The sacrifices of the law were far inferior to that of Christ.
In the old Testament, that secular Sanctuarie had tvvo partes: the one signifying that time, vvith the ceremonies therof for the emundation of the flesh: the other signifying heauen, vvhich then vvas shut, vntil our High priest Christ entered into it, and that vvith his ovvne bloud, shed for the emundation of our consciences. Wherevpon he concludeth the excellencie of his tabernacle and host aboue the old. 25 Noting also the differences, that he entered but once (so effectual vvas that one blouddy offering of himself, for euer) vvheras the Leuitical High priest entered euery yere once.
1The former indeed had also justifications of divine service and a worldly sanctuary.Ebbe però anche la prima (alleanza) i riti del culto, e il santuario terreno.THE former also in deede had iustificatiōs of seruice, and a secular sanctuarie.Habuit quidem et prius justificationes culturæ, et Sanctum sæculare. 2For there was a tabernacle made the first, wherein were the candlesticks and the table and the setting forth of loaves, which is called the Holy.Imperocché fu costruito il tabernacolo primo, dove eran i candellieri, e la mensa, e i pani della proposizione, la qual parte dicesi il santo.For the tabernacle vvas made, the first, vvherin vvere, the candlestickes, and the table, and the proposition of Ioaues, vvhich is called Holy.Tabernaculum enim factum est primum, in quo erant candelabra, et mensa, et propositio panum, quæ dicitur Sancta. 3And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies:E dopo il secondo velo, il tabernacolo detto santo de' santi:But after the second vele, the tabernacle, vvhich is called Sancta Sanctorum:Post velamentum autem secundum, tabernaculum, quod dicitur Sancta sanctorum: 4Having a golden censer and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed and the tables of the testament.Contenente il turibolo d'oro, e l'arca del testamento ricoperta d'oro da tutte le parti, nella quale l'urna d'oro, dove era la manna, e la verga di Aronne, che frondeggiò, e le tavolo del testamento.hauing a golden censar, and the arke of the testamēt couered about on euery part vvith gold, in the vvhich vvas a golden potte hauing Manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, & the tables of the testament,aureum habens thuribulum, et arcam testamenti circumtectam ex omni parte auro, in qua urna aurea habens manna, et virga Aaron, quæ fronduerat, et tabulæ testamenti, 5And over it were the cherubims of glory overshadowing the propitiatory: of which it is not needful to speak now particularly.E sopra di questa (arca) erano i cherubini della gloria, che facevan ombra al propiziatorio: delle quali cose non è da parlarne adesso a una per una.and ouer it vvere the Cherubins of glorie ouers had ovving the propitiatorie. of vvhich things it is not needeful to speake novv particularly.superque eam erant cherubim gloriæ obumbrantia propitiatorium: de quibus non est modo dicendum per singula. 6Now these things being thus ordered, into the first tabernacle, the priests indeed always entered, accomplishing the offices of sacrifices.Ma disposte per tal maniera queste cose; quanto al primo tabernacolo, vi entravano sempre i sacerdoti, adempiendo gli uffici sacerdotali:But these things being so ordered, in the first tabernacle in deede the priests alvvaies entered, accōplishing offices of the sacrifices.His vero ita compositis, in priori quidem tabernaculo semper introibant sacerdotes, sacrificiorum officia consummantes:
7But into the second, the high priest alone, once a year: not without blood, which he offereth for his own and the people’s ignorance:Nel secondo poi una volta l'anno il solo pontefice non senza il sangue, che offerisce pe' suoi, e per gli errori del popolo:But in the second, once a yere the high priest only: not vvithout bloud vvhich he offereth for his ovvne and the peoples ignorance:in secundo autem semel in anno solus pontifex non sine sanguine, quem offert pro sua et populi ignorantia: 8The Holy Ghost signifying this: That the way into the Holies was not yet made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle was yet standing.Dando così a vedere lo Spirito santo, che non era per anco aperta la via al sancta (sanctorum) stando tuttora in piedi il primo tabernacolo.the holy Ghost signifying this, that the vvay of the holies was not yet manifested, the former tabernacle as yet standing.hoc significante Spiritu Sancto, nondum propalatam esse sanctorum viam, adhuc priore tabernaculo habente statum: 9Which is a parable of the time present: according to which gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, as to the conscience, make him perfect that serveth, only in meats and in drinks,Il quale è l'immagine di quel tempo d'allora: nel quale doni, ed ostie si offeriscono, le quali non possono rendere perfetto secondo la coscienza il sacrificante, per mezzo solamente delle vivande, e bevande,vvhich is a parable of the time present: according to vvhich are offered giftes and hostes, vvhich can not concerning the conscience make perfect him that serueth,quæ parabola est temporis instantis: juxta quam munera, et hostiæ offeruntur, quæ non possunt juxta conscientiam perfectum facere servientem, solummodo in cibis, et in potibus, 10And divers washings and justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction.E dalle diverse abluzioni, e cerimonie carnali date da portare fino al tempo, che fosser corrette.onely in meates and in drinkes, and diuerse baptismes, and iustices of the flesh laid on them vntil the time of correction.et variis baptismatibus, et justitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis. 11But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hand, that is, not of this creation:Ma Cristo venendo pontefice de' beni futuri per mezzo di un più eccellente, e più perfetto tabernacolo non manofatto, viene a dire, non di questa fattura:But Christ assisting an high Priest of the good things to come, by a more ample and more perfect tabernacle not made vvith hand, that is, not of this creation:Christus autem assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum, per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum, non manufactum, id est, non hujus creationis:
12Neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption.Nè mediante il sangue de' capri, e de' vitelli, ma per mezzo del proprio sangue entrò una volta nel sancta, ritrovata avendo una redenzione eterna.neither by the bloud of goates or of calues, but by his ovvne bloud entered in once into the Holies, eternal redemption being found.neque per sanguinem hircorum aut vitulorum, sed per proprium sanguinem introivit semel in Sancta, æterna redemptione inventa. 13For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh:Imperocché se il sangue de' capri, e de' tori, e la cenere di vacca aspergendo gli immondi, li santifica quanto alla mondezza della carne:For if the bloud of goates and of oxen & the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctifieth the polluted to the cleansing of the flesh:Si enim sanguis hircorum et taurorum, et cinis vitulæ aspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?Quanto più il sangue di Cristo, il quale per Ispirito santo offerse se stesso immacolato a Dio, monderà la nostra coscienza dalle opere di morte, per servire a Dio vivo;hovv much more hath' the bloud of Christ vvho by the holy Ghost offered himself vnspotted vnto God, cleansed' our conscience from dead vvorkes, to serue the liuing God?quanto magis sanguis Christi, qui per Spiritum Sanctum semetipsum obtulit immaculatum Deo, emundabit conscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis, ad serviendum Deo viventi ? 15And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.E per questo è egli mediatore del nuovo testamento: affinchè interposta la (di lui) morte, in redenzione di quelle prevaricazioni, che sussistevano sotto il primo testamento, ricavano i chiamati la promessa dell'eterna eredita.And therfore he is the mediatour of the nevv Testament: that death being a meane, vnto the redemption of these preuarications vvhich vvere vnder the former testament, they that are called may receiue the promise of eternal inheritance.Et ideo novi testamenti mediator est: ut morte intercedente, in redemptionem earum prævaricationum, quæ erant sub priori testamento, repromissionem accipiant qui vocati sunt æternæ hæreditatis.
16For where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in.Imperocché dove è testamento, la morte fa d'uopo, che intervenga del testatore.For vvhere there is a testament: the death of the testatour must of necessitie come betvvene.Ubi enim testamentum est, mors necesse est intercedat testatoris. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is as yet of no strength, whilst the testator liveth.Imperocché il testamento per la morte, è ratificato: che del resto non è ancora valido, mentre vive chi ha testato.For a testament is confirmed in the dead: othervvise it is yet of no value, vvhiles he that tested, liueth.Testamentum enim in mortuis confirmatum est: alioquin nondum valet, dum vivit qui testatus est. 18Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood.Per la qual cosa neppur il primo fu celebrato senza sangue.Vvherevpon neither vvas the first certes dedicated vvithout bloud.Unde nec primum quidem sine sanguine dedicatum est. 19For when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses to all the people, 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.Imperocché letti che ebbe Mosè a tutto il popolo i precetti tutti della legge, preso il sangue de' vitelli, e de' capri, con acqua, e con la lana di color di scarlatto, e l'issopo, asperse insieme e il libro stesso, e tutto il popolo.For al the commaundement of the Lavv being read of Moyses to al the people: he taking the bloud of calues and goates vvith vvater and scarlet vvool and hyssope, sprinkled the very booke also it self and al the people,Lecto enim omni mandato legis a Moyse universo populo, accipiens sanguinem vitulorum et hircorum cum aqua, et lana coccinea, et hyssopo, ipsum quoque librum, et omnem populum aspersit, 20Saying: This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.Dicendo: questo (è) il sangue del testamento, disposto da Dio con voi.saying, This is the bloud of the Testament, vvhich God hath commaunded vnto you.dicens: Hic sanguis testamenti, quod mandavit ad vos Deus. 21The tabernacle also and all the vessels of the ministry, in like manner, he sprinkled with blood.Ed anche il tabernacolo, e tutti i vasi del ministero gli asperse parimenti di sangue:The tabernacle also & al the vessel of the ministerie he in like maner sprinkled with bloud.Etiam tabernaculum et omnia vasa ministerii sanguine similiter aspersit. 22And almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without shedding of blood there is no remission.E quasi tutte le cose secondo la legge si purificano col sangue: e remissione non è senza spargimento di sangue.And al things almost according to the lavv are cleansed with bloud: and vvithout sheading of bloud there is not remission.Et omnia pene in sanguine secundum legem mundantur: et sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio.
