sed contra Prov. XIX, 2: qui festinus est pedibus offendet. Respondeo. Duplex est festinantia, scilicet praecipitationis: et haec est reprehensibilis; alia tenuitatis et celeritatis; et haec est laudabilis. Nam, sicut dicit philosophus, omnes homines oportet consiliari diu, operari autem consiliata festinanter; quando ergo festinantia tollit consilium, tunc praecipitat, et est vitiosa, et secundum hanc verificatur obiectio, sed festinantia, quae est in executione consiliatorum, est virtuosa, et laudatur, et ad hanc hortatur hic apostolus.] 215. – But how we are to strive is taught by the Apostle in 1 Cor. (9:25), because ‘every one that strives for the mastery refrains himself from all things.’ Therefore, one must strive by putting off impediments, not only refraining from all sin, but also avoiding the occasions of sin: ‘I will lead you by the paths of equity’ (Pr. 4:11). But we are warned against hurrying: ‘He that is hasty with his feet shall stumble’ (Pr. 19:2). I answer that there are two ways of hurrying: one is by being headlong and this I reprehensible; the other is by being energetic, and this is praiseworthy. For, as the Philosopher says: All men should take a long time to consider, but be quick to carry out their decisions. Therefore, when hurry destroys counsel, it is precipitate and vicious. In this sense the objection is valid; but hurry in executing one’s decision is virtuous and praiseworthy. This is the type of hurry to which the Apostle exhorts us here. Deinde cum dicit vivus est enim sermo Dei, etc., ponit rationem praedictae monitionis, et praecipue quantum ad periculum. Haec autem ratio sumitur ex parte Christi. In ipso autem est duplex natura: una, scilicet divina, secundum quam est verbum patris; alia est humana, secundum quam est pontifex offerens se in cruce. Primo ergo ponit rationem sumptam ex parte divinitatis; secundo rationem sumptam ex parte humanitatis, ibi habentes igitur. De filio autem Dei dicit tria. Primo enim assignat eius virtutem, quia vivus est sermo Dei; secundo eius cognitionem, ibi et discretor; tertio eius auctoritatem, ibi ad quem nobis sermo. Virtutem eius ostendit tripliciter. Primo quantum ad naturam; secundo quantum ad potestatem, ibi et efficax; tertio quantum ad operationem, ibi et penetrabilior. 216. – Then (v. 11) he gives the reason for this advice, and especially in regard to the danger. But this reason is taken on the part of Christ in Whom there are two natures: one is the divine according to which he is the Word of the Father; the other is the human according to which He is the high priest offering Himself on the Cross. First, therefore, he gives the reason based on the divinity; secondly, the reason based on the humanity (v. 14); He says three things about the Son of God: first, he describes His power; secondly, His knowledge (v. 12); thirdly, his authority (v. 13b) But he shows his power in three ways: first, its nature, secondly, its vigor (v. 12b); thirdly its action (v. 12c). Dicit ergo vivus est sermo Dei. Ista littera de se videtur habere difficultatem, tamen considerando aliam translationem, planior est. Ubi enim nos habemus sermo, in Graeco habetur logos, quod est idem quod verbum. Unde sermo, id est, verbum. Et sic etiam exponit Augustinus illud Io. XII: sermo quem locutus sum, id est, ego ipse qui sum verbum. Sap. XVIII, 15: omnipotens sermo tuus, domine, exiliens de caelo a regalibus sedibus venit. Et similiter hic sermo Dei est vivus, id est, verbum Dei vivum. Verbum enim Dei ab aeterno conceptum, in paterno intellectu est verbum primordiale, de quo Eccli. I, 5 dicitur: fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis. Et quia est primordiale, ideo ab ipso derivantur omnia alia verba, quae nihil aliud sunt quam quaedam conceptiones expressae in mente Angeli, vel nostra. Unde illud verbum est expressio omnium verborum, quasi fons quidam. Et illa, quae dicuntur de illo verbo, quodammodo aptantur ad alia verba, secundum suum modum. De illo autem dicitur, quod est vivus. Dicitur autem res viva, quamdiu habet motum et operationem suam. Sicut enim fons scaturiens dicitur vivus, sic et verbum illud quod habet perpetuum vigorem. Ps. CXVIII, 89: in aeternum, domine, verbum tuum permanet in caelo. Io. V, 26: sicut enim pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio vitam habere in semetipso. Vel potest referri ad humanam naturam. Est enim vivus, licet ab aliis reputetur mortuus, quia cum resurrexit, iam non moritur. Apoc. I, 18: fui mortuus, et ecce sum vivens in saecula saeculorum. Similiter etiam sermo Scripturae est vivus et indeficiens. Rom. c. IX, 6: non autem quod exciderit verbum Dei. 217. – He says, therefore, The word of God is living. This text is difficult, although it is clearer than another text: for where we have sermo the Greek has logos, which is the same as verbum, ‘word’; hence a saying, i.e., a word. This is the way Augustine explains Johns’ statement: ‘The word that I have spoken’, i.e., I who am the Word: ‘Your almighty word leapt down from heaven from the royal throne’ (Wis. 18:15). Similarly here, the word (sermo) of God is living, i.e., the living Word (Verbum) of God. For the Word of God conceived from all eternity in the intellect of the Father is the primordial Word of which Sirach (1:5) says: ‘The word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom.’ And because it is primordial, all other words are derived from it; these words being nothing more than certain conceptions expressed in the angelic mind or ours, hence, that Word is the expression of all words, being their font. And what is said of that Word is somehow applied to the other words according to their mode. But it is said of that Word that it is living. But a thing is called living, when it has its own movement and activity. For as a gushing fountain is called living, so, too, that Word has eternal vigor: ‘For ever, O Lord, your word stands firm in heaven’ (Ps. 118:89); ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also have life in himself’ (Jn. 5:24). Or it can be referred to His human nature, for it is living, although others may regard it as dead; because it rose no more to die: ‘I was dead, and behold, I am living for ever and ever’ (Rev. 1:18). Similarly, the word of Scripture is living and unfailing: ‘Not as though the word of God had miscarried’ (Rom. 9:6). Consequenter cum dicit et efficax, ostendit eius potestatem. Dicitur autem verbum efficax propter maximam virtutem et infinitam vim effectivam quam habet. Per ipsum enim facta sunt omnia Io. I, 3, et Ps. XXXII, 6: verbo domini caeli firmati sunt. Item est efficax quia ex ipso omnia verba prolata a Deo, mediante Angelo vel homine, efficaciam habent. Eccle. c. VIII, 4: sermo illius potestate plenus est. Is. LV, 11: verbum quod egredietur de ore meo, non revertetur ad me vacuum, sed faciet quodcumque volui, et cetera. 218. – Then when he says, and active [effectual], he shows its vigor. But the word is said to be effectual because of its supreme power and the infinite force it has: for all such things were made by it: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were established’ (Ps. 32:6); it is also effectual, because all the words uttered by God and delivered by angels or man draw there efficacy from it: ‘His word is full of power’ (Ec. 8:4); ‘The word which shall go forth shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and it shall prosper in the things for which I sent it (Is. 55:11). Deinde cum dicit et penetrabilior, ostendit eius operationem. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo ponit eius operationem; secundo exponit, ibi et pertingens. 219. – Then (v. 12b) he shows its action. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes its action; secondly, he explains this (v. 12c). Dicit ergo et penetrabilior. Illud proprie dicitur penetrare, quod ingreditur profunda rei. Hoc autem potest esse dupliciter. Uno modo, quia operatur in intimis rei. Is. XXVI, v. 12: omnia enim opera nostra operatus es in nobis. Alio modo, quia cognoscit intima rei. Io. II, 25: opus ei non erat, ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine, ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine. Eccli. XXIV, 45: penetrabo inferiores partes terrae. Operatio enim Dei et cognitio pertingit et penetrat intima rei. Unde dicit omni gladio ancipiti. Inter omnia enim gladius est penetrabilior propter acumen, et maxime gladius anceps, qui scilicet est acutus ex duabus eius partibus. Et ideo, quia verbum Dei acutum est, et ad operandum et ad cognoscendum, ideo comparatur gladio ancipiti. Eph. VI, 17: et gladium spiritus, quod est verbum Dei. Is. c. XXVII, 1: in illa die visitabit dominus in gladio suo duro, et grandi, et forti, et cetera. Vel dicitur anceps quantum ad operationem, quia habet aciem ad bona promovenda, et mala destruenda. Apoc. I, 16: ex ore ipsius procedebat gladius ex utraque parte acutus. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:]Vel quantum ad cognitionem; et dicitur omni gladio ancipiti, id est, omni humano intellectu, qui dicitur anceps, quia habet viam ad utramque partem conclusionis, quousque veniat ad finem perscrutationis, et ibi figit acumen suum, scilicet in veritate.] In ordine enim causarum videmus quod semper causa prior intimius operatur quam causa posterior. Unde illud quod natura producit est intimius, quam illud quod producitur per artem. Quia ergo Deus est prima causa simpliciter, ideo eius operatione producitur illud quod est intimius ipsi rei, scilicet esse eius. 220. – He says, therefore: And more piercing than any two-edged sword. But this is said to pierce which enters the depths of a thing. But this can take place in two ways: in one way, because it acts on the inmost recesses of a thing: ‘You have wrought all our works for us’ (Is. 26:12); in another way, because it knows the innermost parts of a thing: ‘He needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was in man (Jn. 2:25); ‘I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth’ (Sir. 24:43). For God’s action and knowledge reach into the inmost parts of a thing; hence, he says, than any two-edged sword. For a sword is more penetrating, because it is sharp; and this I especially true of a two-edged sword, which is sharp at both ends. And because the word of God is sharp in its action and its knowledge, it is compared to a two-edged sword: ‘And the sword of the spirit which is the word of God’ (Eph. 6:17); ‘In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword shall visit Leviathan’ (Is. 27:1). Or it is called two-edged in regard to its activity, because it is sharp enough to promote good and destroy evil: ‘From his mouth came out a sharp two-edged sword’ (Rev. 1:16). Or in regard to its knowledge, and it is said to be more piercing than any two-edged sword, i.e., than any human intellect, which is called two-edged, because it is open to either part of a conclusion, until it comes to the end of its scrutiny and fixed its point there, namely, in the truth. For in the ordering of causes we see that a prior cause works at a greater depth than a subsequent one. Hence, that which nature produces is more profound than that which is produced by art. Therefore, because God is the first cause, by His action is produced that which is most inward in a thing, namely, its being. Consequenter cum dicit et pertingens, etc., manifestat quod dixerat de operatione. Et circa hoc facit duo, quia primo ostendit hoc quantum ad spiritualia, secundo quantum ad corporalia, ibi compagum quoque et medullarum. 221. – Then when he says, and piercing the division of the soul and of the spirit, he manifests what he had said above about its action. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows this in regard to spiritual things; secondly, in regard to material things (v. 12d) Secundum enim apostolum tria sunt in homine, scilicet corpus, anima et spiritus. I Thess. V, 23: integer spiritus vester, anima et corpus, et cetera. Quid enim sit corpus notum est. Anima autem est, quae dat corpori vitam; spiritus vero in rebus corporalibus dicitur quid subtile, et ideo significat substantias immateriales. Is. XXXI, 3: Aegyptus homo et non Deus, et equi eorum caro et non spiritus. Spiritus ergo in nobis dicitur illud, per quod communicamus cum substantiis spiritualibus. Anima vero illud per quod communicamus cum brutis. Et sic spiritus est mens humana, scilicet intellectus et voluntas. Ex hoc autem dicunt aliqui, quod in nobis sunt diversae animae. Una scilicet quae perficit et vivificat corpus, et ista dicitur anima proprie; alia vero est spiritus habens intellectum quo intelligimus, et voluntatem qua volumus. Et ideo ista duo magis dicuntur substantiae, quam animae. Hoc autem damnatum est in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus. Et ideo dicendum est, quod una et eadem est essentia animae, quae per essentiam suam vivificat corpus, et per potentiam suam, quae dicitur intellectus, est principium intelligendi. Et per istam intelligit aeterna. Quod quomodo sit, sic patet. Videmus enim quod quanto forma est perfectior, tanto operatio eius minus subditur materiae; sicut patet quod formae elementorum, quia sunt imperfectissimae, non extenduntur ultra materiam. Cum ergo anima inter omnes formas sit nobilissima, oportet quod habeat aliquam operationem, et praecipue anima rationalis, quae omnino excedit potentiam materiae. Et istam operationem vocamus intelligere, ad quam sequitur sua inclinatio, scilicet velle. Est autem triplex differentia inter operationes animae, ita quod anima dicatur ad quam pertinent potentiae, quibus anima operatur cum corpore; ad spiritum vero illae, quibus operatur sine corpore. Prima autem differentia inter istas potentias et operationes ab ipsis procedentes est ipsius rationis ad sensualitatem, quae est potentia, per quam anima operatur cum corpore, quia ratio apprehendit immaterialia, sensualitas vero materialia et sensibilia. Secunda differentia est partium sensualitatis, quia alium statum et ordinem habet sensualitas, secundum quod tendit in proprium obiectum ex natura sua, et alium secundum quod regulatur a ratione. Ipsa enim concupiscibilis aliter consideratur ut est vis quaedam in ordine ad obiectum suum, et aliter ut participat ratione. Tertia differentia est partium ipsius rationis, secundum diversa obiecta ipsius, quia vel tendit in Deum, et hoc est supremum in ipsa; vel in effectus spirituales, vel in effectus temporales. Omnes autem istas divisiones et differentias operatur et discernit verbum Dei, scilicet quomodo sensualitas distinguatur a ratione, differentiam etiam ipsius sensualitatis in se, differentiam etiam partium rationis, et quid proveniat in anima ex consideratione spiritualium et terrenorum. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:]Alio modo potest exponi secundum Glossam, dupliciter, ut per animam intelligantur peccata carnalia, quae fiunt actu et delectatione corporis, ut luxuria, gula et huiusmodi; per spiritum vero peccata spiritualia, quae fiunt actu mentis, ut superbia, inanis gloria, et huiusmodi. Vel per animam intelligantur malae cogitationes, per spiritum vero bonae. Et sic est sensus: pertingens, id est discernens, usque ad divisionem animae et spiritus, id est inter carnalia et spiritualia peccata, vel inter bonas et malas cogitationes. 222. – According to the Apostle there are three things in man: body, soul, and spirit: ‘That you wholly spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord’ (1 Th. 5:23). For we know what the body is. But the soul is that which gives life to the body; whereas the spirit in bodily things is something subtle and signifies immaterial substance: ‘Egypt is man and not God: and their horses, flesh, and not spirit’ (Is. 31:3). Therefore, the spirit in us is that by which we are akin to spiritual substances; but the soul is that through which we are akin to the brutes. Consequently, the spirit is the human mind, namely, the intellect and will. This has led some to assert that there are different souls in us: one which perfects and vivifies the body and is called a soul in the proper sense; another is the spirit, having an intellect by which we understand and a will by which we will. Consequently, those two are called substances rather than souls. But this opinion was condemned in the book, The Dogmas of the Church. Therefore, we must say that the essence of the soul is one and the same, and by its essence it vivifies the body, and by its power, which is called the intellect, it is the principle of understanding eternal things. How this is possible will be clear. For the more perfect a form is, the less its activity depends on matter. Thus the forms of the elements, because they are most imperfect, do not extend beyond matter. Therefore, since the soul is the most noble of forms, it should have an action which altogether transcends the power of matter. That action is called understanding, on which follows its natural inclination, namely, willing. But there is a triple difference among the actions of the soul: first of all, the soul is that to which pertain the powers by which the soul acts in conjunction with the body; whereas the spirit is that to which pertain the powers by which it acts without the body. But the first difference between those powers and the actions proceeding therefrom is the difference between reason and sensibility, which is a power through which the soul acts with the body; because reason apprehends universals, but the sensibility material and sensible things. The second difference is between the parts of the sensibility, because the sensibility has one state insofar as it tends to its proper object according to its nature, and another state insofar as it is regulated by reason. For the concupiscible appetite is considered one way when it is regarded as a force relative to its object, and another way when it is regarded as partaking of reason. The third difference is between the parts of reason itself relative to its different objects: because it either tends to God, and this is supreme in it; or to spiritual effects, or to temporal effects. The Word of God effects and distinguishes between all those divisions and species, namely, how the sensibility is distinguished from reason; also, the species of the same sensibility in itself; also, the species of the function of reason, and what arises in the rational soul from the consideration of spiritual and earthly things. Or it can be explained according to a Gloss in two ways: so that the soul refers to carnal sins which involve bodily pleasures, such as lust and gluttony; but the spirit refers to spiritual sins, which involve an act of the mind, such as pride, vain glory, and the like. Or by soul is understood evil thoughts, and by spirit good thoughts. Then the sense is this: reaching, i.e., discerning, unto the division of the soul and the spirit, i.e., between carnal and spiritual sins, or between good and evil thoughts. Consequenter cum dicit compagum quoque et medullarum, declarat illud quod dixerat de operatione Dei, quantum ad temporalia. Sciendum est autem quod aliquid non potest penetrando pertingere ad aliquid propter duo: unum est propter colligationem, aliud autem est propter inclusionem. Neutrum istorum potest impedire verbum Dei. In nobis quidem sunt quaedam colligationes, scilicet nervorum et arteriarum. Quaedam etiam sunt valde inclusa et occulta, sicut medullae quae in ossibus includuntur; omnia autem ista divino prospectui manifesta sunt et subdita. Et ideo nihil est ei difficile ad penetrandum. Vel per compages potest intelligi coniunctio, quae est inter partes animae ad invicem, ut inter animam et spiritum; quasi dicat: non solum pertingit ad cognoscendum differentiam et divisionem animae et spiritus; sed etiam ad cognoscendum quomodo coniunguntur. Cognoscit enim quomodo sensualitas regitur ratione. Medulla autem potest intelligi illud, quod latet in ratione et sensualitate. Matth. X, 28: timete eum qui potest et animam et corpus mittere in Gehennam. 224. – Then when he says, of joints and of marrow, he declares what he had said about God’s activity in regard to temporal things. But it should be noted that something fails to penetrate something else for two reasons: one is due to juncture and the other to concealment. But neither of these can impede the word of God. There are in us, of course, certain joints, namely, of nerves and arteries; and there are parts which are enclosed and hidden, such as the marrow enclosed in the bones. But all these are open to the divine gaze; consequently, there is nothing too difficult for Him to penetrate. Or by joints can be understood the union of the soul’s parts to one another, as soul to spirit. As if to say: Not only does He reach to a knowledge of the difference and division of the soul and spirit, but to a knowledge of how they are joined. For he knows how the sensibility is ruled by reason. But marrow can be taken to mean that which is concealed in the reason and sensibility: ‘Fear him that can send both body and soul to hell’ (Mt. 10:28). Deinde cum dicit et discretor cogitationum, agit de cognitione verbi. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit quod omnia subduntur cognitioni eius; secundo ostendit quomodo cognoscit, ibi omnia autem nuda. 225. – Then (v. 12d) he treats of the Word’s knowledge. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that all things are subject to His knowledge; secondly, how He knows (v. 13b). Ex duobus autem contingit, quod aliquid non cognoscatur, scilicet aut quia est intra aliquod occultatum. Et sic maxime sunt occulta, quae latent in corde, quia ipsum est valde profundum et inscrutabile. Ier. XVII, 9: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile; secundum vero Septuaginta interpretes habetur sic: profundum est cor hominis, et cetera. In corde vero latent cogitationes. Istas autem cognoscit verbum Dei. Is. I, 16: auferte malum cogitationum vestrarum ab oculis meis, et ideo quantum ad hoc dicit discretor cogitationum. Alio modo non cognoscitur aliquid, quia est omnino ignotum et invisibile, et sic ea quae sunt in voluntate, sunt ignota. In voluntate autem est ipsa intentio finis, quae de natura sua est invisibilis. Quid enim homo facit vel cogitat manifestatur per opus, sed qua intentione hoc faciat, penitus est incertum. Ista autem non sunt occulta Deo. Ideo adiungit et intentionum cordis. Ps. VII, v. 9: scrutans corda et renes, id est cogitationes et intentiones. 226. – There are two reasons why a things is not known: either because it is concealed within something; this is the way the secrets of the heart are concealed, because it is very deep and inscrutable: ‘The heart is perverse above all things and inscrutable’ (Jer. 17:9). In the heart thoughts are concealed, but the Word of God knows them: ‘Take away the evil of your devices from my eyes’ (Is. 1:16). Therefore, in regard to this he says, a discerner of thoughts. In another way, something is not known, because it is altogether unknown and invisible; which is the way the things of the will are unknown. But in the will is one’s intention, which is invisible of its very nature. For what a man does or thinks is revealed in his work, but the intention for which does it is utterly uncertain. But not even these are hidden from God; hence, he continues, and intentions of the heart: ‘The searcher of hearts and reins’, i.e., of thoughts and intentions (Ps. 7:11). Sciendum est autem, quod illud quod dicit penetrans, referri potest ad operationem, ut dictum est. Et sic differunt penetrans et discretor. Si autem referatur ad cogitationem, tunc quod hic dicit et discretor est expositio illius, quasi dicat: tu dicis quod est penetrabilior, etc.; verum est, quia est etiam discretor compagum et medullarum, id est cogitationum et intentionum. Compages enim dicuntur quaedam colligationes; et sic cogitatio, in qua est quasi quaedam colligatio terminorum, potest dici compago, dum de uno tendit in aliud. Is. LVIII, 6: dissolve colligationes impietatis. Item Is. V, 18: vae qui trahitis iniquitates in funiculis vanitatis. Item medulla est intima latens in ossibus. Iob XXI, v. 24: medullis ossa illius irrigantur. 227. – But it should be noted that word, penetrating, can refer to an action, as has been said: then penetrator and discerner differ: but if it refers to thought, then the phrase, discerner of thoughts, explains it. As if to say: You say that it is more penetrating than any two-edged sword; this is true, because it is a discerner of the joints and the marrow, i.e., of thoughts and intentions. For joints are junctures, and, thus, thought in which there is a juncture of terms can be called a joint, when it passes from one thing to another: ‘Loose the bands of wickedness’ (Is. 58:6); ‘Woe to you that draw iniquity with cords of vanity and sin as the rope of a cart’ (Is. 5:18). Also, marrow is something that lies within and is concealed in the bones: ‘His bones are moistened with marrow’ (Jb. 21:24). Deinde cum dicit et non est ulla creatura invisibilis in conspectu eius, ostendit quod illud quod secundum naturam est invisibile, non est occultum Deo. Quod enim aliquid non videatur a nobis, hoc est quia simplicius et subtilius est oculo nostro, sive corporali sive intellectuali: sicut sunt substantiae separatae, quas in vita ista videre non possumus. Divino autem intellectu nihil est simplicius vel subtilius, ergo nulla creatura est invisibilis in conspectu eius. 228. – Then when he says, before him no creature is hidden, he shows that anything invisible according to its nature is not hidden from God. For if something is not seen by us, it is because it is more simple and more subtle than our bodily or intellectual eyes, such as separated substances, which we cannot see in this life. But nothing is simpler and subtler than the divine intellect. Therefore, no creature is invisible in His sight. Sed numquid cognoscit in universali tantum, sicut quidam voluerunt? Non, sed omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius. Per oculum autem intelligitur vis cognitiva. Intelliguntur enim spiritualia per sensibilia. Signanter autem dicit in plurali oculos, propter diversitatem intellectorum, quia non cognoscit unum tantum, sed etiam multitudinem rerum. Dicit etiam nuda et aperta. Dupliciter enim cognoscitur aliquid. Uno modo in superficie; alio modo in profundo, sicut homo nudus videtur in superficie, non autem vestitus; sed omnia Deo manifesta sunt, quae videntur in superficie. Nihil enim est extra, quod impediat cognitionem Dei, sicut vestis impedit ne videatur homo. Et ideo dicit nuda. Iob XXVI, 6: nudus est Infernus coram illo. Dicit etiam aperta, quia nihil est ita occultum in re, quod Dei cognitionem effugiat. 229. – But does He know things in a merely general way, as some claim? No; but all things are naked and open to His eyes. By the eye we mean the cognitive power; for spiritual things are understood through sensible things. But it is significant that he says, eyes, because of the variety of things He understands: for He does not know one thing only, but a multitude of things. He says, naked and open, for something is known in two ways: in one way, superficially, in another way, in depth. Thus a naked man is seen superficially, but not one who is clothed. but all things are manifest to God, which are seen superficially; for there is nothing covering man to impede God’s knowledge, as clothing might: ‘Hell is naked before him’ (Jb. 26:6). But he says, open, because nothing is so concealed that it can escape God’s knowledge. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Sed contra Hab. I, 13: mundi sunt oculi tui, ne videas malum, et aspicere ad iniquitatem non poteris; non ergo omnia nuda sunt. Respondeo. Dicendum quod in Deo est scientia simplicis intelligentiae, et scientia approbationis. Primo modo cognoscit omnia, etiam mala, et ea quae non sunt; secundo cognoscit bona, quantum ad ea quae sunt. 230. – Yet this seems to be contrary to what is stated in Hab (1:13): ‘Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on iniquity.’ Therefore, not all things are naked. I answer that in God is knowledge of simple understanding and knowledge of approbation. In the first way He knows all things, even wicked things and things that are not; but in the second way He knows good thing insofar as they exist. Consequenter ostendit perfectionem auctoritatis ipsius, cum dicit ad quem nobis sermo. Ista vero auctoritas est auctoritas iudicandi. Act. X, 42: ipse est, qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum ac mortuorum. Ad istum ergo est nobis sermo, ut scilicet reddamus rationem de operibus nostris. II Cor. V, 10: omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis prout gessit, sive bonum, sive malum sit. Et ideo, quia sic est potens, sic sciens, et sic magnus, festinemus ergo ingredi, et cetera. 231. – Then when he says, with whom we have to do, he shows the perfection of his authority. But this authority is the authority to judge: ‘It is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead’ (Ac. 10:42). To Him, therefore, is our speech, when we render an account of our works: ‘For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good of evil’ (2 Cor. 5:10). Therefore, because He is so powerful, so knowing and so great, let us hasten to enter into that rest. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Ad iudicium enim faciendum tria requiruntur: primo quidem potestas subditos coercendi. Eccle. VII, 6: noli fieri iudex, nisi valeas virtute irrumpere iniquitates. Et haec convenit Christo, secundum illud Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas, et cetera. Secundo requiritur rectitudinis zelus, ut scilicet aliquis non ex odio vel livore, sed ex amore iustitiae, iudicium proferat. Prov. c. III, 12: quem diligit dominus, corripit, et quasi patri, et cetera. Et hic amor iustitiae potissimum est in Christo. Is. XI, 5: et erit iustitia cingulum lumborum eius, et cetera. Tertio requiritur sapientia, secundum quam formatur iudicium. Eccli. X, 1: iudex sapiens iudicabit populum suum, et cetera. Christus autem est Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia, I Cor. I, 24. Haec autem iudiciaria potestas convenit Christo, secundum quod est homo, Io. V, 27: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est, non quidem propter conditionem naturae, secundum Augustinum, quia sic omnes homines huiusmodi potestatem haberent, sed propter gratiam capitis, quam Christus in humana natura accepit. Competit autem Christo hoc modo iudiciaria potestas secundum humanam naturam, propter tria: primo propter convenientiam et affinitatem ipsius ad homines. Sicut enim Deus per causas medias, tamquam propinquiores effectibus, operatur, ita iudicat per hominem Christum, homines, ut sit suavius iudicium. Non enim habemus pontificem, qui non possit compati, etc., ut dictum est. Secundo quia in finali iudicio, ut Augustinus dicit super Ioan., erit resurrectio corporum mortuorum, quae suscitat Deus per filium hominis, sicut per eumdem Christum suscitat animas, inquantum est filius Dei. Tertio quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de verbis domini, rectum erat, ut iudicandi viderent iudicem. Iudicandi autem sunt boni et mali; restat ergo, ut in iudicio forma hominis bonis et malis ostenderetur, et forma Dei solis bonis servaretur. Haec autem potestas primo homini competit, et propter divinam personam et propter capitis dignitatem et propter plenitudinem gratiae habitualis, et etiam ista ex meritis adeptus est. Quod quidem congrue factum est, ut secundum Dei iustitiam iudex esset, qui pro Dei iustitia pugnavit et vicit, et iustitia reos damnaret qui iniuste iudicatus est. Apoc. III, 21: vici, et sedi in throno patris, per quem intelligitur iudiciaria potestas. Ps. IX, 4: sedens super thronum, qui iudicas iustitiam. Augustinus, de verbis domini: sedebit iudex, qui stetit sub iudice, damnabitque reos, qui falso reus factus 232. – For three things are required for passing judgment: first, the power to coerce subjects: ‘Seek not to be made a judge, unless you have strength enough to extirpate iniquities’ (Sir. 7:6). And this belongs to Christ: ‘All power is given me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18). Secondly, zeal for the right is required, in order that judgment be pronounced not from hatred or spite, but from love of justice: ‘Whom the Lord loves he chastises; and as a father in the son he pleases himself’ (Pr. 3:12). This love of justice is especially evident in Christ: ‘And justice shall be the girdle of his loins’ (Is. 11:5). Thirdly, there is required wisdom, according to which a judgment is formed: ‘A wise man shall judge his people’ (Sir. 10:1). But Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Now this power to judge belongs to Christ as man: ‘He gave him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man’ (Jn. 5:27), not, of course, because of the condition of the nature, according to Augustine, because then all men would have such power, but because of the capital grace, which Christ received in His human nature. But this power to judge belongs to Christ according to His human nature for three reasons: first, by reason of His affinity to men. For just as God works through intermediate causes, as being closer to their effects, so He judges through a man in order that the judgment may be gentler. For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, as has been said. Secondly, because in the final judgment, as Augustine says, there will be a resurrection of dead bodies, which God quickens through the Son of man, just as through the same Christ He quickens souls, inasmuch as He is the Son of God. Thirdly, because, as Augustine says in the book, The Words of the Lord, it was proper that those to be judged should see their judge. But the good and the wicked are to be judged. Therefore, in the judgment the form of man will be visible to the good and the wicked, the form of God being reserved for the good. But this power suits Christ both on account of His divine personality, on account of His dignity as head, and on account of the fullness of His sanctifying grace. Furthermore, He obtained it by His merits. hence, it was fitting that according to God’s justice the judge should be one who fought for God’s justice and overcame; and that the one unjustly judged should condemn the guilty: ‘I have overcome and I am set down with my Father on his throne’ (Rev. 3:21); ‘You have sat on the throne who judge justice’ (Ps. 9:5); ‘The judge will sit who stood before a judge, and He will condemn the guilty who was falsely judged guilty’ (Augustine, The Words of the Lord).
4-3
Heb 4:14-16Supra apostolus monuit ad festinandum ingredi in requiem Dei, et ad hoc inducendum posuit magnitudinem Christi quantum ad divinam naturam, hic ostendit idem quantum ad humanam naturam, et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim ponit eius dignitatem; secundo ostendit eius pietatem, ibi non enim habemus; tertio inducit ad habendum de eo fiduciam, ibi adeamus. 233. – Having exhorted them to hasten to enter into God’s rest, and as an inducement citing Christ’s greatness according to His divine nature, the Apostle here does the same in regard to His human nature. He does three things: first, he states His dignity; secondly, he shows his piety (v. 15); thirdly, he urges us to have confidence in Him (v. 16). Dicit ergo: ita dictum est, quod nobis est sermo ad eum, qui est vivus sermo, verus iudex et pontifex, ergo habentes pontificem magnum. Ps. CIX, 5: tu es sacerdos in aeternum, et cetera. Nec tantum pontifex, sed etiam magnus. Zach. III, 1: et ostendit mihi dominus Iesum sacerdotem magnum, stantem coram Angelo, et cetera. Hic autem dicitur magnus, quia non est pontifex tantum bonorum temporalium, sed et futurorum. Infra IX, 11: Christus assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum, et cetera. Duo autem pertinebant ad magnum pontificem: unum quo ad officium, scilicet semel in anno cum sanguine intrare in sancta sanctorum, sicut habetur infra IX, 7, et Lev. XVI, v. 2 s. Hoc autem praecipue convenit Christo. Ille enim intrat cum sanguine in sancta figuralia; sed Christus per proprium sanguinem intravit in sancta, id est, sacra caelestia. Et ideo dicit qui penetravit caelos, id est, propria virtute penitus intravit. Secundum est quod debebat esse ex certa tribu, scilicet de stirpe Aaron, sicut dicitur Ex. XXIX, et Num. XVI et XVII. Hoc autem competit Christo, qui est nobilioris originis: unde dicitur filius Dei. Matth. III, 17: hic est filius meus dilectus. Ps. II, 7: filius meus es tu, et cetera. Quia ergo habemus hunc pontificem, teneamus confessionem, id est, inhaereamus corde, quia, ut dicitur Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Hanc autem confessionem requirit a nobis Christus pontifex maximus. Matth. X, 32: qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus, et cetera. Sed dicit spei nostrae, quod dupliciter potest intelligi: uno modo, quod confessio prout hic sumitur, sit confessio fidei. Fides autem est principium spei, sicut habetur ex Glossa. Matth. I, 2: Abraham autem genuit Isaac, id est, fides genuit spem, non quidem quantum ad habitum, sed quantum ad ordinem actus. Nullus enim potest sperare, nec debet, nisi quod potest consequi. Quod autem possimus consequi aeterna, habemus per fidem. Vel confessionem spei, id est, eius de quo speramus, scilicet videre primam veritatem. 234. – He says, therefore: Thus we have said that we can speak to Him, Who is the living Word, the true judge and the high priest, Since we have a great high priest: ‘You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedech’ (Ps. 104:4). Nor is He just a high priest, but He is a great one: ‘and the Lord showed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord’ (Zech 3:1) But He is called great, because He is not a high priest of temporal goods only, but of goods to come: ‘but Christ being come a high priest of the good things to come’ (below 9:11). Now two things pertained to a great high priest: one was his office, namely, to enter once a year with blood into the Holy of Holies. But this befits Christ in a special way: for the one enters with blood into a figurative Holy of Holies; but Christ through His own blood entered into the heavenly holy of holies. Hence, he says, ‘who has passed through the heavens’, i.e., He entered by His own power. The second thing is that he should be from a certain tribe, namely, from the stock of Aaron. But this belongs to Christ, Who is of nobler origin; hence, He is called the Son of God: ‘This is my beloved Son’ (Mt. 3:17); ‘You are my son; this day have I begotten you’ (Ps. 2:7). Therefore, because we have this high priest, let us hold fast our confession, i.e., let us cling with all our heart, because, as it says in Rom. (10:10): ‘With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.’ But Christ, the greatest high priest, demands this confession: ‘Everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 10:32). But he says, our confession. This can be understood in two ways: in one way, that the confession, as taken here, is a confession of faith. But faith is the source of hope. But Abraham begot Isaac, i.e., faith begot hope, not as a habit but at to its order to the act. For no one can hope or should hope for anything but what he can obtain. But the fact that we can obtain eternal things is due to faith. Deinde cum dicit non enim habemus pontificem, ne forte credatur, quod non possit aliquid agere praeter id quod exigit eius iustitia, ostendit in ipso etiam esse misericordiam et pietatem, et ista respiciunt miseriam, et hoc praecipue convenit Christo. Unde dicit qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris. Sciendum est autem, quod ly posse aliquando importat non nudam potentiam, sed promptitudinem et aptitudinem Christi ad subveniendum, et hoc quia scit, per experientiam, miseriam nostram, quam, ut Deus, ab aeterno scivit per simplicem notitiam. Ps. CII, 14: misericors est Deus timentibus se, quoniam ipse cognovit figmentum nostrum. 235. – Then when he says, For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our infirmities, he shows that there is mercy and compassion in Him, lest perhaps anyone suppose that He cannot do anything but what His justice requires. Here it should be noted that Christ does not merely have the power, but is most ready to have compassion on our infirmities, because He has experienced our wretchedness, which, as God, He knew form all eternity by simple knowledge: ‘The Lord has compassion on them that fear him: for he knows our frame’ (Ps. 102:13). Unde subdit pro similitudine, scilicet nostri, tentatum. Est autem triplex tentatio. Una quae est a carne, quando scilicet caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, ut dicitur Gal. V, 17. Et ista non est sine peccato, quia, ut dicit Augustinus, nonnullum peccatum est, cum caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, quia hoc est carnem concupiscere. Sed hoc non fuit in Christo. Et ideo dicit absque peccato, id est, absque minimo motu peccati. I Pet. II, 22: qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius. Et ideo dicitur agnus Dei, Io. I, 29. Alia est tentatio ab hoste et a mundo, et hoc dupliciter: vel alliciendo per prospera, vel terrendo per adversa. Et his duobus modis fuit tentatus Christus. Prosperis. Quicquid enim pertinet ad prosperitatem huius vitae, vel pertinet ad concupiscentiam carnis, vel ad concupiscentiam oculorum, vel ad superbiam vitae. De primo enim tentavit eum Diabolus, quando tentavit eum de gula, quae est mater luxuriae. Matth. c. IV, 3: si filius Dei es, dic ut lapides isti panes fiant. Item de inani gloria, cum dicit: mitte te deorsum. Item de concupiscentia oculorum, dicens: haec omnia tibi dabo, et cetera. Lc. IV, 13: consummata omni tentatione, Diabolus recessit ab illo usque ad tempus. Item fuit tentatus per adversa et insidias a Pharisaeis, quia volebant eum capere in sermone, Matth. XXII, 15, item per contumelias, Matth. XXVII, 40: vah, qui destruis templum Dei, etc., item per flagella et tormenta. Excepta ergo tentatione, quae est cum peccato, per omnia similis nobis tentatus est. 236. – Hence, he adds, but as we are, tempted. But there are three kinds of temptation: one is from the flesh, namely, when the flesh lusts against the spirit, as it says in Gal (5:17) and this always involves sin, because, as Augustine says, there is one sin in which the flesh lusts against the spirit. But this was not in Christ; hence, he says, without sin, i.e., without thee slightest movement of sin: ‘Who did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth’ (1 Pt. 2:22). Therefore, He is called the Lamb of God. Another is temptation either by enticing us with prosperity or by terrifying us with adversity. Now Christ was tempted in those ways: for He was enticed by prosperity. For whatever pertains to prosperity in this life, pertains either to the concupiscence of the flesh, to the concupiscence of the eyes, or to the pride of life (1 Jn. 2:16). The devil tempted Him with the first, when he tempted Him to gluttony, which is the mother of lust: ‘If you be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread’ (Mt. 4:3); also to vainglory when he said: ‘All these things will I give you, if falling down you will adore me’ (Mt. 4:9). ‘When all the temptations were over, the devil left him for a time’ (Lk. 4:13). Furthermore, He was tempted by adversity and by the snares laid by the Pharisees, because they wished to ensnare Him in his speech. And by insults: ‘You that destroy the temple of God in three days rebuild it, save your own self’ (Mt. 27:40); and by scourges and torments. Therefore, outside of being tempted without sin, he has been tempted as we are. Dicit autem secundum similitudinem, quod potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo, quod ly secundum denotet causam finalem, quasi dicat: ideo tentatus est, ut daret nobis exemplum, ut secundum similitudinem eius, tentationem sustineremus et omnia conaremur vincere. I Pet. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, et cetera. Vel potest denotare consequentiam, quasi dicat: ideo tentatus est, ut per omnia tam in temporalibus quam in omnibus aliis, nisi in solo peccato, similis esset nobis. Si enim fuisset sine tentationibus, non fuisset eas expertus, et sic non compateretur. Si vero habuisset peccatum, non potuisset nos iuvare, sed magis indiguisset adiutorio. 237. – He says, as we are, which can be explained in two ways: in one way, so that a final cause is designated. As if to say: He was tempted in order to give us an example how to handle temptation: ‘Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps’ (1 Pt. 2:21). Or so that the consequent is denoted: as if to say: He was tempted in order that He might be like as we are in all things, except sin. For if he had existed without temptations, He would not have experienced them, and then He could not have compassion. But if He had sinned, He would not have been able to help us, but would need help. Deinde cum dicit adeamus ergo cum fiducia, etc., inducit ad habendam fiduciam de ipso, quasi dicat: ex quo sic potest compati, adeamus cum fiducia. Is. XII, v. 2: ecce Deus salvator meus, fiducialiter agam, et cetera. Adeamus dico ad thronum. Thronus dicitur sedes regis: Christus autem rex est. Ier. c. XXIII, 5: regnabit rex et sapiens erit, et cetera. Hic autem thronus duplicem habet statum. Unum iustitiae in futuro. Ps. IX, 4: sedisti super thronum, qui iudicas iustitiam. Hoc erit in futuro. Ps. LXXIV, 2: cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo. Est alius thronus gratiae, de quo hic. Ideo additur gratiae eius, scilicet in praesenti, quando est tempus miserendi. Zach. IV, 7: exaequabit gratiam gratiae. Per gratiam autem Christi liberamur ab omni miseria, quia liberamur a peccato, quod facit miseros populos, Prov. XIV, 34, et ideo dicit ut misericordiam consequamur. Item per gratiam Christi iuvamur ad bona operanda. Et ideo dicit et gratiam inveniamus. Lc. I, 30: invenisti gratiam apud dominum. Et hoc in auxilio opportuno, quo adiuvemur ad bene operandum. Ps. CXX, 2: auxilium meum a domino, istud autem auxilium est per gratiam. I Cor. XV, 10: abundantius illis laboravi, non autem ego, sed gratia Dei mecum. Hoc autem oportet esse congruo tempore, ideo dicit auxilio opportuno. Omni enim negotio tempus et opportunitas. Eccle. c. VIII, 6. Hoc est tempus praesens, quod est tempus miserendi. 238. – Then when he says, Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace, he urges us to have confidence in him. As if to say: Since He can have compassion, let us go with confidence: ‘Behold, God is my savior; I will deal confidently and will not fear’ (Is. 12:2). Let us go, I say, to the throne. The king’s seat is called a throne. But Christ is king: ‘The king will reign and he will be wise’ (Jer. 23:5). But this throne has a twofold state: one, of justice in the future: ‘You have sat on the throne, who judge justice’ (Ps. 9:5). This will occur in the future: ‘When I shall take a time, I will judge justice’ (Ps. 74:3). The other throne is that of grace, which is meant here; hence, he adds, of his grace, namely, in the present, which is the time of mercy: ‘He shall give equal grace to the grace thereof’ (Zech 4:7). But by the grace of Christ we are freed of all misery, because we are freed from sin, which makes people wretched; hence, he says, that we may obtain mercy. Furthermore, by the grace of Christ we are aided in doing good; hence he says, and find grace; ‘You have found grace with God’ (Lk. 1:30); and this to help in time of need, i.e., to do good: ‘My help is from the Lord’ (Ps. 120:2). But that help comes through grace: ‘I have labored more abundantly than all they’ (1 Cor. 15:10). But this should come at a seasonable time; hence, he says, in time of need: ‘There is a time and opportunity for every business’ (Ec. 8:6). This is the present time, which is the time of mercy.