23It is necessary therefore that the patterns of heavenly things should be cleansed with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.Fa di mestieri adunque, che le immagini delle cose celesti per mezzo di tali cose si parifichino: ma le stesse cose celesti con vittime migliori di queste.It is necessarie therfore that the examplers of the coelestials be cleansed vvith these: but the celestials them selues vvith better hostes then these.Necesse est ergo exemplaria quidem cælestium his mundari: ipsa autem cælestia melioribus hostiis quam istis. 24For Jesus is not entered into the Holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into Heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.Imperocché non entrò Gesù nel santuario manofatto, immagine del vero: ma nel cielo stesso, per comparire adesso a nostro vantaggio dinanzi a Dio:For IESVS is not entred into Holies made vvith hand, examplers of the true: but into heauen it self, that he may appeare novv to the countenance of God for vs.Non enim in manufacta Sancta Jesus introivit exemplaria verorum: sed in ipsum cælum, ut appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the Holies every year with the blood of others:E non per offerir sovente se stesso, come il pontefice entra tutti gli anni nel sancta sanctorum col sangue altrui:Nor that he should offer him self often, as the high priest entereth into the Holies, euery yere in the bloud of others:neque ut sæpe offerat semetipsum, quemadmodum pontifex intrat in Sancta per singulos annos in sanguine alieno: 26For then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world. But now once, at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself.Altrimenti bisognava, che egli avesse patito molte volte dal principio del mondo; laddove una sola volta egli è comparso alla fine de' secoli, per distruggere col sacrificio se stesso il peccato.othervvise he ought to haue suffered often from the beginning of the vvorld: but novv once in the cōsummation of the vvorldes, to the destructiō of sinne, he hath appeared by his ovvne host.alioquin oportebat eum frequenter pati ab origine mundi: nunc autem semel in consummatione sæculorum, ad destitutionem peccati, per hostiam suam apparuit. 27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:E siccome è stabilito, che gli uomini muoiano una volta, e dopo di ciò il giudicio:And as it is appointed to men to die once, and after this, the iudgement:Et quemadmodum statutum est hominibus semel mori, post hoc autem judicium:
28So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. The second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation.Così anche Cristo fu offerto una volta, affin di togliere i peccati di molti; la seconda volta apparirà non per causa del peccato, per salute di coloro, che lo aspettano.so also Christ vvas offered once to exhaust the sinnes of many, the second time he shal appeare vvithout sinne to them that expect him, vnto saluation.sic et Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata: secundo sine peccato apparebit exspectantibus se, in salutem.
9:1
The former.[Ver. 1. Habuit et prius, eiche e prote. Though almost all Greek copies have skene, tabernacle: yet even the Protestant translators add in a different print, covenant, as if diatheke was understood. Ibid.[Ver. 1.] Sanctum saeculare, kosmikon. This Greek word is only found in one other place in the New Testament, Titus 2:12., saecularia desideria.] In the ordinary Greek copies is expressed the former tabernacle; but even the Protestant translators have abandoned that reading, and understand the former testament or covenant, which they have put in a different character.
Witham
Worldly sanctuary, or a temporal sanctuary, to last only for a time, like the things of this world. (Witham)
9:2
Witham
First tabernacle. By this word is signified, the sanctuary or place for worshipping God, ordained by Moses, which was an oratory to be moved from place to place with the Israelites, which they kept afterwards, and had a resemblance of it in the temple. This tabernacle consisted of two parts, which St. Paul here calls the first and second. The first part was called the holy, which was separated from the rest of the temple by a veil. In this first part were the candlesticks, that is one candlestick, as it is called, Exodus 25:37., having seven branches in which were placed lamps; and a table, on which were placed twelve loaves, according to the number of the Jewish tribes, to be changed every week. (Witham)
9:3
Witham
And after the second veil, or partition, was the second or inward part, or that part called the holy of holies. (Witham)
The first veil was at the entrance of the holy place, and separated it from the outward court; the second veil separated the holy place from the holy of holies.
9:4
Having the golden censer. What is meant by this is uncertain, no mention being made of a golden censer in either part of the tabernacle made by the order of Moses, which the apostle here speaks of. Some say that the high priest, when he entered once a year into the holy of holies, made use of a golden censer, which he left there: but this is merely a conjecture. Others think that by the golden censer is meant the altar of perfumes, or where perfumes were burnt, which was, as it were a large censer, and is called by the same Greek word by Josephus, the historian; but then there occurs this difficulty, that this altar was in that first part called the holy, not in the holy of holies, to which the same interpreters answer, that this altar was placed just at the entrance into the holy of holies, and so may be looked upon as belonging to the holy of holies: not does the text say it was in the holy of holies, but only having, etc. as a town may be said to have fortifications which are not within the town itself.
Witham
And the tables of the testament, or covenant. The ark was certainly in the holy of holies, in which[Ver. 4. Habens thuribulum aureum, chrusoun echousa thumiaterion. Josephus useth the same word for the altar of perfumes, lib. 6. The Jewish War, ch. VI. and lib. 3. Jewish Antiquities, ch. VII. Ibid.[Ver. 4.] In qua, en e. It may signify the same as cum qua.] was the golden urn, with a measure of manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the testament, or the tables of stone, on which were engraven the ten commandments. Nothing but these tables were within the ark: (see 3 Kings viii. and 2 Paralipomenon 5:10.) so that when it is said, in which was the golden urn and the rod of Aaron, the meaning seems to be, that they were indeed in the holy of holies with the ark, but not within the ark. (Witham)
In the Greek it is easy to confound the word thusiasterion, which signifies altar, with thumiaterion, which means censer. It was placed adjoining the inward veil, so that the clouds of the incense filled the holy of holies; and hence it is mentioned by St. Paul as contained therein.
Bible de Vence
The apostle describes these things as they were in the tabernacle which Moses constructed in the desert. (Bible de Vence)
We see with what great and continued respect and veneration the manna and Aaron's rod, etc. were kept by the Jews, and shall not Christians be allowed to preserve with equal respect the monuments of God's mercies, and tokens of Christ's passion? See St. Cyril, (lib. 4:contra Julianum) where he defends against the apostate, the keeping and honouring the cross on which Christ died. See also in St. Jerome (ep. xvii. Hebrews 5.) and in St. Paulinus, (ep. 11.) what reverence the faithful in those early periods of the Church paid to the sepulchres of Christ and his martyrs, as also to their relics. "We reverence and worship[honour]," says the latter, "the sepulchres of the martyrs; and, if we can, we apply the holy ashes to our eyes and mouth."
9:5
Witham
And over it (the ark) were cherubims of glory or glorious cherubims, (in what shape they were represented, is not certain) overshadowing the propitiatory, or seat of mercy, which was all of gold, of the same size as the ark, and like a cover to it. Just over this propitiatory were placed the two cherubs, spreading their wings looking towards one another, and upon the propitiatory. See Exodus xxxvi. and xxxvii. From this place God made known his presence, and the effects of his mercy to the people. Here he was said to be seated on the cherubims, and that the ark was his footstool. Psalm xcviii., Adore his footstool; that is prostrate before his ark. These two images of cherubs, shew that God did not absolutely forbid images at that time, when the people were so addicted to idolatry, but only to adore them. (Witham)
How futile is it to object from the commandment that it is forbidden to use holy images in the Church, when we here behold even amongst the people most prone to idolatry, most gross in their ideas of spiritual things, and to whom the precept was specially given not to make any graven idols, the same God commanding these images of angels to be made and set in the most holy place of the tabernacle or temple.
9:6
Witham
The rites of the sacrifices. The priests, as he tells us, entered every day, that is, by turns, (see Luke 1:5.) to make the offering of incense morning and night, also to change the loaves, take care of the lamps, etc. But we must not think that they offered in that place victims or holocausts of sheep, lambs, oxen, etc. This was not done in any part of the sanctuary, neither before nor after the building of the temple, but in a place or court adjoining the tabernacle, upon a large altar of five cubits long and as many broad. See Exodus xxvii. and xxxviii. (Witham)
9:7
Witham
Into the second part of the sanctuary, (that is, the holy of holies) no one entered but the high priest, and he but once a year, on the feast called of expiation, to make an aspersion of blood upon the ark and round about, which he offereth for his own and the people's ignorance, or ignorances, as in the Greek; that is, for all his and their sins. See Leviticus 10. (Witham)
Leviticus xvi
He offered the blood of a calf for his own sins and those of his family, and the blood of a goat for the sins of the people. (Leviticus xvi.)
9:8
Witham
The Holy Ghost signifying this. Here the apostle begins to tell us in what manner the sanctuary was a figure of things in the new law of Christ. The holy of holies was a figure of heaven, and this prohibition of any one going into it, was to signify that the way to heaven was not to be made manifest, nor to be opened, as long as the former tabernacle and law subsisted; that it was not to be opened till Christ, the high priest of the new testament, first entered, by shedding his blood on the cross, and by his glorious ascension. (Witham)
But when Christ expired, the veil of temple was rent asunder, to shew that the way to heaven was now laid open to mankind.
9:9
Which is a parable of the time then present; or, unto the present time, as in the Greek. By the present time, according to the common exposition, is not meant the time of the new law, as some would have it, but the time of the former law; so that the sense is, which parable or type was a representation of things as they were to be performed, and to last during the time of the law, which was before present.
According to which. Some understand, according to which time; others, according to which parable, type, or typical worship of the former law, gifts and sacrifices are (that is, were, and are) still offered by those who adhere to the Jewish law and ceremonies, which cannot of themselves make such worshippers perfect in conscience; that is can never give true interior sanctification, being only in meats, and drinks, and baptisms, etc. These words must not be referred to gifts and sacrifices, but to the worshipper; (literally, server) and the sense is, that to the priests, who worshipped and served God in the sanctuary and in offering sacrifices, was not prescribed an interior purity and sanctity, as in the new law, but only that legal sanctity which consisted in abstaining from such meats or drinks as were called unclean, or made them unclean. See Leviticus 10:9., where the priests are forbidden to drink wine when they were to enter into the tabernacle of the testimony.
Witham
In divers washings, etc. These precepts and ceremonies were only to last till the time of their correction, by the coming of Christ under the new and better law and testament. (Witham)
Challoner
Of correction; viz. when Christ should correct and settle all things. (Challoner)
9:11
Christ coming[Ver. 11. Christus assistens, paragenomenos, which may signify being come, and present. Ibid.[Ver. 11.] Tabernaculum, skenes, by which St. Chrysostom expounds his body or flesh, ten sarka entautha legei log. ie. p. 513.] is a high priest of the good things to come; of things which we hope for in heaven.
Witham
He has entered by a more perfect tabernacle; that is not passing, like the priests of the former law, into a tabernacle made by human art and hands, but by the tabernacle of his own body or flesh, says St. Chrysostom, framed by the Holy Ghost. (Witham)
9:12
Witham
By the blood of goats, etc. This is another difference and pre-eminence of Christ above the priests of the law of Moses, that they could only offer the blood of beasts; but Christ entered into heaven by the effusion of his own precious blood in his sufferings, and on the cross, by this having found an eternal redemption for mankind, having satisfied for the sins of all men in the sight of God, which the former priests, with all their sacrifices, could not do. (Witham)
Challoner
Eternal redemption. By that one sacrifice of his blood, once offered on the cross, Christ our Lord paid and exhibited, once for all, the general price and ransom of all mankind; which no other priest could do. (Challoner)
The force of the apostle's reasoning is to convince the Jews of the inefficacy of the legal sacrifices, and of the virtue of the Christian sacrifice.
9:13
Witham
For if the blood of goats, etc. Another main difference betwixt the sacrifices in the old, and that of Christ in the new law. Those imperfect carnal sacrifices could only make the priests and the people reputed clean, so that they were no longer to be treated as transgressors, and liable to punishments, prescribed and inflicted by the law: but the sacrifice of Christ has made our consciences interiorly clean, and sanctified them even in the sight of God. Having offered himself unspotted to God by the Holy Ghost, the divine Spirit of the Holy Ghost moving Christ as man to make this oblation of himself, though free from all sin, and incapable of sinning. And being this oblation, made by him, who was God as well as man, it was an oblation of infinite value, which repaired the injury done to God by sin, and redeemed mankind from the slavery of sin. (Witham)
Here we have an abstract of the passion of Jesus Christ, or of the sacrifice of the cross. We see who is the priest, and who is the victim; we see the virtue and efficacy of this sacrifice, and why it was offered; also by what signs we may know whether we partake of it, viz. if dying to sin and to the world, we live to God, and serve him in spirit and truth. Calvin makes Jesus Christ a priest and mediator, according to his divinity; but in that case Christ would be inferior to his Father, not only as man, but according to his divinity: for the priest is inferior to the God to whom he offers sacrifice, which is an expression of supreme excellence. See Dr. Kellison's survey of the Protestant religion.
9:15
Witham
And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament.[Ver. 15. Novi Testamenti, diathekes kaines. The Protestant translators here found it necessary to put, not covenant, as in other places, but testament, even when the apostle speaks of the first, or old diatheke, (Ver. 18. and 20.) might they not then as well have translated Testament in the last chapter, especially when mention was there made of the New Testament in the prophecy of Jeremias? might they not as well have translated, (Galatians 4:24.) for these are two testaments, as these are two covenants? and so in other places, where there is the same Greek word diatheke. Mr. N. has followed the Protestant translation. The Septuagint put diatheke for the Hebrew word Berith, which indeed is expounded to signify foedus or pactum; that is, any agreement, alliance, or covenant, which in the Greek is rather sutheke than diatheke. See Scapula. We may, I believe, safely say that Berith also signifies testament, or a last will and testament, till they who are translating it by covenant, can shew us some other Hebrew word for testamentum, which I think they have not hitherto done. I find that Mr. Legh, in his Crit. Sac. on the primitive Hebrew words, writes thus: Berith signifieth both suntheken, a compact or covenant between parties, as Aquila translateth; and diatheke, a testament or disposition of one's last will, as the Septuagint translate. He cites in the Margin Drusius and Mercerus.] The mediator, so as to be our Redeemer, which applies only to our Saviour, Christ. Moses is called a mediator betwixt God and his people. See (Galatians 3:19.; 1 Timothy 2:5.) etc. The saints in heaven, and men on earth, may be called mediators in an inferior and different sense: but Christ alone is the mediator who reconciled God to men, by satisfying for their sins, and by a redemption from the slavery of sin. This sense, in which Christ is the mediator of the New Testament is expressed in these following words: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance; that is, Christ by his death, redeemed all men. He names in particular the sins of those under the former testament, to shew them that the sacrifices of the Mosaical law could not of themselves obtain a remission of sins, so that all saved from Adam, or that shall be saved to the end of the world, have their sins forgiven, and obtain salvation by virtue of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross. He paid the ransom of their sins, and is the Redeemer of all. (Witham)
9:16
Witham
For where there is a testament, the death of the testator, etc. The same Greek word, corresponding to the Hebrew word Berith, is often used both in the books of the old and new Scriptures. The ancient Latin interpreter puts for it testamentum, a testament: but others would rather have the Hebrew and Greek word to signify any agreement, bargain, alliance, or covenant, which last word is generally put in the English Protestant translations, followed also by Mr. N. We do not deny but the Hebrew and Greek word have this signification, but not exclusively: this place of St. Paul shews evidently that they also signify what both in Latin and English is called a testament or last will, which is only of force by the death of the testator. The Protestants, therefore, here find themselves obliged to translate testament, contrary to their custom, and to apply this word not only to the promises and blessings God made to Christians, of which Christ is the mediator, and which were confirmed by his blood and by his death, but also to the former alliance and promises or blessings God made to the Israelites, when he chose them to be his elect people, and gave them his law and his commandments under Moses. It is true God is immortal in his own nature, cannot die, and therefore cannot make a testament that shall be confirmed by his own death. But as for the new alliance, or New Testament, as here it must be called, it was confirmed by the death of the Son of God; that is, of God made man, by which it is true to say that God died for us, though he did not die, nor could die, as God. And as for the former alliance, or first testament, as it is called here, (ver. 18.) that, says St. Paul, (which was only a figure of the second or new testament) was not made nor ratified without the blood of so many victims as used to be offered and sacrificed. (Witham)
9:20
Witham
This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you; (Exodus xxiv.) that is, this is to confirm that testament. Christ made use of the like words, when he bequeathed us the divine legacy of his Body and Blood, at his last supper, saying: (Matthew 26:28.) This is my blood of the new testament. And as the words of Exodus were understood of the true blood of the victims offered, so the words of Christ signify the true blood of Christ, there really present in the sacrament, in a spiritual manner, and to be shed in a bloody manner upon the cross. (Witham)
The correspondence of words, in dedicating both testaments, proveth the real presence of blood in the cup or chalice.
9:22
St. Paulinus
St. Paul speaks here of legal purifications and remissions, which (ver. 10.) he calls carnal justices and ordinances, (ver. 13.) purifying the flesh. How then, it may be asked, were sins remitted under the law? I answer, by true repentance, joined with faith and hope in the promised Messias. As to the cleansings and expiations of the Mosaic law, they were generally effected by water and animal blood, and were typical of the real cleansing of the conscience by the water of baptism, and by the blood of Jesus Christ. The flowing, therefore, of the pure water and blood from the wound in Christ's side, denoted that the real expiation was now complete, and the cleansing font set open; and on this account, they are appealed to by St. John, as two of the three terrestrial witnesses, whose testimony is so efficacious for the confirmation of our faith, that the crucified Jesus was the Christ foretold by the prophets. [John 19:34; 1 John 5:6, 8.] And thus "the old law confirms the new, and the new fulfils the old." (St. Paulinus)
9:23
It is, or was necessary that the patterns of heavenly things (that is, the former tabernacle and sanctuary) should be cleansed with these; that is, by the blood of such victims then offered.
Witham
But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices. By the heavenly things, may be understood the faithful, who are the members of Christ's Church, to whom heaven is prepared, and who must be cleansed by better sacrifices; that is, by the blood of Christ, and by his sacrifice on the cross. (Witham)
9:25
Witham
Should offer himself, etc. He takes notice that Christ, by virtue of his sacrifice, and his dying once on the cross, satisfied for the sins of all men that ever were from the beginning of the world. It was decreed from eternity that the Son of God should come to redeem mankind: the ransom that was not yet paid was accepted; and all might be saved who believed in their Redeemer, who was to come, and who, by the graces that God offered and gave them, lived well. (Witham)
Challoner
Christ shall never more offer himself in sacrifice, in that violent, painful, and bloody manner, nor can there be any occasion for it; since by that one sacrifice upon the cross, he has furnished the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for all the sins of the world. But this hinders not that he may offer himself in the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls. (Challoner)
9:26
Witham
He came at the end of the ages, as it were in the last age of the world, to the putting away or abrogating of sin. (Witham)
Though less, viz. a single tear, might have satisfied the justice of God, nothing less than his own precious blood could satisfy the charity of Jesus Christ. By his death, as St. Augustine observes, Christ has bound the devil in a chain, so that he can tempt us no further than we are able to resist: he may bark, he may tempt, he may solicit us; but he can bite none, except those that wilfully cast themselves within his reach. (Serm. 1. post Trin.)
9:28
Witham
To exhaust the sins of many. That is, of all, according to the style of the Scriptures. When he came first, he took upon him the load of our sins; but at his second coming, at the end of the world, he will come in a quite different manner, not as laden with our sins, not after the similitude of a sinful man, not to redeem us, but with great power and majesty to judge all men. (Witham)
Challoner
To exhaust. That is, to empty or draw out to the very bottom, by a plentiful and perfect redemption. (Challoner)
9:10
Of correction.... Viz., when Christ should correct and settle all things.
9:12
Eternal redemption.... By that one sacrifice of his blood, once offered on the cross, Christ our Lord paid and exhibited, once for all, the general price and ransom of all mankind: which no other priest could do.
9:25
Offer himself often.... Christ shall never more offer himself in sacrifice, in that violent, painful, and bloody manner, nor can there be any occasion for it: since by that one sacrifice upon the cross, he has furnished the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for all the sins of the world. But this hinders not that he may offer himself daily in the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls.
9:28
To exhaust.... That is, to empty, or draw out to the very bottom, by a plentiful and perfect redemption.
9:1
〈Greek〉
Concordance Exo. 25. 26, 1. 36.
In the liturgy The Epistle vpon Imber saturday in Septemb.
9:4
4. A golden potte.] Relikes. The Protestants count it superstitious to keepe vvith honour and reuerence the holy memories or monuments of Gods benefites and miracles, or the tokens of Christes Passion, as his Crosse, garments, or other things appertaining to him or his Saincts, and thinke it impossible that such things should dure so long: They cōtinue vvithout putrefaction. vvhen they may here see the reuerent and long reseruation of Manna, vvhich of it self vvas most apt to putrifie, and of Aarons rodde, onely for that it sodenly florished by miracle, the tables of the Testament &c. See a notable place in S. Cyril li. 6 cont. Iulian. vvhere he defendeth against Iulian the Apostataes blasphemie, he keeping and honouring of that Crosse or vvood vvhich Christ died on. The holy CROSSE. See also S. Paulinus ep. 11. and vvhat reuerence S. Hierom and the faithful of his time did to the sepulchres of Christ and his Martyrs, and to their relikes. The sepulchres of Christ and his Saincts. We reuerence and vvorship (saith he) euery vvhere Martyrs sepulchres, ep. 17. c. 5. and putting the holy ashes to our eies, if vve may, vve touch it vvith our mouth also: and do some thinke, that the monument vvherein our Lord vvas buried, it to be neglected? But our Protestant can not skill of this, they had rather folovv Vigilantius, Iulianus the Apostata, and such Maisters, then the holy Doctors and euident practise of the Church is al ages.
Concordance 3 Reg. 8.
Concordance 2 Par. 5.