5-1
Heb 5:1-7Sicut a principio huius epistolae dictum fuit, intentio apostoli est ostendere Christum excellentiorem esse omnibus his ex quibus lex habet auctoritatem, scilicet Angelis, quorum ministerio data fuit, Gal. III, 19: ordinata per Angelos, et Moyse, qui fuit legislator, Io. I, 17: lex per Moysen data est, et sacerdotio et pontificatu Aaron, per quem lex administratur. Expeditis ergo duobus primis, hic prosequitur de tertio, scilicet de eminentia sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium Aaron. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit Christum esse pontificem; secundo ostendit ipsum esse excellentiorem pontifice veteris legis, in VII cap., ibi hic enim Melchisedech. Item in prima parte duo facit. Primo ostendit Christum esse pontificem; secundo praeparat aures auditorum ad consequentia, ibi de quo nobis grandis. Adhuc circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quae requirantur ad pontificem; secundo ostendit illa convenire Christo, et sic concludit ipsum esse pontificem, ibi sic et Christus non semetipsum, et cetera. Item in prima parte tria facit. Primo describit pontificale officium; secundo ostendit pietatem quae pontifici necessaria est, ibi qui condolere; tertio ostendit modum perveniendi ad pontificatum, ibi nec quisquam sumit. 239. – As we have said at the beginning of this epistle, the Apostle’s intention is to show that Christ is more excellent than all those from whom the Law derives authority, namely, the angels, by whose ministry it was given: ‘Being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator’ (Gal. 3:19), and Moses, who was the law-giver: ‘The law was given by Moses’ (Jn. 1:17) and the priesthood and high priesthood of Aaron, by whom the Law was administered. Having finished the first two he now deals with the third, namely, the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of Aaron. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that Christ is a high priest; secondly, that He is more excellent than the high priest of the Old Law (chap. 7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that Christ is a high priest; secondly, he prepares his hearers for what follows (v. 11). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows what is required of a high priest; secondly, that these are found in Christ, and concludes that He is a high priest (v. 5). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes the high priest’s office; secondly, he shows the compassion necessary in a high priest (v. 2); thirdly, he shows the way of attaining the high priesthood (v. 4). Circa officium quatuor ponit. Primo gradus altitudinem, ibi ex hominibus assumptus; secundo pontificatus utilitatem, ibi pro hominibus; tertio materiam, ibi in his quae ad Deum; quarto ad actum, ibi ut offerat dona. 240. – Regarding the office he mentions four things: first, the loftiness of this office: chosen from among men; secondly, its usefulness: appointed to act on behalf of men; thirdly, the material: in relation to God; fourthly, the action: to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Istud autem officium convenit homini, non Angelo. Et ideo dicit, quod ita dictum est, quod habemus pontificem magnum, et talis est Christus. Namque, pro quia, omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, et sic debet etiam esse de numero hominum. Voluit autem Deus, ut homo habeat similem sui, ad quem currat. Unde et Ecclesia ordinavit, quod quando utilis invenitur aliquis de collegio, non eligatur extraneus. Os. II, 15: dabo eis vinitores ex eodem loco. Deut. XVII, 15: eum constitues quem dominus Deus tuus elegerit de numero fratrum tuorum. Non poteris alterius gentis hominem regem facere, qui non sit frater tuus. Dicit autem assumptus, quia debet alios excellere, sicut patet de Saule, I Reg. X, 23. Et ideo Christus, Io. ult., interrogat Petrum quem volebat praeficere, si diligeret ipsum plus aliis. 241. – He says, therefore: This office suits a man, but not an angel. Hence, he says that we have a great high priest and He is Christ: For every high priest chosen from among men, ought to be a man. But God willed that man have someone like himself to whom he might run. Hence, the Church, too, has ordained that when someone from the college is found useful, a foreigner should not be chosen: ‘I will give her vine-dressers out of the same place’ (Hos. 2:15); ‘You shall set him whom the Lord, your God, shall choose out of the number of your brethren. You may not make a man of another nation king that is not your brother’ (Dt. 17:15). But he is chosen from, because he should excel the others, as Saul did (1 Sam. 10:23). Accordingly, Christ asks Peter, whom He wished to set over the others, if he loved Him more than the others (Jn. 21:15). Finis et utilitas est quia pro hominibus constituitur, id est, pro ipsorum utilitate. Non enim constituitur propter gloriam, non propter cumulandas divitias, nec propter consanguineos ditandos. II Cor. IV, 5: nos autem servos vestros per Iesum; et ult.: secundum potestatem, quam Deus dedit mihi in aedificationem, et non in destructionem. Si vero aliquis quaerit quod suum est, non est pastor, sed mercenarius. 242. – The end and utility is that he is appointed to act on behalf of men, i.e., for their benefit. He is not appointed for glory or for accumulating riches or for enriching his family: ‘And ourselves, your servants through Jesus’ (2 Cor. 4:5); ‘According to the power which the Lord has given me unto edification and not unto destruction’ (2 Cor. 13:10). But if he seeks his own, he is not a shepherd, but a hireling. Materia dignitatis est quia pontifex principatur. Nam sicut principatur dux vel rector in civitate, ita iste pontifex in his quae ad Deum, supple: ordinantur. Ex. IV, 16: tu eris ei in his, quae ad Deum pertinent, et cetera. II Cor. X, 4: arma militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia, et cetera. Sicut ergo illa quae pertinent ad Dei cultum excedunt temporalia, ita dignitas pontificalis excedit omnes alias dignitates. Non ergo pontifices debent se implicari negotiis saecularibus, praetermissis his, quae sunt ad Deum. II Tim. II, 4: nemo militans Deo, et cetera. 243. – The nature of the dignity is that the high priest is set over the others. For just as a leader or ruler is set over a city, so the high priest in the things that appertain to God: ‘You shall be to him in things that pertain to God’ (Ex. 4:16); ‘for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications’ (2 Cor. 10:4). Therefore, just as the things which pertain to the worship of God transcend temporal things, so the pontifical dignity exceeds all other dignities. Therefore, high priests should not entangle themselves with secular business and neglect the things that pertain to God: ‘No man being a soldier to Christ entangles himself with secular businesses’ (2 Tim. 2:4). Actus pontificis est, ut offerat dona, id est, voluntarie oblata, non extorta. Ex. XXV, 2: ab omni homine, qui offert ultroneus, accipietis. Et sacrificia pro peccatis, id est, quae sibi offeruntur pro satisfactione peccatorum. Lev. IV, 26: pro eis rogabit sacerdos, et pro peccatis eius, et dimittentur ei. In quo designatur, quod omne quod offertur, sive voluntarium et votivum, sive pro satisfactione, debet offerri secundum dispositionem praelati. 244. – The act of the high priest is to offer gifts, i.e., voluntary oblations, not extorted: ‘Of every man that offers of his own accord, you shall take them’ (Ex. 25:2) and sacrifices for sins, i.e., which are offered to him to satisfy for sins: ‘The priest shall pray for him and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him’ (Lev 4:26). This indicates that everything offered, whether voluntary of under vow or for satisfaction, shall be offered according to the disposition of the prelate. Consequenter cum dicit qui condolere, ostendit quid requiratur ad usum, scilicet pietas. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit, quod ad usum pontificis requiritur misericordia et pietas; secundo ostendit, quod requiritur misericordiae motivum, ibi quoniam et ipse; tertio ostendit misericordiae signum, ibi et propterea. 245. – Then (v. 2) he shows what is required in the exercise of the high priesthood, namely, pity. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows that for the exercise of the high priesthood mercy and compassion are required; secondly, a merciful motive (v. 2b); thirdly, the sign of mercy (v. 3). Dicit ergo: dico, quod debet esse in his, quae sunt ad Deum, tamen debet esse medius inter hominem et Deum. Deut. V, 5: ego medius et sequester fui dominum et vos. Sicut ergo per devotionem orationis debet tangere Deum tamquam unum extremum, sic per misericordiam et compassionem debet tangere alterum extremum, scilicet hominem. Et ideo dicit qui condolere possit. II Cor. XI, 29: quis infirmatur et ego non infirmor? E contrario, Am. VI, 6: nihil patiebantur super contritione Ioseph. Duplex est autem defectus. Quidam enim deficiunt ex ignorantia. Et ideo dicit his qui ignorant. Est autem proprie ignorare, carere scientia eorum quae quis debet scire. Quidam vero ex certa scientia. Et quantum ad hoc dicit et errant. 246. – He says therefore: I say that he must be in the things that appertain to God; yet he should be mediator between man and God: ‘I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time’ (Dt. 5:5). Therefore, just as he should by the devotion of prayer reach God as one extreme, so by mercy and compassion he should reach man, the other extreme. Hence, he says: who can have compassion on the ignorant and wayward: ‘Who is weak and I am not weak?’ (2 Cor. 11:29). On the other hand: ‘They are not concerned for the affliction of Joseph’ (Am 6:6). But defects are of two kinds: some fail from ignorance; hence, he says, on the ignorant. But to be ignorant is, properly speaking, to lack knowledge of things one ought to know. Others fall from certain knowledge, and in regard to this he says, and are wayward, i.e., err. Motivum pietatis ponit, cum dicit quoniam et ipse, et cetera. Istud motivum est infirmitas. Et illi qui praesunt aliquando infirmantur. II Cor. IV, 7: habemus thesaurum istum in vasis fictilibus. Et ratio huius est, ut ex se aliorum infirmitatibus compatiantur: et ideo dominus permisit cadere Petrum. Eccli. XXXI, 18: intellige quae sunt proximi tui ex teipso. Et ideo dicit quoniam et ipse circumdatus est infirmitate, scilicet quantum ad poenalitates et culpam. Ps. VI, 2: miserere mei, Deus, quoniam infirmus sum. Sap. c. IX, 5: homo infirmus, et exigui temporis, et cetera. Et nota quod dicit circumdatus. Carnales enim habent infirmitatem peccati in interioribus. Ratio enim et voluntas in ipsis subditae sunt peccato. Sancti vero habent in exterioribus, quia non sunt subiecti peccato, tamen sunt circumdati fragilitate carnis. Rom. VII, v. 25: mente servio legi Dei, carne autem legi peccati. 247. – The motive for mercy is mentioned when he says, became he himself is beset with infirmity. That motive is infirmity, and those who are sometimes infirm: ‘But we have this treasure in earthen vessels’ (2 Cor. 4:7). The reason for this is that he may have compassion on the infirmities of others. This is the reason why the Lord permitted Peter to fall: ‘Judge of the disposition of your neighbor by yourself’ (Sir. 31:18). Therefore, he says, because he himself is beset with infirmity, namely, as to penalties and guilt: ‘Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak’ (Ps. 6:3); ‘for I am a weak man and of short time and falling short of the understanding of judgment and laws’ (Wis. 9:5). And note that he says, beset. For carnal men have the weakness of sin within themselves, because they are not subject to sin; and they are also beset by the weakness of the flesh: ‘Therefore, I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin’ (Rom. 7:25). Signum autem huius est, quia et in veteri lege, sicut patet Lev. IX, 7 et XVI, v. 6, et etiam modo, sicut patet in canone Missae, cum dicitur nobis quoque peccatoribus, statutum est, quod sacerdos offerat etiam pro se, quod non fieret nisi esset infirmitas peccatorum, quibus est circumdatus, non oppressus. Si enim sit in mortali peccato, non debet celebrare. Et ideo dicit propterea debet, quemadmodum pro populo, etiam pro semetipso offerre pro peccatis. 248. – But the sign of this is that even in the Old Law (Lev 9), as well as now, as is clear from the canon of the Mass: ‘And to us sinners’, it has been decreed that the priest offer also for himself, which he would not do, unless he were oppressed by the weakness of sins, with which he is beset. Indeed, if he is in mortal sin, he should not celebrate. And therefore, he says: Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. Consequenter ponit modum perveniendi ad pontificatum, cum dicit nec quisquam. Hoc est enim contra naturam, quod aliquid perducat se ad statum altiorem sua natura, sicut aer non facit seipsum ignem, sed fit a superiore. Unde disciplina Dei non habet, quod quisquam sibi sumat honorem favore, pecunia, potentia. Am. VI, 14: in fortitudine enim nostra assumpsimus nobis cornua. Os. VIII, 4: ipsi regnaverunt, et non ex me. Sed debet vocari a Deo sicut Aaron. Ex. XXVIII, 1: applica ad te Aaron. Et ideo dominus confirmavit sacerdotium eius, sicut patet Num. XVII, 5 ss., per virgam quae floruit. Tales ergo debent assumi, qui non se ingerunt. Unde antiquitus signo visibili ostendebantur, sicut patet de beato Nicolao, et multis aliis. r omnibus, sed illis tantum, qui crediderunt. Et multi postea conversi sunt. 249. – Then he describes how one goes about attaining to the priesthood when he says, And one does not take the honor upon himself. For it is contrary to nature for anything to raise itself to a higher state than its nature, as air does not make itself fire, but is made so by something higher. Hence, God’s discipline does not allow anyone to take the honor to himself, by favor, money, or power: ‘Have we not taken unto us honors by our own strength?’ (Am 6:14); They have reigned, but not by me’ (Hos 8:4), but is called by God, as Aaron was. Therefore, the Lord confirmed his priesthood with a rod which flowered. Hence, those should be accepted who do not impose themselves. Hence, in olden times they were indicated by a visible sign, as was St. Nicholas and many others. Consequenter cum dicit sic et Christus, etc., ostendit quomodo Christus sit pontifex. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit, quomodo dicta conveniunt Christo; secundo ex hoc concludit intentum, ibi appellatus est a Deo, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim ostendit, quod Christus factus est pontifex non a se, sed a Deo; secundo agit de ipsius officio, ibi qui in diebus carnis; tertio de ipsius misericordia, ibi et quidem cum esset. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo ostendit, quod Christus non promovit seipsum; secundo ostendit a quo sit promotus, ibi sed qui locutus. 250. – Then (v. 5) he shows how Christ is high priest. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the aforesaid belongs to Christ; secondly, from this he draws a conclusion (v. 10). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows that Christ was made a high priest not by Himself but by God; secondly, he treats of His office (v. 7); thirdly, of his mercy (v. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that Christ did not promote himself; secondly, by whom He was promoted (v. 5b). Dicit ergo Christus non semetipsum clarificavit. Circa quod sciendum est, quod non dicit: non fecit seipsum pontificem, sed dicit non clarificavit, et cetera. Sunt enim quidam qui se clarificant, ut fiant, sicut hypocritae, qui demonstrant in se aliqua, ut eligantur, vel praebendas consequantur; nullus tamen facit se pontificem: Christus vero non solum non fecit se pontificem, sed nec se clarificavit ut pontifex fieret. Io. VIII, 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero, et paulo post sequitur: est pater meus qui glorificat me. Et hoc est verum, inquantum homo, quia inquantum Deus habet eamdem gloriam cum patre. 251. – He says, therefore: so also Christ did not exalt himself. Here it should be noted that he does not say that He did not make Himself a priest, but that he did not exalt himself to be made a high priest. For there are some who exalt themselves to become a priest, as hypocrites who demonstrate certain qualities, in order to be chosen or to obtain prebends. Yet no one makes himself high priest. But Christ not only did not make Himself high priest, he did not exalt himself to be made high priest: ‘I seek not my own glory; there is one that seeks and judges’ (Jn. 8:50), and later: ‘It is my Father that glorifies me’ (Jn. 8:54). This is true, insofar as He is man, because as God He has the same glory as the Father. Deinde cum dicit sed qui locutus, ostendit, a quo est promotus. Et primo ostendit, a quo est clarificatus; secundo quomodo est pontifex designatus, ibi et in alio loco. Clarificatus autem est divino iudicio, quia, scilicet dominus, locutus est ad ipsum, in Ps. II, 7, filius meus es tu, et cetera. Et hoc est expositum supra. Item Matth. IX, 17: hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui, et cetera. Cum ergo ostendit eum ab aeterno genitum, ostendit gloriam eius. Supra I, 3: qui cum sit splendor gloriae, et cetera. Pontificatus etiam accipitur a Deo inquantum homo, quemadmodum in alio loco dicit, scilicet in Ps. CIX, 5: tu es sacerdos, et cetera. Utitur autem apostolus auctoritate Psalmorum tamquam magis famosa et maioris auctoritatis, utpote magis frequentata. Dicit autem sacerdos, quia se obtulit Deo patri. Eph. V, 2: dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo. Et ne credatur tale esse sacerdotium Christi, sicut fuit in veteri lege, distinguit ipsum quantum ad duo. Primo quantum ad dignitatem, quia in aeternum. Illud enim fuit temporale, erat enim figurale, et ideo non est perpetuum, sed transit veniente figurato. Sed sacerdotium Christi est aeternum, quia est de veritate, quae est aeterna. Item hostia eius habet virtutem introducendi in vitam aeternam. Item durat in aeternum. Secundo quantum ad ritum, quia offerebantur animalia; hic autem panis et vinum. Et ideo dicit secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Istud autem infra exponetur. 252. – Then (v. 5b) he shows by whom he was promoted. First, he shows by Whom He was glorified; secondly, how He was appointed high priest (v. 8b). But He was glorified by the divine judgment, because the Lord spoke to Him in Ps. 2 (v. 7): ‘You are my son: This day I have begotten you’, and in Mt. (3:17): ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’ Therefore, when He shows Him begotten from eternity, He shows His glory: ‘Who, being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance’ (above 1:3). As man He also receives the high priesthood from God: as he says also in another place: ‘You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedech’. But the Apostle uses the authority of the Palms as being more famous and more often consulted. He says, priest, because He offered Himself to God the Father: ‘He loved us and gave himself for us an oblation and offering to God’ (Eph. 5:2). But lest anyone suppose the priesthood of Christ is that of the Old Law, he distinguishes the former on two points: first, its authority, because it is for ever, whereas the other was temporary and passed away with the coming of the One prefigured. Likewise, its victim has the power to bring one to eternal life, and it lasts for every. Secondly, its ritual, because animals were offered in the one, but bread and wine here; hence, he says, according to the order of Melchizedech. >Deinde cum dicit qui in diebus, etc., ostendit quod illud quod pertinet ad officium pontificale, convenit Christo. Et primo ostendit eius conditionem; secundo actum eius, ibi preces; tertio efficaciam, ibi cum clamore valido. 253. – Then (v. 7) he shows that what pertains to the priestly office belongs to Christ: first, he shows his condition; secondly, His act (v. 7b); thirdly, His efficacy (v. 7c). Conditio eius est, quod fuit unus ex hominibus, quia, ut dictum est, pontifex ex hominibus assumitur. Et ideo dicit qui in diebus carnis suae. Ponitur autem hic caro pro tota natura humana, sicut illud Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est. Sed numquid modo non sunt dies carnis eius? Et videtur quod sic, per illud Lc. ult.: spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Quare ergo magis dicitur tempus ante passionem et resurrectionem suam, tempus vel dies carnis, quam nunc? Dicendum est, quod caro quandoque sumitur pro fragilitate carnis, sicut I Cor. XV, 50: caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt. Christus autem tunc habuit carnem fragilem et corruptibilem. Et ideo dicit in diebus carnis suae, id est, in quibus gerebat carnem similem peccatrici, non peccatricem. 254. – His condition was that He was taken from men, because, as has been stated, a high priest is taken from among men. Therefore, he says, who in the days of his flesh. Here flesh is taken for the entire human nature: ‘The Word was made flesh’ (Jn. 1:14). But are the days of His flesh no longer here? It seems that they are, for it says in Luke (24:39): ‘A spirit has not flesh and bone, as you see me to have.’ Why, then, is the time before His Passion and resurrection considered the time of his flesh more than now? I answer that flesh stands for the weakness of the flesh, as in 1 Cor. (15:50): ‘Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God.’ But before the Passion Christ had weak and corruptible flesh. Therefore, he says, in the days of his flesh, i.e., in which He wore flesh similar to the sinner, but not sinful. Actus autem eius fuit, quia obtulit preces et supplicationes. Hoc est spirituale sacrificium, quod Christus obtulit. Dicuntur autem preces, id est, petitiones. Iac. ult.: multum enim valet deprecatio iusti assidua. Supplicationes vero dicuntur quantum ad humilitatem orantis, sicut genuflexiones. Matth. XXVI, 39: procidit in faciem suam orans. Ad quem? Ad Deum, scilicet Deum patrem, qui salvum illum facere posset a morte. Hoc autem poterat facere dupliciter. Uno modo ne moreretur. Unde dicitur Matth. XXVI, 39: pater, si fieri potest, et cetera. Item ut mortuum resuscitaret. Ps. XV, 10: non derelinques in Inferno animam meam. Item XL, 10: tu autem, domine, miserere mei, et resuscita me. Ad istud sacrificium spirituale ordinatur sacerdotium Christi. Unde respondet ei quod dictum est supra ut offerat dona, et cetera. Ps. XLIX, 23: sacrificium laudis honorificabit me. Os. XIV, 3: reddemus vitulos labiorum nostrorum. 255. – His act was to offer prayers and supplications, which is the spiritual sacrifice Christ offered. But they are called prayers, i.e., petitions: ‘The continual prayer of a just man avails much’ (Jas. 5:16). They are also called supplications on account of the humility of the one praying: ‘He fell upon his face, praying’ (Mt. 26:39). To whom? To God the Father, who was able to save him from death. He was able to do this in two ways: in one way, by saving Him from death: ‘Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will’ (Mt. 26:39). In another way, by raising Him up: ‘Because you will not leave my soul in hell’ (Ps. 15:10); and again: ‘But you, O Lord, have mercy on me and raise me up again’ (Ps. 40:11). The priesthood of Christ is ordained to that spiritual sacrifice: hence, He was appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins: ‘The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me’ (Ps. 49:23); ‘We will render the calves of our lips’ (Hos 14:3). Efficacia ostenditur ex modo orandi. Duo autem sunt necessaria oranti, scilicet fervens affectio; item dolor et gemitus. De his duobus Ps. XXXVII, 9: domine, ante te omne desiderium meum, quantum ad primum: et gemitus meus a te non est absconditus, quantum ad secundum. Christus autem ista duo habuit; ideo propter primum dicit cum clamore valido, id est, cum intentione efficacissima. Lc. XXII, 43: factus in agonia prolixius orabat, et cetera. Et c. XXIII, 46 clamans ait: pater, et cetera. Secundum, cum dicit et lacrymis. Per lacrymas enim exprimit apostolus interiorem gemitum orantis. Hoc autem non legitur in Evangelio; sed probabile est, quod sicut ipse lacrymatus est in resuscitatione Lazari, ita et in passione sua. Nam ipse multa fecit, quae non sunt scripta. Non tamen flevit pro se, sed pro nobis, quibus passio sua profuit. Sibi autem profuit, inquantum per ipsam meruit exaltari. Phil. II, 9: propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et cetera. Et ideo exauditus est pro sua reverentia, quam scilicet super omnes habebat ad Deum. Is. XI, 3: et replebit eum spiritus timoris domini. 256. – His efficacy is shown by the way He prays. But two things are necessary in one who prays, namely, fervent love along with pain and groans. These are mentioned in Ps. 37 (v. 10): ‘Lord, all my desire is before you, as to the first, and my groaning is not hidden from you’, as to the second. But Christ had these two. Therefore, in regard to the first he says, with loud cries, i.e., with a most efficacious intention: ‘And being in an agony, he prayed the longer’ (Lk. 22:43). Again, in Luke (23:46): ‘and crying with a loud voice, he said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’ Because of the second he says, and tears: for by tears the Apostle means the internal groans of the one praying. But this is not mentioned in the Gospel; but it is probably that just as He wept at the resurrection of Lazarus, so also during His Passion. For He did many things that are not written. But He did not weep for Himself, but for us whom the Passion was to benefit: although it did benefit Him, inasmuch as He merited exaltation by it: ‘For which cause God has exalted him and given Him a name which is above every name’ (Phil. 2:9). Therefore, he was heard for his godly fear, which He had toward God: ‘And he filled him with the spirit of the fear of the Lord’ (Is. 11:3). Sed contra, videtur quod non fuit exauditus, primo pro se, quia non transivit calix ab ipso, quod tamen petebat. Item nec pro aliis, quia non fuit indultum Iudaeis, quibus petebat indulgeri. Lc. XXIII, 34: pater, dimitte illis, et cetera. Dicendum est, quod Christus in omnibus, quae voluit fieri, fuit exauditus. Ipse autem secundum appetitum sensualitatis et secundum voluntatem, inquantum est quidam appetitus naturalis, refugiebat mortem. Et quantum ad hoc orabat, ut ostenderet se verum hominem. Sed voluntate consequente rationem deliberatam, volebat mori. Unde dicit, Lc. XXII, 42: verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu. Item nolebat, quod ignosceretu 257. – Nevertheless, it seems that He was not heard; first, for Himself, because the chalice did not pass from Him; secondly, for the others from whom He begged forgiveness: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Lk. 28:34). I answer that Christ was heard in regard to everything He wished. But it was under the influence of the sensitive appetite and of the will acting as a natural appetite that He shrank from death. It was under these influences that He prayed and thus showed Himself true man. But under the influence of the will informed by reason He willed to die; hence he says: ‘Not at I will, but as your will’ (Mt. 26:39). Furthermore, He did not wish to forgive all of them, but only those who believed; and many were converted later.
5-2
Heb 5:8-14Supra posuit tria, quae pertinent ad pontificem, et ostendit duo illorum convenire Christo, scilicet officium, et modum perveniendi ad ipsum, hic prosequitur tertium, scilicet pietatem et misericordiam, quam pontifex debet habere. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit illud quod passus est; secundo quae utilitas consecuta est etiam aliis, ibi et consummatus. 258. – Having listed three things which pertain to a high priest and showed that two of them were verified, namely, the office and the proper way of attaining it, the Apostle now considers the third thing which a high priest should have, namely, mercy and compassion. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows what He suffered; secondly, what benefits accrued even to others (v. 9). Dicit ergo: ita dixi, quod pontifex debet esse talis, quod possit compati. Talis autem est Christus. Cum enim sit filius Dei ab aeterno, et secundum hoc nec pati posset, nec compati, assumpsit naturam in qua posset pati, et sic etiam posset compati. Et hoc est quod dicit: quia cum esset filius Dei, scilicet ab aeterno, didicit obedientiam ex tempore. Contra. Addiscere est ignorantis; Christus autem ab aeterno, ut Deus, et ab instanti conceptionis suae habuit plenitudinem scientiae, inquantum homo; ergo nihil ignoravit, nec per consequens didicit. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod duplex est scientia: scilicet simplicis notitiae, et quantum ad istam procedit argumentum: quia scilicet nihil ignoravit. Est etiam scientia experientiae, et secundum istam didicit obedientiam. Unde dicit didicit ex iis quae passus est, id est, expertus est. Et loquitur apostolus sic: quia qui didicit aliquid, voluntarie accessit ad illud sciendum. Christus autem voluntarie accepit infirmitatem nostram. Et ideo dicit, quod didicit obedientiam, id est, quam grave sit obedire: quia ipse obedivit in gravissimis et difficillimis: quia usque ad mortem crucis, Phil. II, 8. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni:] Et hic ostendit, quam difficile sit bonum obedientiae. Quia qui non sunt experti obedientiam, et non didicerunt eam in rebus difficilibus, credunt quod obedire sit valde facile. Sed ad hoc quod scias quid sit obedientia, oportet quod discas obedire in rebus difficilibus, et qui non didicit obediendo subesse, numquam novit bene praecipiendo praeesse. Christus ergo licet ab aeterno sciret simplici notitia quid est obedientia, tamen didicit experimento obedientiam ex iis quae passus est, id est, difficilibus, scilicet per passiones et mortem. Rom. V, 19: per obedientiam unius iusti constituti sunt multi. 259. – He says, therefore: I have stated that a high priest should be such as to be able to have compassion. But Christ is such a high priest. For since He is the Son of God from all eternity, and, therefore, could not suffer or have compassion, He assumed a nature in which He would suffer and even have compassion. And this is what He says, namely, although he was a Son from all eternity, He learned obedience from time. But only the ignorant can learn; whereas Christ, being God from all eternity, had fullness of knowledge from the very instant of His conception as man. Therefore, He was not ignorant of anything; consequently, He could not learn. I answer that knowledge is of two sorts: the first is that of simple recognition, according to which the objection is valid, because He was not ignorant of anything. But there is also the knowledge gained by experience, according to which He learned obedience; hence, he says, He learned obedience through what he suffered, i.e., experienced. And the Apostle speaks thus, because one who learns something comes voluntarily to learn it. But Christ accepted our weakness voluntarily; consequently, he says that ‘he learned obedience’, i.e., how difficult it is to obey, because He obeyed in the most difficult matters, even to the death of the cross (Phil. 2:8). This shows how difficult the good of obedience is, because those who have not experienced obedience and have not learned it in difficult matters, believe that obedience is very easy. But in order to know what obedience is, one must learn to obey in difficult matters, and one who has not learned to subject himself by obeying does not know how to rule others well. Therefore, although Christ knew by simple recognition what obedience is, He nevertheless learned obedience from the things He suffered, i.e., from difficult things, by suffering and dying: ‘By the obedience of one many shall be made just’ (Rom. 5:19). Deinde cum dicit et consummatus, etc., ostendit fructum passionis, qui fuit duplex. Unus in Christo, alius in membris eius. In Christo fructus fuit glorificatio, et ideo dicit et consummatus. Nam ab instanti conceptionis suae fuit consummatus perfectus, quantum ad beatitudinem animae, inquantum ferebatur in Deum; sed tamen habuit passibilitatem naturae. Sed post passionem habuit impassibilitatem. Et ideo, quia secundum hoc ex toto perfectus est, convenit sibi alios perficere. Haec est enim natura perfecti, quod possit sibi simile generare. Et ideo dicit quod perfectus est. Quia enim per meritum obedientiae pervenit ad istam consummationem. Prov. XXI, v. 28: vir obediens loquitur victorias factus est omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis, non temporalis, sed aeternae. Is. XLV, v. 17: salvatus est Israel in domino salute aeterna. 260. – Then when he says, and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, he mentions the fruit of His Passion, namely, in Christ and in His members. In Christ the fruit was glorification; hence, he says, and being made perfect, for from the instant of His conception He was perfectly consummated as to the happiness of His soul, inasmuch as it was drawn to God; but he still had a nature that could suffer, although after His Passion He could not suffer. Therefore, because in this respect He was altogether perfect, He could perfect others. For it is the nature of a perfect thing to be able to engender its like. Therefore, he says that He was perfect. For since He arrived at that consummation by the merit of obedience: ‘The obedient man shall speak of victory’ (Pr. 21:28), he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, not temporal salvation but eternal: ‘Israel is saved by the Lord with an eternal salvation (Is. 45:17). Et ideo dicit appellatus a Deo pontifex iuxta ordinem Melchisedech, et hoc est supra expositum. 261. – Therefore he says, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedech. [And that was discussed above.] Deinde cum dicit de quo nobis grandis sermo, etc., praeparat animos auditorum ad sequentia, quae dicenda sunt de pontificatu Christi. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit eorum tarditatem; secundo suam intentionem, cum dicit, VI cap. quapropter intermittentes. Iterum prima in duas, quia primo ostendit tarditatem; secundo ostendit ipsam esse culpabilem, ibi etenim cum deberetis. Item circa primam partem duo facit: primo ostendit dicendorum magnitudinem; secundo ipsorum tarditatem ad ea capienda, ibi quoniam imbecilles. 262. – Then (v. 11) he prepares the souls of his hearers for what is to follow. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows their slowness; secondly, his intention (chap. 6). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the importance of what is to be said; secondly, their slowness to understand (v. 11b). Dicit ergo: ita dixi, quod appellatus est pontifex, de quo, scilicet pontificatu, grandis nobis sermo est, quia de magnis. Prov. VIII, 6: de rebus magnis locutura sum. Item grandis, quia de utili, scilicet de salute animarum. I Tim. I, 15: fidelis sermo et omni acceptione dignus, quia Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. Iste sermo est interpretabilis ad docendum, quod potest dupliciter exponi. Vel quod fiat ibi vis negationis: interpretabilis, id est, non exponibilis, quia non potest ad perfectum exponi. Quae enim ad Christum pertinent nullus sermo exprimere potest. Eccli. XLIII, v. 32 s.: glorificantes dominum quantumcumque potueritis, supervalebit adhuc et admirabilis magnificentia eius: benedicentes dominum, exaltate illum quantum potestis, maior est enim omni laude. Alio modo affirmative: interpretabilis, id est indigens interpretatione propter altitudinem et magnitudinem et profunditatem eius. Prov. I, 6: animadvertet parabolam et interpretationem, et cetera. Interpretatio enim Scripturae numeratur inter dona spiritus sancti, I Cor. XII, 10. 263. – He says, therefore: Thus I have said that He was called a high priest: About this we have much to say: ‘Hear, for I will speak of great things’ (Pr. 8:6). They are great, because they deal with the salvation of souls: ‘A faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners’ (1 Tim. 1:15). About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, meaning that it cannot be perfectly explained, for no words can express the things of Christ: ‘Glorify the Lord as much as you ever can, for he will yet far exceed, and his magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for he is above all praise’ (Sir. 43:32). Or, we have much to say which is hard to explain, i.e., it needs to be interpreted because of its height and magnitude and depth: ‘He shall understand a parable and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their mysterious saying’ (Pr. 1:6). For the interpretation of Scripture is listed among the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10). Indiget etiam, ut dicatur interpretatio eius propter tarditatem nostram. Et ideo subdit ipsam tarditatem, cum dicit quoniam imbecilles facti estis ad audiendum. Illi qui sunt debilis intellectus non possunt alta intelligere, nisi eis exponantur per singula. Io. XVI, 12: adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modo. I Cor. c. III, 1: non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus, et cetera. 264. – It also needs to be interpreted because of our slowness: you have become dull of hearing. Those who are weak of intellect cannot understand profound things, unless they are explained in detail: ‘I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now’ (Jn. 16:12); ‘I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal’ (1 Cor. 3:1). Deinde cum dicit etenim cum deberetis, ostendit istam tarditatem esse culpabilem. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo enim ostendit culpam tarditatis; secundo adhibet similitudinem, ibi et facti estis; tertio exponit, ibi omnis enim qui lactis. 265. – Then (v. 12) he shows that their slowness is culpable. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the sin of slowness; secondly, he applies a simile (v. 12c); thirdly, he explains it (v. 13). Culpa enim alicuius est quando diu audivit, si adhuc sit tardus; secus autem est, si sit novus auditor. Negligentia enim non est sine culpa. Ideo dicit cum deberetis esse magistri, scilicet aliorum, propter tempus, quo scilicet audierant legem et prophetas. Io. V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas, et cetera. Item ipsum Christum. Item apostolos et multos ab ipsis conversos. Io. XIV, 9: tanto tempore, vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me. Rursum indigetis, quasi dicat: magis deberetis docere, quam doceri, tamen indigetis ut vos doceamini quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei. Elementa enim dicuntur illa quae primo traduntur in grammatica, quando ponuntur ad litteras: ista vero sunt ipsae litterae. Exordia ergo sermonum Dei et prima principia et elementa, sunt articuli fidei et praecepta Decalogi. Qui ergo diu studuisset in theologia et illa nesciret, tempus curreret contra ipsum. Ideo dicit indigetis ut doceamini quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei, id est prima principia. II Tim. III, 7: semper discentes, et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes. Is. LXV, 20: puer centum annorum morietur, peccator centum annorum maledictus erit. 266. – For it is a sin, when a person has listened a long time, if he is still slow; but not if he is a recent hearer. For negligence is not without sin; hence, he says, for though by this time you ought to be teachers, namely, of others, for this time during which they had heard the law and the prophets: ‘Search the Scriptures, for you thing in them to have life everlasting’ (Jn. 5:31); and Christ Himself and the apostles and many converted by them: ‘Have I been so long a time with you, and have you not known me?’ (Jn. 14:9), you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. For the principles are the first things taught in grammar, i.e., the letters themselves. Therefore, the beginnings of the words of God, the first principles and elements, are the articles of faith and the precepts of the Decalogue. If a person, therefore, had studied theology a long time and failed to learn these, time would be running against him. Therefore, he says, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’ word, i.e., the elements: ‘Ever learning and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth’ (2 Tim. 3:7); ‘For the child shall die one hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be left accursed’ (Is. 65:20). Deinde cum dicit et facti estis, ponit ad hoc similitudinem. Sciendum est ergo, quod doctrina sacra est sicut cibus animae. Eccli. XV, 3: cibavit illum pane vitae et intellectus. Et XXIV, 29: qui edunt me, adhuc esurient: et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient. Sacra ergo doctrina est cibus et potus, quia animam potat et satiat. Aliae enim scientiae tantum illuminant intellectum, haec autem illuminat animam. Ps. XVIII, 8: praeceptum domini lucidum illuminans oculos. Et etiam nutrit et roborat animam. In cibo autem corporali est differentia. Alio enim cibo utuntur pueri, et alio perfecti. Pueri enim utuntur lacte, quasi magis tenui et connaturali, et de facili convertibili, sed adulti utuntur cibo solidiori. Sic in sacra Scriptura, illi qui de novo incipiunt, debent audire levia, quae sunt quasi lac; sed eruditi debent audire fortiora. Et ideo dicit facti estis quibus lacte opus sit, scilicet sicut pueri. I Petr. c. II, 2: sicut modo geniti infantes rationabile sine dolo lac concupiscite, et cetera. I Cor. III, v. 1 s.: tamquam parvulis in Christo lac vobis potum dedi, non escam, et hoc est, quod sequitur non solido cibo, id est alta doctrina, quae est de arcanis et secretis Dei, quae confirmant et confortant. 267. – Then (v. 12b) he describes their situation with a smile. Therefore, it should be noted that sacred doctrine is, as it were, the food of the soul: ‘With the bread of life and understanding she shall feed him’ (Sir. 15:3) and in (24:29): ‘They that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst.’ Sacred doctrine, therefore, is food and drink, because it nourishes the soul. For the other sciences only enlighten the soul, but this one enlightens: ‘The commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes’ (Ps. 18:9) and nourishes and strengthens the soul. But in bodily food there is a difference: for children make use of one food and the perfect of another. For children use milk as being thinner and more connatural and easily digestible; but adults use more solid food. So in Sacred Scripture, those who are beginners should listen to easy things, which are like milk; but the learned should hear more difficult things. Therefore, he says, you need milk, namely, as children: ‘As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grown unto salvation’ (1 Pt. 2:2); ‘I give you milk to drink, not meat’ (1 Cor. 3:2). And this is what follows, and not solid food, i.e., lofty doctrine, which is concerned with the mysteries and secrets of God, which strengthen and confirm. Deinde cum dicit omnis enim qui lactis, exponit similitudinem, et primo exponit illud quod dixit de lacte; secundo illud quod dixit de solido cibo, ibi perfectorum autem. Circa primum duo facit; primo enim ponit expositionem; secundo expositionis rationem, ibi parvulus enim. 268. – Then (v. 13) he explains the simile: first he explains what he said about milk; secondly, about solid food: (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the explanation; secondly, the reason behind the explanation (v. 13b). Dicit ergo: ita dico, quod indigetis lacte sicut pueri, omnis enim qui lactis est particeps, expers est sermonis iustitiae, id est omnis, qui indiget nutriri lacte, expers est, id est non potest habere partem in sermonibus iustitiae perfecte intelligendis. Matth. c. V, 20: nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plusquam Scribarum. Prov. XV, 5: in abundanti iustitia virtus maxima est. Huiusmodi autem non sunt participes pueri. Is. XXVIII, 9: quem docebit scientiam, aut quem intelligere faciet auditum? Ablactatos a lacte, avulsos ab uberibus. 269. – He says, therefore: So I say that you need milk as little children: for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, i.e., everyone that must be nourished with milk is unskillful, i.e., cannot have part in understanding the words of justice perfectly: ‘unless your justice about more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:20); ‘In abundant justice there is the greatest strength’ (Pr. 15:55). But children are not partakers of such things: ‘Whom shall he teach knowledge’ and whom shall he make to understand the hearing? Them that are weaned from the milk, that are drawn away from the breasts’ (Is. 28:9). Sed contra: quia apostolus superius multa valde difficilia tradidit eis, scilicet de mysterio Trinitatis et de sacramento incarnationis, et multa alia ardua: ergo vel non erant parvuli, vel talia tradenda sunt parvulis. Respondeo. Dicendum est secundum Augustinum, quod non est intelligendum, quod in doctrina fidei alia sunt tradenda maioribus et perfectis, et alia imperfectis. Non enim est inter eos ista differentia. Eadem enim utrisque sunt tradenda, sed parvulis proponenda sunt, sed non exponenda, nec pertractanda: quia intellectus eorum magis deficeret, quam elevaretur. 270. – But the Apostle had delivered many difficult things to them, namely, the mystery of the Trinity and the sacrament of the Incarnation, and many other lofty things. Therefore, either they were not children, or such things ought not have been delivered to children. I answer, according to Augustine, that in the teachings of faith we should not suppose that some things are taught to the perfect and other things to the imperfect, for there is not such a difference between them: for the same things should be delivered to both. But they should be merely proposed to little ones and not explained or enlarged upon, because their minds would falter instead of being elevated. Lac secundum Glossam est, sicut: verbum caro factum est. Contra. Non minoris difficultatis est hoc intelligere, quam quomodo verbum erat apud Deum. Unde Augustinus dicit, quod istud invenitur in libris Platonis, non tamen illud. Ipse autem Augustinus non poterat suspicari quid sacramenti haberet: verbum caro factum est. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod cognoscere verbum caro factum est, per simplicem fidem est satis facile, quia potest cadere in imaginationem et aliqualiter in sensum, sed verbum apud Deum, omnino excedit omnem sensum, et non nisi per rationem potest et cum multa et maxima difficultate comprehendi. 271. – According to a Gloss, an example of milk would be that the Word was made flesh. But that seems to be just as hard to understand as that the Word was with God. Hence Augustine says that the latter is found in Plato’s works, but not the former. But he, said Augustine, could not have suspected something contained in the mystery of the Word made flesh. I answer that to know by simple faith that the Word was made flesh is quite easy, because it can be imagined and to a certain extent sensed; but that the Word was with God is something that transcends all sensing and can be grasped by reason alone, and that with great difficulty. Consequenter assignat rationem, cum dicit parvulus enim est, non quidem aetate, sed sensu. Tripliciter autem aliquis dicitur parvulus. Est enim aliquis parvulus per humilitatem, Matth. XI, 25: revelasti ea parvulis, aetate, Gal. IV, 1: quanto tempore haeres parvulus est, etc., sensu, I Cor. XIV, 20: nolite pueri effici sensibus, sed malitia parvuli estote, sensibus autem perfecti sitis. Et isto modo accipitur hic parvulus. 272. – Then he assigns the reason when he says, for he is a child, not in age but in sense: For someone is a little child in humility: ‘You have revealed them to little ones’ (Mt. 11:25); in age: ‘As long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant’ (Gal. 4:1); in sense: ‘Do not become children in sense, but in malice be children and in sense be perfect’ (1 Cor. 14:20). This is the way children is taken here. Deinde cum dicit perfectorum autem est solidus cibus, exponit illud quod dixerat de cibo solido. Hoc enim patet in corporalibus, quod quando homo pervenit ad aetatem perfectam, utitur fortiori et nobiliori et solidiori cibo. Sic spiritualis, quando pervenit ad perfectionem spiritualem, debet ei proponi doctrina solidior. Ista autem perfectio duplex est: una est perfectio secundum intellectum, quando aliquis habet iudicium intellectus ad recte discernendum et iudicandum de his quae sibi proponuntur. Alia est perfectio secundum affectum, quam facit charitas, quae est cum aliquis totaliter Deo inhaeret. Unde Matth. c. V, 48, post praecepta charitatis dicitur estote ergo perfecti, et cetera. Est autem perfectio charitatis, ut dicit Augustinus, ubi nulla est cupiditas. Quando enim quis magis ascendit in Deum, tanto plus contemnit temporalia. Ps. LXXII, 24: quid enim mihi est in caelo, et cetera. Hoc enim habet sacrae Scripturae doctrina, quod in ipsa non tantum traduntur speculanda, sicut in geometria, sed etiam approbanda per affectum. Unde Matth. V, 19: qui autem fecerit et docuerit, et cetera. In aliis ergo scientiis sufficit quod homo sit perfectus secundum intellectum, in istis vero requiritur quod sit perfectus secundum intellectum et affectum. Loquenda sunt igitur alta mysteria perfectis. I Cor. II, 6: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Unusquisque enim secundum quod est dispositus, sic iudicat; sicut iratus aliter iudicat durante passione, et aliter ipsa cessante. Et similiter incontinens aliter iudicat aliquid esse bonum tempore passionis, aliter post. Et ideo dicit philosophus, quod unusquisque qualis est, talis sibi finis videtur. Et quia quae in sacra Scriptura traduntur, pertinent ad affectum, et non tantum ad intellectum, ideo oportet esse perfectum in utroque. Et ideo apostolus volens ostendere qui sint perfecti, quibus sit tradendus iste solidus cibus, dicit quod sunt illi, qui pro sua consuetudine habent sensus exercitatos. Unde in ista perfectione quatuor sunt attendenda, scilicet ipsa perfectio in se in quo consistat, et quantum ad hoc dicit qui habent sensus exercitatos. 273. – Then when he says, but solid food is for the mature, he explains what he had said about solid food. For this is evident in bodily food: when a man reaches maturity, he uses stronger and nobler and more solid food. But a spiritual man, when he has reached spiritual perfection, should have a more solid doctrine proposed to him. But perfection is of two kinds: one is perfection of intellect, when a person has the wisdom to discern and judge correctly about matters proposed to him; the other is perfection of love, which charity produces, and it is present when a person adheres entirely to God. Hence, after laying down the precepts of charity, the Lord continues: ‘Be you, therefore, perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect’ (Mt. 5:48). But perfection of charity, as Augustine says, is present when there is no covetousness. For the closer a person comes to God, the more he scorns temporal things: ‘For what have I in heaven? and besides you what do I desire upon earth. For you my flesh and my heart have fainted away: you are the God of my heart, and the God that is my portion for ever’ (Ps. 73:25-26). For the doctrine of Sacred Scripture contains matters not only for speculation, as in geometry, but also matters to be accepted by the will; hence it is stated in Matthew (5:19): ‘He that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, in the other sciences it is enough that they perfect man’s intellect, but in this one it is required that he be perfected in intellect and will. Therefore, lofty mysteries should be proposed to the perfect: ‘Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect’ (1 Cor. 2:6). For a person judges things according to his condition; thus, an angry person judges things one way when he is angry, and another way when he is calm. Similarly, an incontinent person judges that something is good when he is passionate, and otherwise when the passion has subsided. Consequently, the Philosopher says that a person is, so his end appears to be. And because the things taught in Sacred Scripture pertain to the will and not only to the intellect, a person must be perfect in both. Consequently, the Apostle, desiring to show who are the mature, to whom solid food should be given, says that they are the ones who have their faculties trained [senses exercised]. Et convenienter loquitur. In hoc enim exprimit utramque perfectionem, quia (ut dicit philosophus) intellectus prout iudicat de appetendis et agendis dicitur sensus, quia est relatus ad aliquid particulare: unde non accipitur hic sensus pro sensu exteriori. Qui ergo sentit quae Dei sunt, perfectus est. Phil. III, 15: quicumque perfecti sumus, hoc sentiamus. I Cor. II, 16: nos autem sensum Christi habemus. Qui vero non sentiunt nisi carnalia, Deo placere non possunt, ut patet Rom. VIII, 8. Secundo attendenda est dispositio eius in quo est, quia debet esse exercitatus. I Tim. c. IV, 7: exerce teipsum ad pietatem. Qui enim non est exercitatus, non potest habere rectum iudicium, quod ad hoc requiritur. Eccli. XXXIV, 9: vir in multis expertus cogitabit multa. Item qui non est expertus, pauca recognoscit. Tertio causa huius exercitationis est consuetudo, non scilicet otium, sed frequentia actus. Et ideo dicit pro consuetudine, scilicet recte agendi. Prov. XXII, 6: adolescens iuxta viam suam, etiam cum senuerit, non recedet ab ea. Si ergo vis esse perfectus, non des te otio, sed assuesce te bonis a iuventute. Quarto finis huius exercitii, quia scilicet ad discretionem boni et mali. Tunc enim perfectus est, quando discernit inter bonum et malum. Is. VII, 15: sciat eligere bonum, et reprobare malum. Haec autem sunt tria, scilicet: discretio inter bonum et malum, inter bonum et melius, inter malum et peius. Multa enim sunt, quae videntur bona, et tamen sunt mala. Prov. XIV, 12: est via quae videtur homini recta, novissima vero eius deducunt ad Inferos. In his ergo requiritur rectitudo iudicii. 274. – And he is speaking properly, because, as the Philosopher says, the intellect, inasmuch as it judges about things to be desired and to be done, is considered a sense, because it is related to something particular. Hence the word, sense, is not taken here as referring to an external sense. Therefore, one who senses the things of God is perfect: ‘Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded’ (Phil. 3:15); ‘But we have the sense of Christ’ (1 Cor. 2:16) But those who sense only carnal things cannot be pleasing to God, as is clear in Rom. (chap. 8). The second thing to be considered is the disposition of the one in whom it is, because he should be exercised: ‘Exercise yourself unto godliness’ (1 Tim. 4:7). For one who is not exercised cannot form a correct judgment, which is required for perfection: ‘A man that has much experience shall think of many things’ (Sir. 34:9); on the other hand, one who is inexperienced knows few things. Thirdly, the cause of this exercise is custom, not idleness but abundance of activity; hence, he says, by custom, namely, of acting properly: ‘A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it’ (Pr. 22:6). Therefore, if you wish to be perfect, do not give yourself to idleness, but accustom yourself to what is good from your youth. Fourthly, the end of this exercise, namely, to distinguish good from evil. For a person is perfect, when he discerns between good and evil, between good and better, and between evil and worse. For many things seem good but are really evil: ‘There is a way which seems just to a man: but the ends thereof lead to death’ (Pr. 14:12). It is in these matters, therefore, that correct judgment is needed.