9:5
5. Cherubins.] You see it is a fond thing, to conclude vpon the first or second commaundement, that there should be no sacred images in the Church, vvhen euen among these people that vvere most prone to idolatrie, Images in Salomons temple commaunded by God. and grosse in imagination of spiritual things such as Angels are, and to vvhom the precept vvas specially giuen, the same God that forbade them grauen idols, did commaund these images of Angels to be made and set in the soueraine holiest place of al the Tabernacle or Temple. By vvhich it is plaine, that much more the images of Christ and his B. mother and Saincts, that may be more truely pourtered then mere spiritual substances can be, are not contrarie to Gods cōmaundement, nor against his honour, or repugnant to any other Scripture at all, vvhich condemne onely the Idols or pourtraitures of the Heathen made for adoration of false Gods.
Concordance Exo. 25, 22.
9:6
Concordance Exo 30, 10.
9:7
Concordance Leu. 16, 2. 30.
9:8
The vvay to heauē vvas not open before Christs passion. & therfore the Patriarches and good men of the old Testament vvere in some other place of rest vntil then.
9:9
〈Greek〉
Al things done in the old Testament and priesthod were figures of Christes actions.
9:10
10. Vntil the time of correction.] Al those grosse and carnal sacrifices, ceremonies, and obseruations instituted to cleanse and purifie the flesh from legal irregularities and impurities onely, and not reaching to the purging of the soules & consciences of men, being commaunded not for euer, but till Christes comming, Sacrifice not taken avvay by the nevv Testament, but changed into a better. ceased then: and better, more forcible, and more spiritual Sacraments vvere instituted in their place. For vve may not imagine Christ to haue taken avvay the old, and put none in their places or to alter the sacraments onely into other sacraments external, and not also to translate the sacrifices to some other more excellent. for it is called, tempus correctionis, non abolitionis sacrificij aut legis: the time of correction not of abolishing sacrifice or lavv. Neither haue they more reason to affirme Christes one oblation vpon the Crosse to haue rather taken avvay al kind of sacrifice, then al manner of Sacraments. The time and state of the nevv Testament is not made lavvlesse, hostlesse, or vvithout sacrifice, but it is the time of correction or reformation and abettering al the foresaid things.
9:11
In the liturgy The Epistle vpon Passion Sunday.
9:12
12. Eternal redemption.] No one of the sacrifices, nor al the sacrifices of the old lavv, could make that one general price, One only sacrifice on the Crosse the redēption of the vvorld: and one onely Priest (Christ) the redeemes thereof. ransom, and redemption of all mankind, and of al sinnes, sauing this one highest Priest Christ, and the one sacrifice of his bloud once offered vpon the Crosse. Vvhich sacrifice of redemption can not be often done, because Christ could not die but once. though the figures also thereof in the lavv of nature and of Moyses, vvere truely called sacrifices, as specially this high and maruelous commemoration of the same in the holy Sacrament of the altar, according to the rite of the nevv Testament, Li. de Sp. & lit. c. 11. is most truely and sigularly (as S. Augustine calleth it) a sacrifice. But neither this sort, nor the other of the old lavv, being often repeated and done by many Priests (al vvhich vvere and are sinners them selues) could be the general redeeming and consummating sacrifice: nor any one of those Priests, nor al the Priests together, either of the lavv of Nature, or of Aarons, or Melchisedecks order (except Christ alone) coulde be the general redeemers of the vvorld.
And this is the Apostles meaning in al this comparison and opposition of Christes death to the old sacrifices, and of Christ to their Priests: and not that Christes death or sacrifice of the Crosse should take avvay al sacrifices, The Apostles disputatiō being only against the errour of the Iewes cōcerning their sacrifices and priests: the Protestants applying it against the sacrifice of the Masse & priestes of the new Testament. or proue that those Aaronical offices vvere no true sacrifices at al, nor those Priests, verily Priests. They vvere true Priests & true sacrifices, though none of those sacrifices vvere the high, capital, and general sacrifice of our price and redemption: nor none of them, or of those Priests, could vvithout respect to this one sacrifice of Christes death, vvorke any thing to Gods honour, or remission of sinnes, as the Ievves did falsely imagine, not referring them at al to this general redemption and remission by Christ, but thinking them to be absolute sacrifices in them selues. And that to haue been the errour of the Hebrues, you may read in S. Augustine li. 3. doct. Christ. c. 6. And this, vve tel the Protestants, is the onely purpose of the Apostle.
But they be so grosse, or ignorant in the Scriptures, and so malitiously set against Gods and the Churches truth, that they peruersely and folishly turne the vvhole disputation against the sacrifice of the B. Masse, and the Priests of the new Testament: as though vve held, that the sacrifice of the altar vvere the general redemption or redeeming sacrifice, or that it had no relation to Christes death, or that, it vvere not the representation and most liuely resemblance of the same, or vvere not instituted and done, to apply in particular to the vse of the partakers, that other general benefite of Christes one oblation vpon the Crosse. Against the Ievves then onely S. Paul disputeth, and against the false opinion they had of their Priests and sacrifices, to vvhich they attributed al remission and redemption, vvithout respect of Christes death.
Concordance Leu. 9, 8, 16, 6. 14.
9:13
Concordance Nu. 19.
9:14
shal
cleanse
9:15
15. Of those preuarications.] The Protestants do vnlearnedly imagine, that because al sinnes be remitted by the force of Christes passion, that therfore there should be no other sacrifice after his death. Vvhereas in deede they might as vvell say, there ought neuer to haue been sacrifice appointed by God, either in the lavv of Nature, or of Moyses: as al their argumēts made against the Sacrifice of the Church vpon the Apostles discourse, proue as vvel, or rather onely, that there vvere no sacrifices of Aarons order or Leuitical lavv at all. For against the Ievves false opinion concerning them, doth he dispute, and not a vvord, touching the sacrifice of the Church, vnto vvhich •n al this discourse he neuer opposeth Christes sacrifice vpon the Crosse: al Christian men vvel knovving that the host & oblation of those tvvo, though they differ in maner and external forme, yet is in deede al one.
The Apostle then shevveth here plainely, that al the sinnes that euer vvere remitted since the beginning of the vvorld, vvere no othervvise forgiuen, but by the force and in respect of Christes Passion. Yet it folovveth not therevpon, that the oblations of Abel, Abraham, Aaron, &c vvere no sacrifices, as by the Heretikes foolish deduction it should do: S. Paul not opposing Christes Passion to them, for the intent to proue them to haue been no sacrifices, but to proue, that they vvere not absolute sacrifices, nor the redeeming or consummating Sacrifice, vvhich could not be many, nor done by many Priests, but by one, and at one time, by a more excellent Priest thē any of them, or any other mere mortal man.
And that you may see the blasphemous pride and ignorance of Caluin, and in him, of al his fellovves: Caluins argumēt against the sacrifice of the altar, maketh no lesse against the sacrifices of the old Lavv. read (so many as may read Heretical bookes) his commentarie vpon this place, and there you shal see him gather vpon this, that Christes death had force from the beginning & vvas the remedie for al sinnes since the creation of the vvorld, therfore there must be no mo• but that one sacrifice of Christes death. Vvhich must needes by his deduction hold (as it doth in deede) no lesse against the old sacrifices then the nevv sacrifice of the Church, and so take avvay al, vvhich is against the Apostles meaning and al religion.
Concordance Gal. 3, 15.
9:19
Here we may learne that the Scriptures conteine not al necessarie tites or truthes, whē neither the place to which the Apostle alludeth, nor any other, mentioneth half these ceremonies, but he had them by tradition.
Concordance Exo. 24. 8.
9:20
20. This is the bloud.] Christes death vvas necessarie for the full confirmation, ratification, and accomplishement of the nevv Testament, though it vvas begonne to be dedicated in the sacrifice of his last supper, The correspondēce of vvordes in dedicating both Testamēts proueth the real presence of bloud in the Chalice. being also vvithin the compasse of his Passion. Vvhich is euident by the vvordes prouounced by Christ ouer the holy chalice, vvhich be correspondent to the vvordes that vvere spoken (as the Apostle here declareth) in the first sacrifice of the dedication of the old lavv, hauing also expresse mention of remission of sinnes thereby, as by the bloud of the nevv Testament. Vvhereby it is plaine, that the B. Chalice of the altar hath the very sacrificall bloud in it that vvas shed vpon the Crosse, in & by vvhich, the nevv Testament (vvhich is the lavv of spirit, grace, and remission) vvas dedicated, and doth consist. And therfore it is also cleere, that many diuine things, vvhich to the Heretikes or ignorant may seeme to be spoken onely of Christes sacrifice vpon the Crosse, be in deede verified & fulfilled also in the sacrifice of the altar. Vvhereof S. Paul for the causes aforesaid vvould not treate in plaine termes See Isychius li. 1 in Leuit. c. 4 paulo post initium, applying al these things to the immolation of Christ also in the Sacrament.
9:23
23. The examplers.] Al the offices, places, vessels, and instruments of the old lavv, vvere but figures and resemblances of the state and sacraments of the nevv Testament, In the old Testament vvere figures of the novv: in the nevv, is resemblance of the heauenly state. vvhich are here called celestials, for that they are the liuely image of the heauenly state next ensuing: vvhich be therfore specially dedicated and sanctified in Christes bloud, sacrificed on the altar, and sprinkled vpon the faithful, as the old figures and people vvere cleansed by the bloud of beasts. And therfore by a transition vsual in the holy Scriptures, the Apostle sodenly passeth in the sentēce immediatly folovving, and turneth his talke to Christes entrance into heauen, the state vvhereof, both by the Sacraments of the old lavv, and also more specially by them of the nevv, is prefigured.
9:25
25. Offer him self often.] As Christ neuer died but once, not neuer shal die againe, so in that violent, painful, and blouddy sort he can neuer be offered againe, neither needeth he so to be offered any more: Christ once offered in blouddy sort, but vnblouddily oftē, namely in the sacrifice of the altar. hauing by that one action of sacrifice vpon the Crosse, made the full ransom, redemption, and remedie for the sinnes of the vvhole vvorld. Neuerthelesse, as Christ died and vvas offered after a sort in all the sacrifices of the Lavv and Nature, since the beginning of the vvorld (al vvhich vvere figures of this one oblation vpon the Crosse) so is he much rather offered in the sacrifice of the altar of the nevv Testament, incomparably more neerely, diuinely, and truely expressing his death, his body broken, his bloud shed. then did any figure of the old lavv, or other sacrifice that euer vvas: as being in deede (though in hidden, sacramental, and mysticall, and vnblouddy maner) the very self same B. body and bloud, the self same host, oblation and sacrifice, that vvas doue vpon the Crosse.