6-1
Heb 6:1-6aSupra apostolus fecit mentionem de pontificatu Christi secundum ordinem Melchisedech, et ostendit tarditatem eorum quibus scribebat, hic redit ad suum propositum. Et circa hoc tria facit quia primo aperit intentionem suam; secundo ostendit eius difficultatem, ibi et hoc faciemus; tertio declarat intentionem, ibi confidimus. Circa primum duo facit quia primo manifestat suum propositum; secundo exponit quod dicit, ibi non rursum. 275. – Having mentioned the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchizedek and scolded the slowness of those to whom he was writing, the Apostle now returns to his theme, in regard to which he does three things: first, he discloses his intention; secondly, its difficulty (v.3); thirdly, he declares his intention (v.9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he discloses his intention; secondly, he explains what he says (v.1b). Propositum suum est quod, praetermissis his quae pertinent ad inchoationem doctrinae Christianae, vult prosequi alia altiora. Unde dicit: iam dictum est, quod perfectis opus est solido cibo, quapropter intermittentes sermonem inchoationis doctrinae Christi, per quam Christus inchoat esse in nobis, quod est per doctrinam fidei. Eph. c. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus nostris. Feramur ad perfectionem, id est, ad ea quae spectant ad perfectionem doctrinae Christi. I Cor. XIII, 11: quando factus sum vir, evacuavi quae erant parvuli. Hoc autem secundum Glossam ad duo referri potest, scilicet vel ad intellectum, ut scilicet ex quo homo provectus est, debet intermittere puerilia et vacare perfectis. I Cor. c. II, 6: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Vel ad effectum. Et est sensus, quod non semper est standum in sensu incipientium, sed oportet tendere ad statum perfectorum. Gen. c. XVII, 1: ambula coram me, et esto perfectus. 276. – His intention is that passing over the things which pertain to the beginning of Christian doctrine, he may go on to loftier matters; hence he says: I have stated that strong meat is for the perfect: Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ, through which Christ begins to exist in us, which is by the doctrine of faith: ‘That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts’ (Eph. 3:17); let us go on to maturity, i.e., to things which look toward the perfection of Christ’s doctrine: ‘When I became a man, I put away the things of a child’ (1 Cor. 13:11). According to a Gloss this can refer to two things, namely, either to the intellect, so that as a person advances in age, he should put away childish things and devote himself to what is perfect: ‘howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect’ (1 Cor. 2:6), or to the will, and then the sense is that one should not remain a beginner, but tend to the state of the perfect: ‘Walk before me and be perfect’ (Gen. 17:1). Hic est duplex obiectio. Et primo, de hoc quod dicit intermittentes inchoationem, quia numquam debet intermitti inchoatio. Ps. LXXVI, 10: et dixi: nunc coepi. Iob c. XXVII, 6: iustificationem quam coepi tenere non deseram. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod contingit dupliciter intermittere inchoationem. Vel quantum ad aestimationem, et sic semper debet homo esse sicut incedens et tendens ad maiora. Phil. III, 12: non quod iam coeperim, aut quod iam perfectus sim. Vel quantum ad progressum ad perfectionem, et sic semper debet niti homo transire ad statum perfectum. Phil. III, 13: quae retro sunt obliviscens, ad ea quae priora sunt me extendens. In via enim Dei non progredi, ait Bernardus, est regredi. 277. – Here two objections arise: the first is based on his saying, let us leave the elementary doctrines [leaving the word of the beginning]. For the beginning should never be forsaken: ‘And I said, Now have I begun’ (Ps. 76:11); ‘My justification, which I have begun to hold’ (Jb. 27:6). I answer that there are two ways of forsaking a beginning: one is according to evaluation, and in this way a man should always be a beginner tending to what is higher: ‘Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I many by any means apprehend’ (Phil. 3:12). The other is according to progress toward perfection, and in this way a man should always strive to pass to the perfect state: ‘Forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before’ (Phil. 3:13). For, as Bernard says, not to progress in the way of God is to fall behind. Alia obiectio est de hoc quod dicit feramur ad perfectionem. Perfectio enim consistit in consiliis. Matth. XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade, et vende omnia, et cetera. Non omnes autem tenentur ad consilia; igitur. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod duplex est perfectio. Una, scilicet exterior, quae consistit in actibus exterioribus, qui sunt signa interiorum, sicut virginitas, voluntaria paupertas. Et ad hanc non omnes tenentur. Alia est interior, quae consistit in dilectione Dei et proximi. Col. III, 14: charitatem habete, quod est vinculum perfectionis. Et ad perfectionem huiusmodi non omnes tenentur, sed omnes tenentur ad eam tendere, quia si quis nollet plus diligere Deum, non faceret quod exigit charitas. Dicit autem feramur, et hoc secundum impulsionem a spiritu sancto. Rom. VIII, 14: qui spiritu aguntur, hi filii Dei sunt. Vel sicut portati a Deo, qui portat infirmitatem nostram. Is. XLVI, 3: audite me, domus Iacob, et omne residuum domus Israel, qui portamini a meo utero. Vel sicut portati ab invicem. Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate. 278. – The other objection is concerned with the invitation, let us go on to maturity [things more perfect]. For perfection consists in the counsels: ‘If you would be perfect, go and sell what you have and give to the poor’ (Mt. 19:21). But not all are bound by the counsels. I answer that there are two kinds of perfection: one is external and consists in external acts, which are signs of what is internal, such as virginity and voluntary poverty. To this perfection not all are bound. The other is internal and consists in the love of God and neighbor: ‘Have charity which is the bond of perfection’ (Col. 3:14). Not all are bound to this perfection, but all are bound to tend toward it; because if a person no longer desired to love God more, he would not be doing what charity requires. But he says, let us go on, and this by following the impulse of the Holy Spirit: ‘Whoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’ (Rom. 8:14). Or they are as though carried by God Who bears our infirmities: ‘Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who are carried by my bowels’ (Is. 46:3); or, as carried by one another: ‘Bear you one another’s burdens’ (Gal. 6:2). Deinde cum dicit non rursum, exponit quod dixit, et intendit ostendere quae sunt illa quae faciunt ad inchoationem doctrinae Christi. Et utitur similitudine. Per fidem enim anima aedificatur in spirituali aedificio. Sicut ergo in corporali aedificio, primo ponitur fundamentum, ita hic prima rudimenta doctrinae Christi sunt quasi fundamenta. Sed contra: quia infra XI, 1, ponitur fides esse fundamentum; fides autem una est. Eph. c. IV, 5: unus dominus, una fides, unum Baptisma. Hic autem ponit sex fundamenta; ergo videtur quod male. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod fides fundamentum est virtutum. Ista autem, quae ponit hic, sunt fundamenta doctrinae Christi. Et dicit non rursum iacientes fundamentum, etc., quasi ita firmiter ponamus quod non oporteat iterato ponere. Vel quia dudum posuistis, et non oportet iterare. 279. – The when he says, not laying again the foundation of penance, he explains what he has said. Here he intends to show what the things for which make for the beginning of Christ’s doctrine. For this he uses a simile. For it is by faith that a soul is built into a spiritual edifice. Therefore, just as in a material building the foundation is laid first, so here the first rudiments of Christ’s doctrine are, as it were, the foundation. But this seems to conflict with what he teaches below in chapter 11, where faith is set down as the foundation: for faith is one: ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5). But here he mentions six foundations. I answer that faith is the foundation of the virtues, but the things he mentions are the foundations of Christ’s doctrine. He says, not laying again the foundation of penance, as though it were laid so firmly that there is not need to lay it again. Or, because you have just laid it and should not be laid again. Multum autem signanter ordinat ista apostolus. Sicut enim in via generationis et cuiuscumque motus, prius est recessus a termino a quo et post accessus ad terminum ad quem, ita dicit hic, quia poenitentia est recessus a peccato, et sic est quasi quoddam fundamentum in ista vita. Nemo enim, secundum Augustinum, suae voluntatis arbiter, potest novam vitam inchoare, nisi poeniteat eum praeteritae. Unde dominus in principio praedicationis dicit: poenitentiam agite, Matth. IV, 17. Et ideo dicit poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis. Opera enim mortua dicuntur, vel quae secundum se sunt mortua, vel quae sunt mortificata. Res dicitur viva, quando habet officium propriae virtutis, a quo cum deficit, dicitur mortua. Opera enim nostra sunt ordinata ad beatitudinem, quae est finis hominis. Et ideo quando non ducunt ad beatitudinem, nec ordinari possunt, dicuntur mortua: et haec sunt opera facta in peccato mortali. Infra IX, 14: sanguis Christi, qui per spiritum sanctum obtulit seipsum immaculatum Deo, emundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis. Opera vero facta in charitate per peccatum mortificantur; unde non habent virtutem, ut mereantur vitam aeternam. Ez. XVIII, 24: omnes iustitiae eius quas fecerat, non recordabuntur. Poenitentia vero facit, quod ista reviviscunt: unde tunc iterum reputantur ad vitam aeternam. 280. – But the Apostle lists them quite clearly. For just as in the process of generation and of any motion there is first of all the departure so too here; because penance is a departure from sin and is, as it were, the foundation of that life. For, according to Augustine, no one who is master of his own will can begin a new life without repenting of the past. Hence, at the beginning of His preaching the Lord says: ‘Do penance’ (Mt. 4:17). Therefore, he says, of penance from dead works. For works are called dead either because they are dead in themselves, or because they become dead. A thing is said to be alive, when it functions on its own power, so that wherever it fails, it is said to be dead. For our works are ordained to happiness, which is man’s end; therefore, when they do not lead to happiness or cannot be ordained to happiness, they are said to be dead: and these are works performed in mortal sin: ‘The blood of Christ who by the Holy Spirit offered himself unspotted to God, will cleanse our conscience from dead works’ (Heb. 9:14). But works performed in charity are made dead by sin; hence, they do not have the power to merit eternal life: ‘All the justices which he has done will not be remembered’ (Ez. 18:24). But penance makes them revive; hence they are then once more counted for eternal life. In accessu vero ad terminum primo est fides, et ideo dicit fundamentum fidei ad Deum. Proprium autem fidei est, quod credat homo et assentiat non visis a se, sed testimonio alterius. Hoc autem testimonium vel est hominis tantum: et istud non facit virtutem fidei, quia homo et fallere et falli potest. Vel istud testimonium est ex iudicio divino: et istud verissimum et firmissimum est, quia est ab ipsa veritate, quae nec fallere, nec falli potest. Et ideo dicit, ad Deum, ut scilicet assentiat his quae Deus dicit. Io. c. XIV, 1: creditis in Deum, et in me credite. 281. – But in approaching the desired terminus, faith is first; hence, he says, the foundation of faith toward God. For it is proper to faith that man believe and assent to things unseen by him, on the authority of another. But this testimony is either from man alone, and then it does not pertain to the virtue of faith, because man can deceive and be deceived; or that testimony is from God’s judgement, and then it is most true and firm, because it comes from the Truth itself, which cannot deceive or be deceived. Hence, he says, towards God, i.e., the assent is made to what God says: ‘You believe in God; believe also in me’ (Jn. 14:1). Secundo, in isto processu sunt sacramenta fidei. Haec autem sunt duo sacramenta intrantium; de his enim tantum agit hic apostolus. Et ista sunt Baptismus primum, per quem regeneramur, et secundum est confirmatio, per quam confirmamur. 282. – The second thing in that process are the sacraments of faith. But these are two sacraments of those entering: for those are the only ones the Apostle is discussing here. The first is baptism, by which are reborn; the second is confirmation, by which we are strengthened. Quantum ad primum dicit Baptismatum. Sed contra Eph. IV, 5: una fides, unum Baptisma. Non ergo plura sunt Baptismata. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod triplex est Baptismus, scilicet fluminis, flaminis, et sanguinis; sed duo ultima non habent vim, nisi referantur ad primum, quia illa oportet habere in proposito, si non adsit facultas, in habentibus usum liberi arbitrii. Et ideo non sunt tria sacramenta; sed unum sacramentum, per quod regeneramur ad salutem. Io. III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, et cetera. Inter ista vero Baptismus sanguinis plus habet de effectu Baptismi, si tamen primum fuerit in proposito, vel contrarium non teneatur in mente, sicut patet de innocentibus, qui non erant in opposita dispositione. Baptismus enim virtutem habet ex merito passionis Christi. Rom. VI, 3: quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Sicut ergo qui baptizatur, conformatur morti Christi sacramentaliter, ita martyr realiter. Et ideo istud Baptisma habet totum effectum Baptismi, quantum ad hoc quod purgat omnem culpam et poenam peccati, non tamen imprimit characterem aliquem. Et ideo si recipiens martyrium sine Baptismo aquae resurgeret, esset baptizandus. Poenitentia vero non tantum habet de effectu Baptismi, quia non tollit omnem poenam, licet tollat culpam. Sicut autem martyr conformat se morti Christi per exteriorem passionem, ita poenitens per interiorem. Gal. c. V, 24: qui Christi sunt, carnem suam crucifixerunt cum vitiis et concupiscentiis. Ideo potest esse tanta, quod tolleret omnem culpam et poenam, sicut patet in latrone et Magdalena. Unde poenitentia dicitur Baptismus, inquantum supplet Baptismi vicem. Et quia non licet illud iterari, ideo instituta est poenitentia. Ista ergo dicuntur Baptismata, quia habent effectum Baptismi; sed tantum unum Baptisma, quia non agunt nisi illud habeatur in proposito. 283. – In regard to the first he says, of baptism. But this seems contrary to what is stated in Ephesians (4:5): ‘One faith, one baptism.’ Therefore, there are not several baptisms. I answer that there are three kinds of baptism, namely, of water, of desire, and of blood. But the last two have no force, unless they are referred to the first, because the first one must be intended, if it cannot be actually received by a person with the use of freedom. Hence, there are not three sacraments, but one sacrament, by which we are reborn unto salvation: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Jn. 3:5). Of the other two, baptism of blood produces more of baptism’s effects, provided that the first is desired, or the opposite is not present in the mind, as is clear in the case of the Holy Innocents, who were not of an opposite mind. For baptism has its power from the merit of Christ’s Passion: ‘All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his blood’ (Rom. 6:3). Therefore, just as one who is baptized is conformed sacramentally to Christ’s death, so the martyr is conformed really. Therefore, the baptism of blood produces the total effect of baptism in the sense of washing away all guilt and punishment for sin; but it does not imprint a character. Therefore, if one who had undergone martyrdom without baptism of water were to rise, he would have to be baptized. Penance, however, does not produce as many of baptism’s effects, because it does not take away all punishment, although it takes away all guilt. But just as a martyr conforms himself to Christ’s Passion by external suffering, so a penitent by internal suffering: ‘They that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences’ (Gal. 5:24). Therefore, penance can be so great that it would remove all guilt and punishment, as happened to the good thief and to Magdalene. Hence, penance is called baptism, inasmuch as it performs the function of baptism. And because baptism cannot be repeated, penance was instituted. Therefore, the others are called baptisms, because they produce the effect of baptism; but there is only one baptism, because the others produce no effect, unless the first is intended. Secundum sacramentum intrantium est in ipsa manuum impositione. Ideo dicit impositionis quoque manuum. Haec autem est duplex. Una est miracula faciens, sicut quando Christus per manus impositionem curabat infirmos Lc. IV, 40: singulis manus imponens curabat eos et haec non est sacramentalis. Alia est sacramentalis, et haec est duplex. Una in sacramento ordinis. I Tim. V, 22: manus nemini cito imposueris. Alia est in sacramento confirmationis ad renovationem. Tit. III, 5: per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritus sancti, et cetera. In confirmatione enim datur spiritus ad robur, ut scilicet audacter homo confiteatur nomen Christi coram hominibus. Sicut enim in esse naturae prius generatur homo, et postea augetur et roboratur, ita in esse gratiae. 284. – The second sacrament of those who are entering is imposed by the laying on of hands; hence, he says, and laying on of hands. But this is twofold: one is productive of miracles, as when Christ cured the sick by laying his hands on them: ‘He, laying his hands on everyone of them, cured them’ (Lk. 4:40). And this is not sacramental. But the other is sacramental and is found in two sacraments: first, in the sacrament of Orders: ‘Impose not hands lightly on anyone’ (1 Tim. 5:22); secondly, in the sacrament of confirmation unto renovation: ‘By the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit’ (Tit. 3:5). For in confirmation the Holy Spirit is given for strength to enable a man to boldly confess Christ’s name before men. For just as in the natural order a man is first born and then grows and becomes strong, so, too, in the order of grace. Tertio sequitur terminus motus, ad quem motus terminatur, et ille est duplex. Duo enim expectamus: primum est resurrectio corporum et ista est fidei fundamentum, quia sine hac inanis est fides nostra, I Cor. c. XV, 14. Ideo dicit de resurrectione mortuorum. Item expectamus remunerationem, quae fiet per iudicem. Eccle. XII, 14: cuncta quae fiunt adducet Deus in iudicium. Et ideo dicit iudicii aeterni, non quod illud iudicium duret per mille annos, sicut voluit Lactantius, sed totum erit in momento. Sed dicitur aeternum, quia sententia quae ibi dabitur, in aeternum durabit. Matth. XXV, 46: ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum: iusti autem in vitam aeternam. Et sciendum est, quod omnia ista, quae dicit se velle hic tractare, sunt quasi quaedam rudimenta fidei. Unde praedicat ea novitiis Act. XVII, 18 ss. et in multis aliis locis. 285. – Thirdly, there follows the terminus of motion, at which the motion is terminated. This is twofold: the first is the resurrection of bodies, which is the foundation of faith, because without it our faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14). Therefore, he says, of the resurrection of the dead. Secondly, we expect a reward, which is conferred by the judge: ‘All things that are done, God will bring into judgement’ (Ec. 12:14); therefore, he says, and of eternal judgement: not that that judgement will last a thousand years, as Lactantius taught, because it will last but a moment. But it is called eternal, because the sentence passed then will last for ever: ‘These shall go into eternal punishment, but the just into eternal life’ (Mt. 15:46). It should be noted that all the things he says he desires to treat here are, as it were, the rudiments of the faith; hence he preaches them to newcomers, as is recorded in Ac (17:18) and in other places. Deinde cum dicit et hoc faciemus, ostendit difficultatem propositi sui exequendi: difficile enim est, et in se, et respectu auditorum. Unde tria facit. Primo innuit, quod in hoc potissime indigeat divino auxilio; secundo subdit quorumdam imbecillitatem, ibi impossibile est enim; tertio adducit quamdam similitudinem, ibi terra enim. 286. – Then (v. 3) he shows how difficult it is to carry out his intention. For it is difficult both in itself and in relation to his hearers. Hence he does three things: first, he suggests that in this he especially needs divine help; secondly, he mentions their weakness (v. 4); thirdly, he proposes a simile (v. 7). Dicit ergo: feramur ad perfectum, et hoc faciemus, siquidem permiserit Deus. Minus autem dicit, et plus significat. Nam non est tantum necessarium quod dominus permittat, sed oportet quod omnia faciat. Sap. VII, 16: in manu Dei nos et sermones nostri. Et ideo debet omnia ponere sub confidentia divini auxilii. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni":] Io. XV, 15: sine me nihil potestis facere. Iac. IV, 15: pro ut dicatis, si Deus voluerit, et si vixerimus faciemus. 287. – He says, therefore: Let us go on to things more perfect, and this shall we do, if God permit. He says less than he means, for it is not only necessary that God permit, but He must do all things: ‘In his hand are both we and our words’ (Wis. 7:16). Therefore, he must place all things under the confidence of divine help: ‘Without me you can do nothing’ (Jn. 16:5); ‘For you should say: If the Lord will, and if we shall live, we do this or that’ (Jas. 4:15). Deinde cum dicit impossibile est, ostendit imbecillitatem eorum: erant enim imbecilles ad audiendum. Sicut in corporalibus nullus status est ita periculosus, sicut recidivantium, ita in spiritualibus, qui post gratiam cadit in peccatum, difficilius surgit ad bonum. Et circa hoc facit tria: primo proponit bona quae perceperant; secundo difficultatem causatam in eis ex recidivo, ibi et prolapsi sunt; tertio assignat rationem, ibi rursus crucifigentes. 288. – Then when he says, it is impossible, he shows their weakness. For they were weak in hearing. For just as in material things no state is so dangerous as that of a recidivus, so in spiritual things one who falls into sin after grace rises with more difficulty. In regard to this he does three things: first, he lists the good things they had received; secondly, the difficulty caused in them from being recidivi (v. 6); thirdly, he assigns the reason (v. 6b). Bona autem quaedam sunt praesentia, quaedam vero futura. Ipsi vero in praesenti habuerunt spiritualem regenerationem, et quantum ad hoc dicit illuminati, scilicet per Baptismum. Et congrue dicitur Baptismus illuminatio, quia Baptismus est principium regenerationis spiritualis, in qua intellectus illuminatur per fidem. Eph. V, v. 8: eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. Habent etiam bonorum Dei participationem, et quantum ad hoc dicit et gustaverunt donum caeleste. Donum istud est gratia, et dicitur caeleste, quia a caelis Deus eam dat. Ps. LXVII, 19: dedit dona hominibus, et Iac. c. I, 17: omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a patre luminum. Est etiam in eis participatio divinae bonitatis. II Pet. I, 4: per quem, scilicet Christum, maxima nobis et pretiosa promissa donavit. Ideo dicit participes facti spiritus sancti. Omnia enim dona dantur ex amore: et ideo istam participationem attribuit spiritui sancto. Est autem participare, partem capere. Solum autem Christus spiritum sanctum habuit ad plenitudinem. Io. III, 34: non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum. Alii enim sancti de eius plenitudine receperunt, et participes facti sunt, non quidem substantiae, sed distributionum eius. Supra II, 4: et variis spiritus sancti distributionibus. I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem spiritus, et cetera. Item in praesenti habuerunt doctrinae eruditionem. Et quantum ad hoc dicit gustaverunt nihilominus bonum Dei verbum. Verbum istud dicitur bonum, quia est verbum vitae aeternae. Io. VI, 69: domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes. Ps. CXVIII, v. 103: quam dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua. Dicit autem gustaverunt, quia non solum illuminat intellectum, sed etiam reficit affectum, in quo est quaedam saporatio. Ps. XXXIII, 8: gustate et videte, quoniam suavis est dominus. 289. – Some of the goods are present and some future. But in the present they had spiritual rebirth; in regard to this he says enlightened, namely by baptism. And baptism is fittingly called an enlightenment, because it is the beginning of spiritual rebirth, in which the intellect is enlightened by faith: ‘You were heretofore darkness but now light in the Lord’ (Eph. 5:8). They are also partakers of God’s goods; hence he says, who have tasted the heavenly gift. That gift is grace and is called heavenly, because God gave it from heaven: ‘God gave gifts to men’ (Ps. 67:19); ‘Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from Father of lights’ (Jas. 1:17). They are also partakers of the divine goodness: ‘For by whom he has given most great and precious promises’ (2 Pt. 1:4). Therefore, he says, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit. For all gifts are given from love; therefore, he attributes that participation to the Holy Spirit. For to participate is to take a part. But Christ alone had the Holy Spirit in fulness: ‘God does not give the Spirit by measure’ (Jn. 3:24). For the other saints received of His fulness and were made partakers not of His substance, but of His distributions: ‘There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:4). Also in the present day they had instruction of His doctrine; hence, he says, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God. That word is called good, because it is the word of eternal life: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go; you have the words of eternal life’ (Jn. 6:69); ‘How sweet are your words to my palate’ (Ps. 119:103). But he says, tasted, because it not only enlightens the intellect, but also refreshes the affections, in which there is a certain savoring: ‘Taste and see that the Lord is sweet’ (Ps. 33:8). Bona autem futura habuerunt in spe. Rom. VIII, 24: spe salvi facti sumus. Et ideo dicit virtutesque saeculi venturi. Horum autem quaedam habent non solum in spe, sed etiam in quadam inchoatione, et illae sunt dotes animae, scilicet visio, tentio et fruitio, et illa habentur in quadam inchoatione, inquantum fides, spes et charitas, quae istis respondent, habentur in praesenti. Alia autem sunt bona, quae solum habentur in spe, ut dotes corporis, scilicet subtilitas, agilitas, impassibilitas, claritas. 290. – ‘We are saved by hope’ (Rom. 8:24). Therefore, he says, and the powers of the age to come. But some of these they have not only in hope, by in an inchoate way, and these are the endowments of the soul, namely, vision, possession, and fruition, and these are possessed inchoatively inasmuch as faith, hope and charity, which correspond to them, are possessed in the present. But the others are goods possessed only in hope, as the endowments of the body, namely, subtility, agility, impassability and clarity. Consequenter cum dicit et prolapsi sunt, ostendit difficultatem ad resurgendum, causatam ex casu. Ubi notandum est, quod non dicit lapsi simpliciter, sed prolapsi, id est, totaliter lapsi: quia si lapsi tantum essent, non ita difficile foret resurgere. Prov. XXIV, 16: septies in die cadit iustus, et resurgit. Quod si diceret apostolus illos qui prolapsi sunt impossibile esse resurgere, tunc posset dici, quod in hoc notat maximam difficultatem resurgendi, scilicet et propter peccatum, et propter superbiam, sicut patet in Daemonibus. Sed quia dicit illos, qui semel prolapsi sunt non posse rursus renovari ad poenitentiam, nec est aliquod peccatum in hoc mundo, a quo non possit homo poenitere, ideo aliter est intelligendum. Unde sciendum est, quod ex hoc loco sumpsit Novatus quidam, qui fuit presbyter Ecclesiae Romanae, occasionem errandi. Voluit enim, quod nullus post Baptismum posset ad poenitentiam resurgere. Sed ista positio falsa est, sicut dicit Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem, quia ipse Paulus recepit incaestuosum Corinthium, sicut patet II Cor. II, 5 ss., et similiter Gal. IV, 19, quia dicit: filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, et cetera. Est ergo intelligendum, sicut dicit Augustinus, quod non dicit quod impossibile est poenitere, sed quod impossibile est rursus renovari, id est baptizari. Tit. III, 5: per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis, et cetera. Numquam enim posset homo sic poenitere, quod posset iterum baptizari. Et hoc dicit apostolus, quia secundum legem Iudaei multoties baptizantur, sicut patet Mc. VII, 3 s. Et ideo ad istum errorem removendum, dicit hoc apostolus. 291. – Then when he says, and then commit apostasy, he shows the difficulty in rising, after one has fallen. Here it should be noted that he does not say, ‘fallen’, but ‘fallen away’, i.e. completely fallen, because if they had merely fallen, it should not be difficult to rise: ‘A just man shall fall seven times, and shall rise again’ (Pr. 24:16). But if the Apostle had said it is impossible for those who have fallen away to rise again, then it might be said that in this he was signifying how extremely difficult it is to rise, both because of sin and because of pride, as in the devils. But because he says that those who have once fallen away cannot be renewed unto penance, and there is no sin in this world that man cannot repent of, there must be another explanation. Hence, it should be noted that a certain Novatian, who was a priest of the church in Rome, made this the occasion of his error. For he declared that no one could rise to penance after baptism. But this opinion is false, as Athanasius says in a letter to Serapion, because Paul himself received the incestuous Corinthians, as shown in 2 Cor (chap. 2); and likewise in Gal (4:19), because he says: ‘My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you.’ Therefore, it must be understood, as Augustine says, that he does not say that it is impossible to repent, but that it is impossible to be renewed again, i.e., baptized: ‘By the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit’ (Tit 3:5). For a man could never repent in such a way that he could be baptized again. The Apostle says this because according to the Law, the Jews were baptized frequently, as is shown in Mark (chap. 7). Consequently, it was in order to remove that error that the Apostle says this. Deinde cum dicit rursus crucifigentes, etc., assignat rationem quare Baptismus non iteratur, quia scilicet Baptismus est quaedam configuratio mortis Christi, sicut patet Rom. VI, 3: quicumque in Christo baptizati sumus. Haec autem non iteratur, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, Rom. VI, 9. Qui ergo iterato baptizantur, rursum Christum crucifigunt. Vel aliter, quod denotetur repugnantia gratiae Christi, ut scilicet velint frequenter peccare et post iterum baptizari, ut scilicet non referatur ad iterationem Baptismi, sed ad lapsum eorum, qui peccant. Qui scilicet quantum in ipsis est, rursus crucifigunt Christum, quia Christus pro peccatis nostris mortuus est semel, I Pet. III, 18. Cum ergo peccas baptizatus, quantum in te est, das occasionem, ut iterum Christus crucifigatur, et sic contumelia fit Christo, in cuius sanguine te lotum maculas. Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. 292. – Then when he says, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account, he gives the reason why baptism cannot be repeated, namely because baptism is a configuration to Christ’s death, as is clear from Romans (6:13); ‘all we who are baptized in Christ, are baptized in his death.’ But this death is not repeated, because ‘Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, those who are repeatedly baptized crucify Christ again. Or, another way, it denotes that is is repugnant to Christ’s grace for people to sin frequently and then be baptized again. Then the emphasis is not on the repetition of baptism, but on the falling away of the sinner, who, as far as in him lies, crucifies Christ again: ‘Christ died once for our sins’ (1 Pt. 3:18). Therefore, when you sin after baptism, then as far as in you lies, you give occasion for Christ to be crucified again; and in this way hold him up to contempt and stain yourself, washed in His blood: ‘He loved us and washed us fro our sins in his blood’ (Rev. 1:15).
6-2
Heb 6:6b-8Supra ostendit apostolus difficultatem ad suum propositum exequendum, provenientem ex eorum culpa, hic adducit ad hoc quamdam similitudinem. Et primo quantum ad bonam terram; secundo quantum ad malam, ibi proferens autem. 293. – Having showed the difficulty involved in pursuing his intention, a difficulty arising from their guilt, the Apostle now resorts to a simile to explain this: first, in regard to good earth; secondly, in regard to bad earth (v. 8). Sciendum est autem, quod secundum unam expositionem, supra voluit apostolus illos, qui semel baptizati sunt, non posse iterum baptizari, vel renovari ad poenitentiam. Alia autem est expositio, quae ibi dimissa fuit, quod impossibile est eos, qui in hac vita semel illuminati sunt, rursum in alia vita renovari ad poenitentiam. Eccle. IX, 10: quicquid potest manus tua facere, instanter operare: quia nec opus, nec ratio, nec sapientia, nec scientia est apud Inferos, et cetera. Io. c. IX, 4: venit nox, quando nemo potest operari. Rursus ergo exponatur, id est post hanc vitam. Et huius ratio est. Duo enim causant poenitentiam. Unum est quod dat efficaciam, scilicet meritum passionis Christi. I Io. II, 2: ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. Aliud autem est exemplum poenitendi, quod habemus in Christo per considerationem, scilicet considerando austeritatem, paupertatem et tandem passionem. I Pet. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, et cetera. Sic ergo intelligitur quod dicit rursus crucifigentes, id est crucis Christi fructum percipientes, et hoc quantum ad id quod dat efficaciam poenitentiae, et ostentui habentes, quantum ad exemplum poenitendi. Et sic accipitur ostentum in bonum. 294. – But it should be noted that according to one explanation the Apostle wished to show by the above that those who have been baptized once cannot be baptized again or be renewed again to penance in another life: ‘Whatsoever your hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work nor reason nor wisdom nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither you are hastening’ (Ec. 9:10): ‘The night comes when no man can work’ (Jn. 9:4). Therefore, let it be explained once more, i.e., after this life, and there is a reason for this. For two things cause penance: one is that which gives it efficacy, namely, the merit of Christ’s Passion: ‘He is the propitiation for our sins’ (1 Jn. 2:2). The other is the example of penance, which we have in Christ by considering His austerity, poverty, and Passion: ‘Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps’ (1 Pt. 2:21). Thus, therefore, is understood what he says, crucifying again, i.e., receiving the fruit of the cross of Christ, and this in regard to that which gives efficacy to penance; and hold him up to contempt as to the example of repenting. Ista vero similitudo, quae ponitur hic, de terra potest referri, vel ad id quod supra dictum est feramur ad perfectionem: et tunc erit sensus, quod si feramur, habebimus benedictionem sicut terra bona. Vel potest continuari ad dictum immediate, secundum expositionem utramque sive de Baptismo sive de alia vita. Illa tamen de Baptismo magis est litteralis; et sic est sensus: sicut terra culta, si iterato profert spinas, non colitur, sed comburitur: sic homo peccans post Baptismum, ulterius non abluitur. 295. – But the simile which is presented here about the earth can be connected to that which was stated above, let us go on to things more perfect, and then the sense will be: If we go on we will have a blessing like the good earth; or it can be connected with what was just said according to both explanations, either about baptism or about the other life. The one about baptism is more literal and then the sense is: Just as the cultivated earth, if it brings forth thorns again, is not cultivated but is burned, so a man who sins after baptism is not washed again. Et tangitur circa bonam terram primo beneficium impensum; secundo fructum quem profert, ibi et generans herbam; tertio praemium, ibi accipit benedictionem. 296. – In regard to the good earth he mentions three things: first, the benefit bestowed; secondly, the fruit it brings (v. 7b); thirdly, the reward (v. 7c). Terra ista est cor humanum. Lc. c. VIII, 15: quod autem cecidit in terram bonam, hi sunt qui in corde bono et optimo, et cetera. Quod dicitur terra, quia sicut terra indiget pluvia, ita homo indiget gratia Dei. Ps. LXIV, 9: visitasti terram, et inebriasti eam. Is. LV, 10: quomodo descendit imber et nix de caelo, et illuc ultra non revertitur, sed inebriat terram, et infundit eam, et germinare eam facit, et cetera. Sed beneficium, quod percipit, et doctrina fidei, est quasi imber superveniens, quam pluit in cordibus auditorum, mediantibus praedicatoribus et doctoribus. Is. V, v. 6: mandabo nubibus, ne pluant super eam imbrem. Iob XXXVI, 27 s.: effudit imbres ad instar gurgitum, qui de nubibus fluunt, et cetera. Hunc imbrem bibit quando quod audit, intelligit, et ad illud afficitur. Is. LV, 1: omnes sitientes venite ad aquas, et cetera. Ista doctrina est super se, id est desuper veniens, et hoc quantum ad principium huius doctrinae. Vel super se, quia quaedam doctrina est de terra, qua scilicet homo inhaeret terrenis; alia est de caelis, quae scilicet docet caelestia. Iac. III, 15: non est ista sapientia desursum descendens, sed terrena, animalis, diabolica, et post sequitur ibidem: quae autem desursum est sapientia primum quidem pudica est, et cetera. Vel super se, id est, super facultatem humanae rationis. Nam aliae scientiae sunt secundum humanam rationem inventae, haec autem divinitus inspirata. Eccli. III, 25: plurima supra sensum hominum monstrata tibi sunt. Dicit autem non semper, nec raro, sed saepe, quia, ut dicit Augustinus, et habetur in Glossa, si semper, vilescit; si raro, non sufficit et negligitur. Iob XVI, 2: audivi frequenter talia. 297. – This earth is the human heart: ‘But that on good ground are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it and bring forth fruit in patience’ (Lk. 8:15). It is called earth, because just as earth needs rain, so a man needs God’s grace: ‘You have visited the earth and have plentifully watered it’ (Ps. 64:10). ‘And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and return no more thither, but soak the earth and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater, so shall my word be which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it’ (Is. 55:10). But the benefit it receives and the doctrine of faith is as rain which falls on the hearts of those who hear the words of preachers and teachers: ‘I will command the clouds to rain no more upon it’ (Is. 5:6); ‘He pours out showers like a flood, which flow from the clouds that cover all above’ (Jb. 36:27). He drinks this rain, when he understands what he hears and is drawn to it: ‘All you that thirst, come to the waters, and you that have no money, make haste, buy and eat’ (Is. 55:1). This doctrine is above it, because some doctrine is from the earth and inclines a person to cling to earthly things; another is from heaven, namely, which teaches heavenly things: ‘For this is not wisdom descending from above, but earthly, sensual, devilish’ (Jas. 3:15); and then he continues: ‘But the wisdom that is from above, first, indeed, is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to persuade, consenting to the good, without dissimulation’ (Jas. 3:17). Or above it, i.e., above the faculty of human reason: for the other sciences were founded according to human reason, but this is divinely inspired: ‘For many things are shown to you above the understanding of men’ (Sir. 3:25). But he does not say, ‘always’ or ‘rarely’, but often, because as Augustine says: ‘If always, then it becomes worthless; if rarely, then it is not enough and is neglected’; ‘I have often heard such things as these’ (Jb. 16:2). Fructus est, quia generat herbam opportunam cultoribus. Ista sunt bona opera, quae facit homo per doctrinam susceptam. Gen. I, 11: germinet terra herbam virentem, et cetera. Ista terra colitur primo a Deo. Io. XV, 1: pater meus agricola est, et cetera. Colitur etiam a praelato. I Cor. III, 6: ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit, et cetera. Colitur etiam ab homine ipso. Prov. XXIV, 27: diligenter exerce agrum tuum. Est autem opportuna Deo ad gloriam. I Cor. X, 31: omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Aliis ad meritum, et ad gloriam. I Thess. II, 20: vos enim estis gloria nostra et gaudium. Ipsi vero operanti ad vitam aeternam. Rom. VI, v. 22: habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem: finem vero vitam aeternam. 298. – The fruit is that it brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated. These are good works, which a man performs by the doctrine received: ‘Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed’ (Gen. 1:11). This earth is cultivated, first of all, by God: ‘My Father is the husbandman’ (Jn. 15:1); it is also cultivated by the prelate: ‘I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase’ (1 Cor. 3:6). It is also cultivated by the man himself: ‘Diligently till your ground’ (Pr. 24:27). It is suitable for God unto glory: ‘Do all for the glory of God’ (1 Cor. 10:31); for the one who acts, it is suitable unto eternal life: ‘You have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting’ (Rom. 6:22). Deinde cum dicit accipit benedictionem a Deo, ostendit praemium, scilicet benedictionem divinam. Ista autem benedictio nihil aliud est, quam factio bonitatis in nobis: quae quidem in praesenti vita fit imperfecta, sed in futuro erit perfecta. I Pet. c. III, 9: in hoc vocati estis, ut benedictionem haereditate possideatis. 299. – Then, when he says, he receives a blessing from God, he mentions the reward, namely, a divine blessing. But that blessing is no less than the production of goodness in us: in the present life it is imperfect, but in the future life it will be perfect: ‘Unto this you are called, to inherit a blessing’ (1 Pt. 3:9). Deinde cum dicit proferens, etc., agit de mala terra; ubi tria facit: primo supponit beneficium, quod dictum est; secundo ponit malum fructum, dicens proferens autem; tertio ostendit poenam, ibi reproba est. Fructus ergo sunt spinae, id est, minora peccata, et tribuli, id est, maiora, quae pungunt conscientiam propriam, quandoque etiam alienam, illa scilicet quae sunt contra proximos. Gen. III, 18: spinas et tribulos germinabit tibi. In poena vero ponit tria, scilicet divinam reprobationem, iudiciariam condemnationem, ibi maledicto proxima, et finalem punitionem, ibi cuius consummatio, et cetera. Quantum ad primum dicit reproba est. Sicut enim praedestinatio est principium remunerationis, ita reprobatio signum est condemnationis. Quod ergo aliquis frequenter rigetur praeceptis salutaribus, signum est reprobationis, si persistat in peccatis. Ier. VI, 30: argentum reprobum vocate eos, quia dominus proiecit eos. Condemnatio est, quia proxima maledicto. Matth. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Punitio est cuius consummatio in combustionem. Is. IX, 5: vestimentum mixtum sanguine erit in combustionem, et cibus ignis. 300. – Then when he says, but that which brings forth thorns and briars is reprobate, he deals with bad earth and does two things: first, he mentions the evil fruit; secondly, the punishment (v. 8b). The fruit, therefore, are the thorns, i.e., minor sins, and the briars, i.e., graver sins, which prick one’s own conscience and sometimes another’s, namely, sins against one’s neighbor: ‘Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you’ (Gen. 3:18). In regard to the punishment he mentions three things: first, divine reprobation; secondly, the judge’s condemnation (v. 8c), thirdly, the final punishment (v. 8d). In regard to the first he says, is reprobate. For just as predestination is the source of reward, so reprobation is the sign of condemnation. Therefore, the fact that a person is frequently watered with salutary precepts is a sign of reprobation, if he continues to sin’ ‘Call them reprobate silver, for the Lord has rejected them’ (Jer. 6:30). The condemnation is that he is very near unto a curse: ‘Depart, you accursed, into everlasting fire’ (Mt. 25:41). The punishment is that his end is to be burnt: ‘Every garment mingled with blood shall be burnt, and be fuel for the fire’ (Is. 9:5).
6-3
Heb 6:9-12Quia apostolus multa, quae dura videbantur, de statu istorum dixerat, modo, ne ex illis desperarent, ostendit qua intentione hoc dixerit, scilicet ut ipsos a periculis retraheret. Unde circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit fiduciam, quam de ipsis habebat; secundo subdit rationem confidentiae, ibi non enim iniustus est Deus. 301. – Because the Apostle had said many seemingly harsh things about their state, now to keep them from despair, he shows the intention he had in saying these things, namely, to snatch them from danger. Hence, he does two things: first, he shows the confidence he had in them; secondly, the reason for this confidence (v. 10). Dicit ergo: ita dixi, quod terra quae profert spinas et tribulos, et cetera. Et ne credatis, quod ego tales vos reputem, confidimus de vobis, dilectissimi, et hoc propter fidem et charitatem, meliora et viciniora saluti. Ubi commendat statum ipsorum ex duobus, scilicet ex eo quod iam erant: quia ex eo quod dicit meliora, supponit quod erant in bono statu, et ex eo quod expectabant in futurum, unde dicit viciniora saluti. Rom. XIII, v. 11: nunc autem propior est nostra salus quam cum credidimus. Quanto enim quis proficit in bonis, tanto magis appropinquat saluti. Sequitur tametsi ita loquimur, id est, quia etsi sic loquimur, hoc est ut reddamus vos cautos, et hoc procedit ex charitate. Ps. CXL, 6: corripiet me iustus in misericordia, et increpabit me, et cetera. 302. – He says, therefore: I have stated that the earth which brought forth thorns and briars is reprobate, but lest you suppose that I consider you such, we feel sure of better things for you and nearer to salvation because of your faith and charity. Thus, he commends their state on two points, namely, on what they had been, because the fact that he says, better things, he supposes that they were in a good state; secondly, on what they awaited in the future, namely, things nearer to salvation: ‘Now our salvation is nearer than when we believed’ (Rom. 13:11). For the more one makes progress in the good, the nearer he gets to salvation. Then he continues, though we speak thus, i.e., even though we speak this way, it is in order to make you cautious: and this proceeds from charity: ‘The just man shall correct in mercy, and shall reprove me (Ps. 140:5). Deinde cum dicit non est enim iniustus Deus, ut obliviscatur, etc., ostendit rationem confidentiae, quae duplex est. Una ex bonis ipsorum praeteritis; alia ex promissione Dei, ibi Abrahae namque, et cetera. Quia vero apostolus duo dixerat: unum scilicet quod de ipsis confidebat; aliud quod aspere ipsis loquebatur, ideo duo facit: primo enim assignat rationem primi; secundo rationem secundi, ibi cupimus, et cetera. 303. – Then (v. 10) he gives the reasons for the confidence: one is based on their past good works; the other on God’s promise (v. 13). But because the Apostle had said two things, namely, that he had confidence in them and that he spoke harshly to them, he does two things: first, he gives reason for the first; secondly, the reason for the second (v. 11). Ratio autem quare ipse de his confidat, haec est, quia recordatur multorum bonorum quae ipsi fecerunt. Unde dicit confidimus autem, et cetera. Et quare? Quia non est iniustus Deus, ut obliviscatur operis vestri. Contra Ez. XVIII, 24: si averterit se iustus a iustitia sua, et cetera. Et paulo post ibidem sequitur: omnes iustitiae eius non recordabuntur. Et ibi subditur: non est aequa via domini. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod homo, qui cadit post gratiam, dupliciter se potest habere. Uno modo, quod in malo perseveret, et tunc Deus omnes iustitias eius obliviscitur; alio modo, quod poeniteat, et tunc bonorum praecedentium recordatur, quia reputantur sibi ad meritum. Unde dicit Glossa, quod mortificata reviviscunt. 304. – The reason he has confidence in them is that he remembers the many good works they did; hence he says, In your case we feel sure of better things. And why? Because God is not so unjust as to overlook your works. But on the other hand it says in Ez. (18:24): ‘If the just man turn himself away from his justice and do iniquity according to all the abominations which the wicked man does, shall he live?’ And a bit later he continues: ‘All his justices, which he has done, shall not be remembered’, and then: ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ I answer that a man who falls after grace can react in two ways: he might persist in evil, and then God forgets all his justices; or he might repent, and then He remembers his previous good works, because they are accounted as merit. Hence, a Gloss says that after dying, they revive. Sed tunc videtur dubium, quia constat quod iustitia respicit meritum: si ergo iustitia domini exigit quod Deus non obliviscatur si poeniteat, sicut dicit Glossa, ergo cadit sub merito quod resurgat a peccato, et sic meretur gratiam, quod est impossibile. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod duplex est meritum. Unum quod innititur iustitiae, et istud est meritum condigni; aliud quod soli misericordiae innititur, quod dicitur meritum congrui. Et de isto dicit quod iustum est, id est congruum, quod homo, qui multa bona facit, mereatur. Ista enim misericordia est adiuncta quodammodo iustitiae, plusquam in illo, qui numquam aliud fecit. Et isto modo non obliviscitur Deus operis et dilectionis. Soli enim charitati debetur vita aeterna. Io. c. XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit. Quicquid enim non est ex charitate, non est meritorium. I Cor. XIII, 3: si charitatem non habeam, nihil prodest. Et ideo, hic non dicit tantum operis vestri, sed addit dilectionis, quia etiam, sicut dicit Gregorius, non est amor Dei otiosus; operatur enim magna, si est, si operari renuit amor non est. I Io. III, 18: non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. Ideo subdit quam ostendistis in nomine ipsius. Col. c. III, 17: omne quodcumque facitis in verbo, aut in opere, omnia in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi, et cetera. 305. – But another doubt arises, because it is obvious that justice regards merit. Therefore, if God’s justice requires that He not forget, if he repents, as the Gloss says, then his rising from sin falls under merit, so that he merits grace: which is impossible. I answer that there are two kinds of merit: one rests on justice and is called condign; the other rests entirely on mercy and is called congruous. It is of the latter that he says that it is just, i.e., congruous, i.e., that a man who performed many good deeds should merit. For that mercy is somehow annexed to justice more than in the case of one who never did anything. It is in this sense that God does not forget our work and our love; for eternal life is due to charity alone: ‘If anyone loves, me, he will keep my word’ (Jn. 14:23). For whatever does not proceed from charity is not meritorious: ‘If I have not charity, it profits me nothing’ (1 Cor. 13:3). Hence, he does not say merely, of your work, but adds, and your love, because, as Gregory says: ‘The love of God is not idle, for it performs great things, if it is present: if one refuses to act, there is no love’; ‘Let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth (1 Jn. 3:18). Therefore, he continues, which you have showed for his sake: ‘All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Col. 3:17). Quid autem ostenderint et in quo, ostendit, quia ministrastis sanctis, scilicet subveniendo necessitatibus sanctorum. Matth. c. XX, 26: quicumque voluerit inter vos fieri maior, sit vester minister. Rom. XII, 13: necessitatibus sanctorum communicantes. Et quia in omnibus est necessaria continuatio, ideo subdit et ministratis. Et ideo si peccastis, ex divina misericordia adiuncta iustitiae dabit veniam. 306. – What they have showed and in what, he shows when he says, ‘in serving the saints’, namely, by relieving their needs: ‘Whoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister’ (Mt. 20:26). ‘Communicating to the necessities of the saints’ (Rom. 12:13). And because perseverance is necessary in all things, he continues, as you still do. Therefore, if you have sinned, He will grant pardon out of mercy annexed to justice. Consequenter cum dicit cupimus autem, assignat rationem quare ita dure locutus fuerat, scilicet ex desiderio salutis ipsorum. Unde circa hoc tria facit quia primo ostendit suum desiderium; secundo subdit imminens periculum, ibi ut non segnes efficiamini; tertio declarat per exemplum, ibi verum imitatores. 307. – Then (v. 11) he assigns the reason why he spoke so sharply to them, namely, from a desire for their salvation. Hence, in regard to this he does three things: first, he shows his desire; secondly, he mentions the imminent danger (v. 12); thirdly, he explains by an example (v. 12b). Dicit ergo: diximus ista non quasi desperantes de vobis, sed magis quia cupimus unumquemque, id est, de unoquoque, vestrum. Phil. I, 8: testis est mihi Deus quomodo cupiam vos omnes in visceribus Iesu Christi. Sed quid cupimus? Ostendere eamdem sollicitudinem, id est, ut sitis solliciti ostendere per exhibitionem operis, hanc sollicitudinem ad bona, quam semper habuistis. Unde patet, quod ad opera pietatis requiritur sollicitudo. Lc. X, 41: Martha, Martha, sollicita es, et cetera. Item ad propriam salutem. II Tim. II, 15: sollicite cura teipsum probabilem exhibere Deo. Et quare? Ad expletionem spei, scilicet adimplendo quod coepistis, consequamini quod speratis. Rom. V, 5: spes non confundit. Et hoc totum usque in finem. Qui enim perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. 308. – He says, therefore, We have said these things not as though we despaired of you, but rather because we desire that everyone, i.e., each one of you: ‘God is my witness, how I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 1:8). But what do we desire? that you show the same carefulness, i.e., that you be careful to show by your works this carefulness for doing good that you have always had. Hence, it is clear that carefulness is required for doing acts of godliness: ‘Martha, Martha, you are careful’ (Lk. 10:41) and for one’s own salvation: ‘Carefully study to present yourself approved unto God’ (2 Tim. 2:15). Any why? To realize the full assurance of hope, namely, that by fulfilling what you have begun, you may obtain what you hope: ‘Hope confounds not’ (Rom. 5:5). And this, until the end: ‘For he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved’ (Mt. 24:13). Deinde cum dicit ut non segnes efficiamini, ostendit periculum, quod est pigritia. Et est segnities timor futurae bonae operationis propter timorem, scilicet vel ne deficiat, vel ne poeniteat. Prov. XXII, 13: piger dicit: leo est in via. Unde pigri semper allegant impedimenta. 309. – Then when he says, so that you may not be sluggish, he indicates the danger, which is laziness. For laziness is the fear of a future good action, because one fears that he may fail or not repent: ‘The slothful man says: There is a lion in the way’ (Pr. 26:13). Hence, slothful persons always allege obstacles as an excuse. Deinde cum dicit verum imitatores, etc., ponit exemplum, quasi dicat: non sitis pigri, sed magis imitamini, accipiendo exemplum in prophetis. Iac. V, 10: accipite exemplum patientiae, etc., et sequitur: prophetas. Et in aliis sanctis, scilicet apostolis. I Cor. II: imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi. Sitis ergo imitatores eorum qui fide, sine qua impossibile est placere Deo, infra XI, 6; et patientia contra adversa, haereditabunt promissiones. Per fidem enim formatam et patientiam acquiritur haereditas promissa. Infra XI, 33: sancti per fidem vicerunt regna, operati sunt, et cetera. 310. – Then (12b) he gives the example. As if to say: Be not slothful, but rather imitate the example of the prophets: ‘For an example of suffering evil, of labor and of patience, take the prophets’ (Jas. 5:10); and of other saints, namely the apostles: ‘Be you followers of me, as I also am of Christ’ (1 Cor. 4:16). Be you, therefore, imitators of those who through faith, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6) and patience against adversity, inherit the promises. For by formed faith and patience the promised inheritance is obtained: ‘The saints by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises’ (Heb. 11:33).
6-4
Heb 6:13-20Supra apostolus ostendit causam quare de istis confidebat, et hoc propter bona quae fecerunt, hic ostendit idem ex promissione facta patribus. Unde circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim praemittit promissionem; secundo assignat rationem dictorum, ibi homines enim. Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim ostendit cui facta sit promissio; secundo ostendit promissionis modum esse convenientem, ibi quoniam neminem, etc.; tertio promissionis effectum, ibi et sic longanimiter. 311. – Above, the Apostle showed why he had confidence in them, namely, because of the good they performed; here he shows the same because of the promise made to the Patriarchs. Hence, he does two things: first, he mentions the promise; secondly, he assigns the reason for what he says (v. 16). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows to whom the promise was made; secondly, he shows that the way the promise was given was suitable (v. 13b) thirdly, the effect of the promise (v. 15). Promissio facta est Abrahae. Gal. c. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et cetera. Et huius est ratio, quia per fidem inhaeremus Deo, et ideo per fidem consequimur promissiones. Primum enim exemplum fidei fuit in Abraham, et hoc quia primus recessit a consortio infidelium. Gen. XII, 1: egredere de terra tua, et cetera. Secundo, quia primus aliquid credidit, quod erat supra naturam. Rom. c. IV, 18: qui contra spem, in spem credidit. Unde Gen. XV, 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Primus enim accepit signaculum fidei, scilicet circumcisionem, Rom. IV, 11."> 312. – When God made a promise to Abraham: ‘To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed’ (Gal. 3:16). The reason for this is that by faith we adhere to God; consequently, by faith we obtain the promise. For the first example of faith was found in Abraham, and this because he was the first to withdraw from associating with unbelievers: ‘Go forth out of your country, and from your kindred, and out of your father’s house’ (Gen. 12:1); secondly, because he was the first to believe something above nature: ‘Who against hope believed in hope’ (Rom. 4:18). Hence, Gen. (15:6): ‘Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice.’ For he was the first to receive the seal of faith, namely, circumcision (Rom. 4:11). Modus promissionis est quantum ad duo: primo quantum ad iuramentum interpositum; secundo quantum ad verba promissionis, ibi nisi benedicens benedicam tibi, et cetera. 313. – The manner in which the promise was suitable for two reasons: first, because of the oath; secondly, by reason of the words of the promise (v. 14). Dicit ergo: Deus volens ostendere promissionem suam firmam et stabilem, quia non habuit maiorem se, per quem iuraret Ps. CXII, 4: excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, etc. iuravit per semetipsum. Gen. c. XXII, 16: per memetipsum iuravi, dicit dominus, et cetera. In quo habes exemplum, quod iuramentum de se non est illicitum, quia Scriptura nihil Deo attribuit quod de se sit peccatum. Intendit enim Scriptura nos ad Deum ordinare et ducere. Eph. V, 1: estote imitatores Dei sicut filii, et cetera. Tamen interdicitur frequentia iuramenti. Eccli. XXIII, 9: iurationi non assuescat os tuum, et cetera. Item iuramentum in vanum. Ex. XX, 7: non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum. 314. – He says, therefore: God, wishing to show that His promise is firm and stable, since he had no one greater by whom to swear: ‘The Lord is high above all nations’ (Ps. 112:4), swore by himself: ‘By my own self have I sworn, says that Lord’ (Gen. 22:16). In this you have an example that an oath is not of itself unlawful, because the Scripture does not attribute to God anything which of itself is a sin. For Scripture intends to direct and lead us to God: ‘Be you followers of God, as most dear children’ (Eph. 5:1). Nevertheless, frequent swearing is forbidden: ‘Let not your mouth be accustomed to swearing’ (Sir. 23:9), and so are oaths taken in vain: ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain’ (Ex. 20:7). Consequenter cum dicit nisi benedicens, etc., ostendit modum promissionis; quasi dicat non credatur mihi, nisi benedicam tibi, ut sit modus iurandi quasi per executionem. Dicit autem benedicens, quod pertinet ad bonorum collationem. Benedictio enim domini divites facit, sicut dicitur Prov. c. X, 22. Et multiplicans multiplicabo te, quod etiam pertinet ad prolis numerositatem. Et utrumque fuit Abrahae promissum, sicut patet Gen. XIV et XXV. Ingeminat autem dicendo benedicens benedicam, ut designet bona temporalia et spiritualia, et continuitatem benedictionis. Vel benedicens benedicam in multitudine prolis sanctae, quae Gen. XV, 5 designatur per stellas caeli, ubi dicitur suspice caelum, et numera stellas, si potes, et cetera. Et multiplicans multiplicabo in numerositate prolis malae et perversae, quae ibidem, scilicet XXII cap., designatur per arenam maris. Ingeminatur etiam multitudo, quod est propter numerositatem prolis bonae vel malae; vel propter continuitatem multitudinis. Vel benedicam in bonis gratiae, et multiplicabo in bonis gloriae. Ps. XXX, 19: quam magna multitudo dulcedinis tuae, domine, et cetera. 315. – Then (v. 14) he shows the manner in which the promise was made. As if to say: Do not believe me, unless I bless you. A blessing refers to bestowing benefits: ‘The blessing of the Lord makes men rich’ (Pr. 10:22); I will multiply you, which pertains to numerous offspring. Both promises were made to Abraham, as is clear from Gen. (14 & 15). But he repeats the words, blessing, I will bless, in order to designate both temporal and spiritual goods, and the continuance of his blessing. Or, ‘blessing I will bless’ in the multitude of holy offspring, which is designated by the stars of heaven: ‘Look up to heaven and number the stars if you can. And he said unto him: So shall your seed be’ (Gen. 15:5). And multiplying, I will multiply in the number of evil and perverse children, which are designated by the sands of the seashore. Or I will bless you in the good things of grace and multiply you in the good things of glory: ‘How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord’ (Ps. 30:20). Effectus promissionis fuit, quia longanimiter ferens, adeptus est repromissionem. Longanimitas est non solum in faciendo magnum aliquid, sed etiam in expectando in longum. Abraham autem promissionem habuit, nec unquam passum pedis terrae possedit, ut dicitur Act. VII, 5. Et usque in senectutem prolem non suscipit, et tamen a spe non decidit. Iac. V, 10: accipite exemplum, fratres mei, mali exitus, et longanimitatis, et laboris, et patientiae prophetas, et cetera. Is. LI, 2: attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum, et cetera. 316. – The effect of the promise was that Abraham, ‘having patiently endured, obtained the promise. For patient endurance consists not only in doing something great, but also in waiting a long time. But Abraham had the promise, although he never possessed the pace of a foot of land, as it says in Ac (7:5); furthermore, even until his old age he possessed no offspring. But he still kept his hope: ‘Take, my brethren, for an example of suffering evil, of labor and patience, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord’ (Jas. 5:10); ‘Look unto Abraham your father and to Sarah that bore you’ (Is. 51:2). Deinde cum dicit homines enim per maiorem sui iurant, ponit rationem praedictorum, et circa hoc facit tria. Primo enim ponit humanam consuetudinem; secundo assignat rationem consuetudinis, ibi in quo abundantius; tertio subdit fructum rationis, ibi ut per duas res immobiles. 317. – Then when he says, Men indeed swear by a greater than themselves, he states the reason for the foregoing. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions a human custom; secondly, the reason behind the custom; thirdly, the fruit of the promise (v. 18). Consuetudo enim humana duplex ponitur una quantum ad id per quod iuratur; alia quantum ad effectum iuramenti, ibi et omnis controversiae. Illud autem per quod iuratur, est maius, et hoc rationabiliter. Nihil enim aliud est iurare, nisi dubium confirmare. Sicut ergo in scientiis nihil confirmatur, nisi per id quod est magis notum: ita quia nihil certius est apud homines, quam Deus, ideo per ipsum, tamquam per maius et certius, iuratur. 318. – Two human customs are mentioned: one in regard to that by which one swears; the other in regard to the effect of an oath: in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. Now that by which one swears is greater, and reasonably so. For swearing is nothing more that settling a doubt. Therefore, just as in the sciences nothing is settled except by something more certain, so, because nothing is more certain with men than God, one swears by Him, as by something greater and more certain. Sed contra. Quandoque enim iuratur per filium, qui minor est, ut cum dicitur: per Christum. Aliquando vero per creaturam, sicut Ioseph iuravit per salutem Pharaonis, Gen. XLII, 15. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod duplex est modus iurandi per Deum: uno modo per simplicem attestationem; ut cum absolute dicitur: per Deum ita est quasi dicat: testis est mihi Deus, quod ita est, sicut dico. Rom. I, 9: testis est mihi Deus, cui servio in spiritu meo. Aliquando vero per execrationem, quod fit quando aliquid obligatur ad vindictam Deo, si non sit ita, puta caput, vel anima, vel aliquid huiusmodi, sicut iuravit apostolus. II Cor. I, 23: testem Deum invoco in animam meam, quasi dicat: obligo animam meam pro testimonio, pro quo ipsum nomen Dei assumo. Et istud est gravissimum. Per creaturam autem iuratur non inquantum est talis, sed inquantum in ipsa relucet aliquod indicium divinae potestatis. Quia enim omnis potestas a Deo est, Rom. XIII, 1, inquantum aliquis exercet potestatem super aliquam multitudinem: si iuratur per ipsum, iuratur per Deum, cuius potestas in ipso relucet. Et sic iuravit Ioseph per salutem Pharaonis. Hoc est ergo, quod dicit homines per maiorem sui jurant. 319. – But sometimes one swears by the Son, Who is less; as when one says, ‘by Christ’ or by the creature, as Joseph swore by the health of Pharaoh (Gen. 42:16). I answer that there are two ways of swearing by God: one is by a simple attestation, as when one says, ‘By God, it is so.’ As if to say: God is my witness that it is as I say: ‘For God is my witness, who I serve in spirit’ (Rom. 1:9). Another way is by execration, which occurs when something, such as the head of the soul or something of that sort, is offered unto God for vengeance, if it is not so. This is the way the Apostle swore in 2 Cor (1:23): ‘But I call God to witness upon my soul.’ As if to say: I offer my soul as witness, for which I take God’s name. And this is very solemn. But one swears by a creature not as such, but inasmuch as some sign of God’s power is resplendent in it. For since all power is from God (Rom. 13:1), then, inasmuch as someone exercises power over a group, if he swears by it, he swears by God, Whose power is reflected in it. This is the way Joseph swore by the health of Pharaoh. This, therefore, is what he says, Men swear by one greater than themselves. [fragmentum interpolatum ex reportatione altera a Remigio Nanni] Sciendum est autem, quod a iuramento sunt excludendi alias periuri, quia debet iuramento maxima reverentia exhiberi, et ex retro actis praesumitur, quod debitam reverentiam iuramento non exhibebunt. Item ad ipsum non sunt cogendi pueri ante annos pubertatis, quia nondum habent perfectum usum rationis, quo sciant iuramento debitam reverentiam exhibere. Item personae magnae dignitatis, quia iuramentum requiritur ab eis, de quarum dicto, vel facto dubitatur. Derogat autem hominibus magnae auctoritatis, ut dubitetur de veritate eorum quae dicunt. Unde et in decretis, II quaest. c. IV dicitur, quod sacerdos ex levi causa iurare non debet. Causae autem in quibus liceat iurare hae sunt: pro pace firmanda, sicut Laban iuravit, Gen. XXXI, 44 ss.; secundo pro fama conservanda; tertio pro fidelitate tenenda, sicut feudatarii iurant dominis; quarto pro obedientia implenda, si praecipitur a superiori aliquid honestum; quinto pro securitate facienda; sexto pro veritate attestanda. Sic iuravit apostolus, Rom. I, 9: testis est mihi Deus, et cetera. 320. – But it should be noted that those who are otherwise known as perjurers must be kept from taking oaths, because the greatest reverence should be shown an oath, and from their past actions it is presumed that they will not show an oath proper reverence. Likewise, children should not be compelled to take an oath before the years of puberty, because they do not yet have perfect use of reason to know what reverence must be paid an oath. Also persons of high stations; because an oath is required of those about whose words or actions there is doubt. But it detracts from persons of high station, when one doubts the truth of what they say. Hence, in the Decretals (q. 2, ch. 4) it says that a priest should not take an oath for some slight cause. But the causes in which it is lawful to swear are the following: for strengthening peace, as Laban swore (Gen. 31:48); secondly, for preserving one’s good name; thirdly, for pledging fealty, as vassals swore to their lord; fourthly, for having obedience fulfilled, if something honorable is commanded by a superior; fifthly, for obtaining security; sixthly, for attesting to a truth, which is the way the Apostle swore: ‘God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit’ (Rom. 1:9). Deinde cum dicit et omnis controversiae, etc., ponit effectum iuramenti qui in hoc consistit, quod per iuramentum finitur omnis controversia. Sicut enim in scientiis, quando resolvitur usque ad prima principia demonstrabilia, quiescitur, ita divina lege introductum est, quod cum pervenitur ad primam veritatem est status, quod fit quando ipsa in testimonium invocatur. Ex. XXII, 8: applicabitur ad deos, et iurabit, et sic sopitur omnis quaestio et controversia. 321. – Then when he says, and an oath is final for confirmation, he mentions the effect of an oath, which is to put an end to all controversy. For just as in the sciences one stops when he has reduced his proof to the first principles, so is the divine law, when one come to the first truth, he stops and this is the time, when the first truth is invoked as a witness: ‘The master of the house shall be brought to the gods and he shall swear’ (Ex. 22:8). Thus all questions and all controversies are settled. Deinde cum dicit in quo abundantius, ponit rationem, quare Deus voluit iurare, scilicet ad ostendendam firmitatem promissionis suae. Unde dicit in quo, id est, eo ipso Deus interposuit iuramentum, volens abundantius ostendere, et cetera. Abundans enim fuit, quod promisit, sed abundantius fuit, quod iuravit. Volens, inquam, ostendere haeredibus pollicitationem, id est rei pollicitae. Rom. IX, 8: qui filii sunt promissionis aestimantur in semine. Ostendere, inquam, immobilitatem. Sciendum est, quod in his quae a Deo procedunt, duo sunt consideranda, scilicet ipse processus rerum, et consilium Dei a quo talis processus causatur. Consilium Dei est omnino immobile. Is. XLVI, 10: consilium meum stabit, et omnis voluntas mea fiet. Sed dispositio est bene mutabilis. Nam dominus aliquando pronuntiat aliquid, secundum quod exigit ordo et processus rerum, sicut patet, Is. XXXI: dispone domui tuae, quia morieris tu, et non vives. Habebat enim cursus infirmitatis, quod ex illa moreretur. Et similiter Ion. III, 4: adhuc quadraginta dies, et Ninive subvertetur, quia ipsa meruerat subversionem sui ipsius. Ier. XVIII, 7 s.: repente loquar adversus gentem, et adversus regnum, ut eradicem, et destruam, et disperdam illud. Si poenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo, quod locutus sum adversus eam, agam et ego poenitentiam super malo, quod cogitavi ut facerem ei. Et tunc prophetia est comminationis. Quandoque vero pronuntiatur aliquid secundum quod respicit consilium Dei aeternum: et super hoc Deus numquam poenitet, nec illud retrahit. I Reg. XV, 29: triumphator in Israel non parcet, et poenitudine non flectetur. Tamen sciendum est, quod quandocumque dominus promittit aliquid sub iuramento, est prophetia praedestinationis, quae est ostensiva divini consilii; et ista promissio penitus immutabilis est. 322. – Then when he says, So when God desired to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his purpose, he interposed an oath, he states the reason why God willed to swear, namely, to show the immutability of His promise. Hence, he says, wherein, i.e., by the fact that He interposed an oath, desiring more abundantly to show; for it was abundant that He promised, but more abundant that He swore, desiring, I say, to show to the heirs of the promise, i.e., of the thing promised: ‘They that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed’ (Rom. 9:8), to show, I say, the immutability of his purpose. It should be noted in regard to things which proceed from God that two things must be considered, namely, the coming-forth of things and God’s counsel by which such a coming-forth is caused. God’s counsel is absolutely unchangeable: ‘My counsel shall stand and all my will shall be done’ (Is. 46:10). But the disposition is quite changeable, for the Lord sometimes announces something according as the order and coming-forth of things requires, as in Is (38:1) ‘Take order with your house, for you shall die and not live’; for the cause of his sickness was such that he should die from it. Also in Jonah (3:4): ‘Yet forth days and Nineveh shall be destroyed’, because it has deserved destruction: ‘I will suddenly speak against a nation and a kingdom, to root out, to pull down and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil I have thought to do to them’ (Jer. 18:7). In this case the prophecy is a threat. But sometimes something is announced according to God’s eternal counsel, and in that case God never repents or retracts it: ‘But the triumpher in Israel will not spare, and will not be moved to repentance’ (1 Sam. 15:29). Yet it should be noted that whenever God promises something under oath, it is a prophecy of predestination which reveals God’s plan. Such a promise is absolutely unchangeable. Deinde cum dicit ut per duas res, etc., ostendit fructum promissionis: et primo ostendit, quis sit ille fructus; secundo quis consequatur hunc fructum, ibi quam sicut anchoram. 323. – Then (v.18) he shows the fruit of the promise: first, he shows that that fruit is; secondly, what follows upon it (v. 19). Fructus autem est, ut spes nostra sit certa: unde dicit ut habeamus fortissimum, id est firmissimum, solatium spei, per duas res immobiles, quibus impossibile est mentiri, scilicet per Deum, qui promittit, qui non mentitur, Num. XXIII, 19: non est Deus, ut filius hominis, ut mentiatur, et per iuramentum, in quo est maior confirmatio veritatis. Sciendum est autem, quod sicut delectatio sensibilis est experientia sensibilis, et memoria de praeterito, ita spes de futuro. I Mach. II, v. 61: omnes qui sperant in ipso, non infirmantur. Is. XL, 31: qui sperant in domino, mutabunt fortitudinem, assument pennas, ut aquilae, current, et non laborabunt, et cetera. Habeamus, inquam, nos, qui confugimus a malis, scilicet mundi, et ab impugnatione hostis, ad tenendam propositam nobis spem. Ps. LXXXIX, 1: domine, refugium factus es nobis. Prov. XVIII, 10: turris fortissima nomen domini. Ad ipsam currit iustus, et exaltabitur. 324. – The fruit, of course, is that our hope is certain; hence, he says, that we might have strong, i.e., firm, encouragement of hope, by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should be false, namely, by God who promises and does not lie: ‘God is not a man that he should lie’ (Num. 23:19) and by the oath in which there is a stronger confirmation of the truth. But it should be noted that just as sensual delight is a sense experience and memory of the past, so hope is of the future: ‘None that trust in him shall fail in strength’ (1 Mac 2:61); ‘They that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, and they shall take wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint’ (Is. 40:31). We may have, I say, we who have fled for refuge from the evils of the world and the onslaught of the enemy, to seize the hope set before us: ‘Lord, you have been my refuge’ (Ps. 89:11); ‘The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the just runs to it and shall be exalted’ (Pr. 18:10). Deinde cum dicit quam sicut anchoram, ostendit quod fideles promissionem istam consequantur, et utitur quadam similitudine. Comparat enim spem ipsi anchorae, quae sicut in mari navem immobilitat, ita spes animam firmat in Deo in hoc mundo, qui est quasi quoddam mare. Ps. CIII, 25: hoc mare magnum et spatiosum manibus. Ista tamen anchora debet esse secura, ut scilicet non deficiat. Unde fit de ferro. II Tim. I, 12: scio enim cui credidi, et certus sum, et cetera. Item debet esse firma, ut scilicet non cito a navi removeatur: ita homo debet alligari isti spei, sicut anchora navi alligatur. Est autem differentia inter anchoram et spem, quia anchora in imo figitur; sed spes in summo, scilicet in Deo. Nihil enim in praesenti vita est firmum, ubi posset anima firmari et quiescere. Unde Gen. VIII, 9, dicitur, quod columba non invenit ubi requiesceret pes eius. Et ideo dicit, quod debet incedere usque ad interiora velaminis. Apostolus enim per sancta, quae erant in tabernaculo, intelligit statum praesentem Ecclesiae, sed per sancta sanctorum, quae per velum distinguebantur a sanctis, intelligit statum futurae gloriae. In illo ergo vult quod figatur anchora spei nostrae, qui est modo velatus ab oculis nostris. Is. LXIV, 4: oculus non vidit, Deus, absque te, quae praeparasti expectantibus te. Ps. XXX, 19: quam magna multitudo dulcedinis tuae, domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te. Hanc ibi fixit praecursor noster, qui ibi ingressus est. Unde Io. XIV, 2: vado parare vobis locum. Mich. II, 13: ascendit pandens iter ad eos. Et ideo dicit, quod ipse tamquam praecursor pro nobis ingressus est interiora velaminis, et ibi fixit spem nostram, sicut dicitur in collecta, in vigilia, et in die ascensionis. Tamen quia intra velum non licebat intrare nisi summo sacerdoti, Lev. XVI, 2, ideo dicit, quod Iesus, qui pro nobis ingressus est, factus est pontifex in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ecce quam eleganter redit apostolus ad propositum suum. Ipse enim coeperat loqui de sacerdotio, et tamen fuerat multum digressus: sed nunc ad istud redit, sicut patet. 325. – Then when he says, we have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, he shows that faith will obtain that promise; and he makes use of a simile. For he compares hope to an anchor, which just as it secures ship in the sea, so hope secures the soul in God in this work, which is, as it were, a kind of sea: ‘So is this great sea, which stretches wide its arms’ (Ps. 103:25); hence, it is made of iron: ‘I know whom I have believed and I am certain’ (2 Tim. 1:12). Also it should be firm, so that is it is not easily removed from the ship; thus a man should be held fast to that hope as an anchor and hope is that the anchor is fixed to a low place, but hope is fixed in the highest, namely, to God. For nothing in the present life is so firm that the soul could be secure and at rest; hence, it says in Gen. (8:8) that the dove found no place where her foot might rest. And, therefore, he says that this hope should enter into the inner shrine behind the veil. For the Apostle understand the present condition of the Church by the holy things that were in the tabernacle; but by the holy of holies, which was separated from the saints by a veal, he understands the state of future glory. Therefore, he wills that the anchor of our hope be fixed in that which is now veiled from our eyes: ‘The eye has not seen, O God, besides thee, what things you have prepared for them that wait for you’ (Is. 64:4); ‘How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for them that fear you!’ (Ps. 30:20). This, our forerunner, who has entered there, has fixed there; hence, it says in Jn (14:2): ‘I go to prepare a place for you.’ He shall go up that shall open the way before them’ (Mic. 2:13). Therefore, he says that Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf within the veil and has fixed our hope there, as it says in the collect of vigil and of Ascension day. Yet because the high priest alone was permitted to enter within the veil (Lev 16), he says that Jesus has entered on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Notice how elegantly the Apostle returns to his main theme. For he had begun to speak of the priesthood and then digressed; but now he returns to it, as is obvious.