And this truth is most euident by the very forme of vvordes vsed by our Sauiour in the institution and consecration of the holy Sacrament, The sacrifice of the altar & that on the Crosse, both one. and by the profession of all the holy Doctors. Our sacrifice, saith S. Cyprian, is correspondent to the Passion of Christ. And, The sacrifice that vve offer, is the Passion of Christ. ep. 63. nu. 4. & nu. 7. S. Augustine de f•d. ad Pet. c. 19. In those carnal sacrifices vvas the prosiguring of the flesh of Christ, vvhich he vvas to offer for sinnes, and of the bloud, vvhich he vvas to sheads. but in this Sacrifice is the commemoration of the flesh of Christ vvhich he hath novv giuen, and of the bloud vvhich he hath shed: in illis praenuntiabarut occidendus, in hoc annuntiatur occisus. In them he vvas forshevved as to be killed: in these he is shevved, as killed. And S. Gregorie Nazia•••• saith, oral. in morbum, that the Priest in this sacrifice, immiscet se magnis Chrisi Passionibus. S. Ambrose li. 1. Offic. c. 48. Offertur Christus in imagine quasi recipiens passionem. Alexander the first. ep. 〈◊〉 Orthodox. nu. 4. 〈◊〉. 1. Conc. Cuius corpus & sanguis conficitur, passio etiam celebratur. S. Gregorie, ho. 37 in Euang. So often as vve offer the host of his Passion, so often vve removve his Passion. And, He suffeteth for vs againe in mysterie. And Isychius, li. 26. • in Leuit. post m•d. By the sacrifice of the onely-begotten many thinges are giuen vnto vs, to vvitte, the remission or pardoning of al mankinde, and the singular introduction or bringing in of the mysteries of the nevv Testament.
And the said fathers and others, The fathers call it the vnblouddy sacrifice of the altar. by reason of the difference in the maner of Christes presence and oblation in respect of that on the Crosse, Comment. in 9 Hebr. called this the vnblouddy sacrifice, as Caluin him self confesseth, but ansvvereth them in the pride of hereticall spirit, vvith these vvordes: Nihil moror quòd si• loquantur vttusti scriptores. that is, I passe not for it, that the auncient vvriters do so speake: calling the distinction of blouddy and vnblouddy sacrifice, Caluins cont• ̄pt of the fathers. scholasticall and friuolous, and diabolicum comment••m, a diuelish deuise. Vvith such ignorant and blasphemous men vve haue to do, that thinke they vnderstand the Scriptures better then all the fathers.
9:28
By this word vvhich signifieth to emptie or draw out euen to the botom, is declared the plentiful and perfect redēption of sinne by Christ.
ad exhaurienda, peccata.
9:3
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
With lambs’skins dyed with heaven’s hue; within
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 42.9
… for I believe, as John teaches me in his Revelation, that each Church has its guardian, Prepare ye the way of My people, and cast away the stones from the way, that there may be no stumblingblock or hindrance for the people in the divine road and entrance, now, to the temples made with hands, but soon after, to Jerusalem above, and the Holy of holies there,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 46.5
… if the temple was overthrown, it was that its figurative sacrifices might be abolished. As regards its site, lapse of time has but invested it with fresh grandeur. The Jews of old reverenced the Holy of Holies, because of the things contained in it—the cherubim, the mercy-seat, the ark of the covenant, the manna, Aaron’s rod, and the golden altar.
9:4
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple 1
… Yea, moreover, the rod of the priest which, without culture, blossomed forth in fruit, the pledge and earnest of a perpetual priesthood, furnished no contemptible symbol of thy supernatural child-bearing.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 14.10
… Next you must by all means strive to get rid of all anxiety and worldly thoughts, and give yourself over assiduously or rather continuously, to sacred reading, until continual meditation fills your heart, and fashions you so to speak after its own likeness, making of it, in a way, an ark of the testimony,
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 2.6
… Gentleness, then, is to be mingled with severity; a sort of compound is to be made of both; so that subjects be neither exulcerated by too much asperity, nor relaxed by too great kindness. Which thing, according to the words of Paul (
9:5
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
7. But we should like your piety to ask them this. When Israel was ordered to go up to Jerusalem to worship at the temple of the Lord, where was the ark, ‘and above it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the Mercy-seat
9:6
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
[2.] Ver. 6 . “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle accomplishing the service [of God].” That is, these things indeed were [there], but the Jews did not enjoy them: they saw them not. So that they were no more theirs than [ours] for whom they prophesied.
9:7
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
Blood” —it did offer, shedding out the gore
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
… for, lest they should say, “how is there [but] one sacrifice?” he shows that this was so from the beginning, since at least the more holy and the awful [sacrifice] was [but] one. And how did the High Priest offer once for all? Thus were they wont [to do] from the beginning, for then also (he says) “the High Priest” offered “once for all.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 65.6
… otherwise they had swallowed up: the discourses of unjust men had prevailed over us; there had led us astray preachers of Jupiter, and of Saturn, and of Mercury: “the discourses of ungodly men had prevailed over us.” But what wilt Thou do? “Our impieties Thou wilt propitiate.” Thou art the priest, Thou the victim; Thou the offerer, Thou the offering.
9:8
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 2.25
… Then what follows? “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (and eat), and live for ever.” Inserting thus the particle of present time, “And now,” He shows that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man’s life. Therefore He did not actually
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
[3.] Thus far there is no speculation. But from this point he philosophizes and says, (
9:9
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
Ver. 9 . “Which” (he says) “was established as a figure for the time then present.” What does he mean by “the time present”? That before the coming of Christ: For after the coming of Christ, it is no longer a time present: For how [could it be], having arrived, and being ended?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 25
“From whence also he received him in a figure,” that is in idea,
9:10
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.20
… who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary, “He shall not take a harlot to wife,” and, when it was reasonable, He says, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication.” For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath, and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law has power to give it “until a time of reformation,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 1
… of silver shalt thou make them, and they shall be for thee to call the congregation ;’—very properly for those who here love Him. So that we may know that these things had reference to the time of Moses—yea, were to be observed so long as the shadow lasted, the whole being appointed for use, ‘till the time of reformation
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 6
9. For the sacrifice was not properly the setting to rights
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 43.43
… not giving directions for one small nation only like that of the Jews, concerning meats and drinks, temporary sacrifices, and purifications of the flesh;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
And yet this does not follow after, “who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment”: for what would follow would be to say, “but according to that of a spiritual one.” However by “carnal,” he implied temporary. As he says also in another place, carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
Ver. 10 . “And [in] divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation.” For this is the righteousness of the flesh. Here he depreciates the sacrifices, showing that they had no efficacy, and that they existed “till the time of reformation,” that is, they waited for the time that reformeth all things.
9:11
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.16
16. This is Jesus Christ who came a High-Priest of the good things to come
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.32
… for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the defiled, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more the blood of Christ
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
… And well did he say, “greater and more perfect,” since God The Word and all the power of The Spirit dwells therein; “For God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto Him].” ( John iii. 34 .) And “more perfect,” as being both unblamable, and setting right greater things.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 19
… viii. 13 ), but this is new; and has remission of sins, while that [has] nothing of the kind: for (he says) “the Law made nothing perfect.” ( c. vii. 19 .) And again, “sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not.” ( c. x. 5 .) That is made with hands, while this is “not made with hands” (
9:12
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
… “Once for all” (he says) “He entered into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption.” And this [expression] “having obtained,” was [expressive] of things very difficult, and that are beyond expectation, how by one entering in, He “obtained everlasting redemption.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 17
[3.] “Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the Holy place every year with blood of others.” Seest Thou how many are the differences? The “often” for the “once”; “the blood of others,” for “His own.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 19
… viii. 13 ), but this is new; and has remission of sins, while that [has] nothing of the kind: for (he says) “the Law made nothing perfect.” ( c. vii. 19 .) And again, “sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not.” ( c. x. 5 .) That is made with hands, while this is “not made with hands” ( c. ix. 11 ): that “has the blood of goats” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 33
… Thou seest then that we partake of Blood which has been carried into the Holy Place, the True Holy Place; of the Sacrifice of which the Priest alone had the privilege. We therefore partake of the Truth [the Reality]. If then we partake not of “reproach” [only] but of sanctification,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 110.12
… what doth He, Priest for evermore? What doth He, who is at the right hand of God, and intercedeth for us, like a priest entering into the inner places, and into the holy of holies, into the mysteries of heaven, He alone being without sin, and therefore easily purifying from sins.
9:13
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
Semblance devoid of virtue: but behold
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 14
… the sin of the world .’ He purifies our souls, as Jeremiah the prophet says in a certain place, ‘Stand in the ways and see, and enquire, and look which is the good path, and ye shall find in it cleansing for your souls .’ Of old time, the blood of he-goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled upon those who were unclean, were fit only to purify the flesh
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… And such a name is said by us to be arrived at by a conception. But if this is not agreeable to our opponents, let it be as each of them pleases. In his ignorance, however, of the figures of Scripture, our opponent contradicts what is said. For if he had learned the Divine names, he must have known that our Lord is called a Curse and Sin , and a Heifer
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.8
99. But the Apostle also shows that the Holy Spirit is eternal, for: “If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the sprinkling the ashes of an heifer sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
Ver. 13, 14 . “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God.”
9:14
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… for he says not, ‘God Himself is the power,’ but ‘His is the power.’ Very plain is it to all that ‘His’ is not ‘He;’ yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and ‘turn to the Lord;’ now ‘the Lord is that Spirit
9:15
Aphrahat † AD 346 Aphrahat: Select Demonstrations 8.7
… as the blessed Apostle said, If the righteous had been looking forward to that city from which Abraham went forth, they would have had an opportunity of again turning back and to it; but they showed that they were looking forward to one better than it, namely that which is in heaven .
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.6
… but it shall not stand for this man, because he himself was not to reign for ever, nor his offspring; so that at least that word “for ever” might seem to be fulfilled through his posterity one to another. “And the Lord,” he saith, “will seek Him a man,” meaning either David or the Mediator of the New Testament,
9:16
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
9:17
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 3
… Thus he argues with the Corinthians, “Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof?” ( 1 Cor. ix. 7 .) and again with the Hebrews, “For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?” (
9:19
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 3.7
… They were of like size, and very similar in appearance, owing to the Lord’s identity of aspect; because He is not to come in any other form, having to be recognised by those by whom He was also wounded and pierced. One of these goats was bound with scarlet,
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
With water mixt the seer (thus from on high
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 3.5
… for Israel deliverance from Pharaoh was through the sea, and for the world deliverance from sins by the washing of water with the word of God. Where a covenant is made with any, there is water also. After the flood, a covenant was made with Noah: a covenant for Israel from Mount Sinai, but with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 16
For why (tell me) is the book of the testament sprinkled? (
9:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 16
… why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, “This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins.” ( Matt. xxvi. 28 .)
9:22
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 20.8
… “I even I am He that blotteth out thine iniquities for Mine own sake, and I will remember thy sins no more.” Whoever then is aiming at this condition, which we have mentioned, will seek the grace of satisfaction by daily fasting and mortification of heart and body, for, as it is written, “Without shedding of blood there is no remission;”
9:23
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 16
Ver. 23 . “It was therefore necessary that the Patterns” (he says) “of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”
9:24
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 20.6
6. Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John’s was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 21.1
… for God having foreordained us unto adoption as sons , made us to be conformed to the body of Christ’s glory . Having therefore become partakers of Christ , ye are properly called Christs, and of you God said, Touch not My Christs , or anointed. Now ye have been made Christs, by receiving the antitype
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
Seest thou how he calls the body tabernacle and veil and heaven. “By a greater and more perfect tabernacle. Through the veil, that is, His flesh.” ( Heb. x. 20 .) And again, “into that within the veil.” ( Heb. vi. 19 .) And again, “entering into the Holy of Holies, to appear before the face of God.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.50
… And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”
9:26
Tertullian † AD 220 To His Wife i.2
… And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision. Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age,
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.3.5
… and I know not that I am able to enumerate the number of anterior ages in which He did not suffer. I will show, however, from what statements of Paul I have arrived at this understanding. He says, “But now once in the consummation of ages, He was manifested to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Expositio Fidei. (Statement of Faith.) 1
… wholly from the Whole, being like the Father as the Lord says, ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’ ( Joh. xiv. 9 ). But He was begotten ineffably and incomprehensibly, for ‘who shall declare his generation?’ ( Isa. liii. 8 ), in other words, no one can. Who, when at the consummation of the ages (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 14
… instruct the flesh in the Word, and being the fountain of life, He thirsted our thirst, that thereby He might urge us to the feast, saying, ‘If any man thirst, let him come to Me, and drink .’ At that time, Moses proclaimed the beginning of the feast, saying, ‘This month is the beginning of months to you .’ But the Lord, Who came down in the end of the ages
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… Or why, if the Word came thus, is not the death of each one said to have taken place on our behalf, but only this man’s death? Or why, if the Word sojourned among us in the case of each one of the prophets, is it said only in the case of Him born of Mary that He sojourned here ‘once at the consummation of the ages
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
But let them listen. If the Word were a creature, He would not assume the created body to quicken it. For what help can creatures derive from a creature that itself needs salvation? But since the Word being Creator has Himself made the creatures, therefore also at the consummation of the ages
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 61
… Accordingly it is no good venture of theirs to say that the Word of God came into a certain holy man; for this was true of each of the prophets and of the other saints, and on that assumption He would clearly be born and die in the case of each one of them. But this is not so, far be the thought. But once for all ‘at the consummation of the ages
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 11.5
5. If then thou hear the Gospel saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham , understand “according to the flesh.” For He is the Son of David at the end of the ages
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
… And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 17
What is, “He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”?
9:27
St Hippolytus † AD 235 A discourse by the most blessed Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on the second coming of our lord Jesus Christ 21
… So then His second advent is declared to be in glory; for He comes from heaven with power, and angels, and the glory of His Father. His first advent had John the Baptist as its forerunner; and His second, in which He is to come in glory, will exhibit Enoch, and Elias, and John the Divine.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 54
… and Eusebius and his fellows, overwhelmed with shame, buried their accomplice, while the blessed Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of the Church, celebrated the Communion with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren, and greatly glorifying God, not as exulting in his death (God forbid!), for ‘it is appointed unto all men once to die
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 17
… which is not to die at all. For the tyranny of death, and death indeed, is when he who dies is never more allowed to return to life. But when after dying is living, and that a better life, this is not death, but sleep.) Since then death was to have possession of all, therefore He died that He might deliver us.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 1.13
… The blessed Alexander completed the celebration, rejoicing with the Church in piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren and greatly glorifying God. This was not because he rejoiced at the death of Arius—God forbid; for ‘ it is appointed unto all men once to die
9:28
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 39
… “Remember,” saith one, “thy last things, and thou shalt never do amiss.” ( Ecclus. vii. 40 .) For He who now hath remitted our sins, will then sin in judgment; He who hath died for our sake will then appear again to judge all mankind. “Unto them that look for Him,” saith the Apostle, “shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 17
… On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.
9:1
"First," namely the tabernacle, says Erasmus: for thus the Greek Codex has it, "hē prōtē skēnē," that is, the first tabernacle, but erroneously. For St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Photius and the Syriac do not read "skēnē," but only "hē prōtē," and understand "diathēkē," that is, testament. For he has been treating of the Old Testament up to this point in the preceding chapter, especially in the last verse, but not of the tabernacle. Justifications of worship. — "dikaiōmata latreias," that is, justifications of worship or of latria, that is, commandments laid down by Moses for worshipping God rightly, namely the ceremonies and rites prescribed by law, by which the Jews might worship God justly and holily, and might be sanctified, both before men and also before God, if they observed them from faith in Christ and from devotion and charity toward God: which nevertheless they could not do by the force of the law, but by the force of the spirit and grace. For these ceremonial laws are called in Hebrew "chuqqim," that is, statutes, decrees, sanctions: which Our Author, for the reasons already stated, is accustomed to translate as justices, or justifications, as appears in Psalm CXVIII, verses 5, 8, 48, 68 and others. And the Holy place worldly. — "to hagion kosmikon," that is, the Holy place or sanctuary worldly, or, as the Syriac translates it, "bet kudesca olmaiena," that is, a holy house worldly, or mundane. You may ask, what is this "Holy place worldly and secular?" St. Thomas and Cajetan answer first that it is the holiness and sanctification of the Old Testament, which was only bodily, worldly and external, before the world, but not spiritual and internal before God, and true holiness: for this is proper to the New Testament. Yet it is harshly and distortedly that the holiness of the Old Testament is called and named a holy place worldly. Add, that when the Greek article says "to hagion," it designates some certain Holy place, as will presently appear. Secondly, St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Haymo, by this "Holy place" understand the court of the tabernacle, which lay open to the Gentiles and to all nations of the world, and hence is called worldly. But this does not seem true: for the Gentiles, as infidels and profane, were shut out from the court of the Jews: for this court was the "holy" place of the faithful people, that is, a sanctuary and temple. And although Herod added to the court of the Jews another outer court for the Gentiles and the unclean, yet that cannot be called "Holy place." Add, why would Paul here make mention of this court before the rest? Thirdly, others understand by "Holy place secular" the tabernacle or temple of the Jews, and it is called "secular" because it was to last for many ages; but what does this have to do with the Greek "kosmikon," that is, worldly? Why does the Apostle, who is entirely engaged in disparaging the old tabernacle and priesthood, here commend it from its duration? Fourthly, better and more aptly, Theodoret, Ambrose, Oecumenius, say that the "Holy place" is the tabernacle, and is called worldly because it bore the figure of the world. For the Holy place was a type of the earth, and of the life which is lived on earth; the Holy of Holies was a type of the empyrean heaven, and of the life and glory of the Blessed: the veil dividing the Holy place from the Holy of Holies was a type of the firmament dividing the waters above from those below, and the heavens from the elements; the seven-branched candlestick was a type of the seven planets; the purple, scarlet, fine linen and hyacinth, from which the curtains of the tabernacle were made, signified the four elements. In a similar manner the Wise Man calls the vestment of the high priest worldly, Wisdom XVIII, 24, when he says: "In the robe of his office, which he had, the whole world was," because namely in his vestment he represented the whole world, for which he interceded with God. This is a good exposition, but not a plain, nor a literal one. Fifthly, Francis Ribera thinks that "Holy place secular" is the same as what the Apostle shortly after calls the first tabernacle, that is, the front part of the tabernacle, which was called the Holy place, with the court, in which were the altar of holocausts and the brazen laver, in which sacrifices and lustrations were made. Hence it is called "secular," because it represented the life of this age, or the worship which the Saints exhibited to God in this age, before they could enter through Christ into the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven: for the Holy place was a type of the old law: for this offered its sacrifices daily in the Holy place; and the Holy of Holies was a type of heaven, which was not yet opened, but was covered with a veil while the old law stood. Whence into the Holy of Holies the high priest entered but once a year, and he alone: and thus the Holy place was a figure of time and of this age, the Holy of Holies of eternity; for thus the Apostle seems to explain himself, verse 8. This too is an apt, but only partial and symbolic exposition, as will presently appear. I say therefore sixthly, that you may most excellently and most genuinely understand by "this worldly sanctuary" the whole old tabernacle or sanctuary, which is called "worldly," that is, temporal, perishable and fleeting. It is also called mundane, that is, earthly, and made of gold, silver, fine linen and other earthly things, as Anselm says, having earthly and typical ceremonies, sacrifices and worship. This exposition is proved first, because thus the Apostle explains himself in the following verse and thereafter. Secondly, because in the preceding chapter, verse 5, and here verses 10, 11, 24, 25, he calls "this worldly sanctuary," or mundane one, a thing made, for offering sacrifices of flesh. Again he calls it a pattern (that is, a type and figure) of heavenly things: for he opposes this worldly and mundane sanctuary to the sanctuary or tabernacle in heaven, that is, to the Church of Christ, which descends from heaven, and by heavenly doctrine, life and Sacraments leads us to heaven, as if to say: In the Sanctuary, that is, in the old sanctuary and tabernacle, all things were mundane, earthly, typical, shadowy, temporal and fleeting: but in the Church of Christ all things are heavenly, true, solid and eternal. Whence the Apostle, explaining the parts of this Sanctuary or worldly Sanctuary, immediately adds: "For a tabernacle was made first," etc., as if to say: This worldly sanctuary had two parts, namely the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, as I shall presently explain.