7-1
Heb. 7:1-3Supra apostolus, V cap., probavit Christum esse sacerdotem. In VI autem capite interposuit quaedam ad praeparandos animos auditorum; hic redit ad suum propositum. Intendit enim probare excellentiam sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum. Et circa hoc facit duo primo enim ostendit excellentiam sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium veteris testamenti; secundo ostendit quod fideles debent sacerdoti Christo reverenter subdi. Et hoc in medio decimi capitis, ibi habentes itaque, fratres, fiduciam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim ostendit praerogativam sacerdotii Christi super leviticum ex parte personae ipsius sacerdotis; secundo ex parte ministerii, VIII cap. ibi capitulum autem. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ostendit existentiam sacerdotii Christi ex promissione divina; secundo ostendit necessitatem sacerdotii eius, ibi talis enim decebat. Promissionem vero ostendit per illud Ps. CIX, 5: iuravit dominus, et non poenitebit eum, et cetera. Unde tria ostendit ad propositum suum probandum. Primo illud quod dicitur secundum ordinem Melchisedech; secundo illud quod dicitur iuravit, ibi et quantum est non sine iureiurando; tertio illud quod dicitur tu es sacerdos, ibi et alii quidem plures. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ostendit similitudinem Christi ad Melchisedech; secundo ex hac similitudine praefert sacerdotium Christi levitico, ibi intuemini autem. Circa primum duo facit quia primo describit conditiones Melchisedech; secundo ostendit, quomodo conveniunt Christo, ibi primum quidem. 326. – In Chapter 5 the Apostle proved that Christ is a priest, but in Chapter 6 he interposed certain considerations to prepare the minds of his hearers. Now he returns to his main theme: for he intends to prove the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the excellence of Christ’s priesthood as compared to the priesthood of the Old Testament; secondly, he shows that believers should subject themselves reverently to the priesthood of Christ (c. 10). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the prerogative of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical on the part of the person of the priest; secondly, on the part of the minister (c. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proves the existence of Christ’s priesthood by reason of a divine promise; secondly, the need for this priesthood (v. 26). But he shows this promise from the words of Ps. 109 (v. 4): ‘The Lord has sworn and he will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Hence, he shows three things to prove his thesis: first, the phrase, ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’; secondly, the statement ‘He swore’ (v. 20); thirdly, the statement, ‘You are a priest forever’ (v. 23). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the likeness of Christ to Melchizedek; secondly, on the basis of this likeness he chooses the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical (v. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes Melchizedek’s qualities; secondly, he shows how they fit Christ (v. 2b). Describit autem Melchisedech primo ex nomine, cum dicit hic autem Melchisedech. Sic enim nominat eum Scriptura, Gen. XIV, v. 18, ubi habetur historia, quam apostolus hic supponit. Et secundum Glossam, Hebraei dicunt ipsum fuisse Sem primogenitum Noe, et tunc quando Abraham habuit victoriam, erat annorum 390, alias 309. Et occurrit Abrahae nepoti suo. 327. – He describes Melchizedek, first of all, by his name when he says, For this Melchizedek. For so the Scripture names him in Genesis (14:18), where his history, which the Apostle supposes here, is recorded. According to a Gloss the Hebrews say that was Shem, the first-born of Noah, and when Abraham obtained the victory, he was 390 or 309 years old, and met Abraham, his nephew. Secundo describit eum a dignitate. Erat enim rex et sacerdos. Quantum ad primum dicitur rex Salem. Et secundum aliquos, Salem dicitur Ierusalem. Sed contra est Hieronymus in quadam epistola, quia, ut ipse dicit, non poterat esse quod ei occurreret a Ierusalem, quod probat ex situ. Alii autem dicunt, quod Salem dicitur ille locus, de quo dicitur Io. III, 23, quod iuxta illum Ioannes baptizabat, et moenia illius loci erant adhuc tempore Hieronymi. Quantum ad secundum dicit sacerdos Dei summi. Antiquitus enim ille, qui inter filios erat antiquior, erat sacerdos. Sed verum est, quod tempore Abrahae multum invaluerat cultus idolorum. Et ideo ne credant, quod esset sacerdos idolorum, additur Dei summi, scilicet per essentiam, non per participationem, vel nuncupationem. Deus enim est creator omnium eorum, qui dicuntur dii, sive per participationem, sive per errorem. Ps. XCIV, 3: rex magnus super omnes deos. Is. LXI, 6: vos sacerdotes domini vocabimini, et cetera. 328. – Secondly, he describes him from his dignity, for he was king and a priest. In regard to the first he says, king of Salem. Some say that Salem is called Jerusalem. But Jerome denies this in a letter, because, as he says, he could not run into him from Jerusalem, which he proves from its location. Others say that Salem is the place where John baptized (Jn. 3:23), and the walls of that place still existed in Jerome’s time. In regard to the second he says, priest of the Most High God. For in olden times the elder brother was a priest. But it is true that in Abraham’s time the worship of idols was on the increase. Therefore, lest anyone suppose that he was a priest of idols, he adds, of the Most High God, namely, God by essence not by participation or name. For God is the Creator of all who are gods either by participation or erroneously: ‘The Lord is a great king above all gods’ (Ps. 94:3); ‘You shall be called priests of the Lord: to you it shall be said: You ministers of our God’ (Is. 61:6). Tertio describit eum ab officio, ibi qui obviavit, et cetera. Sacerdos enim medius est inter Deum et populum. Debet enim aliquid populo conferre, scilicet spiritualia, et aliquid ab eo accipere, scilicet temporalia. I Cor. IX, v. 11: si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, non magnum est si carnalia vestra metamus. Primo ergo debet exhibere confortationem per bona monita. Unde dicitur Gen. XIV, quod quatuor reges vicerunt quinque reges, et captivum duxerunt Lot nepotem Abrahae. Isti quatuor reges sunt quatuor vitia principalia, opposita quatuor cardinalibus virtutibus, quae captivum detinent affectum nepotem rationis, victis quinque sensibus corporis. Qui enim superat et liberat affectum, debet confortari a sacerdote. Is. XXI, 14: occurrentes sitienti ferte aquam; et Is. XXXV, 3: confortate manus dissolutas, et cetera. Secundo sacerdos debet confortare per sacramentorum administrationem benedicendo. Unde benedixit ei. Ps. CXVII, 25: benediximus vobis in nomine domini. Hoc autem fit impendendo sacramenta, per quae confortatur homo in gratia. Num. VI, 27: invocabunt nomen meum super filios Israel, et ego benedicam eis, nam Deus benedicit auctoritate, sed sacerdos ministerio. Et decimas, scilicet ad sustentationem, divisit, scilicet Abraham, id est, divisit, scilicet Abraham, id est, recte distribuit. 329. – Thirdly, he describes him from his office: who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. For a priest is midway between God and the people. Therefore, he should confer something on the people, namely, spiritual things, and receive something from them, namely, temporal things: ‘If we then have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter, if we reap your carnal things?’ (1 Cor. 9:11). First, therefore, he should show strength by good advice; hence it says in Genesis (14) that the four kings are the four principal vices opposed to the four cardinal virtues which hold the emotions, the nephew of reason, captive after the five bodily senses are overcome. For a person who overcomes and frees the emotions deserves to be comforted by a priest: ‘Meeting the thirsty, bring him water’ (Is. 21:14); ‘Strengthen the feeble hands, and confirm the weak knees’ (Is. 35:3). Secondly, a priest should give strength by administering the sacraments with a blessing; hence, he blessed him: ‘We have blessed you in the name of the Lord’ (Ps. 117:26). But this is done by conferring the sacraments, by which a man is strengthened in grace: ‘They shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them’ (Num. 6:27), for God blesses by His authority, but the priest by his ministry. To him Abraham apportioned, i.e., distributed properly, a tenth part of everything [tithes] for his sustenance. Sed contra: quia, ut patet Num. c. XVIII, ex lege est datio decimarum, non ergo sunt ante legem. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod caeremonialia veteris testamenti sunt quaedam determinationes praeceptorum iuris naturalis et praeceptorum moralium. Et ideo quantum ad hoc, quod habebant de iure naturali, servabantur ante legem tantum pro voto observantium, et sine aliquo praecepto. Quod enim aliquid offeratur Deo in recognitionem creationis et dominii, hoc est naturale; sed quod offeratur vitulus et hoedus, hoc est caeremoniale. Similiter de iure naturali est, quod ministri servientes Deo, sustententur a populo, sicut enim patet Gen. XLVII, 22, hoc servabatur etiam apud gentiles. Unde sacerdotes, quia pascebantur de horreis publicis, non sunt compulsi vendere possessiones suas; et ideo fuerunt ante legem. Sed determinatio huius partis est per legem. Lev. XXVII, 30: omnes decimae domini sunt. Et in huius signum Iacob ante legem, in loco in quo postea fuit aedificatum templum, vovit se daturum decimas. Et hoc specialiter, quia ad hoc Dei cultus proprie exhibetur, ut significetur, quod homo quicquid habet, a Deo accepit: et totam perfectionem suam ab ipso expectat. Numerus enim denarius est perfectus, quia consurgit ex partibus suis aliquotis: quia unum, duo, tria, quatuor faciunt decem. Usque etiam ad ipsum ascendit numerus, et omnes alii non sunt nisi quaedam repetitio et additio super denarium. Omnes ergo sunt imperfecti usque dum pervenitur ad ipsum. Et similiter a Deo est omnis perfectio. Ut ergo significaret, quod a Deo est complementum omnis perfectionis, ideo dedit decimas. 330. – But it seems from Numbers (18:21) that the giving of tithes dated from the Law; therefore, there was none before the Law. I answer that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament are amplifications of the precepts of the natural law and of the moral precepts; therefore, in regard to what they had from the natural law, they were observed before the Law without any precept. For the fact that something is offered to God in recognition of His creation and dominion is natural; but that He should be offered goats and heifers is a ceremonial precept. Similarly, it is according to natural law that ministers serving God be sustained by the people, for it is clear from Genesis (47:22) that this was observed among the Gentiles. Hence, priests, because they were fed from the public storehouses, were not compelled to sell their possessions. Therefore, there were tithes before the Law, but the determination of this amount was fixed by the law: ‘All tithes are the Lord’s’ (Lev. 27:30). A sign of this was the fact that Jacob before the Law vowed that he would give tithes in the place where the temple was later built. And this was done particularly because the main reason for rendering worship to God is to signify that whatever a man has, he received from God and that he depends on Him for his entire perfection. For the number ‘ten’ is perfect, since it is the sum of its several parts, because the sum of one plus two plus three plus four is ten. Furthermore, one counts as far as ten and all other numbers are repetitions or additions to ten. Therefore, all numbers are imperfect until ten is reached. Likewise, all perfection is from God. Therefore, in order to signify that the fulfillment of all perfection is from God, he gave tithes. Deinde cum dicit primum quidem, ostendit similitudinem Christi et Melchisedech. Et circa hoc facit duo primo enim inducit similitudinem quantum ad conditionem personae; secundo quantum ad sacerdotium, ibi assimilatus autem filio Dei. Prima in duas quia primo ponit similitudinem quantum ad ea, quae in Scriptura commemorantur; secundo quantum ad ea quae in ipsa tacentur, ibi sine patre. 331. – Then (v. 2b) he shows the likeness to Melchizedek. In regard to this he does two things: first, he suggests the likeness in regard to the condition of the person; secondly, in regard to the priesthood (v. 3b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states a likeness in regard t things commemorated in Scripture; secondly, in regard to things not mentioned in Scripture (v. 3). In Scriptura autem duo dicuntur de ipso. Primum quidem, nomen, scilicet Melchisedech, qui interpretatur rex iustitiae: et significat Christum, qui fuit rex. Ier. XXIII, 5: et regnabit rex, et sapiens erit, et faciet iudicium et iustitiam in terra. Nec solum dicitur iustus, sed etiam rex iustitiae: quia factus est nobis sapientia et iustitia, I Cor. I, 30. Aliud quod dicitur de ipso, est conditio. Unde dicitur rex Salem, quod est rex pacis. Hoc autem convenit Christo. Ipse enim est pax nostra, Eph. II, 14; Ps. LXXI, 7: orietur in diebus eius iustitia et abundantia pacis. Et in hoc docet apostolus uti interpretatione nominum in praedicationibus. Et bene coniungit iustitiam et pacem, quia nullus facit pacem, qui non servat iustitiam. Is. XXXII, 17: erit opus iustitiae, pax. In mundo isto gubernantur in iustitia, sed in futuro in pace. Is. XXXII, 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis. 332. – In Scripture two things are said of him: first, his name, namely, Melchizedek, who is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and signifies Christ, Who was a king: ‘And a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth’ (Jer. 23:5). He is not only called righteous, but king of righteousness, because He was made wisdom and righteousness for us (1 Cor. 1:30). Another thing said of him is his status; hence, he is called king of Salem, that is, king of peace. But this suits Christ: ‘For he is our peace’ (Eph. 2:14); ‘In his days shall justice spring up and abundance of peace’ (Ps. 71:7). And in this the Apostle teaches us to use the interpretation of names in preaching. He does well to join justice and peace, because no one can make peace who does not observe justice: ‘The work of justice shall be peace’ (Is. 32:17). In this world they are governed in justice, but in the world to come in peace: ‘My people shall sit in the beauty of peace’ (Is. 32:18). Deinde cum dicit sine patre, ponit similitudinem quantum ad ea, quae tacentur de ipso, quia in Scriptura non fit mentio de patre, vel matre eius, nec de genealogia ipsius. Unde ex hoc aliqui antiqui assumpserunt materiam erroris: ut quia solus Deus est sine principio et sine fine, dicerent istum Melchisedech fuisse filium Dei. Istud autem damnatum est sicut haereticum. Unde sciendum est, quod in veteri testamento, quandocumque fit mentio de aliqua solemni persona, narrantur pater et mater, et tempus nativitatis et mortis, sicut de Isaac et multis aliis. Hic autem subito introducitur Melchisedech, nulla penitus facta mentione de generatione sua, et pertinentibus ad ipsam. Et hoc utique rationabiliter. Inquantum enim dicitur sine patre, significatur nativitas Christi de virgine, quae fuit sine patre. Matth. I, 20: quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est. Illud autem, quod est proprium Dei, non debet attribui creaturae. Solius vero Dei patris est esse patrem Christi. Ergo in nativitate illius, qui ipsum praefigurabat, non debuit fieri mentio de patre carnali. Item quantum ad generationem aeternam dicit sine matre. Et hoc ne intelligas istam generationem esse materialem, sicut mater dat materiam genito, sed est spiritualis; sicut splendor a sole. Supra I, 3: qui cum sit splendor, et cetera. Item quando fit generatio a patre et matre, non totum est a patre, sed materia administratur a matre. Ad excludendum ergo imperfectionem a Christo, et ad designandum, quod totum quod habet, est a patre, non fit aliqua mentio de matre. Unde versus est sine matre Deus, est sine patre caro. Ps. CIX, 4: ex utero ante Luciferum genui te, scilicet ego solus. Sine genealogia. Et duplici de causa non ponitur genealogia eius in Scriptura: una ad designandum, quod generatio Christi est ineffabilis. Is. LIII, 8: generationem eius quis enarrabit? Alia ad designandum, quod Christus, qui introducitur ut sacerdos, non pertinet ad genus leviticum, nec ad genealogiam veteris legis. Et haec est intentio apostoli. Unde subdit neque initium dierum habens, neque finem vitae. Hoc autem dicit, non quia Christus non sit natus in tempore neque mortuus, sed propter aeternam eius generationem, in qua natus est sine initio cuiuscumque temporis. Unde Io. I, 1: in principio erat verbum, id est, tempore quocumque dato ante erat verbum, ut exponit Basilius. Est enim ante omnes dies, quia per ipsum factus est mundus, cum quo incoeperunt dies. Item nec finem vitae: verum est quantum ad divinitatem, quae est aeterna. Quantum etiam ad humanitatem, iam non habet finem vitae, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur, Rom. VI, 9. Et infra XIII, 8: Christus Iesus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula. 333. – Then when he says, without father or mother or genealogy, he presents a likeness in regard to the things not mentioned about him, because in Scripture no mention is made of his father or mother or genealogy. Hence, some of the ancients made this matter of their error, saying that since God alone is without beginning and without end, Melchizedek was the Son of God. But this has been condemned as heretical. Hence, it should be noted that the Old Testament, whenever mention is made of some important person, his father is named along with the time of his birth and death, as in the case of Isaac and many others. But here Melchizedek is suddenly introduced with no mention at all made of his birth or anything pertaining to it. This was not done without reason. For inasmuch as it is said, without father, the birth of Christ from the Virgin is signified, for it occurred without a father: ‘That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt. 1:20). Now that which is proper to God should not be attributed to a creature; but it is proper to God the Father to be the Father of Christ. Therefore, in the birth of the one who prefigured Him, no mention should be made of a carnal father. Also in regard to His eternal birth he says, without mother, lest anyone suppose that birth to be material, as the mother gives the matter to her begotten; but it is spiritual, as brightness from the sun: ‘Who being the brightness of his glory and figure of his substance’ (Heb. 1:3). Also, when generation proceeds from a father and a mother, it is not all from the father, but the matter is ministered by the mother. Therefore, to exclude all imperfection from Christ and to designate that all he has from the Father, no mention is made of a mother; hence, the verse: ‘He is God without a mother; He is flesh without a father.’ ‘From the womb before the day star I begot you,’ i.e., I alone (Ps. 109:3). Without genealogy: now there are two reasons why his genealogy is not given in the Scripture: one is because the generation of Christ is ineffable: ‘Who shall declare his generation’ (Is. 53:8); the other is because Christ, Who is introduced as a priest, does not pertain to the Levitical priesthood, nor to a genealogy of the Old Law. This is the Apostle’s intention; hence, he says, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life. But he says this, not because Christ was not born in time or did not die, but because of His eternal generation, in which He was born without the beginning of any time: ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (Jn. 1:1), i.e., no matter what time you mention, the Word was before it, as Basil explains. Also, no end of life: this is true in regard to His divinity, which is eternal. But in regard to His humanity, He no longer has an end of life, because ‘Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9); and below (13:8): ‘Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever.’ Deinde cum dicit assimilatus autem filio Dei, etc., ostendit similitudinem quantum ad sacerdotium. Sciendum est tamen, quod solet dici, quod posteriora assimilantur prioribus, et non e converso. Et ideo ne credatur, quod sacerdotium Christi sit posterius sacerdotio Melchisedech, hoc removet apostolus, quia et si Christus inquantum homo natus sit post eum et ex tempore, tamen inquantum Deus et filius Dei est ab aeterno. Et ideo Melchisedech secundum omnia ista assimilatus est illi, qui est filius Dei, et hoc inquantum manet sacerdos in perpetuum, quod potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo, quia non fit mentio de fine sacerdotii eius, nec successore ipsius. Os. XII, 10: in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. Item est sacerdos in perpetuum, quia figuratum eius, scilicet sacerdotium Christi, in perpetuum est. Unde et in Scriptura pluries repetitur, ritu perpetuo. Ex. XXVII, 21: cultus perpetuus erit. Lev. c. XXIV, 3: cultu, rituque perpetuo, quia illud quod figurabatur per istud, perpetuum erat. Per hoc enim apostolus continuat sequentia ad praecedentia. 334. – Then when he says, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever, he indicates a likeness in regard to the priesthood. Yet is should be noted that later things are said to be similar to earlier things, and vice versa. Consequently, lest anyone suppose that Christ’s priesthood is later than that of Melchizedek, the Apostle dispels this, because, although Christ as man was born after him and existed in time, nevertheless, as God and as the Son of God, He exists from eternity. Therefore, Melchizedek was like Christ, the Son of God, in regard to all those features: and this inasmuch as He continues a priest forever, which can be explained in two ways: one way, because no mention is made of the end of his priesthood or of his successor: ‘I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets’ (Hos 12:10). He also says, a priest forever, because that which is prefigured, namely, Christ’s priesthood, lasts forever. Hence, even in Scripture it is frequently referred to as perpetual: ‘It shall be a perpetual observance’ (Ex. 27:21): ‘By a perpetual service and rite’ (Lev. 24:3), because that which was symbolized by it is perpetual. In this matter the Apostle connects the following with the preceding.
7-2
Heb. 7:4-10Supra ostendit apostolus quomodo Melchisedech assimilatus est filio Dei, hic ostendit praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad sacerdotium leviticum. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim excitat attentionem; secundo ostendit propositum, ibi et quidem de filiis. 335. – Having showed how Melchizedek was likened to the Son of God, the Apostle now shows the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical. In regard to this he does two things: first, he attracts their attention; secondly, he states his thesis (v. 5). Excitat autem ipsos, quia grandia et maxima dicturus erat. Prov. VIII, 6: audite me, quia de rebus magnis locutura sum. Et ideo dicit intuemini, id est diligenter considerate, quantus, id est, quam magnae dignitatis sit hic cui Abraham patriarcha decimas solvit, et hoc de praecipuis. Mal. I, 14: maledictus dolosus, qui habet in grege suo masculum: et votum faciens, immolat domino debile. Dicitur autem Abraham patriarcha, id est, princeps patrum, non quia non habuerit patrem, sed quia sibi facta est promissio de paternitate gentium. Gen. XVII, 4: eris pater multarum gentium. Eccli. XLIV, 20: Abraham magnus pater multitudinis gentium. Rom. c. IV, 17: patrem multarum gentium posui te ante Deum cui credidisti. 336. – He attracts them by saying that he is about to speak of great and important matters: ‘Hear, for I will speak of great things’ (Pr. 8:5); hence, he says, see how great, i.e., of what great dignity, he is, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of the spoils: ‘Cursed is the deceitful man, that has in his flock a male, and making a vow, offers in sacrifice that which is feeble, to the Lord’ (Mal. 1:14). Abraham is called a patriarch, i.e., the chief of fathers, not because he had no father, but because the promise of being father of the Gentiles was made to him: ‘You shall be a father of many nations’ (Gen. 17:4); ‘Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations’ (Sir. 44:20); ‘I have made you a father of many nations before God whom he believed’ (Rom. 4:17). Deinde cum dicit et quidem de filiis, ostendit praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad leviticum. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit propositum; secundo ex hoc concludit intentum, scilicet quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur sacerdotio levitico, ibi si ergo consummatio. Iterum prima in duas quia primo ostendit propositum; secundo removet quamdam responsionem, ibi et ut ita dictum. Prima iterum in duas. Primo ostendit praeeminentiam quantum ad id, in quo ipse usus est sacerdotio suo; secundo quantum ad conditionem sacerdotii, ibi et hic quidem decimas. Ad sacerdotem vero duo pertinent, ut dictum est supra, scilicet accipere, et benedicere. Duo ergo facit quia primo ostendit excellentiam quantum ad acceptionem decimarum; secundo quantum ad benedictionem, ibi et hunc qui habebat. Circa primum adhuc duo facit quia primo ostendit de quibus competit accipere decimas; secundo quomodo hoc excellentius faciebat Melchisedech, ibi cuius autem generatio. 337. – Then (v. 5) he shows the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over that of the Levitical. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, from this he concludes his thesis, namely, that Christ’s priesthood is preferred to the Levitical (v. 11). The first is divided into two parts: in the first he states his proposition; in the second he rejects a certain response (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the pre-eminence in regard to that in which he used his priesthood; secondly, in regard to the state of the priesthood (v. 8). But two things pertain to the priest, namely, to receive and to bless. Therefore, he does two things: first, he shows its excellence as far as receiving tithes is concerned; secondly, in regard to blessing (v. 6b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows who is competent to accept tithes; secondly, how Melchizedek did this in a more excellent manner (v. 8). Dicit ergo et quidem accipientes sacerdotium de filiis levi. In hoc ostendit quibus competit accipere decimas, quia sacerdotibus. Sciendum est autem, quod illi de tribu levi erant deputati divino cultui. Inter ipsos autem soli illi de stirpe Aaron erant sacerdotes. Ex. XXVIII, 1: applica Aaron, et cetera. Et isti quia per Aaron erant de tribu levi, sumebant decimas. Sed contra. Ergo secundum hoc soli sacerdotes accipiebant decimas, quod est contra illud Num. XVIII, 21: filiis levi dedi omnes decimas Israelis, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Levitae non accipiebant eas, nisi quia ministrabant sacerdotibus. Et ita non propter se, sed propter sacerdotes dabantur eis. Item, Levitae accipiebant decimas decimatas, sic Num. XVIII, v. 26. Et ita soli sacerdotes accipiebant, et non solvebant. 338. – He says, therefore: And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people. In this he shows that it belongs to priests to take tithes. But it should be noted that the members of Levi’s tribe were deputed to divine worship, but among them only the descendants of Aaron were priests: ‘Take unto you also Aaron, your brother, with his sons from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office’ (Ex. 28:1). Hence, those who belong to the tribe of Levi through Aaron took tithes. This would seem to indicate that the priests alone took tithes, which is contrary to what it says in Numbers (18:21): ‘I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel.’ I answer that the Levites received them, only because they ministered to the priests; consequently, they were given not for themselves but for the priests. Furthermore, the Levites received only one-tenth of the tithes, as it says in Numbers (18:26); therefore, only the priests received and did not pay. Secundo ostendit quo iure accipiebant, quia ex mandato legis. Unde dicit mandatum habent decimas sumere. Contra. Si hoc est mandatum legis, cum servare mandata legis modo sit peccatum, videtur illicitum modo dare, vel accipere decimas. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod in lege fuerunt quaedam pure caeremonialia, sicut circumcisio, immolare agnum, et huiusmodi. Et ista quia erant figurativa tantum, non licet modo servare. Erant enim figura futuri. Unde qui modo servaret significaret Christum adhuc futurum. Quaedam vero erant pure moralia, et ista modo servanda sunt, et de talibus fuit datio decimarum, sicut supra dictum est. Unde decimatio et in lege data est, et in novo testamento. Matth. X, 10: dignus est operarius cibo suo. Lc. X, 7: dignus est operarius mercede sua. Sed determinatio talis portionis modo est ab Ecclesia, sicut et in veteri testamento fuit ex lege. Alia vero fuerunt partim caeremonialia, et partim moralia, sicut iudicialia: et ista quantum ad id quod caeremonialia sunt, non licet servare; sed quantum ad morale, debent, tamen non est necesse in propria forma servari. Alia obiectio: quia si esset mandatum, et adhuc est, ergo peccat qui non accipit, et peccant ubi non accipiuntur. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod aliqui dicunt quod nulli licet abrenunciare iuri accipiendarum decimarum, sed bene licet dimittere usum accipiendi propter scandalum, et hoc exemplo apostoli, qui sumptus non accipiebat ab aliquibus. Et sic dicunt mandatum esse, quod iuri non renuntient. Melius tamen dici potest, quod non est intelligendum quod eis praeceptum sit sumere, sed pro se habent introductum hoc mandatum, quod accipere possint, et alii teneantur reddere. 339. – Secondly, he shows by what right they received them, namely, by a commandment of the Law; hence, he says, they have commandment in the law to take tithes. But if this is a commandment of the Law, then, since the observance of a commandment of the Law is now a sin, it seems unlawful to give or to receive tithes now. I answer that there were in the Law some precepts that were purely ceremonial, as circumcision, the immolation of the lamb, and so on. Such laws, since they were only figurative, it is no longer licit to observe, for they were a figure of something to come; hence, anyone who observes them now would be signifying that Christ is still to come. But others were purely moral, and these must be observed now. Among these was the giving of tithes, as was explained above. Hence, tithing was in vogue during the Law and under the New Testament: ‘The worker is worthy of his food’ (Mt. 10:10); ‘The worker is worthy of his hire’ (Lk. 10:7). But the determination of such a portion now is made by the Church, just as in the Old Testament it was determined by the Law. But others were partly ceremonial and partly moral, as the judicial precepts. These laws are no longer to be used in regard to what is ceremonial; but in regard to what is moral, they must be obeyed. Yet it is not necessary that they be observed in their proper form. Another objection: If it were a commandment still in vogue, then one who does not take tithes sins, and they sin where they are not taken. I answer that some say that no one may lawfully renounce his right to take tithes, but it is lawful to renounce the practice of taking them because of scandal; and this from the example of the Apostle who took no sustenance from anyone. So they say that the are commanded not to renounce the right. But it is better to say that they are not commanded to take; but they have this command introduced for themselves, so that they can take, and the others are bound to give. Tertio ostendit a quibus accipiebant, quia a populo, scilicet a fratribus suis secundum legem, quamquam ipsi, Levitae, exierint de lumbis Abrahae. Quia enim aliquis posset dicere, quod sicut Melchisedech accepit decimas ab Abraham, ita Levitae a filiis eius, ergo non praefertur illud sacerdotium isti. Ideo hoc excludit, et dicit quod ipsimet Levitae erant de semine Abrahae, et sic erant inferiores eo cui decimas solverunt, scilicet Abraham. 340. – Thirdly, he shows from who they received, namely, from the people, i.e., from their brethren, though these also are descended from the loins of Abraham. For since someone might say that just as Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, so, too, his sons, the Levites; therefore, that priesthood is not preferred to this one. Consequently, he excludes this and says that the Levites themselves were of the seed of Abraham and, consequently were inferior to Abraham, who paid the tithes. Deinde cum dicit cuius autem, ostendit quomodo excellentius conveniebat Melchisedech accipere decimas, quia nec ipse erat de genere Abraham; unde generatio eius non annumeratur cum eis, scilicet Levitis. Item ex mandato legis licebat eis sumere decimas, et sic eorum sacerdotium erat subiectum observantiis legis. Sed ille non ex mandato cuiuscumque legis, sed per se sumpsit decimas. Ideo sacerdotium eius erat figura sacerdotii Christi, quod non est subditum legi. Item ipsi accipiebant a populo infimo, scilicet a fratribus, ille autem a summo, scilicet ab Abraham. 341. – Then when he says, But this man who has not the genealogy received tithes of Abraham, he shows how it was more fitting for Melchizedek to receive tithes, because he was not of the stock of Abraham; hence, he has not their genealogy, namely, of the Levites. Furthermore, according to a commandment of the Law it was lawful for him to take tithes; consequently, their priesthood was subject to the observance of the Law. But he took tithes not by reason of any law but of himself; therefore, his priesthood was a figure of Christ’s priesthood, which is not subject to the Law. Likewise, they received from a lowly people, namely, their brethren, but he from the highest, namely, from Abraham. Deinde cum dicit et hunc qui habebat, etc., ostendit excellentiam eius ex parte benedictionis, et est sua ratio talis: Gen. XIV, v. 19, dicitur, quod Melchisedech benedixit Abrahae; sed maior est qui benedicit, illo cui benedicitur: ergo, et cetera. Et ideo dicit, quod Melchisedech ipse benedixit Abraham, qui habebat repromissionem. Contra infra XI, 39: non acceperunt repromissionem, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non accepit Abraham repromissionem, id est, rem promissam, quia non fuit eam consecutus, habuit tamen ipsam in fide et spe, et ad ipsum specialiter facta est repromissio. 342. – Then when he says, and blessed him that had the promises, he shows his excellence from the viewpoint of the blessing. His reason is this: In Genesis (14:19) it says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham; but one who blesses is greater than the one blessed, therefore, etc. Hence, he says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, who had the promises. But on the other hand, it says below (11:39): ‘They received not the promise.’ I answer that Abraham did not receive the promise, i.e., the things promised, because he did not obtain it; but he possessed it in faith and hope, and to him specifically the promises were made. Deinde cum dicit sine ulla autem contradictione, quod minus est a meliore benedicitur, ponit maiorem suae rationis. Sed hic sunt tres obiectiones. Prima est de hoc quod dicit quod minor a maiore benedicitur. Et ex isto loco pauperes Lugdunenses dicunt quod quicumque iustus maior est peccatore, et sic iustus laicus non benedicitur a malo sacerdote, sed e converso. Unde volunt, quod omnis iustus est sacerdos, et nullus peccator est sacerdos. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod iste error nimis perniciosus est: quia si bonitas ministri requiratur ad collationem sacramenti, in quo est ipsa salus, sequitur quod nullus sit certus suae salutis, nec sciret se recte baptizatum, quia non potest scire, si sacerdos sit iustus. Nullus etiam poterit esse minister, quia nemo scit utrum odio, vel amore dignus sit, Eccle. IX, 1. Et ideo dicendum est quod aliquis potest aliquid facere dupliciter: aut auctoritate propria, aut auctoritate alterius. Quando autem auctoritate propria, tunc requiritur quod sit iustus. Sacerdos autem tantum est minister. Unde non agit nisi in virtute Christi. I Cor. c. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi, et dispensatores ministeriorum Dei. Et ideo non nocet sive bonus, sive malus fuerit; quia Christus est, qui in ipso benedicit, et sic sine ulla contradictione, qui benedicit, maior est. Secunda obiectio est, quia cum Christus sit maior omni sacerdote, quomodo potest corpus Christi a sacerdote consecrari? Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod sacerdos benedicit materiam, non autem corpus Christi. Item non agit auctoritate propria, sed auctoritate Christi, qui, inquantum Deus, maior est corpore suo. Item tertia obiectio est, quia non videtur verum, quod maior benedicat semper minorem, quia Papa consecratur ab episcopo, et archiepiscopus a suffraganeo, qui tamen sunt minores. Respondeo. Dicendum est: nec episcopus consecrat Papam, nec suffraganei archiepiscopum, sed hunc hominem, ut sit Papa, vel archiepiscopus. Item facit hoc ut minister Dei, qui maior est, quam Papa. 343. – Then when he says, it is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior, he states the major premise of his reasoning. But here there are three objections: the first concerns the statement that the lesser is blessed by the better. On this score the Poor Men of Lyons claim that any just person is greater than a sinner; consequently, a just layman is not blessed by a wicked priest, but conversely. Hence, they would have it that every just man is a priest and no sinner is a priest. I answer that this error is most pernicious, because if a good minister is required for conferring the sacraments, in which salvation is found, it follows that no one is sure of his salvation or knows whether he was properly baptized, because he cannot know if the priest was just. For no one could be ministers, because ‘no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or love’ (Ec 9:1). Therefore, it should be noted that a person can do something in two ways: either by his own authority, or by someone else’s. When it is by his own authority, it is required that he be just. But a priest is only a minister; hence, he acts only in virtue of Christ: ‘Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God’ (1 Cor. 4:1). Therefore, he does no harm whether he be good or bad, because it is Christ Who blesses in him. Hence, without any contradiction, the one who is greater, blesses. The second objection is that since Christ is greater than any priest, how can the body of Christ be consecrated by a priest? I answer that the priest blesses the matter and not the body of Christ. Furthermore, he does not act by his own authority, but by that of Christ, Who as God is greater than His body. The third objection is that it does not seem true that the greater always blesses the lesser, because the Pope is consecrated by a bishop, and an Archbishop by a suffragan, both of who are lesser. I answer that a bishop does not consecrate the Pope nor the suffragan the Archbishop, but they consecrate this man to be Pope or Archbishop. Furthermore, they do this as the ministers of God, Who is greater than the Pope. Deinde cum dicit et hic quidem, etc., ostendit praeeminentiam sacerdotii ex parte sacerdotis ex conditione ipsius. Et facit talem rationem: illud est excellentius, quod non corrumpitur, sed in sacerdotio levitico homines morientes, id est, per mortem succedentes, accipiunt decimas, sed ibi, id est, in sacerdotio Melchisedech, contestatur, Scriptura, quia vivit, id est, non facit mentionem de morte eius: non quia non mortuus sit, sed quia significat sacerdotium, quod manet in aeternum. Christus enim resurgens a mortuis, iam non moritur, Rom. VI, 9, et Apoc. I, 18: fui mortuus, et ecce sum vivus, et cetera. 344. – Then when he says, Here tithes are received by mortal men, he shows the pre-eminence of the priesthood on the part of the priest by reason of his state. His reasoning is this: That the more excellent which is not corrupted. But in the Levitical priesthood mortal men, i.e., who succeed by death, receive tithes; but there, in the priesthood of Melchizedek, by one of who it is testified from the Scripture, that he lives, i.e., it makes no mention of his death, not because he did not die, but because he signifies a priesthood that continues forever: ‘Christ, rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9); ‘I was dead, and behold I am living forever and ever’ (Rev. 1:18). Consequenter cum dicit et, ut ita dictum sit, etc., respondet cuidam obiectioni. Posset enim dici: verum est quod Melchisedech maior est quam Abraham, qui ei dedit decimas, sed levi maior est quam Melchisedech. Et ideo dicit apostolus, quod hoc non valet, quia, ut ita dictum sit, per Abraham, id est, mediante Abraham, et levi decimatus est, ab eo supple, qui decimas accepit, id est, a Melchisedech. Et sic adhuc est ipse maior quam levi. Sed contra. Si alicuius episcopi pater dat decimas, non tamen propter hoc oportet quod episcopus sit minor illo, qui decimas recipit. Ergo nec similiter in proposito. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non est simile, quia tota dignitas illius generis etiam sacerdotum, erat ex Abraham; non autem sic est de episcopo, quia tota dignitas eius ex Christo est, non ex patre suo. 345. – Then when he says, and one might say that even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, he answers an objection. For someone might say: it is true that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham who gave him tithes; but Levi is greater than Melchizedek. So the Apostle says that this is not valid, because one might say that through Abraham, i.e., through the medium of Abraham, even Levi paid tithes to him who received them, i.e., to Melchizedek. Therefore, he is still greater than Levi. But on the other hand, if the father of a bishop gives tithes, that is no reason why the bishop is less than the one who receives the tithes. Therefore, neither in the case at hand. I answer that the cases are not the same, because the entire dignity of the Jewish race and of its priests stemmed from Abraham; but in the case of a bishop, his entire dignity derives from Christ, not from his father. Deinde cum dicit adhuc enim in lumbis, etc., manifestat quod dixerat, et dicit, quod levi adhuc erat in lumbis patris Abraham quando dedit decimas Melchisedech, qui occurrit sibi, et sic Abraham decimato, decimatus est etiam levi. Sed contra: quia sic etiam erat Christus in lumbis eius, sicut et levi. Matth. I, 1: filii David, filii Abraham. Et ideo si propter hoc maior est Melchisedech quam levi, quia levi fuit decimatus, non videtur ratio quare Christus non fuerit decimatus: et sic adhuc Melchisedech maior Christo erit. Et eadem difficultas est de peccato originali: quia, ut dicitur Rom. V, 12: in quo omnes peccaverunt, id est, in Adam, et ideo videtur quod Christus, qui eodem modo fuit in ipso sicut nos, ipsum peccatum originale contraxerit. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod totum hoc intelligitur in his, qui in Abraham sive in Adam fuerunt, secundum rationem seminalem et corpulentam substantiam, quo modo Christus non fuit ibi, sed tantum secundum corpulentam substantiam: Christus enim fuit conceptus quo ad corpus de materia purissima et sanctissima beatae virginis: ut habetur declaratum tertio sententiarum, tertia distinctione. 346. – Then (v. 10) he explains what he had said; and he says that Levi was still in the loins of his father, Abraham, when he gave tithes to Melchizedek, who met him. Consequently, when Abraham was tithed, Levi was tithed. But on the other hand: Christ, too, was in his loins, just as Levi: ‘The son of David, the son of Abraham’ (Mt. 1:1). Therefore, if the reason why Melchizedek is greater than Levi is that Levi was tithed, there seems to be no reason why Christ was not tithed; consequently, Melchizedek is still greater than Christ. And the same difficulty applies to original sin, because as it says in Romans (5:12): ‘In whom all have sinned,’ i.e., in Adam. Therefore, it seems that Christ, Who existed in him in the same way as we, should have contracted original sin. I answer that all this is understood in regard to those who were in Abraham or in Adam according to seminal reasons or bodily substance. For Christ was conceived in regard to His body from the most pure and holy matter of the Blessed Virgin, as it says in 3 Sent. d. 5.