9:2
Here he explains "the Holy of Holies," and its parts. He calls "the first tabernacle" the first part of the tabernacle, which in Hebrew is called "hechal," or "qodes," that is, holy or holiness. For it contained the golden candlestick, the table of the loaves of proposition, and the altar of incense. And from this the place was sacred and venerable, and is called holiness, that is, a holy thing, or the holy sanctuary. But the second or posterior part of the tabernacle is called the Holy of Holies: concerning which see the following verse. Note: The tabernacle, as Josephus says, lib. III Antiq., cap. IV, was as it were a mobile or portable temple of the Hebrews wandering through the desert and tending toward Chanaan, and was as it were the house of God in which the Hebrews worshipped God, and in turn were ruled and protected by God as if dwelling among them; and so through this tabernacle of theirs God signifies that He is the shelter and protector of the Hebrews. Whence David, speaking of the temple, which succeeded the tabernacle, Psal. XXVI, vers. 4: "That I may visit," he says, "his temple, because he hath hidden me in his tabernacle, in the day of evils he hath protected me in the secret place of his tabernacle." Note: Symbolically the tabernacle represented the whole world, which is as it were the house and palace of God, so that it might be signified that the pontiff is the minister of God the creator, who prays to the creator in this tabernacle of his for every creature and the whole world and intercedes. Whence the tabernacle was woven and constructed from fine linen, purple, hyacinth and scarlet as it were from four elements. For fine linen signifies the earth, because it is produced from the earth. Hyacinth the air, because it is of an airy color. Purple the sea, because the purple cloth is dyed and made purple with the blood of a shell-fish, or sea fish, which is called purple. Scarlet, because it is of a fiery color, represents fire and the aether. Thus from Philo, Josephus and others, St. Jerome to Fabiola, On the Vestments of the Priest. Note thirdly: This tabernacle and temple allegorically signified the body of Christ, as is evident John II, 19: "Destroy," he says, "this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Which explaining, vers. 21, he says: "But he (Christ) spoke of the temple of his body." Whence Cyril, lib. IV in John, cap. XXVIII, adapts both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the tabernacle beautifully to Christ: "Christ," he says, "although he is one, is nevertheless understood by us in many ways. He himself is the tabernacle on account of the covering of flesh; he himself is the ark containing the law of God hidden, because he is the Word of the Father; he himself is the table, because he is our food and life; he himself is the candlestick, because he is the spiritual light; he himself is the altar of incense, because he is the odor of sweetness in sanctification; he himself is the altar of holocaust, because he is the victim offered for the life of the whole world on the cross." And what follows. Again the tabernacle allegorically signified the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, and that most aptly: for the first or anterior part, which was called the Holy, signified the Church militant, which is the tabernacle and house of God, I Timoth. III, 15: this through a veil, that is, through faith and obscurely, contemplates God on earth: in this Aaron, that is, the high priest, is Christ. From this one goes into the second part of the tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies, that is, into heaven, which is the house of God's glory and the eternal home of the Blessed. Fourthly, tropologically the tabernacle signified the soul, which through penance, charity and other virtues becomes the tabernacle and temple of God, as I said I Cor. III, 16. In which (the first tabernacle, that is the Holy) were candlesticks, and a table, and the proposition of loaves, which is called Holy. — As if to say: In the Holy, on the right side was the candlestick, on the left the table of the loaves of proposition, in the middle the altar of incense. You will say: In the tabernacle there was only one candlestick, how therefore does the Apostle here place many candlesticks in it? Primasius and Haymo answer that the Apostle speaks not of the tabernacle of Moses, but of the temple of Solomon, in which there were many, namely ten, candlesticks. But that the Apostle speaks of the tabernacle is evident from his own words both in this chapter and in the preceding ones, in which he always named the tabernacle, never the temple. For he compares Christ not with Solomon and Sadoc, but with Moses and Aaron. I say therefore that there was indeed one candlestick in the tabernacle, yet it is called "candlesticks," because it was seven-branched: for it was composed of seven branches and lamps, which are here called candlesticks. Whence in Greek it is "hē lychnia": by which name the Septuagint calls this Mosaic candlestick, Exodus cap. XXV, 31; thus also the Syriac has "menareta," that is, candlestick in the singular. Note: This candlestick was on the southern or right side of the tabernacle, because it represented the midday sun, as it were the light and eye of the world; or rather, as Philo teaches in Book III of the Life of Moses, and Josephus in Book III of the Antiquities, chapter VIII, the candlestick, being sevenfold, was an image of the celestial sphere with seven lights, or the seven planets, among which the sun in the middle shines more brightly than the rest. Tropologically, the candlestick signifies Christ or rather the Church of Christ, insofar as it is the light and teacher of truth; that is, to speak properly, it signified the very faith and doctrine of the Church. For thus it is expounded by St. John, Apocalypse chapter I, last verse: "The seven candlesticks," he says, "are seven Churches," namely insofar as by their faith and doctrine they shine forth to all Asia. And the table, and the setting forth of loaves. — That is, the loaves set forth on the table, or the table of the loaves set forth. It is a hendiadys and a Hebraism, by which an abstract noun is put for a concrete one. Note: The loaves of proposition are called the loaves which were set forth fresh every sabbath, or were placed on the table before the Lord, that is before the ark of the Lord, in which God exhibited His presence. Whence in Hebrew they are called "lechem panim," that is, loaves of the face; the Septuagint translates it "artous enōpious," that is, loaves of the face, because they were set forth before the face of God. Secondly, these loaves were twelve, according to the twelve tribes of Israel, so that each as it were gave its own loaf to God. By this ceremony the twelve tribes testified that they were continually nourished by God, and that they received the crops and fruits from which they made loaves; and by this grateful offering of the Hebrews, God in turn signified that He remembered them, and held them as it were always as a memorial before Him, and would always bestow upon them crops and loaves. Hence thirdly, they placed frankincense upon these loaves, as is said in Leviticus XXIII, 7, by which they signified that they owed all good things and fruits to God, and that they referred all things to Him and rendered them to Him. For frankincense signified that these loaves were God's, and offered and consecrated to God. The Chaldean and the Septuagint add, in Exodus XXV, 30, and Philo in Book III of the Life of Moses, that the Hebrews placed salt upon these loaves. For salt seasons all foods on the table and makes them more savory, and is as it were the relish of bread, if nothing else is present. For in Leviticus II, 13, it is thus commanded: "In all thy oblations thou shalt offer salt." For this was God's table, at which God as it were feasted with the Hebrews. Allegorically, the table of the loaves of proposition signified the table of the body and blood of Christ, as Cyril teaches in the 4th Catechesis on the Mysteries, and Jerome in the commentary on Malachi I, and John of Damascus in Book IV on the Faith, chapter XIV. Tropologically, moreover, this table of loaves represents the works of mercy, says Bede, by which we approach the Holy of Holies, that is heaven. Whence these loaves are before the Lord, and frankincense is placed upon them, so that it may be signified that these works ought to be done, not by seeking vain glory or empty reputation, but by the regard of God alone, namely with this end, that we please God alone, and offer to Him this sacrifice of almsgiving and charity. Which is called Holy. — In Greek "hētis legetai hagia." Where "hētis," that is which, refers not to the table, nor to the setting forth of loaves, but to "skēnē," that is the tabernacle, as if to say: That, namely the first tabernacle, is called Holy, and, as the Syrian translates it, a holy dwelling, just as the second tabernacle, or the second part of the tabernacle, is called the Holy of Holies. Where note, there is here a Grecism and a Hebraism; for our Interpreter Grecizes, while imitating the feminine gender, which was in the Greek, saying "which," not "that": because the Greek "skēnē," that is tabernacle, is feminine, as also its relative "hētis," that is which. Thus our Interpreter Grecizes in Apocalypse XI, 4, when he thus translates: "These (two witnesses, namely Elias and Henoch) are two olive trees, and two candlesticks standing in the sight of the Lord of the earth," that is "standing": for in Greek it is "lychniai hestōsai," as if to say: Lamps standing. Thus also he Grecizes in Psalm LXXIV, 9, and elsewhere. It is a Hebraism, when he calls the holy "holy" in the plural number: for the Hebrews use the plural for amplification. "Holy" therefore, that is eminently and notably holy. That "holy" here is plural is evident from the Greek: for in Greek it is not "hagia" with the accent on the penultimate, that is holy in the singular number, but "hagia" with the accent on the antepenultimate, that is, holy in the plural. For to these he opposes "hagia hagiōn," that is, Holy of Holies, as if to say: Most holy places. Thus Chrysostom and Theodoret.
9:3
Note that the word "second" does not refer to "tabernacle," but to "veil." For the Greek word "deuteron," being neuter, refers to "katapetasma," that is, the veil, not to the feminine "skēnē," that is, the tabernacle. Whence note secondly: In the tabernacle there was a double veil: the first before the doors of the Holy Place, the second before the doors of the Holy of Holies, separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Both veils were woven with embroidered work of hyacinth, purple, fine linen twisted, and scarlet twice dyed, Exodus chapter XXVI, verses 31 and 36. Note thirdly: The second part of the tabernacle was called "Holy of Holies," in Hebrew "qodes haqqodashim," that is, holiness of holinesses, that is, most holy; thus in Hebrew is said "song of songs," that is, the most beautiful song; "vanity of vanities," that is, the greatest and most extreme vanity; "virgin of virgins," that is, a virgin most excellent and most pure. For the second or inner part of the tabernacle was as it were the choir of the temple containing the ark, the mercy seat and the Cherubim, as it were the throne of God, from which God gave responses and oracles: for this reason it is called "holiness of holinesses," or "Holy of Holies," or "Holy of Holies," that is, most holy or most sacred temple, or tabernacle.