7-3
Heb. 7:11-19Supra probavit apostolus praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad leviticum, hic ab eodem concludit excellentiam sacerdotii Christi, respectu sacerdotii levitici. Sicut etiam supra dictum est, a principio huius septimi capitis, apostolus per tria probat ex auctoritate Psalmistae propositum suum. Primo per illud secundum ordinem Melchisedech, probavit ergo praeeminentiam Melchisedech ad levi. Et ideo secundum ordinem sacerdotii Melchisedech, probat praeeminentiam Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum. Unde facit hic magnam vim de isto verbo, secundum ordinem. Et facit duas rationes, quarum una concludit quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur sacerdotio levitico. Secunda, quod etiam evacuat illud, et illam ponit ibi et amplius adhuc manifestum est, et cetera. In prima ratione, quae est conditionalis, ponit duo antecedentia, et per consequens duo consequentia, ibi quid adhuc, et cetera. 347. – Having proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes to the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical. But as has been stated above from the beginning of ch. 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist: first, from the phrase, ‘according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Therefore, he proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek over Levi. Now according to the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood, he proves Christ’s pre-eminence over the Levitical. Hence, he lays great stress on the phrase, ‘according to the order.’ And he gives two reasons: the first concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical; secondly, that it even makes it void (v. 15). In the first reason, which is conditional, he lays down two antecedents and two consequents: what further need would there have been for another priesthood to rise according to the order of Melchizedek? Et ratio sua talis est: si sacerdotium leviticum fuisset perfectum, per cuius ministerium erat administratio legis, non fuisset necessarium quod surgeret alius sacerdos secundum alium ordinem, per quem etiam alia lex ministraretur, sicut per leviticum lex vetus. Sed surgit alius sacerdos secundum alium ordinem, scilicet secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ergo illud imperfectum erat. Sicut ergo surgit aliud sacerdotium, ita necesse est surgere aliam legem. In ista ratione manifestum est quod sunt duo antecedentia, unum pertinens ad sacerdotium, aliud ad legem. Dicit ergo, quantum ad primum antecedens, quod si esset consummatio per sacerdotium leviticum. Quantum vero ad secundum dicit, quod si per sacerdotium lex administraretur, quod probat, quia sub ipso, id est, per eius administrationem, populus legem accepit, non quod sacerdotium praecederet legem, sed magis e converso. Unde istud secundum antecedens ponit ibi, cum dicit sub ipso enim, et cetera. Mal. II, 7: labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem de ore eius requirent. Facit autem mentionem specialiter de sacerdotio, ut transferat se ad legem, quae per officium sacerdotale administrabatur: non enim, ut dicit Glossa, potest esse sacerdos sine testamento et lege et praeceptis. Sacerdotium vero non consummabat, id est, perficiebat. Tota enim perfectio sua erat per legem quam administrabat. Sed, ut iam dicetur, nullum ad perfectum adduxit lex, quia nec ad perfectionem iustitiae. Matth. V, v. 20: nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plusquam Scribarum, et cetera. Item non dabat consummationem patriae, quia non introducebat in vitam. Et in huius signum ipse legislator non potuit intrare terram promissionis. Deut. ult. Has autem duas perfectiones habemus per Christum. Is. X, 22: consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Rom. c. IX, 28: verbum consummans et abbrevians in aequitate. Haec sunt ergo antecedentia. 348. – His reasoning is this: If the Levitical priesthood had been perfect, by whose ministry the Law was administered, there would have been no need for another priest according to another order through which another Law is administered, just as the Old Law was administered by the Levitical. But another priest has risen according to another order, namely, of Melchizedek. Therefore, the other was imperfect. Therefore, just as another priesthood has risen, so it is necessary that another Law arise. In this reasoning it is manifest that there are two antecedents, namely, one pertaining to the priesthood and the other pertaining to the Law. In regard to the first antecedent he says, if perfection was attainable by the Levitical priesthood. But in regard to the second he says that if a law is administered by a priesthood, which he proves, because under it, i.e., by its administration, the people received the law; not that the priesthood preceded the Law, but conversely. Hence, he states the second antecedent when he says, for under it the people received the law: ‘The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth’ (Mal. 2:7). But he makes mention of the priesthood specifically in order to pass to the Law, which was administered by the priestly office: for as a Gloss says, there can be no priest without a testament and a law and precepts. But the priesthood brought nothing to perfection, for its entire perfection was through the Law, which they administered; but as will be shown later: ‘The law brought no one to perfection,’ because it did not lead to the perfection of justice: ‘Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:20); likewise, it did not bring the perfection of heaven, because it did not bring one into life. A sign of this was that the lawgiver himself could not enter the promised land. But we have these two perfections through Christ: ‘The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice (Is. 10:22); ‘A short word shall the Lord make upon the earth’ (Rom. 9:28). These, therefore, are the antecedents. Consequentia vero ponit, cum dicit quid adhuc, et cetera. Et hoc quantum ad primum, quasi dicat: si illud fuisset consummatum et perfectum, quid adhuc fuit necessarium surgere alium, et cetera. Id est, non dixisset secundum ordinem Melchisedech, sed secundum ordinem Aaron, quod quia non fecit, ergo erat imperfectum. Haec est tota prima ratio, per quam patet, quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur levitico. Secunda ratio probat quod etiam ipsum evacuat, quia perfectum evacuat imperfectum. I Cor. XIII, 10: cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Ergo sacerdotium Christi evacuat sacerdotium leviticum. Est ergo primum consequens, quod sacerdotium Christi evacuat sacerdotium leviticum. 349. – But he lays down the consequents when he says, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron, i.e., he would not have said, according to the order of Melchizedek, but ‘according to the order of Aaron.’ Therefore, because He did not, it was imperfect. This is the entire first reason, through which it is clear that Christ’s priesthood is preferred to the Levitical. The second reason proves that He even voided it, because the perfect voids the imperfect: ‘When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away’ (1 Cor. 13:10). Therefore, the priesthood of Christ does away with the Levitical. Secundum consequens est quod etiam evacuatur lex quae per illud administrabatur. Et istud ponit cum dicit quod translato enim sacerdotio, necesse est, ut legis translatio fiat. Erat enim lex sub administratione sacerdotii; ergo mutato sacerdotio, necesse est quod lex mutetur. Et huius ratio est, quia mutato fine, necesse est quod mutentur ea quae sunt ad finem, sicut qui mutat propositum eundi per aquam, mutat propositum quaerendi navem. Omnis autem lex ordinatur ad conversationem humanam secundum aliquod regimen. Unde secundum philosophum in politicis, mutata conversatione, necesse est mutari legem. Sicut autem lex humana ordinatur ad regimen humanum, ita spiritualis et divina ad regimen divinum. Hoc autem regimen designatur per sacerdotium. Translato ergo sacerdotio, necesse est transferri legem. 350. – The second consequent is that it also does away with the Law which was administered by it. He states this when he says, When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the Law was under the administration of the priesthood; therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that the Law be changed; just as a person who changes his mind about traveling by water, changes his mind about finding a ship. But every Law is ordained to leading one’s life according to some rule. Hence, according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when the mode of life is changed, it is necessary for the law to be changed. But just as human law is ordained to human guidance, so a spiritual and divine law to divine guidance. But this guidance is regulated by a priesthood. Therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation be made of the Law. Signanter autem loquitur, quia non dicit: sacerdote translato. Lex enim non respicit personam sacerdotis. Unde mortuo sacerdote, non mutatur lex, nisi forte sit illa introducta propter personam eius; sed mutato sacerdotio mutatur totus modus, et ordo regiminis. Et de ista mutatione habetur Ier. III: feriam domui Israel, et domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi cum patribus vestris, et cetera. Rom. VIII, 2: lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Lex enim vetus dicitur lex peccati et mortis, per occasionem acceptam, quia scilicet gratiam non conferebat ex opere operato; sicut sacramenta novae legis. 351. – But he speaks carefully, because he does not say, ‘The priest being translated’: for the law does not regard the person of the priest. Hence, when the priest dies, the law is not changed, unless perchance the entire method and order of guidance is changed. Jeremiah speaks of change when he says: ‘Behold, the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with your fathers’ (Jer. 31:31); ‘For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death’ (Rom. 8:2). For the Old Law is called the Law of sin and of death, because it did not confer grace ex opere operato, as the sacraments of the New Law do. Sed obiicit hic Manichaeus: si lex vetus fuit data per divinam providentiam, cum illa sit immutabilis, etiam ipsa lex esset immutabilis, et per consequens non debuit mutari. Cum ergo mutata sit, ergo non est data per divinam providentiam. Respondeo. Dicendum est, secundum quod dicit Augustinus contra Faustum, sicut sapiens dispensator una et eadem dispositione et providentia secundum diversitatem temporum et personarum dat alia et alia praecepta: sicut et alia hyeme, alia aestate, alia pueris, alia senibus, alia perfectis, alia imperfectis, et tamen est eadem providentia, ita divina providentia immobili permanente, mutata est lex propter mutationem temporum; quia ante adventum debuerunt dari praecepta, quae figurarent venturum, sed post adventum, quae significent venisse. Item data sunt illis praecepta sicut pueris: in novo vero sicut perfectis. Unde lex dicitur paedagogus, quod est proprie puerorum. Unde si in lege dicitur aliquid, quod sonet perpetuitatem, hoc est ratione figurati. 352. – But the Manicheans raise an objection here: If the Old Law was given by divine providence, which is immutable, the Law itself should be immutable; consequently, it should not be changed. Therefore, since it was changed, it was not given by divine providence. I answer, as Augustine says Against Faustus, that just as a wide dispenser by one and the same arrangement and providence gives different laws according as times and persons differ, one law for summer and another for winter, one for children and one for adults, one for perfect and another for imperfect, and yet is the same providence; so with divine providence remaining unchanged, the Law was changed to fit the times: because before the coming of Christ precepts were given to prefigure His coming, but after His coming, precepts were given to signify that He had come. Furthermore, the precepts were given to them as to children, but in the New Law as to the perfect. Hence, the Law is called a pedagogue, which is strictly for children. Therefore, if something given in the Law suggests perpetuity, this is by reason of the One prefigured. Item Glossa dicit hic quod ista translatio sacerdotii fuit figurata I Reg. II, quando sacerdotium fuit translatum ad Samuelem, qui non fuit de tribu levi. Contra: quia Samuel non fuit sacerdos, immo magis hoc fuit figuratum in translatione sacerdotii Abiathar ad Sadoch, qui etiam erat Levita. Et dicendum est, quod licet Samuel non esset sacerdos, tamen aliquid sacerdotale egit; quia et sacrificium obtulit, et reges unxit, scilicet Saul et David. Et quantum ad hoc, translatum est ad ipsum sacerdotium. Et sic dicitur in Ps. XCVIII, 6: Moyses et Aaron in sacerdotibus eius, et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen eius. 353. – Likewise, a Gloss here states that this translation of the priesthood was prefigured in 1 Sam (2:28), when the priesthood was transferred to Samuel, who was not of the tribe of Levi. But because Samuel was not a priest, this transfer seems rather to have prefigured by the transfer of the priesthood from Abiathar to Zadok, who was also a Levite. I answer that although Samuel was not a priest, he performed some priestly functions, because he offered sacrifices and anointed kings, namely, Saul and David. In this respect the priesthood had been transferred to him. Hence, it says in Ps. 98 (v. 6): ‘Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among them that call upon his name.’ Item contra illud quod dicit Glossa quod non erat de tribu levitica, quia Helcana qui fuit pater eius, et ipse numeratur inter filios levi. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Samuel quantum ad aliquid fuit de tribu Iuda, et hoc quantum ad matrem; sed quantum ad patrem de tribu levi, non tamen de Aaron; sed quantum ad locum, fuit de monte Ephraim. Licet enim undecim tribus habuerint certas provincias, non tamen tribus levi; sed inter ipsas accepit possessionem, et sic habitabat in monte Ephraim. 354. – Likewise, contrary to the Gloss is the fact that he was not of the tribe of Levi, because in 1 Chronicles (7:23) Elkanah, who was his father, is himself numbered among the sons of Levi. I answer that Samuel was in some sense from the tribe of Judah, namely, through his mother; but in regard to his father he was of the tribe of Levi, but not through Aaron; in regard to his place he was from Mount Ephraim. For although eleven tribes had their own provinces, the tribe of Levi did not, but he took possession among them, and so he dwelt in Mount Ephraim. Deinde cum dicit in quo enim, etc., manifestat quod dixit, et primo quod sacerdotium sit translatum; secundo hoc exponit, ibi manifestum est enim. 355. – Then when he says, he of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, he clarifies what he had said: first, that the priesthood was transferred; secondly, he explains this (v. 14). Dicit ergo: dictum est, quod translatum est sacerdotium, quia ille cui dixit propheta tu es sacerdos, est de alia tribu, scilicet de Iuda, non de levi; sicut patet Matth. I. De qua tribu nullus praesto fuit altari, id est, altaris ministerio, scilicet de Iuda. Sed contra: rex Ozias ingressus est templum, ut poneret incensum, II Par. XXVI, 16. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod licite nullus praesto fuit altari, vel etiam nullus impune. Ipse enim Ozias graviter fuit punitus, quia usque ad mortem fuit leprosus. Et si dicas contra illud quod dicitur nullus, quod beata virgo fuit de tribu et stirpe Aaron, quia erat cognata Elisabeth, quae fuit de filiabus Aaron, Lc. I, 5, respondeo: dicendum est quod inter stirpes, sacerdotalis et regia erant praeclariores, unde et frequenter coniunctae fuerunt per matrimonium, sicut patet de primo summo sacerdote, qui accepit uxorem filiam Aminadab sororem Naasson, qui fuit dux in tribu Iuda, Ex. VI, 23. Et etiam IV Reg. XI, 2 et II Par. XXII, 11, Ioiada sacerdos duxit in uxorem Iosabeth filiam regis Ioram. Unde potuit esse, quod aliqua parte Elisabeth esset de tribu Iuda. 356. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that the priesthood was transferred, because the one to whom the prophet said, ‘You are a priest forever,’ is of another tribe, namely, of Judah and not of Levi, as is clear from Matthew (1:3), from which tribe, namely, Judah, no one has served the altar. But on the other hand, King Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense, as it says in 2 Chronicles (26:16). I answer that no one could lawfully attend on the altar or even do so with impunity. For Uzziah was grievously punished, because he was a leper, until he died. If you say that it is wrong to say ‘no one,’ because the Blessed Virgin was of the tribe and family of Aaron, for she was related to Elizabeth, who was one of the daughters of Aaron (Lk. 1:5), I answer that among the families the most illustrious were the priestly and royal families. Hence, they were frequently joined in marriage, as is clear in the case of the first high priest, who took to wife the daughter of Aminadab, the sister of Nahshon, who was the leader of the tribe of Judah (Ex. 6:23). Furthermore, in 2 Kg (11) Jehoiada, a priest, took to wife Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram. Hence, it is possible that on one side, Elizabeth was of the tribe of Judah. Deinde cum dicit manifestum est, exponit quod dixit, dicens quod manifestum est, quod dominus ortus est de tribu Iuda, Apoc. V, 5: vicit leo de tribu Iuda, et cetera. In qua nihil, et cetera. Lex enim mandavit nullum assumi ad ministerium tabernaculi, nisi tantum de tribu levi; unde in tribu Iuda nihil de sacerdotibus locutus est Moyses. 357. – Then he explains what he had said, saying, It is evident that our Lord descended from Judah: ‘The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered’ (Rev. 5:5). In connection with that tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. For the Law commanded that no one be entrusted with the ministry of the tabernacle, except from the tribe of Levi only; hence, in the tribe of Judah, Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. Deinde cum dicit et amplius adhuc, et cetera. Quia superius posuit unam rationem ad probandum quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur levitico, et ipsum evacuat, et ideo hic ponit aliam, in qua ostendit rationem evacuationis, et transmutationis illius; et utitur quadam conditionali in qua primo ponit duo antecedentia; secundo duo consequentia, ibi reprobatio. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ponit illa antecedentia; secundo manifestat quod dixit, ibi contestatur enim. 358. – Then when he says, This becomes even more evident, because above he had presented one reason to prove that Christ’s priesthood is preferred over the Levitical and does away with it; he now presents the other reason, in which he shows why it is done away with and changed. To do this he makes use of a conditional, in the first of which he lays down two antecedents, and in the second two consequents. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down those antecedents; secondly, he clarifies what he has said (v. 17). Ratio sua talis: si novus sacerdos surgit, hoc non erit secundum legem carnalis mandati, sed secundum legem vitae aeternae et insolubilis. Et huius ratio est quia primus fuit secundum legem illam, oportet ergo quod novus sit secundum aliam legem, si tamen surgit aliquis novus. Sed dicendum est, quod surgit alius novus. In maiori ergo sunt duo, quorum unum pertinet ad vetus testamentum, scilicet quod est mandatum carnale, et hoc quia habebat quasdam observantias carnales, sicut circumcisionem, et purificationes carnales. Item quia promittebat poenas et praemia carnalia. Is. c. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis. Infra IX, 10: iustitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis. Et istud antecedens ponit, cum dicit amplius manifestum est, et cetera. Et patet, quod pertinet ad novum testamentum, quod non dispensatur per carnalia, sed consistit in spiritualibus. Est enim secundum spiritualem virtutem, per quam generatur in nobis vita perpetua. Et hoc quia promittuntur in ipso bona et poenae perpetuae. Infra IX, 11: Christus assistens pontifex, et cetera. Matth. XXV, 46: tunc ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, iusti vero in vitam aeternam. Item non consistit in carnalibus observantiis, sed in spiritualibus. Io. VI, 64: verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt. Et dicit, quod est secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis. 359. – His reasoning is this: If a new priest arises, this will not be according to the Law of a carnal commandment, but according to the Law of eternal and incorruptible life; the reason being that the first was according to that Law. It is proper, therefore, to say that the new one be according to another law, if a new one does actually arise. But a new one does arise. In the major premise are two statements: one pertains to the Old Testament, namely, that it is a carnal commandment, and this because it had certain carnal observances, as circumcision and purifications of the flesh, and because it promised carnal rewards and punishments: ‘If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land’ (Is. 1:19) ‘Justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction’ (Heb. 9:10). He lays down that antecedent when he says, and this becomes even more evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. It is clear that it pertains to the New Testament, which is not dispensed by carnal things, but consists of spiritual things: for it is founded upon a spiritual power, by which a perpetual life is produced in us; and this because perpetual goods and punishments are promised in it: ‘But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come’ (Heb. 9:11); ‘And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just into life everlasting’ (Mt. 25:26). Furthermore, it does not consist in carnal observances but in spiritual: ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ (Jn. 6:64). And this is what he says, namely, that it is according to the power of an indestructible life. Consequenter cum dicit contestatur enim, etc., manifestat quod dixerat, et facit vim in hoc, quod dicit in aeternum, quia si sacerdotium est aeternum, manifestum est quod dicit perpetuitatem. 360. – Then when he says, For he testifies: ‘You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek’, he manifests what he had said; and he emphasizes the phrase forever, because if the priesthood is eternal, it is clear that it involves perpetuity. Deinde cum dicit reprobatio quidem fit, etc., ponit duo consequentia. Et primo de evacuatione veteris testamenti; secundo de institutione novi, ibi introductio vero. 361. – Then when he says, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside, he lays down two consequents: first, in regard to the voiding of the Old Testament; secondly, the institution of the New. Primum est quod vetus testamentum fuit per legem carnalis mandati et introducitur aliud: ergo primum mutatur. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod fit prioris mandati reprobatio. Sed contra: non reprobatur nisi malum. Is. VII, 15: ut sciat reprobare malum. Illud autem mandatum non est malum. Rom. VII, v. 13: lex quidem sancta, et mandatum sanctum, et iustum, et bonum. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non erat malum secundum se, sed ut inconveniens tempori. Non enim servanda sunt in novo sacerdotio, quae fuerunt in antiquo. Ps. XXXIX, v. 6 s.: holocaustum et pro peccato non postulasti, tunc dixi: ecce venio. Et ideo dicitur, quod illud reprobatur; et hoc propter infirmitatem et inutilitatem. Illud autem dicitur infirmum, quod non potest exequi effectum suum: proprius autem effectus legis et sacerdotii est iustificare. Hoc autem non lex potuit facere. Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod erat impossibile legi, in quo infirmabatur secundum carnem. Gal. IV, 9: quomodo convertimini iterum ad infirma et egena elementa, quibus denuo vultis servire? Item, inutile dicitur quod non valet ad finem consequendum. Hoc autem non potest lex, quia non adducebat ad beatitudinem, quae finis est hominis. Sed tamen suo tempore fuit utilis, inquantum disponebat ad fidem. Infra c. XI, 13: iuxta fidem omnes defuncti sunt, non acceptis repromissionibus. Quare autem sit infirmum et inutile, ostendit cum dicit nil enim ad perfectum, nec scilicet iustitiae, nec patriae, adduxit. Unde erat imperfecta, sed perfecta fuit per Christum. 362. – The first consequent is that the Old Testament came about by the law of carnal commandments, and the other is then introduced. The first, therefore, is changed: and this is what he says, namely, there is a setting aside of the former commandment. But nothing is set aside except what is evil: ‘That he may know how to refuse the evil’ (Is. 7:15). But the commandment is not evil ‘The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’(Rom. 7:12). I answer that it was not evil in itself, but inasmuch as it was unsuited to the time. For the things of the Old Testament are not to be kept in the New Testament: ‘Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire: then said I: behold, I come’ (Ps. 39:8). Therefore, it is said to be set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. For that is said to be weak which cannot produce its effect; but the proper effect of the Law and of the priesthood is to justify. This the Law was unable to do: ‘For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin has condemned sin in the flesh’ (Rom. 8:3); ‘How turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again?’ (Gal. 4:9). Likewise, it is called useless, inasmuch as it prepared one for the faith: ‘All these died according to the flesh, not having received the promises’ (Heb. 11:13). But he shows why it is weak and useless when he says, it made nothing perfect in regard to justice or eternal life. Hence, it was imperfect, but it was made perfect by Christ. Consequenter cum dicit introductio vero, ponit consequens secundum ex secundo antecedente, dicens introductio vero melioris spei, supple: fit per novum sacerdotem, per quam proximamus ad Deum. Si enim novus surgit, est secundum virtutem vitae indissolubilis: hoc est antecedens; et introductio melioris, etc.: et hoc est consequens. I Pet. I, 3: regeneravit nos in spem vivam per resurrectionem Iesu. Item per ipsum proximamus Deo. Per peccatum enim disiungimur ab ipso. Is. LIX, 2: iniquitates vestrae diviserunt inter vos et Deum vestrum, et peccata vestra absconderunt faciem eius a vobis. Hic est ergo ille, qui hoc removet, quod facit nos approximare Deo; hic autem est ille novus sacerdos, scilicet Christus, qui tollit peccata mundi, Io. I, 29. Iustificati ergo ex fide pacem habeamus ad Deum per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, per quem accessum habemus in gratiam istam Rom. V, v. 1 s. 363. – Then when he says, on the other hand a better hope is introduced, he lays down the second consequent from the second antecedent, saying, a better hope is introduced by the new priest, through which we draw near to God. For if a new priest arises, it is according to the power of an indestructible life (this is the antecedent); and the introduction of a better hope (this is the consequent): ‘He has regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Pt 1:3). Likewise, through Him we draw near to God, for through sin we are separated from Him: ‘But your iniquities have divided you between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear’ (Is. 59:2). He, therefore, is the one who removes this and makes us draw near to God. He is that new Priest, namely, Christ, Who takes away the sins of the world: ‘Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access into this grace’ (Rom. 5:1).
7-4
Heb. 7:20-28Supra apostolus ex una parte auctoritatis Psalmistae probavit, quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur levitico, et ipsum evacuat, hic idem probat ex aliis duabus partibus et primo ex hoc, quod dicit iuravit dominus; secundo ex hoc quod dicit tu es sacerdos, ibi et alii quidem plures, et cetera. 364. – Having proved by the authority of the Psalmist that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical and does away with it, the Apostle now proves the same thing by two other authorities: first, from the fact that he says, ‘The Lord has sworn’; secondly, that he says, ‘You are a priest’ (v. 23). Facit autem primo talem rationem: illud quod instituitur sine iuramento, minus validum est, quam quod instituitur cum iuramento; sacerdotium autem Christi institutum est cum iuramento, sicut patet, quia dicit iuravit dominus. Sacerdotium vero Aaron, non, sicut patet Ex. XXVIII, 1: applica ad te Aaron, et cetera. Ergo, et cetera. Quantum ad maiorem dicit et quantum est, supple quod, non sine iureiurando, alii quidem sine iureiurando sacerdotes facti sunt; hic autem, et cetera. Omnia ista ponuntur ad probandum, quod sacerdotium Christi sit firmius, quia supra dictum est omnis promissio, facta in veteri testamento per iuramentum, signum est consilii divini immobilis. Et ideo, quia ad David et ad Abraham facta fuit ista promissio de Christo cum iuramento, specialiter dicitur Christus filius ipsorum. Istud autem iuramentum designat aeternitatem potestatis Christi. Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius, potestas aeterna. Lc. I, 33: et regni eius non erit finis. 365. – In regard to the first he forms the following argument: ‘That which is instituted without an oath is less valid than that which is instituted with an oath. But the priesthood of Christ was instituted with an oath, as is clear from what he says, the Lord has sworn; but not the priesthood of Aaron, as is clear from Exodus (28:1): ‘Take unto you also Aaron’, therefore, etc. In regard to the major premise he says, and it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath. All this is set down to prove that the priesthood of Christ is firmer; because, as has been stated above, every promise made in the Old Testament by an oath is a sign of God’s unchangeable plan. Therefore, because that promise about Christ was made with an oath of David and to Abraham, Christ is called their son in a special way (Mt. 1:1). But that oath designates the eternity of Christ’s power: ‘His power is an everlasting power’ Dan (7:14); ‘And of his kingdom there will be no end’ (Lk. 1:33). Intantum melioris, etc., quia sacerdotium est firmius, quod patet, quia per iuramentum ordinatum est, ideo oportet aliquid melius et firmius per ipsum haberi. Unde potest legi praecedens littera suspensive usque huc: quod, inquantum est non sine iuramento, intantum melioris, et cetera. Sciendum est autem quod sacerdos est medius inter Deum et populum. Deut. V, 5: ego medius et sequester fui. Et ideo, quia sequester est mediator, sacerdos debet Deum et populum ad concordiam reducere. Et hoc fit, quasi per pactum de bonis temporalibus, in quibus non conquiescebat affectus nisi carnalium, secundum illud Ps. XV: quid enim mihi est in caelo, et cetera. Et ideo oportuit, ut superveniret alius sacerdos, qui esset sponsor, id est promissor melioris testamenti, et melioris pacti, quia de bonis spiritualibus et stabilibus. Et hic est Iesus. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi, et cetera. Matth. IV, v. 17: poenitentiam agite, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. 366. – This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant, because His priesthood is firmer, which is evident, because it was set up with an oath. Therefore, it is necessary that something better and firmer be obtained by it. But it should be noted that a priest is a mediator between God and the people: ‘I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you’ (Date: 5:5). But a priest should bring God and the people to concord. And this is done, as it were, by a pact dealing with temporal goods, in which only the affection for carnal things rested, as it says in Ps. 72 (v. 5): ‘For what have I in heaven? and besides you what do I desire upon earth?’ Consequently, it was fitting that another priest should come to be a surety, i.e., a promise, of a better testament and of a better pact, because it is concerned with spiritual and stable goods; and this is Jesus: ‘I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the convenient which I made with their fathers’ (Jer. 31:31); ‘Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Mt. 4:17). Deinde cum dicit et alii quidem plures, etc., utitur alia clausula posita in auctoritate tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit quare haec clausula in aeternum apponitur; secundo ex hoc ostendit sacerdotium Christi esse maioris efficaciae, quam sacerdotium veteris testamenti, ibi unde et salvare. 367. – Then when he says, the former priests were many in number, he uses another clause stated in the authority: You are a priest forever. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows why this phrase forever, is used; secondly, from this he shows that the priesthood of Christ has greater efficacy than the priesthood of Old Testament (v. 25). Ostendit autem, quod iste sit verus sacerdos, quia alii prohibebantur morte permanere, quia omnes necessitatem habebant moriendi. Unde Aaron mortuo, successit Eleazar, sicut patet Num. XX, 26, et sic deinceps. Sicut autem videmus in naturalibus, quae sunt signa spiritualium, quod incorruptibilia non multiplicantur sub eadem specie, unde non est nisi unus sol: ita in spiritualibus in veteri testamento, quod fuit imperfectum, multiplicati fuerunt sacerdotes. Et hoc fuit signum quod illud sacerdotium erat corruptibile, quia incorruptibilia non multiplicantur eadem specie, ut dictum est, sed iste sacerdos, scilicet Christus, est immortalis. Manet enim in aeternum, sicut verbum patris aeternum, ex cuius aeternitate redundat etiam aeternitas in corpus eius, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, Rom. VI, v. 9. Et idcirco ex eo quod manet in aeternum, habet sacerdotium sempiternum. Et ideo solus Christus est verus sacerdos, alii autem ministri eius. I Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi. 368. – He shows that he is the true priest, because the others were prevented by death from continuing, because all must die. Hence, when Aaron died, Eleazar succeeded, as is clear from Numbers (20:28) and so on. For as we notice in natural things, which are signs of spiritual things, incorruptible things are not multiplied under the same species; hence, there is but one sun: so in the spiritual things in the Old Testament, which was imperfect, the priests were multiplied. This was a sign that the priesthood was corruptible, because incorruptible things are not multiplied in the same species. But the priest who is Christ is immortal, for He remains forever as the eternal Word of the Father, from Whose eternity redounds an eternity to His body, because ‘Christ rising from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. Therefore, Christ alone is the true priest, but others are His ministers: ‘Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ’ (1 Cor. 4:1). Deinde cum dicit unde et salvare, etc., ostendit efficaciam eius. Et circa hoc duo facit, quia primo ostendit efficaciam eius; secundo modum ipsius efficaciae, ibi accedens, et cetera. 369. – Then (v. 25) he shows His efficacy. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows His efficacy; secondly, the mode of His efficacy (v. 25b). Efficacia eius est, quia causa est semper potentior suo effectu, et ideo causa temporalis non potest producere effectum aeternum. Sacerdotium vero Christi est aeternum, non autem leviticum, ut est probatum. Ergo Christus potest salvare in perpetuum. Hoc autem non posset fieri, nisi haberet virtutem divinam. Is. XLV, 17: salvatus est Israel in domino salute aeterna. 370. – His efficacy lies in the fact that the cause is more potent than its effect; therefore, a temporal cause cannot produce an eternal effect. But Christ’s priesthood is eternal; but not the Levitical, as has been proved. Therefore Christ is able to save for all time. But this could not be done, unless He had divine power: ‘Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation’ (Is. 45:17). Modus autem est quia accedens, et cetera. Et describit istum modum a tribus, scilicet ab excellentia virtutis, naturae et pietatis. Virtutis quidem, quia accedit per semetipsum. Sed contra. Accedens ad aliquem, distat ab ipso, Christus autem non distat a Deo. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod apostolus in verbis istis ostendit duplicem naturam, scilicet humanam, secundum quam convenit ei accedere, quia in ipsa distat a Deo; non autem accedit a statu culpae ad statum gratiae, sed per contemplationem intellectus et affectus, et adeptionem gloriae. Et naturam divinam, per hoc quod dicit eum per semetipsum accedere ad Deum. Si enim esset purus homo, non posset per se accedere. Io. VI, v. 44: nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater qui misit me traxerit eum. Et ideo cum apostolus dicit quod per semetipsum accedit, ostendit virtutem eius. Is. LXIII, 1: gradiens in multitudine fortitudinis suae. Ergo accedit inquantum homo, sed per semetipsum inquantum Deus. 371. – But the mode is that He goes by Himself to God. And he describes that mode from three standpoints, namely, from the excellence of His power, of His nature, and of His piety. Of His power, indeed, because by Himself. But on the other hand one who goes to another is distant from him. But Christ is not distant from God. I answer that in those words the Apostle shows forth the two natures: namely, the human according to which it befits Him to come to God, because in it He is distant from God (but He does not go from a state of guilt to a state of grace, but He goes by the intellect’s contemplation and by love and by the attainment of glory), and the divine nature by the fact that he says that He goes to God by Himself. For if He were pure man, He could not go by Himself: ‘No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him’ (Jn. 6:44). Therefore, when the Apostle says that He comes by Himself, he is showing forth His power: ‘Walking in the greatness of his strength’ (Is. 63:1). Therefore, He comes as man, but by Himself as God. Excellentiam vero naturae ostendit inquantum dicit semper vivens. Aliter enim sacerdotium eius finiretur. Apoc. I, 18: fui mortuus, et ecce sum vivens in saecula saeculorum. 372. – He shows the excellence of His nature when he says, always living; for otherwise His priesthood would come to an end: ‘I was dead and behold I am living forever and ever’ (Rev. 1:18). Excellentiam pietatis ostendit, quia dicit ad interpellandum pro nobis, quia licet sit ita potens, ita altus, tamen cum hoc est pius, quia interpellat pro nobis. I Io. II, 1: advocatum habemus apud patrem Iesum Christum, et cetera. Interpellat autem pro nobis, primo humanitatem suam, quam pro nobis assumpsit, repraesentando. Item sanctissimae animae suae desiderium, quod de salute nostra habuit exprimendo, cum quo interpellat pro nobis. Alia littera habet: accedentes per ipsum, et tunc designantur illi quos salvat, quia accedentes per fidem eius ad Deum. Rom. V, v. 1 s.: iustificati igitur ex fide, pacem habeamus ad Deum per dominum Iesum Christum, per quem accessum habemus. 373. – He shows the excellence of His piety when he says, to make intercession for them, because, although He is so powerful, so lofty, yet along with this He is pious, for He makes intercession for us: ‘We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the just’ (1 Jn. 2:1). He interposes for us, first, His human nature, which He assumed for us by representing; secondly, His most holy soul’s desire, which He had for our salvation and with which He intercedes for us. Another version has, ‘coming by Him,’ and then those whom He saves are designated, because they come to God by faith in Him: ‘Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access by faith into this grace’ (Rom. 5:1). Deinde cum dicit talis enim decebat, etc., ostendit ex excellentia Christi excellentiam eius sacerdotii. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit, quod ei conveniunt perfectiones conditionum, quae requirebantur ad sacerdotium veteris legis; secundo ostendit, quod sibi desunt imperfectiones eius, ibi qui non habet necessitatem. 374. – Then when he says, for it was fitting that we have such a high priest, he shows from Christ’s excellence the excellence of His priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the perfections of the conditions required for the priesthood of the Old Law suited Him; secondly, that He has no imperfections (v. 27). Ponit autem quatuor conditiones de ipso, quae debent esse in sacerdote legali. Primo quod sit sanctus Lev. XXI, 6: incensum enim domini et panes Dei sui offerunt, et ideo sancti erunt. Hanc autem perfecte habuit Christus. Sanctitas enim importat puritatem consecratam Deo. Christus autem a principio conceptionis suae Deo consecratus fuit. Lc. I, 35: quod enim ex te nascetur, sanctum vocabitur. Matth. I, 20: quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est, et Dan. IX, 24: ungatur sanctus sanctorum. Secundo quod sit innocens. Lev. XXII, 9: custodiant praecepta mea, ut non subiaceant peccato. Proprie autem dicitur innocentia puritas ad proximum. Ps. XXIII, 4: innocens manibus, et cetera. Christus autem summe innocens fuit, utpote qui peccatum non fecit. Ps. XXV, 1: ego in innocentia mea ingressus sum. Tertio quod esset impollutus, et hoc quo ad se. Lev. XXI, 17: homo de semine tuo, qui habuerit maculam, non offerat panes Dei sui. De Christo autem dicitur in figura. Ex. c. XII, 5: erit autem agnus sine macula, et cetera. Quarto quod non commisceretur cum coinquinatis. Lev. XXI, 15: non commisceat stirpem generis sui, vulgo gentis suae. Christus autem fuit perfectissime a peccatoribus segregatus. Ps. I, 1: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et cetera. Quod quidem verum est quantum ad similitudinem vitae. Sap. c. II, 15: dissimilis est aliis vita illius. Non tamen quantum ad conversationem, quia cum hominibus conversatus est, Bar. III, 38. Et hoc propter illorum conversationem. Matth. c. IX, 11: quare cum peccatoribus manducat magister vester? Et intantum segregatus est, quod etiam factus est excelsior caelis, id est, super omnem caelestem creaturam, sublimata est humana natura in ipso. Supra I, 3: sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis, et cetera. Ergo iste est sacerdos valde sufficiens. 375. – So he sets down four qualities in Him that were supposed to be in the priesthood of the Law: first, that he is holy: ‘They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy’ (Lev. 21:6). But Christ had this perfectly. For holiness implies purity consecrated to God: ‘Therefore, also the Holy which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God’ (Lk. 1:35); ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:20); ‘The saint of saints will be anointed’ (Dan 9:24). Secondly, he should be innocent: ‘Let them keep my precepts that they may not fall into sin’ (Lev. 22:9). But, properly speaking, innocence is purity toward one’s neighbor: ‘The innocent in hands, and clean of heart: who has not taken his soul in vain, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor’ (Ps. 23:4). But Christ was completely innocent, being One Who did not sin’ ‘I have walked in my innocence’ (Ps. 25:11). Thirdly, that he be unstained and this in regard to himself: ‘Whosoever of our seed through their families has a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God’ (Lev. 21:17). Of Christ it is said in a figure: ‘It shall be a lamb without blemish’ (Ex. 12:5). Fourthly, he must be separated from sinners: ‘He shall not mingle the stock of his kindred with the common people of his nation’ (Lev. 21:15). But Christ was perfectly separated from sinners: ‘Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners’ (Ps. 1:1). This is, of course, true in regard to a like life: ‘His life is not like other men’s’ (Wis. 2:15), but not in regard to His dealings with others, because ‘He conversed with men’ (Bar. 3:38) and this with a view to their conversion: ‘Why does your master eat with sinners?’ (Mt. 9:11). And to such a degree He was separated that He was made higher than the heavens, i.e., exalted above the heavens: ‘He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high’ (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, he is a sufficiently competent priest. Consequenter cum dicit qui non habet, etc., removet ab eo, quod erat imperfectionis in sacerdote legali. Hoc autem erat, quia ille indigebat sacrificio expiationis, ut patet Lev. XVI, 5: immolabit vitulum pro se, et hircum pro populo. Ergo orabat pro se. Item, non tantum semel orabat pro se, sed frequenter. Et huius ratio est, quia lex instituit homines sacerdotes habentes infirmitatem. Sap. IX, 5: homo infirmus et exigui temporis, et cetera. Sed sermo, divinus, qui post legem est, interposito iureiurando, constituit filium, qui nullam de istis imperfectionibus habet, sed omnino perfectum, in aeternum, scilicet sacerdotem duraturum. Non enim obtulit pro peccatis suis, sed tantum pro nostris. Is. LIII, 5: vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras. Item nec frequenter pro nobis, sed tantum semel. I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. Unica enim eius oblatio sufficit ad exhaurienda peccata totius generis humani. 376. – Then when he says, He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins, he removes from Him anything that was imperfect in the priesthood of the Law. But what was imperfect was that he needed the sacrifices of atonement: ‘He shall offer the calf for himself; and the goat for the people (Lev. 16:11). Therefore, he prayed for himself; and not only once but frequently. The reason for this is that the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests: ‘A weak man and of a short time’ (Wis. 9:5). But the word of the oath established the Son (Who had none of these imperfections, but was completely perfect), Who is after the Law, a priest to continue forever. For He did not offer for His own sins but for ours: ‘He was wounded for our iniquities’ (Is. 53:5). Nor did He offer for us frequently, but only once: ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18). For His one offering is enough to take away the sins of the entire human race.
8-1
Heb. 8:1-5Supra probavit apostolus excellentiam sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum ex parte personae, hic probat idem ex parte ipsius sacerdotii, et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit sacerdotium Christi esse excellentius sacerdotio veteris legis, et primo hoc in generali; secundo in speciali, ibi habuit quidem et prius, scilicet IX cap. Prima in duas. Primo enim ponit intentum; secundo manifestat propositum suum, ibi omnis enim pontifex. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ponit modum tradendi; secundo praemittit quae debent dicere, ibi talem habemus pontificem, et cetera. 377. – Having proved the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical on the part of the person, the Apostle now proves the same on the part of the priesthood itself. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows in a general way that Christ’s priesthood is more excellent than that of the Old Law; secondly, in detail (chap. 9). The first is divided into two parts: first, he states his thesis; secondly, he explains it (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states the way in which he will present his teaching; secondly, he prefaces what he means to say (v. 1b). Dicit ergo capitulum, et cetera. Capitulum est brevis complexio continens multa, et dicitur a capite; quia, sicut in capite virtute et quasi summarie continentur omnia quae sunt in corpore, sic in capitulo illa quae dicenda sunt. Ergo dicemus in quodam capitulo, et quasi in quadam summa, super ea quae dicuntur. Ly super, potest dicere appositum, et tunc erit sensus: quae summarie dicenda sunt superapponentur praemissis. Vel potest designare excessum, et tunc est sensus: ea quae dicenda sunt in summa et capitulo sunt maiora. 378. – He says, therefore: Now the point in what we are saying is this [recapitulation]. A recapitulation is a brief synthesis containing many things. The word comes from ‘caput’ or ‘head,’ because, just as in the head are virtually and, as it were, summarily, contained all the things which are in the body, is in a recapitulation everything that has been said. Deinde cum dicit talem habemus pontificem, etc., praemittit quae debet dicere. Et primo dignitatem huius sacerdotii; secundo officium eius, ibi sanctorum minister. 379. – Then (v. 1b) he prefaces what he means to say: first, the dignity of this priesthood; secondly, its office (v. 2). Dignitas eius est, quia talem habemus pontificem, qui consedit ad dexteram sedis magnitudinis in excelsis. Sedes est iudiciaria potestas, quae aliquibus convenit tamquam ministris Dei, sicut omnibus regibus, quia adorabunt eum omnes reges terrae, ut dicitur in Ps. LXXI, 11, et omnibus praelatis, I Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi. Sedes ergo magnitudinis est excellentissima potestas iudicandi. Item pars dextera est potentior in animali, et significat bona spiritualia. Quia ergo Christus habet iudiciariam potestatem, dicitur sedere. Pater enim omne iudicium dedit filio, Io. V, 22. Quia vero post Deum habet hoc, excellentissime, sedet in dextera magnitudinis in excelsis, id est, in potioribus bonis. Supra I, 3: sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis. 380. – Its dignity is that we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. The throne is judicial power, which befits certain persons as ministers of God, as all kings: ‘All the kings of the earth will adore him’ (Ps. 71:11), and all prelates: ‘Let a man so account of us as of Christ’s ministers (1 Cor. 4:1). Therefore, because Christ has judicial power, He is said to sit: ‘For the Father has given all judgment to the Son’ (Jn. 5:22). But because He has this in the most excellent manner after God, He sits on the right hand of majesty in the heavens, i.e., in the more prominent goods: ‘He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high’ (Heb. 1:3). Hoc autem quod dicitur consedere, vel consedet, potest referri ad Christum, secundum quod est Deus; et sic consedet quia habet eamdem auctoritatem iudicandi, quam habet pater, sed distinctus est in persona. Et sic ly magnitudinis accipitur pro persona patris. Vel secundum quod homo, et hoc magis proprie ad intentionem apostoli, quia loquitur de pontificatu Christi, qui est pontifex inquantum homo. Et sic consedet, quia humanitas assumpta habet quamdam associationem ad deitatem, et consedet ad iudicandum. Ps. VIII, 1: elevata est magnificentia tua super caelos. Io. V, 27: potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Et sic apparet dignitas sacerdotis. 381. – The expression, ‘is seated,’ can be referred to Christ as God, and then He is seated in that way, because He has the same authority as the Father, although distinct in person; and so ‘majesty’ is taken for the person of the Father. Or, to Christ as man: and this is more in keeping with the Apostle’s intention, because he is speaking about the high priesthood of Christ, Who is a high priest as man. So He is seated in that way, because the assumed humanity has a certain association to the godhead; and He sits at the right hand to judge: ‘Your majesty has been elevated above the heavens’ (Ps. 8:3); ‘He gave him power to judge, because he is the Son of man’ (Jn. 5:27). Consequenter cum dicit sanctorum minister, ostendit dignitatem officii eius. Dicitur autem minister sanctorum, id est, sanctarum aedium, scilicet sanctuariorum. Ministri enim antiqui accipiebant ministerium, ut custodirent sacra, et servirent tabernaculo. Hoc autem excellentius habet Christus, qui est minister, non quidem inquantum Deus, quia sic est auctor, sed inquantum homo. Lc. XII, 37: transiens ministrabit illis. Humanitas enim Christi est sicut organum divinitatis. Est ergo minister sanctorum, quia ministrat sacramenta gratiae in praesenti, et gloriae in futuro. Item est minister tabernaculi veri, quod est, vel eius Ecclesia militans. Ps.: quam dilecta tabernacula tua, domine virtutum. Vel triumphans. Is. XXXIII, 20: tabernaculum, quod nequaquam transferri poterit. Ps. XIV, 1: domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo, et cetera. Homo autem Christus minister est, quia omnia bona gloriae per ipsum dispensantur. Dicit autem veri, propter duo. Primo propter differentiam ad vetus, quod erat figurale istius. I Cor. X, 11: omnia in figura illis contingebant. Istud autem est veritas istius. Est ergo verum, id est, veritatem continens respectu figurae. Secundo quia illud factum est per hominem: istud autem, scilicet vel gratiae, vel gloriae est a solo Deo. Ps. LXXXIII, 12: gratiam et gloriam dabit dominus. Rom. VI, 23: gratia Dei, vita aeterna. Et ideo dicit quod fixit Deus, et non homo. II Cor. V, 1: scimus quoniam si terrestris domus nostra huius habitationis dissolvatur, quia ex Deo habemus domum non manufactam aeternam in caelis. 382. – Then when he says, a minister of the holies, he shows the dignity of his office. He says, minister of the sanctuary [holies], i.e., of the holy precincts, namely, of the sanctuary. For the ministers of old received the ministry of guarding sacred things and serving the tabernacle. But Christ had this in a more excellent manner, because He is a minister, not inasmuch as He is God, for then He is the author, but inasmuch as He is man: ‘And passing he will minister until them’ (Lk. 12:37). For the humanity of Christ is an organ of the divinity. Therefore, He is the minister of the holies, because He administers the sacraments of grace in the present life and of glory in the future. He is also the minister of the true tent [tabernacle] that cannot be removed’ (Is. 33:20); ‘Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle?’ (Ps. 14:1). But the man Christ is a minister because all the goods of glory are dispensed by Him. But he says, of the true, for two reasons: first, because of its difference from the Old, which was a figure of it: ‘Now all these things happened to them in figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11). The New, therefore, is the truth of the former. Therefore, it is true, i.e., containing the truth in relations to the figure. Secondly, because the former was made by a man, but the other, namely, of grace and of glory by God alone: ‘The Lord will give grace and glory’ (Ps. 83:12); ‘The grace of God, life everlasting’ (Rom. 6:23). Hence, he says, which is set up not by man but by the Lord: ‘We know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in heaven’ (2 Cor. 5:1). Deinde cum dicit omnis enim pontifex, etc., explicat in speciali. Et circa hoc facit tria. Primo enim ostendit Christum esse ministrum aliquorum sanctorum; secundo quod non veteris legis, ibi si ergo esset; tertio quod aliquorum maiorum, ibi nunc autem melius. 383. – Then (v. 3) he explains in detail. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows that Christ is a minister of certain holy things; secondly, that they are not of the Old Law (v. 4); thirdly, that He is a minister of greater things (v. 6). Facit autem primo talem rationem: omnis pontifex ad hoc constituitur, ut offerat munera et hostias, et secundum hoc dicitur minister sanctorum. Christus autem est pontifex, ut supra probatum est. Ergo necesse est ipsum habere aliqua, quae offerat. Supra V, 1: omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, et cetera. Hostia est de animalibus, munera de quocumque alio. Lev. XXI, 6: incensum et panes Dei sui offerunt. Quia vero necesse fuit Christum habere quod offerret, ipse seipsum obtulit. Fuit autem talis oblatio munda, quia caro eius nullam maculam peccati habuit. Ex. XII, v. 5: erit agnus sine macula, masculus, anniculus. Item fuit congrua, quia congruum est, quod homo pro homine satisfaciat. Infra IX, v. 14: obtulit semetipsum immaculatum Deo. Item apta ad immolandum, quia caro eius mortalis erat. Rom. VIII, 3: mittens Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Item est idem ei cui offertur. Io. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Item unit Deo illos pro quibus offertur. Io. XVII, 21: ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu, pater, in me, et ego in te, ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint. 384. – He forms the following argument: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; and in this respect He is called a minister of the holies. But Christ is a high priest, as has been stated above. Therefore, it is necessary that He have something to offer: ‘Every priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that He may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin’ (Heb. 5:1). The sacrifice is offered with animals; the gifts with anything else: ‘They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God’ (Lev. 21:6). But because it was necessary that Christ have something to offer, He offered Himself. But it was a clean oblation, because His flesh had no stain of sin: ‘And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year’ (Ex. 12:5). Furthermore, it was suitable, because it was fitting that a man should satisfy for man: ‘He offered himself unspotted unto God’ (Heb. 9:14). It was also fit to be immolated, because His flesh was mortal: ‘God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and sin’ (Rom. 8:3). Also it was the same as the one to whom it was offered: ‘I and the Father are one’ (Jn. 10:30). And it unites to God those for whom it is offered: ‘That they may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us’ (Jn. 17:21). Deinde cum dicit si ergo esset, ostendit quod Christus non est minister legalium. Et circa hoc facit tria quia primo inducit quamdam consequentiam; secundo ostendit ipsam rationem, ibi cum essent; tertio probat eam per auctoritatem, ibi sicut responsum est Moysi. 385. – Then (v. 4) he shows that Christ is not a minister of the sacrifices of the Law. In regard to this he does three things: first, he introduces a consequence; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 4b); thirdly, he proves it by an authority (v. 4c). Consequentia vero talis est: ergo si esset super terram, hoc est antecedens, nec esset sacerdos, et hoc est consequens. Unde consequentia est una conditionalis. Et legitur multis modis. Primo sic, et est secundum Glossam, nec ponitur hic nominativus; et ideo sic intelligitur: si enim illud quod offertur esset super terram, etc.; quod dupliciter intelligitur. Uno modo, ut sit sensus: si illud quod offertur esset aliquod terrenum, Christus non esset sacerdos, quasi dicat: nulla necessitas esset sacerdotii eius, quia multi essent qui talia offerrent. Sed numquid caro Christi terrena non erat? Respondeo. Dicendum est quod materialiter est terrena. Iob IX, 24: terra data est in manus impii. Sed dicitur non esse terrena: primo ratione unionis, Io. III, 31: qui de caelo venit, super omnes est, id est, filius Dei qui illam sibi univit. Item ratione virtutis activae, scilicet spiritus sancti, qui eam formavit. Item ratione fructus; quia oblatio eius non ordinatur ad consequendum aliquid terrenum, sed caeleste. Io. VIII, 23: vos de mundo hoc estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo. Haec est prima expositio et melior. Secunda talis est etsi, id est, quamvis illud quod offertur, esset super terram, quia necessarium est aliquid offerri, non esset sacerdos, seu alius idoneus: quia nullus posset idoneus inveniri ad offerendum istud. 386. – The consequence is this: If he were on earth (this is the antecedent), he would not be a priest at all (this is the consequent). Hence, the consequence is one conditional proposition. And it is read in a number of ways: first, according to a Gloss: for ‘if that which is offered were on earth, he would not be a priest.’ This can be understood in two ways: in one way so that the sense would be: If that which is offered were something earthly, Christ would not be a priest. As if to say: There would be no need for a priesthood, because there would be many to offer such things. But was not the flesh of Christ earthly? I answer that materially speaking it was earthly: ‘The earth is given into the hand of the wicked’ (Jb. 9:24). But it is said not to be earthly by reason of the union: ‘He that comes from heaven is above all’ (Jn. 3:31), i.e., the Son of God, Who united it to Himself. Also, by reason of the active power of the Holy Spirit, Who formed it; and by reason of the fruit, because His oblation is not ordained to obtaining something earthly: ‘You are of this world; I am not of this world’ (Jn. 8:23). This is the first and better explanation. The second is this: ‘Even if,’ i.e., although that which is offered ‘is on earth,’ because it is necessary that something be offered, ‘He would not be a priest,’ but someone worthy, because no one could be found worthy to offer it. Tres sunt aliae lecturae, in quibus subintelligitur offerens: et primo in generali, ut sensus sit: si esset aliquis sacerdos terrenus, qui posset offerre pro caelestibus, Christus non esset sacerdos. Alia est de Christo specialiter, sic: si Christus esset sacerdos terrenus, non competeret ei ius sacerdotii, cum essent qui secundum legem offerrent munera. Aliter sic: si Christus adhuc esset super terram, ita scilicet quod nondum ascendisset, non esset sacerdos, quia non complevisset sacerdotium suum. 387. – There are three readings in which the one offering is understood: first, in general, so that the sense is this: If there were another earthly priest, who could offer heavenly things, Christ would not be a priest. Another is of Christ specifically: If Christ were an earthly priest, the right of the priesthood would not belong to Him, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. Still another is the following: If Christ were still on earth, in the sense that He had not yet ascended, He would not be a priest, because He would not have completed His priesthood. Sed secundum primam expositionem continuatur littera sic et probat, quia multi essent, qui secundum legem offerrent talia munera, scilicet illi, qui deserviunt exemplari et umbrae caelestium. Sacramenta legalia fuerunt figura aliorum, quantum ad duo, scilicet quantum ad cognitionem, et quantum ad rerum expletionem. Quantum ad cognitionem, cum dicit exemplari, quia in veteri lege, quasi in quodam exemplari poterat legi id ad quod nostra cognitio debet ferri. Sed videtur, quod loquatur improprie. Exemplar enim prius est exemplato, quod proprie dicitur exemplum. Sed caelestia sunt priora, nec facta sunt ad similitudinem veteris legis, sed magis e converso. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod prius dicitur dupliciter: uno modo simpliciter, et sic procedit obiectio. Vel quo ad nos, et sic verum est quod illa non sunt priora. Quantum ad secundum dicit umbrae, quia sicut umbra repraesentat corpus, nec tamen illud attingit: ita et illa repraesentabant novum testamentum. Infra X, 1: umbram habens lex futurorum, et cetera. 388. – But according to the first explanation the reading is continued in the following way: There would be many who according to the law would offer such gifts, namely, those who serve a copy [exemplar] and shadow of heavenly things. The sacraments of the Old Law were figures of other things in two respects: first, in regard to knowledge; secondly, in regard to fulfillment. In regard to knowledge he says, exemplar, because in the Old Law, as in an exemplar could be read that to which our knowledge should be led. But it seems that he is speaking in an improper sense: for an exemplar is prior to that of which it is an exemplar, namely, an example. But heavenly things are prior and were not made according to a likeness of the Old Law, but rather conversely. I answer that something is said to be prior in two ways: in one way, absolutely, and that is the way the objection proceeds; in another way, in relation to its end, and then it is true that those are not prior. In regard to the second he says, a shadow, because just as a shadow represents a body without ever becoming a body, so those things represented the New Testament: ‘For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things’ (Heb. 10:1). Consequenter probat per auctoritatem rationabilitatem consequentiae, cum dicit sicut responsum est Moysi, scilicet a domino, Ex. XXV, 40: vide, scilicet diligenter considerando, et facito omnia secundum exemplar, et cetera. Quia naturaliter inferiora tendunt in similitudine superiorum. Dominus enim per sensibilia voluit nos ad intelligibilia et spiritualia manuduci. Iob XXXVIII, 33: numquid nosti ordinem caeli, et pones rationem eius in terra, et cetera. 389. – Then he proves the reasonableness of the consequence when he says, when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle, he was instructed by God saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain’ (Ex. 25:40), because inferior things naturally tend to a likeness of superior things. For the Lord wished to lead us by sensible things to intelligible and spiritual things: ‘Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason thereof on the earth?’ (Jb. 38:33).
8-2
Heb. 8:6-10aSupra apostolus probavit Christum esse pontificem, et per consequens ministrum sacramentorum, non tamen secundum veterem legem, hic ostendit ipsum esse ministrum maiorum et meliorum, quam illa fuerint. Et circa hoc facit tria. Primo enim praemittit intentum; secundo assignat causam eius; tertio probat. Secundum, ibi quanto et melioris. Tertium, ibi nam si illud. 390. – Having proved that Christ is a high priest and, consequently, a minister of holy things, but not according to the Old Law, the Apostle now shows that He is a minister of greater and better things than they had been. In regard to this he does three things: first, he prefaces his intent; secondly, he assigns its cause (v. 6b); thirdly, he proves (v. 7). Dicit ergo: dico quod non habet aliquid terrenum offerre, sed nunc, id est tempore gratiae, sortitus est, id est sorte accepit, melius ministerium, id est dignius sacerdotium. Dicitur sacerdotium Christi ministerium, quia non competit nisi inquantum homo fuit minister. Rom. XV, 8: dico enim Christum Iesum ministrum fuisse, et cetera. Dicit autem sortitus est, id est, sorte accepit, quia illud quod habetur per sortem expectatur a domino. Ps. XXX, 15: in manibus tuis sortes meae. Et ideo omnia quae fiunt secundum distributionem divini arbitrii, dicuntur sorte dari, et talia sunt effectus gratiae. Eph. I, 11: sorte vocati sumus, id est, divina electione, quia quando contingit deficere iudicium humanum, solent se homines conferre ad electionem et dispositionem divinam, mittentes sortem, sicut patet Act. I, 26, de electione Matthiae. Unde Prov. XVI, 33: sortes mittuntur in sinum, sed a domino temperantur. Christus quidem istud ministerium sorte, id est, dispositione divina, consecutus est. 391. – He says, therefore: I say that He does not have anything earthly to offer; but now, i.e., in the time of grace, he has obtained, i.e., received by lot, a better ministry, i.e., a worthier priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is called a ministry, because it does not belong to Him except in the sense that He was a minister as a man: ‘I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God’ (Rom. 15:8). But he says, he has obtained, i.e., received by lot, because what is obtained by lot is awaited from the Lord: ‘My lots are in your hands’ (Ps. 30:16). Therefore, all things that happen according to the dispensation of divine decree are said to be given by lot; and such are the effects of grace: ‘In whom we also are called by lot’ (Eph. 1:11), i.e., by divine election, because when human judgment fails, men consult God’s choice and arrangement by casting lots, as happened in the choice of Matthias (Ac. 1:26). Hence it says in Proverbs (16:33): ‘Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.’ Christ, indeed, obtained that ministry by lot, i.e., by divine dispensation. Deinde cum dicit quanto et melioris, etc. assignat causam quare ministerium hoc maius est. Omnis enim sacerdos mediator est. Iste autem mediator est melioris foederis, scilicet hominis ad Deum. Mediatoris enim est extrema conciliare. Iste vero ad nos divina attulit, quia per ipsum facti sumus divinae consortes naturae, ut dicitur II Pet. I, 4. Ipse etiam nostra offert Deo. Et ideo dicit apostolus I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus. Ibi promittebantur temporalia. Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis. Hic autem caelestia, sicut supra dictum est. Sic ergo istud melius est quantum ad id, quod dominus hominibus promittit. Item in illo dicuntur quaedam, quae pertinent ad cultum Dei, et ista sunt caeremonialia: quaedam vero, quae ad rectitudinem vitae, et ista sunt praecepta moralia, quae manent: alia vero, non. In novo autem adduntur consilia illis praeceptis, quae dantur perfectis, qui sunt capaces spiritualium. Et sic manent praecepta eadem, sed promissa diversa. Item sacramenta sunt diversa; quia ibi erat figura tantum, hic autem figurae veritas expressa. Per omnia ergo testamentum illud est melius. 392. – Then when he says, which is as much more excellent than the Old as the covenant he mediates is better, he assigns the cause why this ministry is greater. For every priest is a mediator. But He is the mediator of a better covenant, namely, of man to God, because by Him we are made partakers of the divine nature, as it says in 2 Pt. 1:4). He also offers our gifts to God; therefore, the Apostle says: ‘The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5). In the Old Testament temporal things were promised: ‘If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land’ (Is. 1:19); but here heavenly things. Therefore, this one is better in regard to what it promises men. Also, in the Old Law there were precepts pertaining to the worship of God, namely, the ceremonial precepts, and some that pertained to correct conduct, namely, the moral precepts, which continue; but the others do not. But in the New Law counsels are added to the precepts and they are given to the perfect, who are capable of spiritual things. Consequently, the precepts remain the same, but the promises are different, because there they were a figure, but here the truth expressed by the figure. Therefore, this testament is better throughout. Deinde cum dicit num si illud, etc., probat quod illud testamentum, cuius Christus mediator est, melius est. Et facit talem rationem: si primum testamentum non habuisset culpam, non quaereretur aliud ad corrigendum defectum ipsius; sed quaeritur, ergo, et cetera. Antecedens ponitur, et patet in littera. Sed contra Rom. VII, 7: lex ergo peccatum est? Absit. Ergo male dicit, quod non vacabat a culpa. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod aliquid potest convenire legi dupliciter: vel secundum se, et sic erat bona, vel ratione illorum quibus data est, et sic dicitur habere culpam propter duo. Primo quia non dabat virtutem ad purgandum commissa. Infra X, 4: impossibile est sanguine taurorum aut hircorum auferri peccata. Secundo, quia non dabat gratiam adiutricem ad vitandum peccata, sed ad cognoscendum tantum: et sic erat occasio peccati. Rom. VII, 7: concupiscentiam nesciebam, nisi lex diceret: non concupisces. Et sic dicitur non vacasse a culpa, quia homines in ipsa relinquebantur in culpa. Sed dicit non inquireretur locus. Sicut enim corpus numquam perfecte quiescit, sed semper movetur, quousque pertingat ad locum suum, sic quamdiu habetur aliquid imperfecte, non quiescit desiderium, sed semper tendit ultra, usque dum veniet ad perfectum. Inquirebatur ergo locus istius ab homine qui desiderabat; sed magis a Deo, qui propter nostrae salutis desiderium dicitur inquirere. 393. – Then when he says, For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second, he proves that the testament of which Christ is mediator is better for the following reason: If the first testament were faultless, another would not be sought to correct its defects. But another is sought, therefore, etc. But on the other hand it says in Romans (7:7): ‘Is the law sin? God forbid.’ Therefore, it is incorrect to say that it is not faultless. I answer that something can belong to the Law in two ways: either according to its end, and then it is good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and then it is said to have a fault in two ways: first, because it did not confer the power to cleanse one’s sins: ‘It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away’ (Heb. 10:4). Secondly, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but merely to recognize them; hence, it was an occasion of sin: ‘For I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou salt not covet’ (Rom. 7:7). And so it is said not to have been faultless, because in it men remained in their sins. But he says, there would have been no occasion for a second. For just as a body is never altogether at rest but is always changing until it reaches its due place, so, as long as something is had imperfectly, desire does not rest but always stretches beyond, until it comes to what is perfect. Therefore, the place for a second was sought by man, who desired, but much more by God, Who is said to seek because of his desire for our salvation. Deinde cum dicit vituperans enim, etc., probat veritatem consequentis, scilicet quod inquiritur locus testamenti, et hoc per auctoritatem Ier. XXXI, 31: ecce venient dies, et cetera. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim praemittit auctoritatem; secundo arguit ex ipsa, ibi dicendo autem novum. Prima in duas. Primo enim praemittit prophetiam de novi testamenti datione; secundo describit ipsum, ibi non secundum testamentum, et cetera. Iterum prima in tres. Primo enim ostendit temporis dationis opportunitatem; secundo novi testamenti perfectionem, ibi consummabo testamentum novum; tertio quibus datum fuit, ibi super domum Iuda. 394. – Then (v. 8) he proves the truth of the consequent, namely, that a place is sought for a testament; and this on the authority of Jeremiah (3:31): The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. In regard to this he does two things: first, he prefaces the authority; secondly, he argues from it. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he prefaces the prophecy about giving a new testament; secondly, he describes it (v. 9). Again, the first is divided into three parts: in the first he shows that the time for giving the New Testament was favorable; secondly, the perfection of the New Testament (v. 8b); thirdly, to whom it was given (v. 8c). Dicit ergo vituperans enim dominus, non quidem legem, sed eos, qui scilicet erant sub lege, dicit: ecce dies veniunt, et cetera. Haec est auctoritas, quae est Ier. XXXI, v. 31; et non habetur omnino sub istis verbis, sed mutantur pauca. Ibi enim dicitur sic: ecce dies veniunt, dicit dominus, et feriam domui Israel, et domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum, quod pepigi cum patribus vestris in die qua extendi manum meam ut educerem eos de terra Aegypti, pactum quod irritum fecerunt, et ego dominatus sum eorum. Sic ergo patet quod pacta mutantur. Dicit ergo quantum ad temporis opportunitatem ecce dies veniunt, id est tempus gratiae, quod comparatur diei, quod illuminatum est a sole iustitiae. Rom. XIII, 12: nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquavit. 395. – He says, therefore: For the Lord finds fault, not with the Law but with them who were under the Law, and says: Behold, the days shall come and I will establish with house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. This is the authority, which is not given in exactly those words but with a few changes. For in Jeremiah (31:31) we read: ‘Behold the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in that day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void and I had dominion over them.’ Thus, it is evident that a few words were changed. He says in regard to the time being favorable: the days shall come, i.e., the time of grace, which is compared to a day and which is illuminated by the sun of justice: ‘The night is passed, and the day is at hand’ (Rom. 13:12). Quantum ad perfectionem novi testamenti dicit consummabo novum testamentum. Et dicit consummabo, quod sonat ad perfectionem. Apoc. XXI, 5: ecce nova facio omnia. Istud autem verbum consummabo, non habetur ibi, sed utitur eo apostolus ad designandum perfectionem novi testamenti. Is. c. X, 23: consummationem et abbreviationem faciet dominus super terram. Fuit enim novum testamentum perfectum quantum ad eruditionem vitae, quae non extenditur tantum ad generalem iustitiae eruditionem, sed ad perfectam. Matth. V, 20: nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra, et cetera. Item in veteri testamento erant tantum figuralia: in novo vero, veritas figurarum: et ita novum consummat et perficit vetus. 396. – In regard to the perfection of the New Covenant he says, I will perfect a new covenant. He says, I will perfect, which implies perfection: ‘Behold I make all things new’ (Rev. 21:5). But that word, perfect, is not found there, but Revelation uses it to signify the perfection of the New Testament: ‘The Lord shall make a consumption and an abridgement in the midst of all the land’ (Is. 10:23). For the New Covenant was perfect in regard to instructing until life, and this instruction extends not only to general information about justice, but to perfect information: ‘Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:20). Furthermore, in the Old Testament there were only figures, but in the New the truth of the figures; so the New completes and perfects the Old. Quantum ad tertium dicit super domum Israel, et Iuda. Sed numquid datur tantum Iudaeis? Non. Rom. IX, 6: non omnes, qui sunt ex Israel, hi sunt Israelitae, et sequitur: non qui filii carnis, hi sunt filii Dei, sed qui filii sunt promissionis, aestimantur in semine. Illi ergo qui sortiti sunt gratiam Dei, sunt Israel per fidem, et Iuda per confessionem. Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, et cetera. Dicitur autem super domum, etc., triplici ratione. Una, quia Christus in propria persona praedicavit Iudaeis, non gentibus. Matth. XV, 24: non sum missus nisi ad oves, quae perierunt domus Israel. Secunda, quia gentiles facti sunt participes novi testamenti, sicut oleaster insertus in bonam olivam participat pinguedinem eius, Rom. XI, 24. Alia, quia tempore Roboam et Ieroboam divisus fuit regnum Iuda a regno decem tribuum, quae quidem remanserunt in idololatria, sed regnum Iuda magis adhaesit Deo, licet non ex toto. Et ideo utrosque tetigit. 397. – In regard to the third he says, with the house of Israel and Judah. But is it given to the Jews alone? No, because ‘all are not Israelites that are of Israel’ (Rom. 9:6); furthermore, ‘not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but they that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed’ (Rom. 9:8). They, therefore, who have obtained God’s grace are Israel by faith and Judah by confession: ‘With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation’ (Rom. 10:10). But he says, with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, for three reasons: first, because Christ personally preached to the Jews but not to the Gentiles: ‘I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel’ (Mt. 15:24). Secondly, because the Gentiles were made partakers of the New Testament as a graft inserted in a good olive tree partakes of its fatness (Rom. 11:17). Thirdly, because in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes which continued in idolatry; but the kingdom of Judah clung more to God, but not altogether. Therefore, he touched both. Deinde cum dicit non secundum testamentum, describit novum testamentum et primo per differentiam ad vetus; secundo per proprias conditiones, ibi quia hoc est testamentum. Iterum prima in duas. Primo ostendit distinctionem novi et veteris testamenti; secundo infirmitatem veteris, ibi in die in qua. 398. – Then (v. 9) he describes the New Covenant: first, by its difference from the Old; secondly, by its own qualities. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the distinction between the Old and New Testaments; secondly, the infirmity of the Old (v. 9b). Posset enim aliquis dicere: numquid istud novum est isti simile? Ideo quasi respondens dicit: non. Quia non secundum id quod feci cum patribus eorum, in quo ostendit quod non est servandum vetus cum novo. Gal. V, 1: state et nolite iterum iugo servitutis contineri. Matth. IX, 17: neque mittunt vinum novum in utres veteres, et cetera. Et Rom. VII, 6: serviamus in novitate spiritus, et non in vetustate litterae. Quia si aliquid inveniatur in veteri, quod gentibus indicatur ad servandum, referendum est ad intellectum spiritualem, sicut dicitur Is. XIX, 21: colent eum in hostiis et muneribus: quod totum est spiritualiter intelligendum. 399. – For someone could ask: Is the New like the Old? Therefore, as though answering this he says: No, because it is not like the covenant I made with their fathers. In this he shows that the Old is not to be observed along with the New: ‘Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1); ‘Neither do they put new wine into old bottles’ (Mt. 9:27); ‘so that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter’ (Ron 7:6). For if something is found in the Old which the Gentiles are supposed to observe, it must be referred to the spiritual meaning, as it says in Is (19:21): ‘They shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings,’ all of which is to be understood spiritually. Deinde cum dicit in die qua apprehendi, etc., ostendit defectum veteris testamenti et primo ex eius traditione; secundo ex eventu, ibi quoniam ipsi. 400. – Then (v. 9b) he shows the defect of the Old Testament: first, from the way it was delivered; secondly, from the outcome (v. 9b). Vetus enim testamentum traditum est servis et infirmis. Servis quidem, quia quandoque exierunt de servitute Aegypti. Et quantum ad hoc dicit ut educerem illos, et cetera. Gal. IV, 24: unum quidem in servitutem generans, et cetera. Item quia erat lex timoris servilis. Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, et cetera. Augustinus: brevis differentia veteris et novi testamenti, timor et amor. Item infirmis, quia per se non poterant se iuvare. Et quantum ad hoc dicit apprehendi manum eorum, quod est infirmorum. Ps. LXXII, 23: tenuisti manum dexteram meam. Rom. VIII, 3: quod impossibile erat legi in quo infirmabatur. Dicit autem patribus eorum, scilicet Abraham, Isaac et Iacob, cum quibus iniit foedus speciale. Ps. CIV, 8 s.: memor fuit in saeculum testamenti sui verbi quod mandavit in mille generationes, quod disposuit ad Abraham, et cetera. Sed istis in exitu de Aegypto promisit carnalia. 401. – For the Old Testament was delivered to servants and to the infirm: to servants, because they had at one time left their thralldom in Egypt, in regard to which he says, to lead them out of the land of Egypt: ‘The one from Mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, which is Hagar’ (Gal. 4:24), and because it was a law of servile fear: ‘You have not received the spirit of adoption again in fear’ (Rom. 8:15). The slight difference between the Old and New Testaments is fear and love. Likewise, to the infirm, because by itself it could not help; in regard to this he says, I took them by the hand, which is proper to the infirm: ‘You have held me by my right hand’ (Ps. 72:23); ‘For what the law could not do in that it was weak’ (Rom. 8:3). But he says, with their fathers, namely, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom He made a special covenant: ‘He has remembered his covenant forever: The word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he made to Abraham: and his oath to Isaac. And he appointed the same to Jacob for a law’ (Ps. 104:8). But he promised carnal things to those who came out of Egypt. Deinde cum dicit quoniam ipsi non, etc., ostendit defectum veteris testamenti ex eventu; et primo quantum ad culpam, et ideo dicit quoniam ipsi non permanserunt in testamento meo, quia scilicet non erat scriptum in cordibus ipsorum. Unde statim post legem datam fecerunt vitulum conflatilem. Ex. XXXII, 8 et Ps. CV, 20: fecerunt vitulum in Oreb, et adoraverunt sculptile. Et quantum ad poenam. Ideo dicit et ego neglexi eos. Illud enim aliquis dicitur negligere, quod permittit perire. Et sic neglexit eos, quia permisit eos perire ab exterminatore, ut dicitur I Cor. X, 10; et Ps. CXVIII, v. 118: sprevisti omnes discedentes a iudiciis tuis. Alia littera: et ego dominatus sum eorum, id est, puniendo ostendi me esse dominum ipsorum. 402. – Then when he says, for they did not continue in my covenant, he shows the failings of the Old Testament as far as guilt was concerned. In regard to this guilt he says, because they did not continue in my covenant, namely, because it was not written on their hearts. Hence, right after the Law was given, they made a golden calf: ‘They made also a calf in Horeb, and they adored the graven thing’ (Ps. 105:19). In regard to punishment he says, so I paid no heed to them, for a person is said not to regard something, when he permits it to perish. So he regarded them not, because He permitted them to be destroyed by the destroyer: ‘You have despised all of them that fall off from your judgments’ (Ps. 118:118). Deinde cum dicit quia hoc est testamentum, etc., describit conditiones novi testamenti. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo ponit modum editionis eius; secundo effectum ipsius, ibi et ero eis in Deum. 403. – Then (v. 10) he describes the qualities of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes the way it was announced; secondly, its effect (v. 10b). Dicit ergo quia hoc est, id est tale est, testamentum quod disponam domui Israel, etc.; dispositio importat congruitatem ordinis. Et ideo dicit post dies illos, id est, post legem datam. Debuit enim post legem veterem dari nova lex, sicut primo datur paedagogus, postea magister, ut prius homo recognoscat infirmitatem suam. In hoc ergo patet congruitas temporis dandi novum testamentum. Modus autem tradendi duplex est. Unus per exteriora, sicut proponendo verba ad cognitionem alicuius. Et hoc potest homo facere, et sic traditum fuit vetus testamentum. Alio modo interius operando. Et hoc proprium est Dei. Iob XXXII, 8: inspiratio omnipotentis dat intelligentiam. Et hoc modo datum est novum testamentum, quia consistit in infusione spiritus sancti, qui interius instruit. Non autem sufficit tantum cognoscere, sed requiritur operari. Et ideo primo illuminat intellectum ad cognoscendum. Et ideo dicit dabo leges meas, et cetera. Et dicit in plurali, propter diversa praecepta et consilia. Et hoc facit spiritus sanctus. I Io. II, 27: unctio eius docet vos. Io. XIV, 26: ille vos docebit omnia, et cetera. Item ad bene operandum inclinat affectum, unde imprimitur cordi. Et quantum ad hoc dicit in corde eorum superscribam eas, id est, super cognitionem scribam charitatem. Super omnia autem charitatem habete, etc., Col. III, 14, et Rom. V, 5: charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris, et cetera. Et haec est epistola, de qua subdit, II Cor. III, 3: non atramento, sed spiritu Dei vivi; non in tabulis lapideis, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus. 404. – He says, therefore, This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days. Making implies a suitable order; hence, he says, after those days, i.e., after the Law was given. For a new law should have been given after the old; just as a master is given after a pedagogue, in order that man recognize his infirmity. This, therefore, shows the fitness of the time when the New Testament was given. The manner in which it was given is twofold: in one way by externals, by proposing words suited to their understanding. This man can do; and that is the way the Old Testament was given. In another way by acting inwardly, and this is peculiar to God: ‘the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding’ (Jb. 32:8). This is the way the New Testament was given, because it consists in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Who instructs inwardly. But it is not enough to know, for one must act. Therefore, He first enlightens the intellect to understand; hence, he says, I will put my laws into their minds. He uses the plural, because there are various precepts and counsel. This the Holy Spirit does: ‘His unction teaches you’ (1 Jn. 2:27); ‘He will teach you all things (Jn. 14:26). Furthermore, He inclines the will to act well; hence, it is impressed on their heart. In regard to this he says, and write them on their hearts, i.e., I will write charity on their knowledge: ‘Above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection’ (Col. 3:14); ‘The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us’ (Rom. 5:5). This is the epistle of which he says in 2 Cor. (3:3): ‘Not in ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in the fleshly tablets of the heart.’
8-3
Heb. 8:10b-13Supra posuit apostolus conditiones novi testamenti ex editione ipsius nunc ponit tres effectus ipsius. Primus est hominis ad Deum perfecta coniunctio; secundus est Dei perfecta cognitio, ibi et non docebit; tertius est peccatorum remissio, ibi quia propitius ero. 405. – Having mentioned the qualities of the New Testament from the way it was given, the Apostle now describes three of its effects: the first is man’s perfect union with God; the second is perfect knowledge of God (v. 11); the third is the remission of sins (v. 12). Circa primum sciendum est, quod ad hoc quod homo iungatur Deo, requiritur auxilium divinae gratiae, quia ad hoc non potest propria virtute. Ier. XXXI, 3: in charitate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. Primo ergo tangitur illa coniunctio ex parte Dei; secundo ex parte hominis, ibi et ipsi erunt. Dicit ergo ero illis in Deum. Nomen Dei significat universalem providentiam. Tunc ergo est nobis in Deum, quando habet curam de nobis, et corda nostra ad se trahit, et hoc est respectu iustorum specialiter. Ex hoc ergo quod ero eis in Deum, sequitur secundum, scilicet quod ipsi erunt mihi in populum, id est, exhibebunt se mihi in populum. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus, II de Civit. Dei, c. 21: populus est coetus multitudinis, iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus. Quando ergo consentiunt in ius divinae legis, ut sint adinvicem utiles et tendant in Deum, tunc est populus Dei. Apoc. XXI, 3: ipsi populus eius erunt, et ipse Deus cum eis erit eorum Deus. 406. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the help of God’s grace is required, if man is to be united with God, because one’s own power is not capable of this: ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, have I drawn you, taking pity on you’ (Jer. 31:3): first, therefore, he touches on that union from God’s side; secondly, from mans’ side (v. 10c). He says, therefore: I will be their God. Now the name ‘God’ signifies universal providence. Therefore, He is our God, when He has a care for us and draws our hearts to Himself. Therefore, from the fact that he says, I will be their God, the effect follows that they shall be my people, i.e., they will show themselves my people. For, as Augustine says in The City of God: A people is an assembled multitude joined together by the consent of right and common utility. Therefore, when they consent to the rights of the divine law in order to be useful to each other and tend to God, then they are God’s people: ‘And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God’ (Rev. 21:3). Deinde cum dicit et non docebit, etc., ponit secundum effectum novi testamenti. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponit signum effectus illius; secundo effectum ipsum, ibi quia omnes, et cetera. 407. – Then when he says, And they shall not teach every one his fellow, he lays down the second effect of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the sign of that effect; secondly, the effect itself (v. 11b). Signum perfectae cognitionis est, quando quis non indiget doceri, quia doctrina est via ad acquisitionem scientiae, et ideo cessat doctrina, acquisita perfecte scientia. Sed numquid in novo testamento unus non docet alium? Et videtur quod non, per litteram istam. Sed contra, quia apostolus vocat se doctorem gentium, I Tim. II, 7, et Eph. IV, 11: alios pastores, et doctores; Rom. XII, 7: sive qui docet in doctrina. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod hoc quod dicitur hic, potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo de praesenti statu, et sic non verificatur universaliter de omnibus, sed tantum de primis fundatoribus novi testamenti, scilicet apostolis, qui immediate fuerunt instructi a Deo, quando aperuit illis sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas. Lc. ult. Apostoli ergo facti sunt perfecte cognoscentes, et non ab aliis instructi, sed simul a Christo acceperunt sapientiam infusam. Alio modo, quod referatur ad statum patriae futurum, ad quam per novum testamentum introducimur, non per vetus. Et sic universaliter verum est quod dicitur hic. 408. – The sign of perfect knowledge is that a person does not need to be taught, because teaching is the way to the acquisition of knowledge; therefore, teaching ceases when knowledge has been perfectly acquired. But does not one person teach another in the New Testament? For according to the letter it seems not. Yet the Apostle styles himself the teacher of the Gentiles: ‘Some pastors and teachers’ (Eph. 4:11); ‘He that teaches, in doctrine’ (Rom. 12:7). I answer that what is stated here can be understood in two ways: in one way as referring to the present state, and then it is not verified universally of all, but only of the original founders of the New Testament, namely, the Apostles, who were instructed immediately by God when ‘he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures’ (Lk. 24:25). Therefore, the Apostles were made knowers perfectly and were not instructed by others, but received infused wisdom directly from Christ. In another way, as referring to the future state in heaven, to which we are brought by the New Testament but not by the Old. And so what is said here is universally true. Sed contra: homines beati sunt aequales Angelis, non maiores, sed secundum Dionysium unus Angelus docet alium illuminando ipsum: ergo et homo beatus alium docebit. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod duplex est cognitio in beatis Angelis. Una quae beatos facit, scilicet cognitio divinitatis, quae sola beatos facit; sicut dicit Augustinus in libro Confess.: beatus qui te novit, et cetera. Alia est quae est omnium quae sunt aliud a Deo, cuiusmodi sunt effectus Dei, et ista non beatificant. Quantum ergo ad primam unus non docet alium; quia unus non beatificatur mediante alio, sed a Deo immediate. Ps. XXXV, 9: in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Sed quantum ad aliam, quae est aliquorum mysteriorum, unus docet alium. Et hoc forte usque ad finem mundi, quamdiu durat executio effectuum Dei. Et ideo addit dicens: cognosce dominum, quasi dicat: non accipit Dei cognitionem. Et dicit proximum suum et fratrem suum, quia, etsi secundum Augustinum omnes homines sint ex charitate diligendi, si tamen non possis omnibus prodesse, tamen illis specialiter debes prodesse, qui tibi coniunguntur, vel naturaliter, sicut sunt consanguinei, quos hic vocat fratres, vel alia coniunctione, et sic proximus est. 409. – But men in glory are equal to angels, not greater. Yet according to Dionysius one angel can teach another by enlightening him. Therefore, a man in glory can teach another one. I answer that there are two kinds of knowledge in the good angels: the one makes them beatified, namely, the knowledge of the divinity, which alone makes them beatified, as Augustine says in the Confessions: ‘Blessed is he that knows you.’ The other is the knowledge of anything distinct from God, such as God’s effects, and this knowledge does not cause beatitude. Therefore, in regard to the first, one does not teach another, because one is not beatified by means of another, but by God directly: ‘In your light we shall see the light’ (Ps. 35:10). But in regard to the other, which is concerned with certain mysteries, one does teach another; and this will continue perhaps until the end of the world, as long as the execution of God’s effects continues; hence he adds, know the Lord. As if to say: He does not receive God’s knowledge. He says, his neighbor and brother, because even though according to Augustine all men must be loved out of charity, if you cannot benefit all, then you should benefit those who are joined to you either naturally, as blood relatives, or by some other tie, as your neighbor. Omnes enim scient me a minimo usque ad maiorem eorum. Haec est causa quare unus non docebit alium, quia omnes noscent dominum. I Io. III, 2: videbimus eum sicuti est. In hac vero visione consistit beatitudo. Io. XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et cetera. Ier. IX, 24: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. Et hanc doctrinam habent beati non ab aliquo alio, sed a solo Deo tantum. Is. LIV, 13: ponam universos filios tuos doctos a domino. Illud autem, quod dicit a minimo potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod dicantur maiores sancti antiquiores. Et sic maior et minor dicuntur secundum ordinem temporis. Omnes ergo cognoscent, quia singuli accipient singulos denarios, Matth. XX, 9 ss. Vel hoc dicit ad ostendendum differentiam praemiorum, quia licet omnes cognoscant, tamen unus magis alio cognoscet. Matth. V, 19: qui fecerit et docuerit, hic magnus vocabitur in regno caelorum. Praemium enim correspondet merito; et hoc contra illos, qui dicunt poenas et omnia merita esse aequalia, et per consequens praemia aequalia. Contra quos dicitur I Cor. XV, v. 41: stella differt a stella in claritate. 410. – For all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them. This is the reason why one will not teach another, because all will know the Lord: ‘We shall see him as he is’ (1 Jn. 3:2). But it is in this vision that beatitude consists: ‘This is eternal life: That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (Jn. 17:3); ‘Let him that glories, glory in this, that he understands and knows me’ (Jer. 9:24). And the blessed have this teaching not from one another but from God alone: ‘All your children shall be taught of the Lord’ (Is. 54:13). But the phrase, from the least to the greatest can be understood in two ways: in one way so that the older saints are called greater; then the greater and lesser would be taken according to the order of time. Therefore, all will know God, because each will receive his own penny (Mt. 20:10). Or he says this to show the different rewards, because although all will know, one will know more than another: ‘He that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:19). For the reward corresponds to the merit; and this is against those who say that all punishments and all merits will be equal and, consequently, all rewards. But against this opinion 1 Corinthians (15:41) states: ‘Star differs from star in glory.’ Deinde cum dicit quia propitius, etc., ponit tertium effectum, qui est culpae remissio, quod non poterat vetus testamentum. Infra X, 4: impossibile est sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata. Dicit ergo propitius ero. Differunt autem iniquitas et peccatum, quia iniquitas opponitur iustitiae, quae quidem proprie semper est ad alium. Ideo iniquitas dicitur, qua quis nocet alteri. Iob XXXV, 8: homini qui similis tui est, nocebit iniquitas tua. Peccatum autem dicitur omnis defectus actionis, quia importat deordinationem. Et sic iniquitas proprie est in proximum, sed peccatum est in seipsum: et hoc proprie loquendo, large tamen idem est iniquitas et peccatum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit quia propitius ero iniquitatibus eorum, scilicet in praesenti poenam relaxando, nec memorabor peccatorum eorum, scilicet in futuro peccata puniendo. Ez. XVIII, 22: omnium iniquitatum eius quas operatus est non recordabor. Ps. LXXVIII, 9: propitius esto peccatis nostris, etc., item v. 8: ne memineris iniquitatum nostrarum, et cetera. Rom. XI, 29: sine poenitentia enim sunt dona et vocatio Dei, etc.; id est, Deus non poenitet, quod hic peccata remiserit, quasi iterum puniendo. 411. – Then when he says, because I will be merciful to their iniquities, he states the third effect, which is the remission of guilt, which the Old Testament was unable to do: It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away’ (Heb. 10:4). He says, therefore: I will be merciful. But iniquity differs from sin, because iniquity is opposed to justice which, strictly speaking, is always toward someone else; therefore, iniquity refers to that by which one person injures another: ‘Your wickedness may hurt a man that is like you’ (Jb. 35:8). But a sin refers to any defect in an action, because it implies a disorder; hence, iniquity is, properly speaking, against one’s neighbor, but sin against oneself. This is, strictly speaking, but in a wide sense both are the same. In regard to this he says, I will be merciful toward their iniquities, namely, in the present life by relaxing the punishment; and their sins I will remember no more, namely, in the future by punishing sins: ‘I will not remember all his iniquities which he has done’ (Ez. 18:22): ‘Forgive us our sins for your name’s sake’ (Ps. 78:9); ‘Remember not our former iniquities’ (Ps. 78:8); ‘The gifts and the call of God are without repentance’ (Rom. 11:29), i.e., God does not repent that He remitted our sins here, as though to punish them again. Deinde cum dicit dicendo autem novum, etc., quasi posita auctoritate arguit ex ipsa, et facit talem rationem: novum non dicitur nisi in comparatione ad vetus, sed omne quod dicitur vetus significat quasi sit prope cessationem; ergo dicendo novum, veteravit prius, id est, dedit intelligere quod prius sit vetus. Quod autem antiquatur et senescit, prope interitum est. Si ergo illud est vetus, abiiciendum est. Lev. c. XXVI, 10: novis supervenientibus, vetera proiicietis. Dicendo ergo novum, designat cessationem veteris. Proprie autem nihil antiquatur, nisi quod subiacet tempori, quae autem subiacent tempori cessant in tempore. Oportet ergo illud vetus cessare. Dicit autem antiquatur, propter res inanimatas, sed senescit, propter animatas. Sciendum tamen est, quod ubi habemus peccatorum, alia littera habet peccati; et tunc refertur ad peccatum originale quod omnibus est commune. 412. – Then when he says, in speaking of a new covenant, he argues as though from an authority he cited. And he forms this argument: A new is said only in relation to an old. But whatever is called old is, as it were, close to cessation. Therefore, in speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first as obsolete, i.e., it gives us to understand that the former is old. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Therefore, it if it old, it should be cast out: ‘The new coming on, you shall cast away the old’ (Lev. 26:10). Therefore, in saying, a new, he designates the cessation of the old. But, properly speaking, nothing is ancient except what is subject to time; and things subject to time cease in time. Therefore, it is fitting that the old should cease. But he says, and becoming obsolete, in regard to inanimate things; but grows old in regard to animate things. Yet it should be noted that where we have, their sins, another version has ‘sin’ and then it refers to original sin, which is common to all.
9-1
Heb 9:1-5Supra ostendit apostolus dignitatem novi testamenti respectu veteris in generali, hic ostendit idem in speciali, descendendo ad singula, quae erant in utroque testamento. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim comparat ea, quae sunt veteris testamenti ad ea quae sunt novi, ut super hoc ostendat dignitatem novi; secundo manifestat quaedam, quae supposuerat, X cap., ibi umbram enim habens. Circa primum tria facit, quia primo exponit illud, quod fuit in veteri testamento; secundo ostendit significatum suum, ibi hoc significante spiritu; tertio ex his arguit ad propositum, ibi et ideo novi testamenti. Iterum prima in duas. Primo enim describit conditionem veteris testamenti; secundo prosequitur, ibi tabernaculum enim factum. 413. – Having showed in general the dignity of the New Testament as compared to the Old, the Apostle now shows the same in particular by reaching down to the individuals in each Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he compares things of the Old Testament with those of the New to show the dignity of the New; secondly, he clarifies some things he had presupposed (chap. 10). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he explains what was present in the Old Testament; secondly, he shows what it signified (v. 8); thirdly, from these facts he argues to his conclusion (v. 15). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the qualities of the Old Testament; secondly, he explains what he had said (v. 2). Circa primum sciendum est quod tam vetus quam novum testamentum ad hoc instituta sunt, ut per ipsa anima accedat ad Deum. Ad hoc autem duo sunt necessaria, scilicet recessus a peccato, et unio ad Deum. Primum fit per iustificationem; secundum per sanctificationem, et in utroque testamento fit iustificatio et sanctificatio. Unde dicit: sic dictum est, quod prius veteravit. Sed quale fuit illud vetus? Tale quod habuit quidem et prius iustificationes culturae, scilicet latriae, secundum Graecum. In veteri enim fuerunt quaedam ablutiones per quas mundabantur, non quidem a macula peccati, sed a quibusdam irregularitatibus quibus impediebantur a cultu Dei, sicut ex tactu mortui vel alicuius immundi, non poterant intrare tabernaculum, nisi expiati per aliquas ablutiones. Et ideo dicebantur iustificationes culturae, quia scilicet per ea fiebat idoneus ad cultum divinum. Et de hoc habetur Lev. c. XXII. Hieronymus: iustificationes, id est, ablutiones, quibus purificatis licebat accedere. Sed sanctificatio eorum erat. Et sanctum saeculare. 414. – In regard to the first it should be noted that both the Old and New Testaments were instituted in order that by them the soul might come to God. But two things are needed for this, namely, withdrawal from sin and union with God. The first is brought about by justification, and the second by sanctification; and in both Testaments justification and sanctification took place. Hence, he says: So we have said that the former one had grown old. But what were the qualities of that Old Testament? It was such that it had regulations for worship, i.e., of latreia. For in the Old there were washings, by which they were cleansed not from the stain of sin, but from certain irregularities, which hindered them from the worship of God. Thus, after touching a corpse or anything unclean, they could not enter the tabernacle, until they were purified by certain washings. Therefore, they were called the ‘justifications of worship’, because by them they were made fit for divine worship. This is treated in Leviticus (chap. 22). ‘Justifications, i.e., washings, purified so that they could approach’ (Jerome). But their sanctification was a worldly sanctuary. Saeculum quandoque sumitur pro quacumque duratione. Ps. CX, 3: in saeculum saeculi. Quandoque significat mundum istum. II Tim. IV, 9: demas me dereliquit diligens hoc saeculum. Illa ergo sanctificatio potest dici saecularis, quia temporalis erat, et non perpetua. Sed littera Graeca non sic accipit, quia dicit sanctum mundanum. Unde est differentia inter novum testamentum et vetus, quia licet utrumque sit corporale, tamen novum continet gratiam, et sacrum est, in quo sub tegumento rerum visibilium divina virtus salutem secretius operatur, quod non erat in veteri testamento, quoniam in se nullam continebat gratiam. Gal. IV, 9: quomodo iterum convertimini ad infirma et egena elementa? 415. – Now ‘worldly’ is sometimes taken for any duration: ‘forever and ever’ (Ps. 109:3); sometimes it signifies the world itself: ‘Demas has left me, loving this world’ (2 Tim. 4:9). Therefore, that sanctification can be called ‘worldly,’ because it is temporal and not perpetual. But the Greek text does not take it that way, because it says, ‘mundane holy.’ Hence, a difference between the New Testament and the Old was that, although both are bodily, the former contains grace and is holy, and in it the divine power works salvation under cover of visible things. This was not so in the Old Testament, because it contained no grace in itself: ‘How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?’ (Gal. 4:9). Deinde cum dicit tabernaculum, etc., exponit illud quod dixit. Et primo quantum ad dispositionem tabernaculi; secundo quantum ad ministerium sacerdotum, ibi his vero ita, et cetera. 416. – Then when he says, For a tent was prepared, he explains what he has said: first, in regard to the disposition of the tabernacle; secondly, as to the ministry of the priests (v. 6). Circa primum propter intellectum litterae, sciendum est quod dominus in deserto praecepit fieri tabernaculum, quod haberet triginta cubitos vel passus in longitudine, et decem in latitudine, ita quod ostium erat ad orientem, ante quod dependebat velum super quatuor columnas, et quoddam tentorium, in quo erat altare holocaustorum. Sed de hoc nihil ad propositum, quia apostolus de hoc non facit aliquam mentionem, sed in tabernaculo versus occidentem spatio decem cubitorum longitudinis, et decem latitudinis appendebatur velum super quatuor columnas; et istud dividebat partem unam decem cubitorum ab alia viginti cubitorum. Pars autem viginti cubitorum dicitur sancta, et tabernaculum primum; sed illa decem dicitur sancta sanctorum et tabernaculum secundum. 417. – In regard to the first, to understand the literal meaning, it should be noted that the Lord commanded a tabernacle to be made in the desert. It was to be twenty cubits or paces long, and ten wide, with an entrance facing the east. In front of the entrance a curtain hung from four pillars. There was a small tent in which was the altar of holocausts. But all this was left unmentioned by the Apostle, because it contributed nothing to his thesis. In the tabernacle as you faced west, before an area ten cubits long and ten wide was hung a veil, which divided one area ten cubits long from the other twenty cubits long. The area twenty cubits long is called the sanctuary and the first tabernacle, the other of ten cubits in length is called the holy of holies and the second tabernacle. Ista distinctio dupliciter potest exponi. Uno modo, quia ea quae fuerunt in veteri testamento, fuerunt figura novi testamenti. Novum etiam est figura caelestis patriae. Sic ergo per primum tabernaculum, vetus testamentum; et per secundum, novum. Alio modo per primum tabernaculum, praesens Ecclesia; per secundum, caelestis gloria. Inquantum ergo significat vetus testamentum, est figura figurae; sed inquantum significat praesentem Ecclesiam, quae adhuc significat futuram gloriam, est figura veritatis, quantum ad utrumque. Circa hoc ergo duo facit, quia primo describit illud quod erat in primo; secundo illud, quod erat in secundo, ibi post velamentum. 418. – This distinction can be explained in two ways: in one way, because the things of the Old Testament were a figure of the New, and the New a figure of the heavenly country. Thus, therefore, by the first tabernacle was signified the Old Testament, and by the second, the New. In another way, by the first tabernacle the present Church, and by the second, heavenly glory. Therefore, inasmuch as it signifies the Old Testament, it is a figure of a figure; but inasmuch as it signifies the present Church, which in turn signifies future glory, it is a figure of the truth in regard to each. In regard to these he does two things: first, he describes what was in the first; secondly, in the second (v. 3). In primo autem tria erant, scilicet candelabrum aureum ad meridiem, quod ita erat factum. Ex uno enim longo hastili procedebant sex calami, quasi sex brachia, scilicet tres a dextris et tres a sinistris. Et sic in summitate erant septem rami et in quolibet erat una lucerna, quae ardebat. Item in quolibet calamo erant quatuor, scilicet calamus, qui erat ex tribus partibus quasi tribus petiis, scilicet cyphi, spherulae, et lilia: quia ibi duae partes iungebantur. In fine cuiuslibet partis erat quasi quidam cyphus, in quo duo cyphi iunguntur in nucis modum, et duae spherulae volubiles, et duo quasi folia lilii hinc et inde. Item in parte aquilonari erat mensa aurea in modum altaris, super quam ponebantur in sabbato duodecim panes calidi, et super quemlibet thus lucidum in patena aurea. Et stabant illi panes, qui dicebantur propositionis, usque ad diem sabbati, ubi oportebat illos amoveri, et reponebantur alii loco illorum. Item in medio erat altare aureum ad adolendum thymiama boni odoris, et hoc ad litteram, ne domus foeteret propter multitudinem immolatitii sanguinis. Per candelabrum autem quod illuminat, et per mensam designatur ad litteram, quod qui altari servit de altari vivat. Dicit ergo tabernaculum prius, id est, anterior pars tabernaculi, factum est in quo erant candelabra, quae unum erant quantum ad substantiam, sed plura quantum ad ramos, et hoc ad meridiem, et mensa ad Aquilonem, et propositio panum, id est, panes propositionis per hypallagen, sicut perflavit fistula buccas, et ista pars dicitur sancta. De hoc habetur diffuse Ex. XXV, XXVI et XXVII. 419. – In the first tabernacle were three things, namely, the golden candlestick on the south. It was made in the following way: from a long shaft proceeded six branches, as it were, six arms, namely, three from the right side and three from the left, so that at the top were seven branches, in each of which burned a lamp. Then in each arm were four things, namely, the arm which divided into three cups, namely, cups, bowls, and lilies, because two parts were joined there. At the end of each part was a cup in which two cups are joined in the manner of a nut, and two revolving bowls and two leaves of a lily. Then in the northern area was a golden table upon which twelve freshly baked loaves were placed on the Sabbath, and over each one was incense burning on a paten of gold. Those loaves, which were called the Bread of the Presence, remained there until the Sabbath, when they were removed and others put in their place. Furthermore, in the middle was a golden altar for burning sweet-smelling thyme to prevent the house from stinking from the vast quantity of blood pouring from the victims. By the candlestick, which gives light, and by the table was designated that those who serve the altar should live off the altar. Therefore, he says, for a tabernacle, i.e., the front part of the tabernacle, was made first, in which were the candlesticks, which were one as to substance but many as to branches. This was to the south: and a table to the north and the presentation of the loaves, i.e., the Bread of the Presence. This part is called the Holy Place. All this is treated in detail in Exodus (chaps. 25, 26, 27). Deinde cum dicit post velamentum, etc., describit ea, quae erant in secundo tabernaculo, scilicet arca testamenti, de lignis sethin imputribilibus, circumtecta ex omni parte, id est, tam intus quam extra, auro. In arca autem erant tria, scilicet urna aurea habens manna, et hoc in memoriam illius beneficii eis praestiti, Ex. XVI, 32 ss., et virga Aaron quae fronduerat, Num. XVII, v. 8, in memoriam sacerdotii Aaron ne alius extraneus praesumeret accedere; et tabulae testamenti, Ex. XXV, 21, in memoriam legis. Item super arcam duo Cherubim qui tangebant se duabus alis, et tangebant alis duabus latera tabernaculi. Inter duas autem alas quibus tangebant se, erat tabula aurea eiusdem longitudinis et latitudinis, et arca, scilicet duorum cubitorum in longitudine, cubiti et semis in latitudine, et erat supereminens, quae dicebatur propitiatorium. Unde erat quasi sedes, de qua Deus exaudiret ad repropitiandum populo. Ps. LXXIX, 2: qui sedes super Cherubim, et cetera. Arca vero erat quasi scabellum pedum. Illi duo Cherubim versis vultibus ad seipsos respiciebant in propitiatorium. Hic autem addit apostolus quartum, scilicet thuribulum aureum, de quo dicunt aliqui, quod erat altare inter sancta, ut dictum est. In sancta quod erat exterius introibant sacerdotes omni die ad expletionem mysteriorum; sed in sancta sanctorum sacerdos summus semel in anno cum sanguine, et tunc implebat thuribulum illud thymiamate, ita quod ex fumo ascenderet nebula, quae operiret sancta sanctorum, ne posset videri ab his qui extra erant. Ista ergo sunt illa, quae erant post velamentum, quod erat secundum, quod dicitur sancta sanctorum pro dignitate, sicut dicitur virgo virginum antonomastice, aureum habens thuribulum, et arca in qua erat urna, etc. super quam, scilicet arcam, non quod haberent super eam pedes, sed alas tantum, Cherubim gloriae, id est, gloriose facta, obumbrantia propitiatorium, scilicet alis suis, de quibus non est modo dicendum, id est, prosequendum, per singula. 420. – Then when he says, Behind the veil the second tabernacle called the Holy of Holies, he describes the things that were in the second tabernacle, namely, the ark of the covenant made of incorruptible sethim wood, covered about on every part, i.e., inside and outside, with gold. In the ark were three things: a golden urn that had manna in memory of the benefit bestowed on them; the rod of Aaron that had blossomed (Num. 17:8) in memory of Aaron’s priesthood, lest a stranger should presume to approach, and the tables of the covenant in memory of the Law. Then, over the ark were two Cherubim, who touched each other with two wings and touched the two sides of the tabernacle with the other two. Between the two wings, with which they touched each other, was a golden table of the same length and width as the ark, namely, two cubits in length and a cubit and a half in width, overshadowing the mercy seat. Hence, it served as a throne from which God would listen, to be re-propitiated toward the people: ‘You that sit upon the cherubim before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh’ (Ps. 79:2). But the ark was, as it were, a foot stool. The two cherubim facing each other looked at the mercy seat. But the Apostle adds a fourth item, namely, the golden altar of incense, concerning which some say that it was the altar between the holies, as has been said. The priests entered every day into the holies, which was outside, to perform the mysteries; but into the holy of holies the high priest once a year with blood. Then he filled that censer with thyme, so that from the smoke ascended a cloud which covered the holy of holies, so that it would not be seen by anyone outside. Those, therefore, are the things which were beyond the veil, which was the second tabernacle and called the Holy of Holies on account of its dignity, as the Blessed Mother is called the Virgin of virgins anthonomastically, having a golden censer and the ark in which was a golden urn, over which, namely, the ark (not that they had feet over it, but wings only) were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, namely, with their wings, of which it is not necessary to speak now, i.e., pursue with words, in detail. Sed contra, quia III Reg. VIII, 9 dicitur, quod in arca non est aliud nisi duae tabulae. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod verum est ex principali intentione, quia ad hoc fuit arca principaliter facta, sicut patet Ex. XXV. 421. – But in 1 Kg (8:9) it says that ‘in the ark there was nothing else but the two tables of stone.’ I answer that this is true as regards its principal purpose, because that was what the ark was principally made for, as it says in Exodus (25:16). Quid autem ista significent, sciendum est, quod omnes caeremoniae legis ordinabantur ad usum, secundum statum illum; ad aliud vero secundum quod erant figurativa, prout scilicet repraesentabant Christum. Quo ad primum omnia instituta fuerunt ad repraesentandum magnificentiam Dei. Illa autem non repraesentabantur, nisi in effectibus. Isti autem effectus habent quasi duplex saeculum: unum superius, scilicet substantiarum incorporearum, et istud repraesentatur per sancta sanctorum. Aliud est istius mundi inferioris sensibilis, et istud repraesentatur per sancta. In mundo autem superiori sunt tria, scilicet Deus, rationes rerum, et Angeli. Deus autem omnino est incomprehensibilis, et ideo erat sedes sine sedente, quia non potest comprehendi a creatura nisi ex effectibus. Illa autem sedes erat propitiatorium, ut dictum est. Angeli autem significantur per Cherubim propter sapientiam. Unde et philosophi Angelos dicunt substantias intellectuales. Erant duo ad designandum quod non erant ibi positi ad colendum, quia dictum erat eis, Deut. c. IV: audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus unus est. Quod respiciunt in propitiatorium designat, quod non recedunt a contemplatione Dei. Matth. XVIII, 10: Angeli eorum in caelis semper vident faciem patris, et cetera. Rationes rerum signantur per arcam. Illa vero, quae sunt in hoc mundo, vel pertinent ad sapientiam, quae per tabulas significatur, vel ad potentiam, quae per virgam, vel ad bonitatem, quae per manna, quod erat dulce, quia quicquid est dulcedinis in creatura, totum est ex bonitate Dei. Quia vero ratione rerum, quae sunt intelligibiliter in Deo, sunt sensibiliter in creaturis corporalibus, ideo sicut in tabulis erat lumen intellectuale, ita in sanctis erat lumen corporale. Ibi manna, hic panes; ibi virga, hic altare, quod pertinet ad officium sacerdotis. 422. – In regard to what they signified, it should be noted that all the ceremonies of the Law were ordained to one thing according to that state; but to something else, insofar as they were figurative, namely, inasmuch as they represented Christ. As to the first, they were all instituted to represent God’s magnificence. But that was represented only in the effects. Those effects have, as it were, a twofold world: one is upper, namely, that of incorporeal substances, and that by the holy of holies; the other of the lower, sense-perceptible world, and that was represented by the Holy Place. In the upper world are three things: God, the reasons of things and the angels. But God is utterly incomprehensible; therefore, there was a seat left unoccupied, because He cannot be comprehended by a creature except from his effects. That seat was the propitiatory or mercy seat, as has been said. But the angels were signified by the cherubim on account of their wisdom; hence, even the philosophers call angels intellectual substances. There were two, to designate that they were not set there to be adored, because it had been said in Deuteronomy (6:4): ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.’ The fact that they looked at the mercy seat shows that they do not cease contemplating God: ‘Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven’ (Mt. 18:10). The reasons of things are signified by the ark. But the ones in this world pertain to wisdom, which is signified by the tablets, or to power, which is signified by the rod; or to goodness, which is signified by the manna, which is sweet, because whatever sweetness is found in the creature is from God’s goodness. But because the reasons of things, which exist intelligibly in God, exist in a sense-perceptible manner in bodily creatures, therefore, just as there was an intellectual light in the tablets, so in the holies there was a corporeal light. There the manna, here the loaves; there the rod, here the altar, which pertains to the priest’s office. Sed inquantum per ista figurabatur Christus, omnia ista inveniuntur in ipso. Et primo quantum ad sancta. Ipse enim est candelabrum luminis. Io. VIII, 12: ego sum lux mundi. In isto sunt sex ordines, tres a sinistris, scilicet perfecti veteris testamenti, et tres a dextris, scilicet novi testamenti. Isti designantur Ez. XIV, 14: per Noe, praelati; per Daniel, contemplativi; per Iob, activi. Isti calami lumen accipiunt, et infunduntur, quia, sicut dicitur I Petr. IV, 10: unusquisque sicut accepit gratiam, in alterutrum illam administrantes. Cyphi sunt propinantes potum sapientiae. Sphaerulae propter promptitudinem obedientiae. Lilia propter finem vitae aeternae. Septem lucernae sunt septem dona spiritus sancti. Item Christus est mensa refectionis. Duodecim panes sunt doctrina duodecim apostolorum et successorum suorum, qui ponuntur in sabbato spei usque ad sabbatum spei, etsi interim unus removetur per mortem, alter substituitur. Sed in magno sabbato removebuntur omnes. In inferiori erat propitiatorium, et Christus est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, I Io. II, v. 2. Duo Angeli sunt duo testamenta concorditer Christum respicientia. Vel omnes Angeli Christo servientes concorditer et unanimiter. Matth. IV, 11: accesserunt Angeli et ministrabant ei. Dan. VII, 10: millia millium ministrabant ei. Supra I, 14: omnes sunt administratorii spiritus. Ipsi desiderant in Christum prospicere, I Pet. I, 12. Item obumbrant propitiatorium, id est, Christi Ecclesiam custodiunt. Vel quia ipsorum ministerio fiebant visiones et apparitiones in quibus obumbratorie figurabatur Christus. Arca aurata de lignis sethin est caro Christi pura et pretiosissima, quae et dicitur urna aurea propter sapientiam, plena dulcedine divinitatis. Tabulae sunt eius sapientia; virga est sacerdotium eius aeternum; vel virga est potestas Christi; manna dulcedo gratiae, quae datur per sacerdotium Christi, vel per obedientiam mandatorum, sicut homo obedit potestati. Sed quia nullus habet sic gratiam quin peccet, excepto Christo et matre eius, ideo necesse est habere propitiatorium. Sciendum est autem quod Glossa super locum istum multum diffuse ista exponit. 423. – But inasmuch as Christ was prefigured by them, they are all found in Him: first, as to the holies, for He is a candlestick of light: ‘I am the light of the world’ (Jn. 8:12). In it are six orders: three on the left, namely, the perfect of the Old Testament; and three on the right, namely, of the New Testament. They are designated in Ezekiel (chap. 14): By Noah, prelates; by Daniel, contemplatives; by Job, the actives. Those branches receive light and impart it: ‘As every man has received grace, ministering the same one to another’ (1 Pt 4:10). The cups furnish the drink of wisdom; the bowls for ready obedience; the lilies for the end of eternal life; the seven lamps are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Again, Christ is a table of refreshment. The twelve loaves are the doctrine of the Apostles and their successors; they are put out on the Sabbath of hope to the Sabbath of hope; and if in the meantime one is removed by death, another is substituted. But on the great Sabbath all will be removed. In the interior was the propitiatory, and Christ is the propitiation of our sins’ (1 Jn. 2:2). The two angels are the two testaments looking peacefully at Christ; or all the angels serving Christ in concord and unity of spirit: ‘Angels came and ministered to him’ (Mt. 4:11); ‘Thousands of thousands ministered to him’ (Dan 7:10); ‘All are ministering spirits’ (Heb. 1:14). They desire to look on Christ and they overshadow the propitiatory, i.e., guard Christ’s Church. Or because by their ministry occurred visions and apparitions in which Christ was prefigured overshadowingly. The ark made of sethim wood is Christ’s pure and most precious flesh, which is called a gold urn because of His wisdom full of the sweetness of the godhead. The tablets are His wisdom. The rod is His eternal priesthood, or it is Christ’s power; and the manna the sweetness of grace given by the priesthood of Christ or by obedience to His commandments, as a man obeys the power. But because no one has grace without having sinned, except Christ and His mother, it is necessary to have a mercy seat.
9-2
Heb. 9:6-10Supra descripsit apostolus ea, quae pertinent ad vetus testamentum quantum ad dispositionem tabernaculi, hic prosequitur de officio ministrorum. Et primo de his, quae spectant ad sancta; secundo autem de his, quae spectant ad sancta sanctorum, ibi in secundo autem. 424. – Having described the things which pertain to the Old Testament so far as the disposition of the tabernacle was concerned, the Apostle now continues with the office of the ministers: first, with those who look to the holies; secondly, with those who look to the holy of holies (v. 7). Ad intellectum autem litterae huius, sciendum est quod, sicut supra dictum est, in parte anteriori ipsius tabernaculi circa medium erat altare thymiamatis vel incensi, quod idem est, et candelabrum. Ex parte vero meridionali, et ex opposito mensa propositionis. Sacerdos ergo quolibet die, mane et vespere, intrabat sancta propter duo, scilicet ad parandum lucernas, et adolendum thymiama, ut lumen et bonus odor iugiter esset in sanctis. Dicit ergo: his vero, scilicet quae pertinent ad speciem tabernaculi, ita compositis, id est, ordinatis, semper, id est, quotidie, mane scilicet et sero, intrabant sacerdotes consummantes officia sacrificiorum, non quod in sancta sacrificarent, quia sacrificabant super altare holocaustorum, quod erat ante fores tabernaculi sub divo, sed adoletionem thymiamatis et devotionem offerentium, vocat sacrificium. 425. – To understand the literal meaning of this, it should be noted that, as has been stated above, there was in the forepart of the tabernacle near the center the altar of thyme or of incense, which is the same thing, and the golden candlestick; but at the southern part opposite, the table of proposition. Every day in the morning and in the evening the priest entered the holies for two reasons: to dress the lamps and to renew the incense, in order that light and all good odor might be continually present in the holies. He says, therefore: Now these preparations, namely, which pertain to the appearance of the tabernacle, having been thus made, the priests go continually into the outer tent [first tabernacle] performing their ritual duties: not to sacrifice in the holies, because they sacrificed on the altar of holocausts in front of the door of the tabernacle under the sky; but he calls the renewal of the incense and the devotion of the offerers a sacrifice. Deinde cum dicit in secundo autem, ponit officium ministrorum quantum ad sancta sanctorum. Circa quod sciendum est quod, sicut dicitur Lev. XVI, 2 ss., summus sacerdos in die expiationis (quae fiebat decima die septimi mensis, scilicet Septembris, qui septimus est a Martio nostro, qui apud Hebraeos concurrit pro parte cum Aprili, in quo incipiunt anni, Ex. XII, 2: mensis iste principium vobis mensium, primus erit in mensibus anni: ipsi enim incipiunt mensem in lunatione, quae semper incipit in Martio, nisi impediat embolismus) offerebat pro se et tota domo sua vitulum, et hircum pro peccato populi, et, istis immolatis, accipiebat de sanguine ipsorum, et implebat thuribulum prunis altaris holocaustorum, quod erat in atrio ante fores tabernaculi, et cum omnibus his intrabat in sancta sanctorum, et cum sanguine expiabat tabernaculum, aspergendo sanguinem contra velum, et post egrediebatur. Et cum eodem sanguine liniebat cornua altaris thymiamatis: hoc autem semel in anno faciebat. 426. – Then (v. 7) he mentions the office of the ministers in regard to the holy of holies. Here it should be noted that, as it says in Leviticus (16:30) on the day of atonement (which occurred on the tenth day of the seventh month, namely, September, which is the seventh month after our March, which coincides with part of our April, when the Jewish year begins: ‘This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year’ (Ex. 12:2), for they began their month with the full moon which always begins in March, unless prevented by an embolism), the high priest offered a calf for himself and his whole house, and a goat for the sin of the people. When these were immolated, he took some of their blood and filled the thurible with the burning coals from the altar of holocausts, which was in the court in front of the tabernacle, and with all these things entered into the holy of holies to expiate the tabernacle with blood, sprinkling some of the blood on the veil. After he came out, he used the same blood to anoint the altar of incense. He did this once a year. Unde dicit in secundo autem, scilicet tabernaculo, quod dicitur sancta sanctorum, semel in anno intrabat solus pontifex. Glossa dicit quod pluries poterat sine sanguine, sed non cum sanguine, nisi semel. De hoc autem non habetur nisi tantum quando movenda sunt castra, quia tunc intrabant Aaron et filii eius, et involvebant, et dispensabant onera Levitarum, sicut patet Num. IV, v. 5 ss.: semel tamen in anno intrabat summus sacerdos solus cum sanguine, quando offerebat pro sua et populi ignorantia, id est pro peccatis nostris. Prov. XIV, 22: errant qui operantur malum. Omnis enim malus ignorat, ut habetur III Ethic. De hoc habetur Lev. c. XVI, ubi traditur ritus iste. Mystice vero per primum tabernaculum designatur praesens Ecclesia, in qua fideles debent seipsos sacrificare. Rom. XII, 1: exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem. Ps. l, 18: sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus. Item debent sacrificare sua in eleemosynis. Infra XIII, 16: talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus. Sed in sancta sanctorum, id est, in patriam caelestem intrat solus pontifex, scilicet Christus, in anima et corpore. Tamen secundum litteram intentio apostoli est, quod per sancta intelligatur vetus lex; per sancta sanctorum status novi testamenti et caelum, quia per novam legem intratur in caelum. 427. – Hence, he says, but in the second tabernacle, which is called the holy of holies, only the high priest goes, and he but once a year. A Gloss says that he could enter oftener without blood, but only once with blood. But this is recorded as happening only when the camp site was changed, because when Aaron and his sons entered to wrap the sanctuary and to appoint the burdens every man was to carry, as is clear from Num. 4:16. Nevertheless, once a year the high priest entered and not without taking blood, which he offered for himself and the people’s errors, i.e., sins: ‘They err that work evil’ (Prov 14:22). For every wicked person is ignorant, as it says in the Ethics. But this is treated in Leviticus (chap. 16), where the rite of atonement is described. Mystically, by the first tabernacle is designed the present Church, in which the faithful should sacrifice themselves: ‘Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God’ (Rom. 12:1) ‘A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit’ (Ps. 50:19). They should also sacrifice their property in alms: ‘By such sacrifices God’s favor is obtained’ (Heb. 13:16). But the high priest alone, i.e., Christ in soul and body, entered into the holy of holies, i.e., into the heavenly country. Yet according to the letter the intention of the Apostle is that the Old Law is signified by the holy, and by the holy of holies the state of the New Testament and heaven, because one enters heaven by the New Law. Et ideo subdit hoc significante spiritu sancto, ubi exponit quid significatur per hoc, et primo quantum ad vetus testamentum; secundo quantum ad novum, ibi Christus assistens. Item in prima parte primo ponit officium ministrorum quantum ad primum; secundo subdit positionis rationem iuxta quam munera. 428. – Hence, he continues: the Holy Spirit signifying this, where he explains what is signified by this: first, in regard to the Old Testament; secondly, in regard to the New (v. 11). In the first part he does two things: first, he describes the office of the ministers in regard to the first; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 9). Sciendum autem quod in primo intrabant sacerdotes quotidie, sed in secundo quod erat ultra velum, non nisi pontifex solus semel in anno. Unde quantum ad ministros illos erant ibi duo: unum quod in primo quotidie intrabant, aliud quod ante secundum erat eis velum. Unde interpositio veli significat quod caelestia erant eis velata. Item quod non intrabant, significat quod vetus testamentum non est via intrandi caelum ante adventum Christi. Dicit ergo: dico quod hoc sic perfectum est, hoc significante spiritu sancto. II Pet. c. I, 21: non humana voluntate allata est aliquando prophetia, sed spiritu sancto inspirati, locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Et hoc est contra haereticos, qui dicunt vetus testamentum non esse a spiritu sancto, sed a Deo malo. Quid significante? Nondum propalatam esse sanctorum viam, adhuc priore tabernaculo, id est, veteri testamento significato per primum tabernaculum, habente statum. Durante enim veteri testamento, via sanctorum, scilicet Christus, qui dicit, Io. XIV, 6: ego sum via, nondum venerat; ipse enim est ostium per quod patet introitus in sancta sanctorum. Io. X, 7: ego sum ostium. Sed non erat propalatus, quia adhuc latebat sub figuris litterae obumbratus. Infra X, 1: umbram habens lex futurorum, et cetera. Quae parabola est instantis, id est, praesentis, temporis; vel instantis, id est, ducens nos ad ea, quae contingunt in praesenti tempore. 429. – It should be noted that the priests entered into the holies every day; but into the second, which was beyond the veil the high priest alone once a year. Hence, in regard to those ministers there were two things there: one that entered everyday in the first; the other that there was a veil in front of the second. Hence, the interposition of the veil signifies that heavenly things were veiled from them. Furthermore, the fact that they did not enter signifies that the Old Testament is not the way to enter heaven before Christ’s coming. He says, therefore: I say that this was thus accomplished, the Holy Spirit indicating this: ‘Prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pt 1:21). This is against the heretics who say that the Old Testament was not from the Holy Spirit, but from an evil god. By indicating what? That the way into the holies was not yet made opened, as long as the former tabernacle, i.e., the Old Testament signified by the first tabernacle, was still standing. For as long as the Old Testament endured, the way into the holies, namely, Christ, Who says: ‘I am the way’ (Jn. 14:6) had not yet come; for He is the door by which one enters into the holies: ‘I am the door’ (Jn. 10:9). But He was not yet made manifest, because He was still hiding under the shadows of the figures of the letter: ‘For the law having a shadow of the good things to come’ (Heb. 10:1), which is symbolic for the present age, or leading us to the things which occur at the present time. Deinde cum dicit iuxta quam, ponit rationem quare durante statu veteris legis non patebat introitus in sancta sanctorum. In illa enim sancta nullus intrat nisi perfectus. Is. XXXV, 8: via sancta vocabitur, non transibit per eam pollutus. Et ideo ibi non erat mundatio et perfectio, nec erat introitus in illam. Sed vetus testamentum non poterat perfectum facere servientem, quia nondum erat oblatum sacrificium satisfaciens pro peccato totius humani generis. Et ideo dicit iuxta quam, scilicet vel parabolam vel figuram, offeruntur munera et hostiae. Quod refertur ad illud quod dicit, sacrificiorum officia consummantes, quia oblationes et munera, quae sunt de omnibus; hostiae autem, quae tantum sunt de animalibus, non offerebantur in sancta sanctorum, sed in sancta vel ad fores tabernaculi. Ista autem non poterant mundare, quia non possunt facere perfectum servientem, servitute latriae, quae pertinet ad cultum divinum. Perfectum, dico, iuxta conscientiam. Est enim duplex mundatio. Una a macula, et reatu peccati. Et quantum ad conscientiam, hoc non potest lex. Infra X, 4: impossibile est sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata. Is. I, 13: ne offeratis ultra sacrificium frustra. Mich. VI, 7: numquid placari potest Deus in millibus arietum aut in millibus hircorum pinguium? Alia mundatio erat quantum ad culturam, ut scilicet liceret eis ministrare in illis sacrificiis: et sic mundabat. 430. – Then (v. 9b) he states the reason why the entrance into the holy of holies was closed during the state of the Old Law. For no one enters into it, unless he is perfect: ‘It shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it’ (Is. 35:8). Hence, where there was no cleansing and no perfection, there was no entrance into it. But the Old Testament was unable to make perfect those who served it, because the sacrifice had not yet been offered that would satisfy for the sin of the whole human race; hence, he says. According to this, namely, parable or figure, gifts and sacrifices are offered, which refers to the clause, accomplishing the offices of sacrifice, because gifts of all things and offerings of animals were not offered in the holy of holies, but in the holies or in the court of the tabernacle. But they were unable to cleanse, because they cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper that serves with the service of latria, which pertains to divine worship. I say, perfect the conscience. For cleansing is of two kinds: one from the stain of sin and debt of punishment as to the conscience. The Law cannot do this: ‘It is impossible that with the blood of the oxen and goats sin should be taken away’ (Heb. 10:4); ‘Offer sacrifices no more in vain’ (Is. 1:13); ‘May the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams, or with many thousands of fat he-goats’ (Mic 6:7). The other cleansing was in regard to divine service, in order that one might lawfully minister at such sacrifices; and thus it cleansed. Sed numquid in veteri lege fuerunt multi perfecti? Et videtur quod sic. Dictum est enim Abrahae Gen. XVII, 1: ambula coram me, et esto perfectus. Moyses etiam et multi alii valde sancti et perfecti fuerunt. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod licet tunc multi perfecti et sancti fuerint, hoc tamen non fuit ex operibus legis. Supra VII, 19: nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex. Sed hoc fuit per fidem Christi. Gen. XV, 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam. Hoc ergo non erat virtute caeremoniarum aut legalium. Unde frequenter ibi dicitur orabit pro eo sacerdos et dimittetur illi, Lev. V, 10, et in multis aliis locis. Quod ergo mundaret, hoc erat ex fide. Sed in novo testamento dicitur Marc. ult.: qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit. Sine sacramentis enim novae legis non est salus. Io. III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, et cetera. 431. – But were many perfect in the Old Law? It seems so; for it was said to Abraham: ‘Walk before me and be perfect’ (Gen. 17:1). Furthermore, Moses and many others were very saintly and perfect. I answer that although there were many holy and perfect persons then, it was not from the works of the Law: ‘The law brought nothing to perfection’ (Heb. 7:19); but this was by faith in Christ: ‘Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice’ (Gen. 15:6). Therefore, this was not in virtue of the ceremonies and practices of the law: hence, it is frequently stated there: ‘And the priest will pray for him’ (Lev. 5:10) and in many other places. Therefore, that it cleansed was due to faith. But in the New Testament it says in Mk (16:16): ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.’ But there is no salvation without the sacraments of the New Law: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Jn. 3:5). Sed quare non mundabant conscientiam? Quia consistebant in cibis et potibus, peccatum vero est in conscientia. Illud autem, quod est pure corporale non mundat animam, quia non agit in animam. In sacrificiis autem illis erant cibi et potus, etc., quae pertinent ad corpus, et ideo non poterant mundare conscientiam. Dicit ergo in cibis et potibus, id est, in discretione ciborum et potuum interdictorum in veteri lege, quia abstinere ab his non mundat conscientiam. Vel ut hoc referatur ad usum sacrificiorum, quia comedebantur a sacerdotibus illa, quae offerebantur pro peccatis, et ab aliis, quae pro aliis. Ista enim non mundabant conscientiam. Ier. XI, 15: numquid carnes sanctae auferent a te malitias tuas? 432. – But why did they not cleanse the conscience? Because they consisted only in food and drink. But that which is altogether corporeal does not cleanse the soul, because it does not act on the soul. He says, therefore, in food and drink, i.e., in distinguishing meats and drinks that were forbidden in the Old Law, because abstaining from these does not cleanse the conscience; or else this refers to the use of the sacrifices, because the priests ate what was offered for sins. For they did not cleanse the conscience: ‘Shall the holy flesh take away from your crimes?’ (Jer. 11:15). Et variis Baptismatibus, id est, lotionibus, quia sicut dicitur Mc. VII, 3 s.: Iudaei servabant Baptismata calicum et urceorum, et a foro redeuntes non comedunt nisi baptizentur. Contra quos dicit dominus Matth. XXIII, 25: vae vobis, Scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae, qui mundatis quod de foris est calicis et paropsidis, intus autem estis pleni rapina et immunditia. Verumtamen apostolus non loquitur hic de superstitionibus Pharisaeorum, et ideo oportet currere ad alias lotiones praeceptas in lege, sicut est de aqua in qua lavabantur sacerdotes, et de aqua purificationis in mundatione leprosi vel polluti. Unde frequenter dicitur lavabunt vestimenta sua, et cetera. Et haec dicuntur hic Baptismata. Et iustitiis carnis: ad hoc addit universaliter de omnibus. 433. – And in various ablutions, because as it says in Mk (7:4), the Jews observed the washing of cups and of pots, and when they returned from the market, they did not eat until they were washed. Against this the Lord says (Mt. 23:25): ‘Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees: because you make clean the outside of the cup and dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.’ Yet the Apostle is not speaking here about the superstitions of the Pharisees. Therefore, we must go to the other washings commanded in the Law, such as the water in which the priests washed, and the water of purification in the cleansing of leprosy or defilement. Vocat ista caeremonialia iustitias carnis, id est, carnales, quia pertinebant tantum ad corporalem munditiam, nec erat in eis aliqua virtus spiritualis. Et ne aliquis dicat: quare ergo instituta sunt, si non poterant perficere? Quia iam videretur quod Deus ea inutiliter instituerit. Hoc removet cum dicit usque ad tempus correctionis impositis, quasi dicat: hoc verum est quod fuissent inutiliter instituta si semper deberent durare. Sed sicut puero primo oportet dare paedagogum, quando autem iam pervenit ad aetatem perfectam, tunc datur ei modus se habendi secundum iudicium rectoris reipublicae: ita in veteri lege ea, quae spectant ad imperfectionem instituta fuerunt, sed quando venit tempus perfectum, tunc debuerunt institui illa quae ducunt ad perfectionem. Et ideo dicit usque ad tempus correctionis, id est, in quo corrigeretur, non quidem sicut mala, sed sicut imperfecta. Lex enim bona est, Rom. VII, 12. Ps. LXXXIX, 10: supervenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur. 434. – Hence, they are regulations for the body. He adds this universally of all. He calls those ceremonies regulations for the body, i.e., fleshly, because they pertained only to bodily cleanness, and there was no spiritual power in them. And in order that no one ask: Why were they instituted, if they could not bring perfection; because it would then seem that God instituted them to no purpose, he rejects this when he says, until the time of correction. As if to say: It is true that they were instituted uselessly, if they were to continue forever. But as it is necessary first to give a child a pedagogue, and when he reaches perfect age, he is given a mode of behavior based on the judgment of the ruler of the republic; so in the Old Law were instituted things that look to imperfection. But when the perfect time came, the things which lead to perfection should have been introduced. Hence, he says, until the time of correction, i.e., in which they could be corrected, not as evil but as imperfect: ‘For the law is good’ (Rom. 7:12); ‘Mildness is come upon us, and we shall be corrected’ (Ps. 89:10).
9-3
Heb. 9:11-14Supra posuit apostolus significationem eorum, quae pertinent ad vetus testamentum et primum tabernaculum, hic ponit conditiones eorum, quae pertinent ad secundum tabernaculum, quod repraesentabat novum testamentum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponit illam significationem; secundo probat quoddam quod supposuerat, ibi si enim sanguis hircorum. 435. – Having shown the signification of things pertaining to the Old Testament and the first tabernacle, the Apostle now describes the condition of things pertaining to the second tabernacle, which represented the New Testament. Here he does two things: first, he sets forth that signification; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed (v. 13). Sciendum est autem quod si considerentur supradicta, quinque dicta sunt de secundo tabernaculo, scilicet quis intrabat, quia solus pontifex; secundo, dignitas et conditio loci quo intrabat, quia dicebatur sancta sanctorum; tertio, quomodo intrabat, quia cum sanguine; quarto, quando intrabat, quia semel in anno; quinto, quare intrabat, quia pro expiatione peccatorum. Hic autem apostolus illa quinque explicat. Et primo quis sit ille qui intrat, quia Christus. Pontifex enim est princeps sacerdotum. Talis autem est Christus. I Pet. V, 4: cum apparuerit princeps pastorum, et cetera. Supra IV, 14: habentes ergo pontificem magnum qui penetravit caelos Iesum, et cetera. Sed quilibet pontifex dispensator est alicuius testamenti. In quolibet autem testamento duo consideranda sunt, scilicet finis repromissus in illo testamento, et ea quae traduntur in illo. Bona autem repromissa in veteri testamento erant bona temporalia. Is. c. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis. Ille ergo pontifex erat bonorum temporalium. Sed Christus est pontifex bonorum caelestium. Matth. V, 12: gaudete et exultate, quoniam merces vestra copiosa est in caelis. Est ergo pontifex futurorum bonorum, quia per pontificatum eius introducimur in bona futura. Ps. LXIV, 5: replebimur in bonis domus tuae. Item in veteri dispensabantur figuralia; sed Christus dispensat spiritualia, quae per illa figurabantur. Lc. XI, 13: pater vester de caelis dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se. Sic ergo per bona futura possunt intelligi vel bona caelestia, et hoc respectu novi testamenti; vel bona spiritualia respectu veteris, quod eorum figura erat. Iste pontifex non est negligens, sed assistens. Pontifex enim mediator est inter Deum et populum: Christus vero mediator est: I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus. Deut. V, 5: ego medius et sequester fui inter dominum et vos. Et ideo ipse assistit patri ad interpellandum pro nobis, supra VII, 25; Rom. VIII, 34: Christus Iesus qui etiam interpellat pro nobis. Item assistens nobis ad auxiliandum. Ps. XV, 8: a dextris est mihi ne commovear. Act. VII, 55: ecce video caelos apertos et Iesum stantem a dextris Dei. Sic ergo patet quis intrabat. 436. – It should be noted that if the things already said are considered, five things have already been said of the second tabernacle, namely, who entered it, because it was the high priest; secondly, the dignity and the condition of the place he entered, because it was called the holy of holies; thirdly, how he entered, because he entered with blood; fourthly, when he entered, because once a year; fifthly, why he entered, because it was to expiate for sins. But here the Apostle explains all this, first of all, who enters, namely, Christ. For the high priest is the prince among the priests. But Christ was such: ‘And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory’ (1 Pt 5:4); ‘Having therefore a great high priest that has passed into the heavens’ (Heb. 4:14). But every high priest is a dispenser of a testament. However, there are two things to be considered in every testament: namely, the end promised in that testament, and the things handed down in it. But the goods promised in the Old Testament were temporal goods: ‘If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land’ (Is. 1:19). Therefore, the other was a high priest of temporal goods; But Christ is the high priest of heavenly goods: ‘Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven’ (Mt. 5:12). Therefore, He is a high priest of the good things to come, because by His high priesthood we are brought to goods to come: ‘We shall be filled with the good things of your house’ (Ps. 64:6). Furthermore, figurative things were dispensed in the Old Testament, but Christ dispenses the spiritual things they prefigured: ‘Your Father from heaven will give the good spirit to them that ask him’ (Lk. 11:13). Thus, therefore, by the good things to come can be understood either heavenly goods, and this in regard to the New Testament, or spiritual things, in regard to the Old, which was their figure. This high priest is not negligent, but assisting. For a high priest is a mediator between God and the people; but Christ is a mediator: ‘The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5): ‘I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you’ (Dt. 5:5); and therefore, He assists the Father by interceding for us: ‘Christ Jesus who also makes intercession for us’ (Rom. 8:34). Again, He assists us with his aid: ‘He is at my right hand that I be not moved’ (Ps. 15:8); ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God’ (Ac. 7:55). Thus, it is clear who entered. Secundo ostendit dignitatem interioris tabernaculi, quia dicit per amplius, et conditionem, quia et perfectius, utpote quia est immobile. Is. XXXIII, 20: oculi tui videbunt tabernaculum quod nequaquam ultra transferri poterit. Hoc autem est tabernaculum caelestis gloriae. Ps. XIV, 1: domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo? Dicitur autem tabernaculum, quia est locus peregrinorum. Non enim debetur nobis ex conditione naturae; sed tantum per gratiam. Is. XXXII, v. 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis, in tabernaculis fiduciae, in requie opulenta. Est ergo peramplius propter multitudinem bonorum immensam, quod designatur in auctoritate praedicta: sedebit, et cetera. Bar. c. III, 24: o Israel, quam magna est domus Dei. Illud autem quod dicitur per amplius, dupliciter legitur: uno modo, quod sit una dictio, quasi valde peramplius, et sic construitur littera: Christus assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum intravit in sancta sanctorum, dico quae sunt tabernaculum peramplius. Alio modo, quod ly per sit praepositio, quod magis exprimitur in Graeco, et tunc construitur sic: Christus introivit in sancta per tabernaculum amplius, id est, magis amplum et perfectum. Item perfectius, quia ibi cessabit omnis imperfectio. I Cor. XIII, 10: cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Item est alterius conditionis, quia istud factum fuit manu hominis, hoc autem non; sed manu Dei. Ex. XV, 17: sanctuarium tuum, domine, quod fundaverunt manus tuae, et cetera. II Cor. V, 1: scimus enim, quia si terrestris domus nostra huius habitationis dissolvatur, quod aedificationem habemus ex Deo domum non manufactam sed aeternam in caelis. Infra XI, 10: expectabat enim fundamenta habentem civitatem, cuius artifex est et conditor Deus. Et ideo dicit non manufactum, id est, non huius creationis, quia non est manufactum, sicut vetus; nec est huius creationis, id est, in bonis sensibilibus creatis, sed est in bonis spiritualibus. 437. – Secondly, he shows the dignity of the inner tabernacle when he says, then through the greater, and its condition when he says, and more perfect tabernacle, inasmuch as it is unmovable: ‘Your eyes shall see Jerusalem, a rich habitation, a tabernacle that cannot be removed’ (Is. 33:20). But this is the tabernacle of heavenly glory: ‘Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle?’ (Ps. 14:1). But it is called a tabernacle, because it is the habitation of pilgrims. For it is not due to us by reason of the condition of our nature, but only through grace: ‘My people shall sit in the beauty of peace, and in the tabernacle of confidence, and in wealthy rest’ (Is. 31:18). Therefore, it is greater, because of the measureless multitude of good things, which is designated in the authority cited: ‘My people shall sit in the beauty of peace (Is. 31:18); ‘O, Israel, how great is the house of God’ (Bar. 3:24). But there are two ways of reading the phrase, by a greater: in one way, so that it is one phrase as though meaning ‘very great;’ then the reading is this: When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered into the holy of holies, which, I say, is a very large tabernacle. In another way, so that the ‘per’ (by) is a preposition, which is expressed better in Greek; then the construction is this: Christ entered into the holies by a greater tabernacle, i.e., more ample and perfect. It was more perfect, because all imperfection ceased there: ‘When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away’ (1 Cor. 13:10). Furthermore, it is of a different condition, because the Old was made by human hands, but this by the hand of God: ‘Your sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established’ (Ex. 15:17); ‘We know if your earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven’ (2 Cor. 5:1); ‘For he looked for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God’ (Heb. 11:10); hence, he says, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, because it is not made with hands as the Old, nor is it of this creation, i.e., in sensible created goods, but it is in spiritual goods. Vel per tabernaculum potest Christi corpus intelligi, in quo contra Diabolum pugnavit. Ps. XVIII, 5: in sole posuit tabernaculum suum. Quod est peramplius, quia in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter, Col. II, 9. Item perfectius est, quia vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre plenum gratiae et veritatis, Io. I, 14. Item non manufactum, quia non ex virili semine. Dan. II, 45: abscissus est lapis de monte sine manibus. 438. – Or, by the tabernacle can be understood Christ’s body, in which He fought against the devil: ‘He has set his tabernacle in the sun’ (Ps. 18:6), which is very large, because ‘in him dwells all the fullness of the godhead corporeally’ (Col. 2:0), and more perfect, ‘Because we have seen his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of trace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14); and not made with hands, because not of human seed: ‘A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands’ (Dan 2:34). Tertio ostendit quomodo intrabat, quia non sine sanguine, sed ille cum sanguine vitulorum et hircorum, sicut dicitur Lev. XVI, Christus vero non sic, scilicet sanguine alieno. Ideo dicit neque per sanguinem hircorum aut vitulorum, sed per proprium sanguinem, quem pro salute nostra immolavit in cruce. Matth. c. XXVI, 28: hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Dicit autem pluraliter vitulorum et hircorum, non quod simul essent plures, sed quia per diversos annos pluries intrabat. Christus autem significatur per hircum propter similitudinem carnis peccati, Rom. VIII, 3. Item per vitulum propter fortitudinem, et quia utitur duobus testamentis tamquam duobus cornibus. Hab. III, 4: cornua in manibus eius. 439. – Thirdly, he shows how he entered, because not without blood; but he with the blood of calves and goats, as it says in Leviticus (chap. 16); but Christ not so, i.e., not with another’s blood: taking not the blood of goats or of calves but his own blood, which He offered on the cross for our salvation: ‘This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins’ (Mt. 26:28). But he uses the plural, of goats and of calves, not that more than one was offered at one time, but because he entered many times in various years. But Christ is signified by the goat because of the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3); by the calf because of courage and because He uses the two testaments as two horns: ‘Horns are in his hands’ (Hab. 3:4). Quarto quando intrabat, quia semel in anno: Christus autem per totum tempus, quod est quasi annus. Introivit semel in sancta, et semel etiam fudit sanguinem suum. I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. Rom. VI, 10: quod enim mortuus est peccato, mortuus est semel. Item semel intravit, nam ex quo intravit caelestia, semper est ibi. Et ideo dicit quod intravit semel in sancta. 440. – Fourthly, when he entered, because once a year. But Christ throughout all of time, which is as a year, entered once for all into the holies and poured out His blood once: ‘Christ died once for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18); ‘for in that he died for sin, he died once’ (Rom. 6:10). Furthermore, He entered once; for from the fact that He entered heaven, He is there always. Hence, he says, he entered once for all into the holies. Quinto ostendit quare intravit, quia ad offerendum pro populi ignorantia, non pro sua, quia non habebat. Sanguis enim Christi magis quam ille valet ad hoc, quia per ipsum inventa est aeterna redemptio, quasi dicat: per istum sanguinem redempti sumus, et hoc in perpetuum, quia virtus eius est infinita. Infra X, 14: una oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos. Ps. CX, 8: redemptionem misit dominus populo suo. Hoc autem quod dicit inventa, ad duo potest referri, scilicet et ad desiderium Dei, quod habebat de salute nostra. Iob XXXIII, v. 24: inveni in quo ei propitier. Ez. XVIII, v. 32: nolo mortem peccatoris. Item ad desiderium patrum, quo desiderabant redimi. Nullus autem invenit modum ita congruum sicut Christus. Et ideo signanter dicit inventa. 441. – Fifthly, he shows why He entered, namely, to make an offering for the ignorance of the people, not for His own, because He had none. For the blood of Christ is more powerful, because by it he secured an eternal redemption. As if to say: we are redeemed by that blood; and this forever, because His power is infinite: ‘By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified’ (Heb. 10:14). The fact that he says, secured, can refer to things, namely, the desire God had for our salvation: ‘I have found wherein I may be merciful to him’ (Jb. 33:24); ‘I desire not the death of him that dies’ (Ez. 18:32); or to the desire of the fathers to be redeemed. For no one found a way so suitable as Christ, therefore, he says quite significantly, secured. Deinde cum dicit si enim sanguis, etc., probat unum quod supposuit, scilicet istud ultimum: aeterna redemptione inventa; quasi dicat: ita dixi, quod per proprium sanguinem fecit aeternam redemptionem, in quo apparet eius maxima efficacia. Quod autem ita sit probo per locum a minori, quia si sanguis brutorum animalium faciebat quod minus est, sanguis Christi poterit facere quod maius est. Unde circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ponit antecedens; secundo consequens, ibi quanto magis sanguis Christi? 442. – Then (v. 13) he proves one of the things he had supposed, namely, the statement, having obtained eternal redemption. As if to say: I have said that He wrought eternal redemption by His own blood, in which His greatest efficacy appears. That it is so, I prove by arguing from what is less; because if the blood of brute animals accomplished less, the blood of Christ can accomplish what is greater. Hence in regard to this he does two things: first, he lays down the antecedent; secondly, the consequent (v. 14). Circa primum sciendum est, quod in veteri lege erat duplex mundatio. Una quae fiebat in die expiationis, de qua habetur Lev. XVI, 29; et de ista iam dictum est, et ista videbatur directe ordinari ad emundationem a peccato. Alia erat contra irregularitatem legis, de qua dicitur Num. XIX, 2 ss., quod praecepit dominus quod Eleazar acciperet vaccam rufam a Moyse sine macula, aetatis integrae, quae non traxisset iugum, et eductam extra castra immolaret in conspectu populi, et tingeret digitum in sanguine eius, et aspergeret septies contra tabernaculum, et quod combureret totam, scilicet carnem, pellem, et etiam fimum eius cum hyssopo, ligno cedrino et cocco bis tincto, quo facto vir mundus colligebat cineres, et in loco mundo effundebat extra castra. Et de ipsis ponebantur in aqua, qua immundus, qui scilicet tetigisset cadaver mortui, aspergebatur die tertio et septimo cum hyssopo, et ita mundabatur, nec aliter poterat mundari. Ista est sententia apostoli. Itaque quantum ad primum dicit si enim sanguis hircorum aut taurorum. Quantum vero ad secundum dicit et cinis vitulae aspersus sanctificat inquinatos, non gratiam conferendo, sed ad emundationem carnis, id est, ab irregularitate, quia carnaliter impediebantur, quasi immundi a cultu divino, non tamen auferebant peccata. Sed tantum, ut dicit Augustinus, aliquando virtute illius aspersionis mundabantur a lepra corporali. Et ideo dicit ad emundationem carnis. 443. – In regard to the first it should be noted that there were two cleansings in the Old Law: one took place on the day of atonement, as already stated, and seemed to be directly ordained to cleansing from sin. The other was against legal irregularity, as mentioned in Numbers (19:2), where the Lord commanded Eleazar to take from Moses a red cow without blemish, of full age and which has not carried the yoke, and bring her forth without the camp and immolate her in the sight of all. Then dipping his finger in her blood, he should sprinkle it over against the door of the tabernacle seven times; and then burn her flesh entirely, i.e., her flesh, hide and even her dung. Then the priest was to take cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet twice dyed. After this was done, a man that was clean was to gather up the ashes of the cow and pour them forth in a clean place outside the camp. Some of these ashes were to be put in water with which an unclean person, who touched the corpse of a man, was to be sprinkled on the third day, and on the seventh with hyssop. In this way and in no other way could he be cleansed. That is the opinion of the Apostle. Therefore in regard to the first he says, If the blood of goats and oxen; but as to the second he says, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled sanctify such as are defiles, not by conferring grace, but to the cleansing of the flesh, i.e., from an irregularity carnally hindering them, as though unclean, from divine worship. But they did not take away sins, because, as Augustine says, sometimes by virtue of that sprinkling they were cleansed from bodily leprosy; hence, he says, to the cleansing of the flesh. Deinde cum dicit quanto magis, etc., ponit consequens; quasi dicat: si sanguis et cinis hoc possunt, quid poterit sanguis Christi? Certe multo plus. Et ponit apostolus tria, quae ostendunt efficaciam sanguinis Christi. Primo quis est ille cuius est sanguis ille, qui scilicet est Christus. Ex quo patet quod eius sanguis mundat. Matth. I, 21: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Secundo causam quare Christus sanguinem suum fudit, quia hoc fuit spiritus sanctus, cuius motu et instinctu, scilicet charitate Dei, et proximi, hoc fecit. Is. LIX, 19: cum venerit quasi fluvius violentus quem spiritus domini cogit. Spiritus autem mundat. Is. IV, 4: si abluerit dominus sordes filiarum Sion, et sanguinem Ierusalem laverit de medio eius in spiritu iudicii et spiritu ardoris. Et ideo dicit per spiritum sanctum obtulit semetipsum. Eph. V, 2: Christus dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Tertio conditionem eius, quia est immaculatus. Ex. XII, 5: erit agnus absque macula masculus anniculus. Eccli. XXXIV, 4: ab immundo quis mundabitur? 444. – Then when he says, how much more the blood of Christ... cleanses our conscience, he lays down the consequent. As if to say: If blood and ashes can do this, what could Christ’s blood do? Certainly much more. Then the Apostle mentions three things, which show the efficacy of Christ’s blood: first, he shows whose blood it is, namely, it is Christ’s. From this it is evident that His blood cleanses: ‘For he will save his people from their sins’ (Mt. 1:21). Secondly, the reason why Christ shed His blood, because this was done by the Holy Spirit, through Whose movement and instinct, namely, by the love of God and neighbor He did this: ‘When he shall come as a violent stream which the spirit of the Lord drives on’ (Is. 59:10). But the Spirit cleanses: ‘If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning’ (Is. 4:4). Therefore, he says, who by the Holy Spirit offered himself: ‘Christ has loved us and has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness’ (Eph. 5:2). Thirdly, he describes His condition, because He is without blemish: ‘It shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year’ (Ex. 12:5); ‘What can be made clean by the unclean?’ (Sir. 34:4). Sed numquid sacerdos immundus potest mundare? Respondeo. Dicendum est quod non, si ageret in propria virtute; sed agit virtute sanguinis Christi, qui est sicut causa prima. Et ideo non egisset, nisi fuisset immaculatus. 445. – But can an unclean priest cleanse? I answer: No, if he acted in his own power, but he acts by the power of Christ’s blood, which is as a first cause. Therefore, He would not have acted, unless he were clean. Sciendum tamen quod sanguis illorum animalium mundabat tantum ab exteriori macula, scilicet a contactu mortui; sed sanguis Christi mundat interius conscientiam, quod fit per fidem Act. XV, 9: fide purificans corda eorum inquantum scilicet facit credere quod omnes qui Christo adhaerent, per sanguinem eius mundantur. Ergo iste emundat conscientiam. Item ille emundabat a tactu mortui, sed iste ab operibus mortuis, scilicet peccatis, quae tollunt Deum ab anima, cuius vita est per unionem charitatis. Item ille mundabat ut possent accedere ad figurale ministerium, sed sanguis Christi ad spirituale obsequium Dei. Ps. c, 6: ambulans in via immaculata hic mihi ministrabat. Et ideo dicit ad serviendum Deo. Item Deus est vita. Io. XIV, 6: ego sum vita. Et Deut. XXXII, 40: vivo ego in aeternum. Conveniens ergo est ut serviens ei sit vivens. Ideo dicit vivent. Et secundum rectorem vel iudicem populi, sic et ministri eius, ut dicitur Eccli. X, 2. Qui ergo vult Deo digne servire debet esse vivens sicut et ipse. Totam istam figuram diligenter exponit Glossa, et est Augustini, de quaestionibus numerorum. 446. – Yet it should be noted that the blood of those animals merely cleansed from outward stain, namely, from contact with the dead; but the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience inwardly, which is accomplished by faith: ‘Purifying their hearts by faith’ (Ac. 15:9), inasmuch as it makes one believe that all who adhere to Christ are cleansed by His blood. Therefore, He cleanses the conscience. It also cleanses them from contact with a corpse; but He from dead works, namely, sins, which take God from the soul, whose life consists in union by charity. It also cleansed them in order that they might come to the figurative ministry; but the blood of Christ to the spiritual service of God: ‘The man that walked in the perfect way, he served me’ (Ps. 100:6). Therefore, he says, to serve the living God. Furthermore, God is life: ‘I am the life’ (Jn. 14:6); ‘I live forever’ (Dt. 43:40). Therefore, it is fitting that one who serves Him be alive: hence, he says, living God: ‘For as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers’ (Sir. 10:2). Therefore, he that would serve God worthily, should be living, as He is.
9-4
Heb. 9:15-22Supra exposuit apostolus illa, quae agebantur in veteri testamento, et aperuit illorum mysticam expositionem, hic ex his arguit ad propositum, scilicet quod novum testamentum praefertur veteri; quia potest quod non poterat vetus. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim proponit conclusionem intentam; secundo probat quoddam quod supposuerat, ibi ubi enim testamentum. Iterum prima in duas. Primo enim concludit ex dictis, quod Christus est mediator; secundo hoc ostendit, non potuisse vetus testamentum, ibi quae erant sub priori. 447. – Having explained things done in the Old Testament and disclosed their mystical explanation, the Apostle now uses these facts to prove his thesis, namely that the New Testament is preferred to the Old, because it can do what the Old could not. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states the intended conclusion; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed. The first is divided into two parts: in the first he concludes from the foregoing that Christ is a mediator; secondly, that the Old Testament could not do this (v. 15b). Dicit ergo: et ideo, quia scilicet Christus intravit in sancta, aeterna redemptione inventa, id est, perducens ad aeterna, quod vetus non poterat facere, unde oportet quod istud testamentum sit aliud ab illo, sicut novum a veteri. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda, et cetera. Apoc. XXI, v. 5: ecce nova facio omnia. Ideo huius novi testamenti mediator est Christus inter Deum et hominem. I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. In omni autem testamento est aliquid quod promittitur, et aliquid per quod testamentum confirmatur. In novo autem testamento promittuntur caelestia et spiritualia. Item ista promissio per mortem Christi confirmata est. Et ideo Christus mediator est novi testamenti, ut repromissionem aeternae beatitudinis ac haereditatis aeternae, recipiant qui vocati sunt. Et dicit vocati, quia hoc munus non est ex operibus, sed ex vocatione Dei. Rom. VIII, 30: quos autem praedestinavit, hos et vocavit. I Thess. II, 12: contestati sumus ut ambularetis digne Deo, qui vocavit vos in suum regnum et gloriam. Unde dicit aeternae haereditatis, id est, aeternae gloriae, quae est haereditas nostra. I Pet. I, 3 s.: regeneravit nos in spem vivam per resurrectionem Iesu Christi ex mortuis, in haereditatem incorruptibilem, et incontaminatam, et immarcescibilem conservatam in caelis. Ps. CXXVI, 4: ecce haereditas domini. Item: dominus pars haereditatis meae. Istam autem haereditatem habemus per mortem Christi. Unde dicit ut morte intercedente. I Pet. III, 9: in hoc vocati estis, ut benedictionem haereditate possideatis. Huius mortis effectus est redemptio a praevaricatione peccati. I Petr. I, 18 s.: non corruptibilibus auro et argento redempti estis de vestra vana conversatione, sed pretioso sanguine agni immaculati. 448. – He says: Therefore, i.e., because Christ entered into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption, i.e., leads us to eternal things, which the Old could not do; it was fitting that this testament be distinct from that, as the new from the old: ‘I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’ (Jer. 31:31); ‘Behold, I make all things new’ (Rev. 21:5). Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant between God and man: ‘The mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ’ (1 Tim. 2:5). But in every testament there is something promised and something by which that testament is confirmed. But in the New Testament heavenly and spiritual things are promised. Furthermore, that promise was confirmed by the death of Christ. And so, Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. He says, called, because this reward is not for our works but from God’s call: ‘Whom he predestinated, them he also called’ (Rom. 8:30); ‘We testified to everyone of you that you could walk worthy of God who has called you unto his kingdom and glory’ (1 Th. 2:12); hence, he says, of the eternal inheritance, i.e., of eternal glory, which is our inheritance: ‘He has regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven for you’ (1 Pt 1:3); Behold the inheritance of the Lord’ (Ps. 126:3); ‘The Lord is the portion of my inheritance’ (Ps. 15:5). But we have that inheritance through the death of Christ; hence, he says, since a death has occurred: ‘Unto this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing’ (1 Pt 3:9). The effect of this death is redemption from the transgressions under the first covenant: ‘You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of an unspotted lamb’ (1 Pt 1:18). Sed numquid in veteri testamento poterat fieri ista redemptio a peccatis? Et respondet, quod non, quia illae praevaricationes erant sub priori testamento; quasi dicat: quia virtute sacramentorum prioris testamenti removeri non poterant. Rom. III, 9: causati sumus Iudaeos et Graecos omnes sub peccato esse. Sed contra, quia David et multi alii sancti habuerunt remissionem peccatorum. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod quantum ad istum effectum, qui est introitus caeli, non, quia per mortem Christi aperta est ianua vitae. Nullus enim ante mortem Christi intravit. Zach. IX, 11: tu vero in sanguine testamenti tui eduxisti vinctos tuos de lacu, in quo non est aqua. Sed quantum ad maculam, sic ipsi consecuti sunt; sed non virtute sacramentorum veteris legis, sed in fide Christi. Sic ergo novum testamentum est excellentius quam vetus, quia confirmatum est morte Christi, per quam remittuntur peccata, et quia exhibet promissionem. 449. – But could that redemption from sins have been accomplished in the Old Testament? He answers, No; because those prevarications were under the first covenant. As if to say: because they could not be removed by the power of the sacraments of the former covenant: ‘Because we have charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin’ (Rom. 3:19). But is it not a fact that David and many other saints obtained remission of their sins? I answer that so far as entering heaven is concerned, they did not, because the door to life was opened by the death of Christ: for no one entered before Christ’s death: ‘You also by the blood of your testament have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein is not water’ (Zech 9:11). But so far as the stain of sin was concerned, they obtained it, not in virtue of the sacraments of the Old Law, but by faith in Christ. Thus, therefore, the New Testament is more excellent than the Old, because it has been confirmed by the death of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and because He shows forth the promise. Deinde cum dicit ubi enim testamentum, probat illud quod supposuit, scilicet quod novum testamentum sit confirmatum per mortem Christi. Et primo probat hoc per auctoritatem legis humanae; secundo per auctoritatem legis divinae, ibi unde nec primum. 450. – Then (v. 16) he proves what he had supposed, namely, that the New Testament was confirmed by the death of Christ: first, he proves this on the authority of human law; secondly, on the authority of divine law (v. 18). Dicit ergo: dictum est, quod novum testamentum confirmatur per mortem Christi intercedentem, quia ad hoc quod testamentum valeat, oportet quod mors testatoris interveniat; et ideo novum testamentum non haberet robur, nisi intervenisset mors Christi. Unde dicitur Io. XI, 50: expedit vobis, ut unus moriatur homo pro populo. Mors autem testatoris ad duo necessaria est. Primo ut testamentum habeat firmitatem, quia cum sit expressivum ultimae voluntatis, potest semper mutari ante mortem. Unde dicit, quod testamentum confirmatum est in mortuis, id est, per mortem. Et isto modo confirmatum est novum testamentum per mortem Christi. Matth. XXVI, 28: hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, scilicet confirmator et dedicator. Secundo necessaria est mors testatoris ad hoc ut testamentum valeat et habeat efficaciam. Unde dicit alioquin nondum valet, quia nullus potest petere aliquid, nec etiam haeredes haereditatem ex vi testamenti, nisi post mortem testatoris. Ideo Christus voluit mortem suam pro nobis interponere. Deinde cum dicit unde nec primum. 451. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that the New Testament was confirmed by the intervening death of Christ, because in order that a will [testament] be in force, the death of the testator must be established. Therefore, the New Testament would have no strength, unless the death of Christ had come in: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people’ (Jn. 11:50). But the death of the testator is necessary for two reasons: first, that the testament might be valid, because, since it expresses the last will, it can always be changed before death; hence, he says, a testament takes effect only at death, i.e., after death. That is the way the New Testament has been confirmed by the death of Christ: ‘this is my blood of the new Testament,’ namely, its confirmer and dedicator (Mt. 26:28). Secondly, the death of the testator is necessary, in order that the testament be in force and be efficacious; hence, he says, otherwise it is yet not in force, because no one can seek anything, nor an heir his inheritance by reason of the testament, till after the death of the testator. Therefore, Christ willed to interpose his death for our sake. Hoc idem probat per auctoritatem legis divinae, scilicet per illud quod habetur in veteri testamento. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit convenientiam inter utrumque testamentum; secundo ostendit differentiam, ibi necesse est ergo. Circa primum duo facit, quia primo proponit; secundo manifestat, ibi lecto enim. 452. – Then (v. 18) he proves the same thing on the authority of divine law, by something in the Old Testament: In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the agreement between the two testaments; secondly, their difference (v. 23). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he made the statement; secondly, he proves (v. 19). Dicit ergo: ita dictum est, quod ad hoc quod testamentum valeat, necesse est, quod mors testatoris interveniat. Nec hoc debet videri mirum, quia nec primum testamentum dedicatum, id est, confirmatum, est sine sanguine. Ille autem sanguis figurabat sanguinem Christi. Omnia enim in figura contingebant illis, I Cor. X, 11. 453. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that in order for a testament to have force, the death of the testator must of necessity come in. This should not seem strange, because neither was the first testament ratified, i.e., confirmed, without blood. But that blood prefigured the blood of Christ: ‘All these things happened to them in figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11). Deinde cum dicit lecto enim, probat propositum, scilicet quod illud testamentum non est confirmatum sine sanguine. Et probat hoc quantum ad tria, in quibus fuit usus sanguinis. Primo quantum ad legis editionem; secundo quantum ad tabernaculi consecrationem, ibi etiam tabernaculum; tertio quantum ad vasorum expiationem, ibi et omnia pene in sanguine. 454. – Then (v. 19) he proves his statement, namely, that that testament was not confirmed without blood. He proves this in regard to three things in which blood was used: first, in the setting forth of the Law; secondly, in the consecration of the tabernacle (v. 21); thirdly, in the expiation of the vessels (v. 22). Circa primum sciendum est, quod apostolus tangit hic historiam, quae habetur Ex. XXIV, 7, ubi dicitur, quod postquam Moyses legerat coram populo mandata domini, ipsisque respondentibus: omnia quae locutus est dominus faciemus, et erimus obedientes, accepit Moyses sanguinem quem praeceperat servare de duodecim vitulis, et aspersit librum legis et populum quasi in confirmationem testamenti. Et ideo dicit lecto enim omni mandato, etc., quia necessarium fuit ut legeretur. Illa enim lectio fuit legis promulgatio. Oportebat enim legem promulgari. Accipiens, et cetera. 455. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle alludes here to history, which is recorded in Exodus (chap. 24) that after Moses had read God’s commandments to the people and they had answered: ‘All things that the Lord has spoken we will do, we will be obedient’ (Ex. 24:7), he took the blood which he had ordered them to save of the twelve calves, and sprinkled the book of the Law and the people, as though in confirmation of the covenant. Hence, he says, For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people: for it was necessary that they be read, for that reading was the promulgation of the Law: He took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. Hic est duplex obiectio litteralis. Una, quia Ex. XXIV nulla fit mentio de hirco, sed de duodecim vitulis. Secunda, quia ibi etiam non fit mentio de aqua et cocco et hyssopo. Responsio ad ista duo est duplex. Una, scilicet quia apostolus nutritus erat in lege; unde sciebat, quod ille usus erat in emundationibus secundum legem, quod aspersio fiebat de sanguine hircorum et vitulorum et aqua admixta cum hyssopo et lana coccinea, tamquam aspersorio, et ideo licet non agatur de his in Exodo, tamen apostolus hoc accepit ex consuetudine ritus legalis. Vel potest dici, quod ista fuit prima consecratio. Et ideo quasi virtute continebantur in ipsa aliae sanctificationes futurae, inter quas potissime fuit illa quae fiebat in die expiationis, de qua Lev. XVI, et alia de vitula rufa, Num. XVI. In prima autem erat sanguis vituli et hirci; in secunda vero aqua et lana coccinea et hyssopus. Quia ergo illa in prima continebat istas duas, ideo apostolus totum retulit ad istam. 456. – Two objections arise here: one, because Exodus (chap. 24) makes no mention of a goat, but only of twelve calves; secondly, because no mention is made there of water and scarlet and hyssop. There are two answers to these two objections: one is that the Apostle had been brought up in the Law; hence, he knew what the usages were in cleansing according to the Law, namely, that the sprinkling involved the blood of goats and calves, and water mixed with hyssop, and scarlet wool as the sprinkler. Therefore, even though all are not mentioned in Exodus, the Apostle was familiar with the custom of the legal rites. Or it can be said that that was the first consecration and that it virtually contained the other sanctifications to come, among which the most important was the one which took place on the day of atonement, as described in Exodus (chap. 16) and the other about the red cow in Numbers (chap. 19). In the first of these the blood of a goat and of a calf was used; but in the second, water and purple wool and hyssop. Therefore, because that first one contained those two, the Apostle related all to it. Dicit ergo accipiens sanguinem, etc., librum et omnem populum aspersit, dicens: hic est sanguis testamenti, quod mandavit ad vos Deus, scilicet confirmator testamenti. Eccli. XXIV, 33: legem mandavit nobis Moyses in praeceptis iustitiarum. Iste enim sanguis fuit figura sanguinis Christi, per quem novum testamentum confirmatum est. Et ideo Christus verbis istis usus est. Matth. XXVI, 28: hic est sanguis novi testamenti, scilicet confirmativus. Figurabatur autem per sanguinem hirci propter similitudinem carnis peccati, et vituli propter fortitudinem. Miscetur autem cum aqua, quia Baptismus a sanguine Christi efficaciam habet; aspergitur autem cum hyssopo, qui mundat pectus, per quod significatur fides. Act. c. XV, 9: fide purificans corda eorum. Et lana coccinea, quae est rubei coloris, per quam significatur charitas. Cant. V, 10: dilectus meus candidus et rubicundus. Quia per fidem et dilectionem passionis Christi mundatur populus. Aspergitur et liber legis, quia passio Christi adimplevit legem. Io. XIX, 30: consummatum est. Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere. 457. – He says, therefore: He took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying: This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you, i.e., God confirmed the testament: ‘Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice’ (Sir. 24:33). For that blood was a figure of Christ’s blood, By Whom the New Testament was confirmed; therefore, Christ used the words in Matthew (26:28): This is the blood of a goat because of its likeness to sinful flesh, and of a calf because of courage. But it is mixed with water, because baptism derives its efficacy from the blood of Christ. It is sprinkled with hyssop, which cleanses the breast, by which faith is signified: ‘By faith purifying their hearts’ (Ac. 15:9); and with purple wool, which is red to signify charity: ‘My beloved is white and ruddy’ (S of S 5:10), because the people are cleansed by faith and the love of Christ. The book of the Law is sprinkled, because the passion of Christ fulfilled the Law: ‘It is consummated’ (Jn. 19:30); ‘I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it’ (Mt. 5:17). Deinde cum dicit etiam tabernaculum, ponit consecrationem tabernaculi, quia tabernaculum et omnia vasa ministerii similiter aspersit sanguine. Sed contra, quia nondum factum erat tabernaculum, sed XXV cap. mandatur de consecratione tabernaculi. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod licet non sit idem sanguis quo aspersus est populus et tabernaculum, tamen etiam tabernaculum mundatum est sanguine. Unde potest sic construi: usus est sanguine, etiam quando sanctificavit tabernaculum. 458. – Then when he says, the tabernacle also and all the vessels used in worship, in the same way he sprinkled with blood, he describes the consecration of the tabernacle. But because the tabernacle had not yet been constructed, the command to consecrate the tabernacle was not given until Exodus (chap. 25). I answer that, although the people were not sprinkled with the same blood as the tabernacle, nevertheless, the tabernacle was sprinkled with blood. Hence, it can be taken to mean that he used blood, even when he sanctified the tabernacle. Sed contra, quia Num. et Lev. VIII dicitur, quod unxit tabernaculum oleo. Dicitur, quod unxit tabernaculum oleo. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non loquitur de illa sanctificatione, qua primo consecratum est tabernaculum et vasa eius, sed de illa, quae fiebat in die expiationis. Vel melius dicendum est, quod etiam in prima usus est sanguine, quia ibi dicitur quod unxit illud oleo, et postea quod aspersit. Oleum autem non est aspersivum, unde intelligitur quod primo unxit illud, et postea aspersit sanguine. Et ista duo sunt necessaria ad sanctificationem, scilicet virtus sanguinis Christi, et oleum misericordiae, quibus sanctificatur tabernaculum, id est Ecclesia, et vasa, id est ministri. 459. – But it says in Exodus (chap. 7) and Leviticus (chap. 8) that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. I answer that he is not speaking of the consecration, in which the tabernacle and its vessels were first consecrated, but of the one which occurred on the day of atonement. Or it might be better to say that even in the first one he used blood, because it says there that he anointed it with oil and later sprinkled it with blood. And these two things are necessary for sanctification, namely, the power of Christ’s blood and the oil of mercy, by which the tabernacle, i.e., the Church, and the vessels, i.e., the saints, are sanctified. Deinde cum dicit et omnia pene in sanguine secundum legem mundantur, exequitur de caeteris mundationibus legalibus. Erat autem duplex mundatio: una a corporali macula, sicut lepra; alia a spirituali, scilicet peccato. Prima poterat pertinere ad res inanimatas, sicut patet de lepra domorum. Et mundatio ab ista immunditia fiebat cum sanguine animalis immolati, vel aqua expiationis, quae erat confecta cum sanguine vitulae rufae. Et ideo dicit pene omnia, et non omnia simpliciter. Vel pene omnia, ita quod ly pene sit determinativum de ly mundantur, id est, pene mundantur, quia non perfecte mundabantur: hoc tantum fit per sacramentum novae legis. Vel potest determinare ly omnia. Non enim omnia mundabantur sanguine, quia, ut dicitur Num. XXXI, v. 23, quicquid potest ignem sustinere purgatur per ignem: quae vero non poterant, purgantur aqua expiationis. Sed ad mundationem a macula peccati, necessaria est sanguinis effusio, quia requirebatur ad sacrificium. Et ideo dicit, quod sine sanguinis effusione non fit peccatorum remissio. Per quod figurabatur quod remissio peccati erat fienda per sanguinem Christi. Unde in veteri lege non virtute sacramenti, sed virtute fidei Christi fiebat remissio peccatorum. Unde frequenter ibi dicitur rogabit pro eo sacerdos, et remittetur. 460. – Then (v. 22) he continues with other cleansings in the Law. But cleansings were of two kinds: one from bodily stain, as leprosy, the other from spiritual, namely sin. The first could pertain to inanimate things, as the leprosy of houses: and the cleansing from that uncleanness was done with the blood of an immolated animal, or with the water of expiation, which was mixed with blood of a red calf. Hence, he says, almost all things, and not absolutely all. Or, almost all, so that all modifies are cleansed, i.e., ‘are almost cleansed,’ because they were not completely cleansed: for this was done only by a sacrament of the New Law. Or, it can modify all things, because not all things were cleansed with blood, for it says in Numbers (chap. 31) whatever can endure fire is purged by fire, whatever cannot, is purged by the water of expiation. But for the cleansing from the stain of sin the shedding of blood is necessary, because it was required for the sacrifice; hence he says, without shedding of blood there is not forgiveness of sins. This showed that the forgiveness of sin was to be accomplished by the blood of Christ. Hence, in the Old Law, sins were forgiven not by virtue of a sacrament, but by virtue of faith in Christ. Hence, it is frequently stated there: ‘The priest shall pray for him and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him’ (Lev. 5:10).
9-5
Heb. 9:23-28Supra ostendit apostolus, quid sit commune novo et veteri testamento, inquantum vetus et novum conveniunt, hic ostendit differentiam utriusque. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit, quod in novo est melior mundatio; secundo quod perfectior, ibi neque ut saepe. Iterum prima in duas. Primo enim ostendit, quod quantum ad illud quod mundatur, et quantum ad id quo mundatio efficitur, sit melior mundatio in novo; secundo manifestat quod dixit, ibi non enim in manufacta. 461. – Having shown what is common to the Old and New Testaments, the Apostle now shows the difference between the two. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that there is a better cleansing in the New; secondly, that it is more complete (v. 25). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that both as to what is cleansed and as to that by which the cleansing is effected, there is a better cleansing in the New; secondly, he clarifies what he has said (v. 24). Dicit ergo necesse est ergo exemplaria caelestium, scilicet ipsum tabernaculum, quod, quoad nos, est exemplar, licet simpliciter sit exemplatum et figura illius, et ideo minoris dignitatis, quia figuratum nobilius est quam figura, sicut corpus quam umbra. His, scilicet sacrificiis, mundari, ipsa autem caelestia, scilicet novum testamentum, melioribus hostiis quam istis; melioribus quidem, quia alia mundabantur sanguine animalium, sed in novo testamento fit mundatio sanguine Christi. Semper autem meliora melioribus mundantur. Ista autem erant caelestia, id est, figura caelestium. Si ergo illa mundabantur sanguine, oportet ista caelestia mundari meliori sanguine. 462. – He says, therefore, Thus it was necessary for the patterns of heavenly things, namely, the tabernacle itself, which, so far as we are concerned, is a pattern, although, absolutely speaking, it is the thing exemplified and its figure, and, therefore, of less value, because the thing exemplified is superior to the figure, as the body is superior to its shadow: to be purified with these rites, i.e., with the sacrifices. But the heavenly things themselves, namely, the New Testament, with better sacrifices than these: better, because the others were cleansings with the blood of animals, but in the New Testament the cleansing is accomplished with the blood of Christ. Now better things are always cleansed with better things. But they were the figures of heavenly things be cleansed with better blood. Sed contra. In caelo nulla est immunditia. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod caelestia intelliguntur secundum Glossam ea quae pertinent ad statum praesentis Ecclesiae, quae dicuntur caelestia. Item homines fideles gerunt imaginem caelestium, inquantum mente conversantur in caelis. Vel aliter et melius, quod per caelestia intelligatur caelestis patria. Et loquitur hic apostolus eo modo quo in veteri testamento dicebatur emundari tabernaculum, non quod haberet in se aliquam immunditiam, sed quia mundabantur quaedam irregularitates, quibus impediebantur accedere ad sanctuarium. Et dicuntur mundari caelestia, inquantum per sacramentum novae legis purgantur peccata, quae impediunt ab ingressu caelestium. 463. – But on the other hand, there is no uncleanness in heaven. I answer that according to a Gloss, by heavenly things are understood things which pertain to the state of the present Church, which are called heavenly. Furthermore, believing men bear the image of heavenly things, inasmuch as they mentally dwell in heaven. Or, in another way and better: by heavenly things is understood the heavenly home. And the Apostle is speaking here in the way that the tabernacle was said to be cleansed in the Old Testament; not that it had any uncleanness in itself, but because certain irregularities were washed away, by which they were hindered from coming to the sanctuary. And heavenly things are said to be cleansed inasmuch as a sacrament of the New Law cleanses sins, which hinder one from entering heaven. Item dicit hostiis, in plurali. Contra: quia tantum est una hostia Christi. Infra X, 14: una enim oblatione consummavit in aeternum sanctificatos. Respondeo. Licet una sit in se, tamen pluribus hostiis veteris legis figurabatur. Ex loco habetur, quod hostiae veteris legis erant bonae. Melius enim non dicitur, nisi respectu boni. 464. – But he says, sacrifices, in the plural. Yet there is but one sacrifice of Christ: ‘By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified’ (Heb. 10:4). I answer that although it is one in itself, it was prefigured by several sacrifices of the Old Law. This text also shows that the sacrifices of the Old Law were good, for something is called better in relation to something good. Deinde cum dicit non enim in manufactis, etc., ostendit, quod caelestia mundantur melioribus hostiis. Pontifex enim expiabat sanctuarium, quod erat manufactum, sed Christus intravit non in manufacta sancta, quae erant quo ad nos exemplaria verorum, sed in ipsum caelum, quod non in se, sed quo ad nos expiavit, ut dictum est, sed non expiavit carnalibus hostiis, quia Christus non venit ad offerendum talia. Ps. XXXIX, v. 6: holocaustum et pro peccato non postulasti. Item: holocaustis non delectaberis. Item supra VII, 14: manifestum, quod de tribu Iuda ortus est dominus, de qua nullus praesto fuit altario, sed introivit in ipsum caelum. Mc. ult.: dominus quidem Iesus assumptus est in caelum. Act. I, 11: hic Iesus qui assumptus est a vobis in caelum. 465. – Then (v. 24) he shows that heavenly things are cleansed by better sacrifices. For the high priest expiated the sanctuary which was made with hands, but Christ has entered into the Holies not made with hands, for they were not, so far as they were concerned, the patterns of the true one, but into heaven itself, which He expiated not in itself but in regard to us, as has been said. But He did not expiate it with fleshly sacrifices, because Christ did not come to offer such things: ‘Burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require’ (Ps. 39:8); ‘With burnt offerings you will not be delighted’ (Ps. 50:18); ‘For it is evident that the Lord sprung out of Judah; in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests’ (Heb. 7:14). But he entered into heaven itself: ‘And the Lord Jesus was taken up to heaven’ (Mk 16:19); ‘This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come’ (Ac. 1:11). Sed quare? Ut appareat pro nobis vultui Dei. Et loquitur apostolus alludendo ritui veteris legis, secundum quam pontifex qui intrabat sancta sanctorum, stabat coram propitiatorio ut oraret pro populo: ita et Christus intravit caelum, secundum quod homo, ut astaret Deo pro salute nostra. Sed ista differenter, quia sacerdos, impediente fumo qui ascendebat de thuribulo, non videbat sancta sanctorum, nec videbat aliquem vultum; sed Christus apparet vultui Dei, non quod sit ibi facies corporalis, nec aliqua nebula, sed cognitio manifesta. 466. – But Why? In order now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Here the Apostle alludes to a rite of the Old Law according to which the high priest, who entered the holy of holies, stood before the mercy seat to pray for the people. Similarly, Christ entered into heaven to stand before God for our salvation. But not in the same way, because the high priest could not see the holy of holies or any face on account of the smoke ascending from the censer; but Christ appears before the face of God: not that a bodily face is there, or a cloud, but clear vision. Sed numquid Christus existens in terra, non poterat apparere vultui Dei, cum Deus omnia videat? Respondeo. Dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus loquens Deo dicit: mecum eras, et tecum non eram, quia scilicet Deus est in omnibus per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam, mali autem non sunt cum Deo per gratiam: ita dicitur Christus introisse ut appareat vultui Dei, quia, licet semper videret eum clara visione, ut perfecte beatus, tamen status viatoris inquantum huiusmodi non habet hoc, sed tantum status caelestis. Et ideo quando ascendit perfecte beatus in corpore et anima intravit, ut appareat vultui Dei, id est, intravit locum ubi Deus manifeste videtur. Et hoc pro nobis. Ad hoc enim ascendit ut pararet nobis viam. Io. XIV, 2 s.: vado parare vobis locum. Iterum autem veniam et assumam vos ad meipsum. Mich. II, 13: ascendit pandens iter ante vos. Corpus enim debet sequi caput suum. Matth. XXIV, 28: ubicumque fuerit corpus, ibi congregabuntur et aquilae. 467. – But when Christ was on earth, could He not appear before the face of God, since God sees all things? I answer that, as Augustine speaking of God says: ‘You were with me, but I was not with You,’ namely, because God is in all things by His essence, power and presence; but the wicked are not with God through grace. Thus, Christ is said to have entered to appear before the face of God, for although He always saw Him clearly as one perfectly happy, yet the state of pilgrims, as such, does not confer this, but only the heavenly state. Therefore, when He ascended perfectly happy, He entered, body and soul, to appear in the presence of God, i.e., He entered the place where God is seen clearly; and this for us. For He entered heaven to prepare the way for us: ‘I go to prepare a place for you. But I will come again and will take you to myself’ (Jn. 14:3); ‘He shall go up that shall open the way before them’ (Mic 2:13). For the body should follow the head: ‘where the body is, there the eagles shall be gathered’ (Mt. 24:28). Deinde cum dicit neque ut saepe, ostendit quod mundatio novi testamenti est perfectior quam veteris. Hoc autem ostendit per duo. Primo per hoc quod illa reiterabatur quolibet anno, haec autem tantum semel. Item quantum ad effectum, quia illa non poterat auferre peccata, quod ista potest. Circa hoc ergo duo facit. Primo enim ostendit primum; secundo secundum, ibi umbram habens. Sciendum est autem quod apostolus supra dixerat tria de Christo. Primo scilicet quod est pontifex; secundo quae sit dignitas loci quem intravit; tertio quomodo introivit, scilicet cum sanguine; ista autem tria iam declaravit: hic declarat quando intravit, quia sicut pontifex legalis semel in anno, Christus semel tantum. Et hoc erat quartum. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim ostendit quid fiebat in veteri testamento; secundo quod esset inconveniens istud fieri in novo testamento, ibi alioquin; tertio ostendit quid fiat in novo testamento, ibi nunc autem semel. 468. – Then (v. 25) he shows that the cleansing effected by the New Testament is more complete than that of the Old. But he shows this in two ways: first, by the fact that the former were repeated every day, but this only once. Likewise, as to its effects, because the former could not remove sin, but this one can. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes the first; secondly, the second (chap. 10). But it should be noted that above, the Apostle had said three things about Christ: first, that He is a high priest; secondly, the dignity of the place He entered; thirdly, how He entered, namely, with blood. But since He has already explained these three things, he now explains how He entered, because, as the high priest entered once a year, so Christ entered only once. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows what was accomplished in the Old Testament; secondly, that it would not be fitting for the same to be accomplished in the New Testament (v. 26); thirdly, he shows what is accomplished in the New Testament (v. 28). In veteri enim testamento pontifex, licet non intraret nisi tantum semel in anno, tamen quolibet anno ex praecepto legis oportebat ipsum intrare cum sanguine alieno, sicut dicitur Lev. XVI, 14. Christus autem intravit non in manu facta, et cetera. Nec ut saepe offerat seipsum, quemadmodum pontifex intrabat in sancta per singulos annos cum sanguine alieno. 469. – For in the Old Testament, although the high priest could not enter lawfully but once a year, yet according to the Law he had to enter it every year with the blood of others, as it says in Leviticus (chap. 16). But Christ has not entered into the place made with hands, nor was it to offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holies every year with the blood of others. Deinde cum dicit alioquin oportebat, etc., probat quod esset inconveniens istud fieri in novo testamento, quia sequeretur maximum inconveniens, quia cum Christus intraret per proprium sanguinem, sequeretur quod oportuisset eum frequenter pati ab origine mundi. Non sic autem est de veteri hostia, quia illa offerebatur pro peccatis filiorum Israel. Ille autem populus incepit spiritualiter quando data fuit lex, et ideo non oportet eam offerri ab origine mundi. Christus autem seipsum obtulit pro peccatis totius mundi, quia ipse propitiatio nostra factus est pro peccatis nostris et totius mundi, I Io. II, 2. Et sic, si saepe offerretur, oportuisset ipsum nasci, et pati ab origine mundi, quod fuisset maximum inconveniens. Sed contra Apoc. XIII, 8: agnus, qui occisus est ab origine mundi. Respondeo. Verum est occisus, id est, praefiguratus ab origine mundi occidi, sicut in occisione Abel. 470. – Then when he says, For then he ought to have suffered repeatedly since the foundation of the world, he proves that it would have been unbecoming to do the same thing in the New Testament, because the greatest impropriety would follow, because since Christ entered with his blood, it would follow that He would have to have suffered frequently from the foundation of the world. For this is not the case in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, because they were offered for the sins of the children of Israel. But that people began when the Law was given; therefore, it was not fitting that it be offered from the beginning of the world. But Christ offered Himself for the sins of the whole world, because He was made the propitiation for our sins and for those of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). Therefore, if He were offered frequently, it would have been necessary for Him to have been born and to suffer from the beginning of the world; but this would have been most unbecoming. Deinde cum dicit nunc autem, ostendit quid fiat in novo, et circa hoc facit duo. Primo quare non iteratur hostia in novo testamento, dat duas causas; secundo explicat eas, ibi et quemadmodum, et cetera. 471. – Then (v. 26b) he shows what is done in the New. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows why the sacrifice is not repeated in the New Testament; secondly, he explains them (v. 27). Dicit ergo nunc ergo Christus semel apparuit in consummatione saeculorum. I Cor. X, 11: nos sumus in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt. Et hoc dicit propter numerum annorum, quia iam sunt plus quam mille anni ex quo hoc dixit. Aetates enim mundi accipiuntur secundum aetates hominis, quae principaliter distinguuntur secundum statum proficiendi, non secundum numerum annorum. Ita prima aetas fuit ante diluvium, in qua nec lex scripta, nec punitio, sicut infantia. Alia a Noe usque ad Abraham, et sic de aliis, ita quod ultima aetas est status praesens, post quem non est alius status salutis, sicut nec post senium. Sicut autem in aliis aetatibus hominis est numerus annorum determinatus, non autem in senio, quia senium incipit a sexagesimo anno, et aliqui vivunt per centum et viginti annos, ita non est determinatum, quantum iste status mundi debeat durare, tamen est consummatio saeculorum, quia non restat alius ad salutem. In isto autem Christus semel apparuit, cuius ponit duas rationes, quia scilicet semel tantum offerebatur. Prima est, quia in veteri testamento non auferebantur peccata, quod fit per hostiam Christi. Alia est, quia sacerdos legalis non offerebat proprium sanguinem, sicut Christus. Unde dicit, quod apparuit ad destitutionem peccati per hostiam, scilicet sui ipsius, et ideo illa reiteratur, non autem ista. I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. 472. – He says, therefore: now at the end of the age, Christ has appeared: ‘We are the ones upon whom the ends of the ages are come’ (1 Cor. 10:11). And he says this on account of the number of years, because already more than a thousand years had passed since he said this. For the ages of the world are taken according to the ages of men, which are chiefly distinguished according to the state of progress and not according to the number of years. The first age was before the deluge, in which there was no written law or punishment, as in infancy. Another was from Noah to Abraham; and so on for the ages, so that the final age is the present one, after which there is no other state of salvation, just as there is no other age after old age. But just as in the other ages of men there is a definite number of years, but not in old age, which begins at sixty, and some live for 120 years, so it has not been determined how long this state of the world will continue. Yet it is the end of the ages, because no other age remains for salvation. But Christ appeared once during that age, and He gives two reasons why He was offered only once: the first is because in the Old Testament sins were not taken away, but this was accomplished by the offering of Christ. The second is because the high priest of the Law did not offer his own blood as Christ did. Hence, he says, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Therefore, the former are repeated, but not this one: ‘Christ died once for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:8). Deinde cum dicit et quemadmodum, explicat istas rationes. Et primo secundam, secundo primam, ibi umbram habens lex. Secundam explicat per similitudinem aliorum hominum, unde circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit, quid accidit aliis hominibus; secundo ostendit, quid accidit in Christo, ibi sic et Christus semel. 473. – Then (v. 27) he explains the two reasons: first, the second one; secondly, the first one (chap. 10). He explains the second by reason of a likeness to other men; hence, he does two things: first, he shows what has happened to other men; secondly, what happened to Christ (v. 28). In quolibet enim homine duo invenimus, scilicet necessitatem moriendi; item quod resurgat, non ut emundetur, sed ut iudicetur de factis eius. Primum tangit cum dicit et quemadmodum statutum est hominibus semel mori. 474. – In every man we find two things, namely, the need to die; secondly, that he should rise, not to be cleansed but to be judged according to his deeds. He touches on the first when he says, and just as it is appointed for men once to die. Sed contra. Videtur quod hoc non sit statutum, sed magis homo peccando hoc fecerit, quia Sap. I, 13, dicitur, quod Deus mortem non fecit, nec laetatur in perditione vivorum. Et paulo post: impii autem manibus et verbis accersierunt sibi illam. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod in morte tria sunt consideranda, scilicet causa naturalis, et quantum ad hoc ex conditione naturae statutum est hominem semel mori, inquantum componitur ex contrariis. Secundo donum inditum: et quantum ad hoc in conditionem datum est homini beneficium originalis iustitiae, per quam anima continebat corpus, ut posset non mori. Tertio meritum mortis, et sic homo peccando meruit illud beneficium amittere, et sic mortem incurrit. Unde dicit, quod impii manibus, scilicet pomum vetitum contrectando, accersierunt mortem. Homo ergo demerendo causa est mortis, sed Deus, ut iudex. Stipendia enim peccati mors, Rom. VI, 23. Semel; quod quidem verum est de communi consuetudine, licet aliqui fuerint resuscitati, sicut Lazarus et filius viduae, qui postea mortui sunt. Quantum autem ad secundum dicit post hoc autem iudicium, quia postquam resurgent, non iterum morientur, sed statim iudicium sequetur. Omnes enim manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis prout gessit, ut dicitur II Cor. V, 10. 475. – But on the other hand, it seems that this is not appointed, but that man brought this about by sinning, for it says in Wisdom (1:13): ‘God made not death, neither has he pleasure in the destruction of the living;’ and shortly after: ‘But the wicked with works and words have called it to them.’ I answer that there are three things to consider in death: first of all, the material cause, and in this respect it has been appointed for men once to die by reason of the condition of his nature; secondly, the gift which was bestowed, and in this respect there was given to men the gift of original justice, by which the soul contained the body, so that it would not die; thirdly, the obligation of dying, and then by sinning, man deserved to lose that gift and became subject to death. Hence, the says that the wicked called death to themselves by touching the forbidden fruit. Therefore, man is the cause of death by default, but God as the judge: ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). Deinde cum dicit sic et Christus, etc., ostendit quomodo haec conveniunt Christo. Et quantum ad primum dicit, quod sic et Christus semel oblatus est. Et in hoc convenit cum aliis. Sed differt in duobus: primo, quia cum Christus non descenderit ab Adam per rationem seminalem, sed quantum ad corpulentam substantiam, non contraxit peccatum originale, et ideo non fuit debitor illius status. Gen. II, 17: in quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. Sed propria voluntate mortem assumpsit. Io. X, 18: nemo tollit a me animam meam, et cetera. Ideo dicit, quod oblatus est. Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est quia ipse voluit. Et I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. Secundo differt, quia mors nostra est effectus peccati. Rom. VI, 23: stipendia peccati mors. Sed mors Christi est destructiva peccati. Ideo dicit ad multorum exhaurienda peccata, id est, removenda. Nec dicit omnium, quia mors Christi, etsi sit sufficiens pro omnibus, non tamen habet efficaciam, nisi quantum ad salvandos. Non enim omnes subiiciuntur ei per fidem et bona opera. 476. – 477. – Then (v. 28) he shows how three things fit Christ. In regard to the first he says, and so Christ having been offered once, in which He agrees with the others. But He differed in two respects: first, since Christ had not descended from Adam by way of human seed, but merely as to bodily substance, He did not contract original sin; consequently, He was not obliged by that statute: ‘For in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death’ (Gen. 2:17), but He underwent death by His own will: ‘No man takes it away from me: but I lay it down of myself’ (Jn. 10:18). Therefore, he says, that he was offered: ‘He was offered because it was His own will’ (Is. 53:7); ‘Christ has dies once for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18). He differs, secondly, because our death is the effect of sin: The wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). But Christ’s death destroys sin; therefore, he says, to bear the sins of many, i.e., to remove them. He does not say ‘of all,’ because Christ’s death, even though it was enough for all, has no efficacy except in regard to those who are to be saved: for not all are subject to Him by faith and good works. Quantum ad secundum dicit: secundo autem sine peccato apparebit. De secundo adventu dicit duo. Primo ponit differentiam eius ad primum, quia secundus erit sine peccato. In primo enim, etsi peccatum non habuerit, tamen venit in similitudinem carnis peccati, Rom. VIII, 3. Item in primo factus est hostia pro peccato. II Cor. V, 21: eum qui peccatum non noverat, pro nobis peccatum fecit. In secundo vero ista non erunt, ideo dicit, quod apparebit sine peccato. Secundo ponit illud, quod est proprium secundo adventui, quia non apparebit ut iudicetur, sed ut iudicet, remunerans pro meritis. Unde dicit, quod apparebit. Et quidem licet omnibus, etiam his qui eum pupugerunt secundum carnem, tamen secundum divinitatem solum electis, expectantibus se per fidem, in salutem eorum. Is. XXX, 18: beati omnes, qui expectant eum. Phil. III, 20 s.: salvatorem expectamus dominum Iesum Christum, qui reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. 478. – In regard to the second he says, he shall appear a second time not to deal with sin. He says two things about the second coming: first, how it differs from the first, because the second will be without sin. For even though He had no sin in the first coming, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). In the first coming He was also made a victim for sin: ‘Him who knew no sin, he has made sin for us’ (2 Cor. 5:21). But those things are not to be found in the second coming; hence, he says that he shall appear without sin. Secondly, he states what will be peculiar to the second coming, because He will appear not to be judged, but to judge and to reward according to merits; hence, he says that he will appear. And although He will appear to all in the flesh, even to those who wounded Him, He will appear according to His divinity to the elect that eagerly wait for him by faith to save them: ‘Blessed are all they that wait for him’ (Is. 30:18); ‘We look for the Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who will reform the body of our lowliness, made like to the body of his glory’ (Phil 3:20).
10-1
Heb. 10:1-18Supra apostolus consideratis his, quae aguntur in utroque testamento, ostendit praeeminentiam novi testamenti ad vetus, hic probat unum quod supponit, scilicet quod vetus non poterat mundare peccata. Et hoc est ultimum illorum quinque, quae praemiserat de Christo. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit defectum veteris testamenti circa abolitionem culpae; secundo ex hoc comparat sacerdotem novi testamenti ad sacerdotem veteris testamenti, ibi omnis quidem sacerdos. Iterum prima in duas. Primo enim proponit, quod intendit; secundo probat per auctoritatem Scripturae, ibi ideo ingrediens mundum. Item prima in duas. Primo enim proponit intentum suum; secundo probat, ibi alioquin cessant. 479. – Having considered the things done in both testaments to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old, the Apostle now proves something he had presupposed, namely, that the Old was not able to cleanse sins. This is the last of the five things he had prefaced about Christ. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the failure of the Old Testament in regard to abolishing guilt; secondly, on this point he compares the priest of the New Testament with the priest of the Old Testament (v. 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he proves it on the authority of Scripture (v. 5). In regard to the first he does two things: First, he sets forth what he intends; secondly, he proves (v. 2). Circa primum sciendum est, quod apostolus ex conditione et ritu veteris legis concludit ipsum defectum. Per peccatum autem fit privatio futurorum bonorum, et ideo quasi illud peccatum pertineat ad bona futura, scilicet caelestia, ad illa bona se habet lex vetus sicut umbra ad corpus, sed nova lex sicut imago. Umbra autem et imago quantum ad hoc conveniunt quod utrumque repraesentat, sed umbra in communi, et quantum ad naturam speciei, imago vero in particulari, et quantum ad naturam individui, et in speciali. Sic etiam nova lex quantum ad bona futura repraesentat expressius quam vetus. Primo quia in verbis novi testamenti fit expressa mentio de bonis futuris et promissio, non autem in veteri, sed tantum de carnalibus. Secundo quia virtus novi testamenti consistit in charitate, quae est plenitudo legis. Et ista charitas licet sit imperfecta, ratione fidei cui inhaeret, tamen est similis charitati patriae. Unde nova lex dicitur lex amoris. Et ideo dicitur imago, quia habet similitudinem expressam bonorum futurorum. Sed lex vetus illam repraesentat per quaedam carnalia, et valde a remotis: et ideo dicitur umbra. Col. c. II, 17: quae sunt umbra futurorum. Haec est ergo conditio veteris testamenti, quod habet umbram futurorum, non rerum imaginem. Ritus autem erat, quod per singulos annos offerebant in festo expiationis easdem hostias, scilicet sanguinem hircorum et taurorum pro eodem, scilicet pro peccato, sicut patet Lev. XXIII. Ex his duobus concludit intentum, scilicet quod lex habens umbram futurorum bonorum, non rerum imaginem, non potest facere perfectos accedentes, scilicet pontifices, eisdem hostiis, quas offerunt indesinenter, id est, per singulos annos. Supra VII, 19: neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex. Sed ista perfectio reservatur novae legi, quae consistit in charitate, quae est vinculum perfectionis, Col. III, 14. Ideo dicitur Matth. V, 48: estote ergo perfecti. 480. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle concludes to this failing from the condition and rite of the Old Law. But sin deprived man of future goods; hence, as though that sin pertained to future goods, i.e., heavenly, the Old Law is related to those goods as a shadow to a body, but the New Law as an image. Now a shadow and an image agree in the fact that each represents something: but a shadow represents in general, and as to the nature of the species; an image, however, does so in particular and as to the nature of the individual, and specifically. So, too, the New Law, as far as future goods are concerned, represents more explicitly than the Old: first, because express mention and a promise of good things to come are found in the words of the New Testament, but not in the Old, which mentions only carnal goods; secondly, because the power of the New Testament consists in charity, which is the fulfillment of the Law. And although this charity is imperfect by reason of the faith in which it inheres, it is, nevertheless, similar to the charity of heaven. Hence, the New Law is called the law of love. Hence, it is called an image, because it has an expressed likeness to the goods to come. But the Old Law represented it by carnal things; hence it is called a shadow: ‘Which are a shadow of things to come’ (Col. 2:17). This therefore is the condition of the Old Testament, that it was but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities. Its rite consisted in offering the same sacrifice every year on the day of atonement, namely, the blood of goats and bulls, for sin, as is clear from Leviticus (chap. 25). From these two facts he draws his conclusion, namely, the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of these realities; it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered every year made perfect those who draw near, i.e., the high priests: ‘The law brought nothing to perfection’ (Heb. 7:19). But that perfection is reserved for the New Law and consists in charity, which is the bond of perfection’ (Col. 3:14). Therefore, it says in Matthew (5:48): ‘Be you, therefore, perfect.’ Deinde cum dicit alioquin cessassent, probat ex duobus intentum: et primo ex ritu; secundo ex conditione oblatorum, ibi impossibile enim. Ad probandum autem quod lex non mundabat perfecte, assumit duo. 481. – Then when he says, otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered? He proves his conclusion from two facts: first, from the rite; secondly, from the condition of the offerings (v. 4). Primum est quod in ipsa fiebat frequens reiteratio earumdem hostiarum, et est ratio talis: cultores si fuissent per easdem hostias semel mundati, quia non haberent ultra conscientiam peccati, cessassent offerre, et si cessassent, non offerre indigerent. Tunc autem non cessabant, quia, ut dictum est, per singulos annos easdem hostias offerebant. Quia ergo non cessabant idem semper offerre, signum est quod non mundabantur. Matth. IX, v. 12: non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus. Sed contra quia posset dici, quod ratio non est efficax. Posset enim dici, quod mundabat illa oblatio a praeteritis, non a futuris, et ideo quia frequenter peccabant, oportebat frequenter iterari oblationem. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod modus loquendi apostoli hoc excludit: quia cum peccatum sit quoddam spirituale, quod opponitur caelesti, oportet illud per quod mundatur peccatum, esse spirituale et caeleste, et per consequens habere virtutem perpetuam. Unde supra loquens de virtute sacrificii Christi attribuit ei virtutem perpetuam, dicens aeterna redemptione inventa. Quod autem habet virtutem perpetuam sufficit ad committenda, et commissa, et ideo non oportet ipsum amplius iterari. Unde Christus una oblatione mundavit in aeternum sanctificatos, sicut dicitur infra. Item hoc quod hic dicitur, quod non iteretur: contra, quia nos quotidie offerimus. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non offerimus aliam quam illam quam Christus obtulit pro nobis, scilicet sanguinem suum. Unde non est alia oblatio, sed est commemoratio illius hostiae quam Christus obtulit. Lc. XXII, v. 19: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Secundum quod praemittit est, quia in veteri testamento fiebat commemoratio per singulos annos de peccatis suis et populi, ergo non erant abolita. Unde dicit, quod in ipsis fit commemoratio, etc., quod verum est. In generali enim fiebat mentio de peccatis, scilicet quod erat conscius peccati, sed in speciali fit mentio in novo. Iac. V, 16: confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra. 482. – To prove that the Law did not cleanse perfectly, he uses two facts: first, that there was frequent repetition of the same sacrifices in it. This is his reasoning: If the worshippers had once been cleansed by the same sacrifice, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin, so they would cease offering, because, as has been said, they offered the same sacrifices every year. Therefore, since they did not cease offering, it is a sign that they were not cleansed: ‘They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill’ (Mt. 9:12). But on the other hand, it could be said that that reasoning is not conclusive. For one could say that that offering cleansed from past sins, but not those to come. Therefore, because they sinned often, the offerings had to be repeated frequently. I answer that the way the Apostle speaks excludes this: for since sin is something spiritual, which is opposed to what is heavenly, it was necessary that whatever cleansed from sin should be spiritual and heavenly and, consequently, that it have everlasting power; hence, above (9:12), when he spoke about the power of Christ’s sacrifice, he attributed an everlasting power to it, saying, ‘having obtained eternal redemption.’ But the fact that it has eternal power is enough for sins already committed and sins still to be committed; therefore, it was not necessary to repeat it any more. Hence ‘Christ by one oblation perfected forever them that are sanctified’ (Heb. 10:14). But the fact that we offer the sacrifice every day seems to contradict the statement that it is not repeated. I answer that we do not offer something different from what Christ offered for us, namely, His blood; hence, it is not a distinct oblation, but a commemoration of that sacrifice which Christ offered: ‘Do this in commemoration of me’ (Lk. 22:19). The second thing he prefaced is that in the Old Testament a commemoration was made of his own sins and those of the people every year. Therefore, they were abolished. Hence, he says, in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. This is true, for mention was made of sins in general, namely, that he was conscious of sin; but special mention is made in the New: ‘Confess, therefore, your sins one to another’ (Jas. 5:16). Deinde cum dicit impossibile est enim, etc., probat idem ex conditione oblatorum. Solemnius enim quod erat inter ipsa, erat oblatio hircorum et vitulorum, quae fiebat in die expiationis. Et cum ista esset quaedam repraesentatio obscura et imperfecta caelestium, sicut umbra, impossibile est sanguine istorum auferri peccatum. Quod verum est propria virtute. Sed si alicui dimittebantur, hoc erat virtute sanguinis Christi, qui in illo praefigurabatur. Ier. XI, 15: numquid carnes sanctae auferent a te malitias tuas, in quibus gloriata es? Quasi dicat: non. 483. – Then when he says, For it is impossible that the blood of oxen and goats should take away sins, he proves the same thing by reason of the condition of the things offered. For the offering of oxen and goats, which took place on the day of atonement, was the most solemn of their offerings. And since it was an obscure and imperfect representation of heavenly things, as a shadow, it was impossible that sin be taken away by their blood. This is true, so far as their own power was concerned. But if any sins were remitted, it was due to the power of Christ’s blood: ‘Shall the holy flesh take away from you your crimes in which you have boasted?’ (Jer. 11:15). As if to say: No. Deinde cum dicit ideo ingrediens mundum, etc., inducit auctoritatem Scripturae, et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ponit eam; secundo exponit eam, ibi superius dicens. Ista auctoritas potest dividi in duas, secundum Glossam, quia primo agit de incarnatione Christi praefigurata in legalibus; secundo de passione Christi, ibi tunc dixi. Tamen, secundum intentionem apostoli potest aliter dici, quod primo tangit illud, quod pertinet ad reprobationem veteris testamenti; secundo, illud quod pertinet ad acceptionem novi testamenti, ibi tunc dixi. 484. – Then (v. 5) he cites an authority from Scripture. In regard to this he does two things: first, he cites it;’ secondly, he explains it (v. 8). This authority can be divided into two parts according to a Gloss: first, it deals with Christ’s incarnation prefigured in the Law, secondly, with his passion (v. 7). Yet according to the Apostle’s intention it can be said differently that: first, he touches on what pertains to the rejection of the Old Testament; secondly, what pertains to the acceptance of the New Testament (v. 7b). Ista autem auctoritas convenit Christo secundum quod ingreditur in mundum; ergo quia illa non poterant auferre peccata, ideo filius Dei ingrediens in mundum dicit. Contra, quia dicitur Io. I, 10: in mundo erat. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod verum est quod erat in mundo, quasi regens totum, inquantum dicitur esse in omnibus per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam, sed est extra mundum, quia a mundo non comprehenditur, sed habet bonitatem separatam a toto mundo, a quo causatur bonitas universi. Sed quia propter nos factus est humanae naturae suppositum, dicitur ingredi in mundum propter eius assumptionem, sicut supra I, 6: cum iterum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae, et cetera. 485. – This authority fits Christ, in so far as His coming into the world is concerned. He says, therefore: Because it would not remove sin, the Son of God coming into the world said. But on the other hand, it says in Jn (1:10): ‘He was in the world.’ I answer that it is true that He was in the world as ruling the whole world, inasmuch as He is said to be in all things by His essence, presence and power; but He is outside the world, because He is not comprehended by the world, but has a goodness separated from the entire world, by which the goodness of the universe is caused. Yet, because He assumed a human nature for us, He is said to enter into the world, as was stated above: ‘And again when he brings in the first begotten into the world’ (Heb. 1:6). Ingrediens ergo in mundum dicit. Sed quid dicit? Hostiam et oblationem noluisti. Ponit autem quatuor, quae erant in veteri testamento, quia sacrificium aut erat de inanimatis, puta pane vel thure, et tunc dicebatur oblatio. Vel de animatis, et tunc vel ad placandum Deum, et dicitur holocaustum, quod erat dignissimum, quia totum comburebatur et cedebat in honorem Dei. Aut erat pro emundatione peccati, et dicitur sacrificium pro peccato. Et istud habebat duplicem partem, quia una pars comburebatur in altari, altera cedebat in usum ministrorum. Aut erat pro beneficiis Dei, et istud minus dignum, quia tantum tertia pars comburebatur, et dabatur ministris una, alia offerentibus. Et istud dicitur sacrificium pacificorum. Istis omnibus in novo testamento respondet oblatio corporis Christi, quia per corpus Christi placatus est Deus, scilicet in oblatione ipsius in cruce. Rom. V, 10: cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius. Item per ipsum ablatum est peccatum. I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. Item per ipsum introducimur in bona aeterna, et promovemur ad beneficia Dei. 486. – Coming, therefore, into the world he said. But what did He say? Sacrifice and offering you did not desire. But he mentions four things that were in the Old Testament: because the sacrifice was either of inanimate things, such as bread or incense, and then it was called an offering; or of animate things, and then it was offered either to placate God, and was called a holocaust, which was most fitting, because it was completely burned and gave honor to God, or it was offered for cleansing from sin, and was called a sacrifice for sin. But this latter had two parts: for one part was burned on the altar and the other was granted to the ministers for their own use; or it was for God’s benefits and was less fitting, because only one third was burned, one third given to the ministers, and one third to the ones who made the offering: and this was called a holocaust of peace. Now the offering of Christ’s body in the New Testament corresponds to all of these, because God was placated by the body of Christ, i.e., in offering Himself on the cross: ‘When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son’ (Rom. 5:10). Furthermore, sin was removed by it: ‘Christ has died once for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18). Then by it we are introduced to eternal goods, and merit God’s benefits. Dicit ergo hostiam, scilicet sacrificium, et oblationem noluisti; et interponit post corpus autem aptasti mihi, id est, aptum fecisti immolationi. Et hoc quantum ad duo. Primo quia fuit purissimum, ut deleret omne peccatum. Ex. XII, 5: erit agnus absque macula. Item quia fuit passibile, ut posset immolari. Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Istud autem corpus est vera hostia et vera oblatio. Eph. c. V, 2: tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Holocautomata et pro peccato non tibi placuerunt. Maius est placere quam velle, quia illa placent quae in se habent aliquid ut ea velimus. Volumus autem aliquando aliqua non propter se, sed propter aliud. Quia ergo holocausta digniora erant, de quibus tamen dicit, quod non placuerunt, ergo multo minus alia. 487. – Hence, he says, sacrifice and offerings you did not desire, and then adds: but a body you have prepared for me, i.e., fit for immolation; and this for two reasons. First, because it was most pure, to wipe away all sin: ‘It shall be a lamb without blemish’ (Ex. 12:5); secondly, because it would suffer and be immolated: ‘God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Ron 8:3). But that body is a true sacrifice and a true oblation: ‘He has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness’ (Eph. 5:2). In burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. It is a greater thing to please than to will, because those things please which something causes us to will; but sometimes we will certain things not for their own sake but for something else. Therefore, because holocausts were more fitting, but he says that they were not pleasing, then much less the others. Sed contra, quia Lev. I, 9, dicitur quod adolebat ea sacerdos super altare in holocaustum et suavem odorem domino. Praeterea, si noluit ea, quare praecepit haec sibi offerri? Respondeo. Dicendum est quod hoc, quod Deus dicit illa nolle, potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, quod non vult ea pro tempore isto, in quo adveniente veritate cessat umbra, unde modo peccaret qui ea offerret. Alio modo quod non vult ea propter peccata offerentium. Is. I, 15: manus enim vestrae sanguine plenae sunt. Tertia responsio ad quam apostolus tendit, est, quia ista numquam secundum se placuerunt Deo, nec accepta fuerunt, sed propter duo dicuntur accepta. Primo quia erant figura Christi, cuius passio Deo accepta fuit. Non enim delectabatur in occisione animalium, sed in fide passionis eius. Omnia enim in figura contingebant illis, I Cor. X, 11. Secundo ut nos ab idololatria revocaret per ista sacrificia; unde in prima legis datione nulla fit mentio de sacrificiis, sed tantum postquam fecerunt vitulum. Unde Ier. VII, 22: non sum locutus cum patribus vestris, et non praecepi eis in die qua eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, de verbo holocaustorum et victimarum. 488. – But on the other hand it says in Leviticus (1:9): ‘The priest shall burn them upon the altar for a holocaust and a sweet savor to the Lord.’ Further, if He did not want them, why did He command them to be offered? I answer that the statement that the Lord did not want them can be understood in two ways: In one way, so that He does not want them at the time when, the truth coming, the shadow could cease; hence, a person would sin by offering them now. In another way, so that He does not want them for the sins of those who offer them: ‘Your hands are full of blood’ (Is. 1:15). The third answer toward which the Apostle is tending is that they were never pleasing to God of themselves, nor were they accepted. But they are said to be accepted for two reasons: first, because they were a figure of Christ Whose passion was accepted by God, for He was not pleased with the killing of animals but in faith in His passion: ‘For all things happened to them in figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11). Secondly, to restrain them from idolatry by means of those sacrifices; hence, the first time the Law was given, no mention was made of sacrifices, but only after they made the golden calf. Hence Jeremiah (7:22): ‘I spoke not of your fathers, and I commanded them not in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ Deinde cum dicit tunc dixi, etc., prosequitur de approbatione novi testamenti, et secundum Glossam sic legitur: tunc, scilicet quando aptasti corpus mihi, scilicet in conceptione, dixi: ecce venio, id est, venire proposui, scilicet ad passionem. I Io. V, 6: hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus. Vel melius est quod referatur ad adventum in mundum sic: tunc, scilicet quando holocausta non placuerunt tibi, dixi: venio per incarnationem. Io. XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum. Et hoc ut offerrem me ad passionem. Et ideo dicit: ecce. 489. – Then when he says, then said I: Lo, I come, he continues to approve the New Testament. According to a Gloss it is read in the following way: Then, namely, when you did prepare a body for me, i.e., in the conception, I said: Lo, I come, i.e., I propose to come, namely, to the passion: ‘This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ’ (1 Jn. 5:6). Or it is better referred to His coming into the world, thus: Then, namely, when holocausts were not pleasing to you, I said: I come by the Incarnation: ‘I came forth from the Father and am come into the world’ (Jn. 16:28), and this in order to offer myself in the passion; therefore, he says, Lo. Sed numquid istud sacrificium erit acceptum? Certe sic, quia in capite libri scriptum est de me. Iste liber est Christus secundum humanam naturam, in quo scripta sunt omnia necessaria homini ad salutem. Is. VIII, 1: sume tibi librum grandem. Caput autem Christi est Deus, I Cor. XI, 3. In capite libri, id est in ordinatione Dei, qui est caput Christi, qui est liber, scriptum est quod filius Dei incarnari deberet et mori. Vel liber, id est, Psalterium, cuius primus Psalmus est de Christo. Vel melius, liber vitae, qui nihil aliud est quam notitia, quam Deus habet de praedestinatione sanctorum, qui salvantur per Christum. Ergo in isto libro scriptum est