9:4
You may ask, what is this censer of the Holy of Holies? Lyra, St. Thomas, Anselm, Galen here, Viegas in the Apocalypse VIII, page 385, and Villalpando in the fabric of the temple, take it to be a censer properly so called. But from Exodus chapter XXV, and Leviticus XVI, and III Kings chapter VI, in which places the entire fabric of the temple and tabernacle is described exactly, it is clear that in the Holy of Holies, whether of the temple or of the tabernacle, there was no censer; but only the ark, the mercy seat, and the Cherubim. Some answer that this censer was that one with which the high priest, fumigating, entered the Holy of Holies once a year, on the day of expiation, Leviticus XVI. For although the high priest took this censer outside the Holy of Holies, nevertheless entering the Holy of Holies, it seems he left it there for the whole year; and after a year, when he again entered the Holy of Holies on the day of expiation with another censer, it seems he brought out the first censer, and afterwards, with the one by which he entered, he left it there again. But this seems to be said gratuitously and without foundation: for Scripture has nothing of the sort, indeed it sufficiently indicates that the high priest, just as he entered with the censer into the Holy of Holies, so he departed with the same one. For the high priest was commanded to enter the Holy of Holies with the censer and fumigation for this reason alone, namely that the vapor of this fumigation would cover the ark and the mercy seat, which was as it were the throne of God, lest God be seen by the high priest, that is, the angel in the place of God by an assumed body sitting on this throne and giving oracles. For God demanded this reverence from the high priest under penalty of death, as is clear from Leviticus XVI, 13. But for this it was not necessary for the high priest, when departing from the Holy of Holies, to leave his censer there throughout the whole year. Add that it would have been unseemly and sordid to leave in the most holy part of the temple before God throughout the whole year a censer that had evaporated, with ash and filth. I say therefore with Origen, homily 9 in Exodus, Abulensis in Exodus XXV, Ribera and others, that this censer is the altar of incense. For this altar was as it were a great censer: for it was hollow and contained only fire, by which aromatics were burned and offered to the Lord, just as is done in a censer. This opinion is proved first, because St. Paul here does not mention the altar of incense, although he has mentioned the table and the candlestick, between which this altar was placed; therefore he understood it by this censer. For why would he pass over this one altar so excellent, when he expresses all the other vessels both of the Holy Place and of the Holy of Holies here? Second, for "censer" in Greek it is "thymiatērion," that is a fumigatory, whether this be an altar or a censer; whence this altar of incense by Josephus, book III of Antiquities, chapter VIII, is called "thymiatērion," that is, a fumigatory altar. You will say: If the Holy of Holies had this altar of incense, therefore this altar was not in the Holy Place, but in the Holy of Holies. Oecumenius and St. Augustine, Questions CXIII in Exodus, admit the consequence, and thus think. But the contrary, namely that this altar was in the Holy Place, not however in the Holy of Holies, is clear from Exodus chapter XL, verse 24, as I have demonstrated there. I answer therefore, denying the consequence, for there are various modes of having. For just as the head is said to have a neck, a house to have an atrium, a city to have ditches, a temple to have a cemetery, not in itself, but before itself: so also the Holy of Holies had this altar, not in itself, but before itself. For this altar was next to and directly facing the Holy of Holies, so that from this altar smoke through a space left empty above would penetrate and enter the Holy of Holies itself. For since the Hebrews ought to worship and honor God in the Holy of Holies as residing there especially, and yet they could not do this in the Holy of Holies itself, since on account of reverence none but the high priest could enter it, and that only once a year: for this reason God ordained and commanded this altar of incense to be made outside the Holy of Holies in the Holy Place, which would be directly facing the Holy of Holies, so that in it, burning incense daily, by its fumigation they would continually honor and venerate God residing in the Holy of Holies. Hence this altar was said to be of the oracle or of the Holy of Holies, because namely it was facing the oracle, and its use was no other than to burn incense to God residing in the oracle. Subtly therefore Paul here says that the Holy of Holies had this altar of incense, for the reason and sense already stated. Finally note that this altar was made of Shittim wood, which is incorruptible and imperishable; yet it is said to be golden, because it was clothed and covered with gold all around. And the ark of the covenant. — The ark is called the ark of the covenant, or of the compact, because it contained the tablets of the law, which was the condition of the covenant between God and the Hebrews: hence it is also called the ark of testimony, that is, of the law, which is a witness to the divine will, or what God wishes to be done by us. In which a golden urn having manna, and the rod of Aaron which had budded, and the tables of the covenant. — "Of the covenant," that is, of the law. For the law is called by metonymy a covenant, because, as I have already said, it was the condition of the covenant, that is, of the compact made between God and the people. You will say, in III Kings VIII, 9, it is said that in the ark there were only the two stone tablets of Moses: how then does St. Paul here say that besides the tablets there were also in the ark the rod of Aaron and an urn with manna? On account of this contradiction, as I said at the beginning of the epistle, the faith and authority of this epistle was suspect to some. Chrysostom and Theophylactus respond first that in the time of Moses there were only the tablets of the law in the ark, but afterwards by Jeremiah the urn with manna and the rod of Aaron were also placed in the ark: namely, so that they might be better preserved in it, and that Paul received this by tradition from Gamaliel. But Paul here speaks not of the time of Jeremiah, but of Moses and his tabernacle; and he asserts that all these things were in the ark in the time of the tabernacle of Moses. Second, Catharinus responds that in the time of Moses all these things were in the ark, but in the time of Solomon only the stone tablets. But this too seems fabricated; indeed, sacred Scripture hints, and Josephus clearly signifies in lib. III, cap. VI, and Philo in lib. III De Vita Mosis, that in the time of Moses only the tablets of the law were in the ark. Third, Ribera thus explains it: "in which," namely not the ark, but "skēnē," that is, the tabernacle, so that it be a Hebraism similar to that of which I spoke in verse 2; for the Apostle here enumerates all the vessels which were in the Holy of Holies, as in verse 2 he enumerates all which were in the Holy place. But this is opposed by what follows: "And above it were the Cherubim": where the pronoun "it" plainly seems to refer to the ark. For above the ark were the Cherubim, and consequently the pronoun "which" here should be considered to refer to the same ark, as if to say: In the ark were the tablets, the urn and the rod, but above the ark were the Cherubim. I say therefore that the preposition "in" here is taken broadly in the Hebrew manner and embraces both those things which were properly in the ark, as were the tablets of the law, and those things which were beside the ark, as were the urn and the rod. For just as there are various modes of having, as I said above, so also are there various modes of existing in: thus the Hebrews say we have shoes on our feet, that is, beside or around our feet. Thus Christ is said to have suffered "in Jerusalem," when he suffered beside it. Thus we commonly say that something happened "in Rome, in Antwerp, in Venice," which happened beside those cities. The same therefore Paul here wishes to say of the urn and rod, which Moses says of the book of Deuteronomy, Deut. XXXI, 26: "Take," he says, "this book, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant." Just as therefore the book of Deuteronomy was placed not in the ark, but in the side of the ark: so also the urn and rod were placed there, and it can rightly be said that all these things were placed in the ark, that is, in the side of the ark. Whence it is probable that all these things were not placed on the floor (for this would have been unseemly), but in some board or box attached to the ark, as Lyra, Cajetan, Canus in lib. II De Locis, cap. XI; Bellarmine in tom. I, lib. I, cap. XVII, think. Paul therefore says that all these things (namely the urn, the rod and the tablets of the law) were in the ark, that is, were placed on the ground in the ark, or beside the ark, so that above the ark the Cherubim would stand out in the urn. And this is what the Lord commanded Moses, and Moses Aaron, concerning the manna, saying in Exodus XVI, 33: "Lay it up before the Lord." He does not say, in the ark, but before the Lord, that is, before the ark and the mercy seat, in which as in his throne the Lord dwells.
9:5
Note: They are called "Cherubim of glory," that is, glorious and august. For the Cherubim were golden effigies, in the appearance of a winged and beardless youth; so that by this appearance they might represent the vigor, liveliness and eternity of the angels, who are as it were princes always attending and standing before God: just as for the same reason emperors were formerly painted beardless, as if they were certain earthly gods, who would never grow old. Hence they are called "Cherubim," not from the Chaldean "rub" or "rabia," that is, boy, as if Cherub were the same as "kerub," that is, as it were boy, as R. Kimchi wishes. For it is certain that "Cherubim" is not a Chaldean, but a Hebrew name. But they are called "Cherubim" from a multitude of strength, glory, knowledge and wisdom, as St. Dionysius teaches, chapter VII of the Celestial Hierarchy, and from him St. Jerome, and commonly others, from the root "nachar" and "rab," that is, he knew or knew much: or rather and more simply from "ke" and "rab," that is, like rabbi, wise, powerful, honored and glorious; for "rab" or "rabbi" signifies a great man, who excels in wealth, strength, knowledge and glory. Whence concerning the king of Tyre it is said in Ezekiel 28:14: "Thou, the Cherub extended," that is, O king of Tyre, who art a glorious rab, like the Cherubim, and who with the wings of thy power and dominion extended dost protect many subject peoples, just as the Cherubim protect the ark and the mercy seat. The name Cherub also alludes by metathesis to the root "kabbir," that is, manifold, namely in knowledge, strength, form and figure. For the Cherubim had four faces, as I said regarding Ezekiel 1. Overshadowing the mercy seat.—"Overshadowing," that is, overshadowing: for Cherubim in Hebrew is masculine; the Apostle, however, says in the neuter "overshadowing," because he understands the very images or effigies of the Angels. Others add that the Greeks use all Hebrew words as if barbarous, although they are masculine, yet in the neuter gender. Thus in Isaiah 6:6, one Seraph by the Septuagint is called "hen tōn Seraphim," that is, one of the Seraphim. Thus in the Canon of the Mass they are called "blessed Seraphim," blessed, that is, blessed ones. But it is very probable that Cherubim and Seraphim are used in the neuter gender, as if they were certain animals, as Josephus says, because the Cherubim had the appearance of four animals, namely the wings of an eagle, the manes of a lion, the hoof of a calf, and other members of a man, as I said in Ezekiel 1, by which besides other things which I have mentioned in Exodus chapter 25 and Ezekiel 1, it was signified that angels lack sex, are neither female nor male, but neuter, and their appearance and nature are unknown to us. Note first: The ark of the covenant was like a small square chest, and it was made of acacia wood covered with gold; the mercy seat, however, was the very cover of the ark, raised high above the ark, made not of acacia wood, but of solid gold. It was called the mercy seat from the fact that God, being entreated there, showed himself placated and propitious. For from the mercy seat the Angel bearing the person of God would answer vocally to Moses and the people asking, and would give oracles. Whence the mercy seat itself was also called an oracle. This mercy seat two Cherubim proceeding from it themselves sustained with their wings as if with hands over the ark, so high that this cover or mercy seat was as it were the seat of God, and the ark was the footstool of his feet. Whence in Psalm 98 it is said: "Adore the footstool of his feet," that is, adore the ark, fall down before the ark, and consequently before God, in that manner, namely, in which Christians fall down before images, and in them worship and venerate God and the Saints, whom the images represent. Again, these Cherubim with expanded wings overshadowed, that is, veiled, the mercy seat, and thus exhibited a certain appearance of a chariot. This appears more clearly in a similar appearance shown in Ezekiel chapter 1, in which he saw the chariot of the glory of God, which was attended and driven by four Cherubim, which is therefore called the chariot and quadriga of the Cherubim. Hence the name cherub, by metathesis, alludes to the Hebrew "rocheb," that is, riding, that is, prince, ruler and governor. For these were formerly carried in horses; and just as we rule a horse by reins, so they govern their people by laws: such are the Angels, as being rulers of the world. Again, cherub alludes to the Hebrew "recheb," that is, chariot: for a prince as it were carries the burdens of the state as a chariot. Thus Elias is called "the chariot of Israel and the charioteer thereof," IV Kings chapter 2, verse 12. Hence note secondly: Paul here alludes to this chariot of the Cherubim, and of the glory of God, shown to Ezekiel in chapter 1. For the Angels are as it were a royal, warlike, glorious and triumphal chariot, by which God is carried, and by which He rules, commands, sustains and governs the whole world. For this reason in the time of Moses, when God dwelt in the tabernacle, as if setting forth and leading His people with armed hand through the midst of enemies into Chanaan, God was said to be carried and to ride upon the Cherubim; but after God had placed His people in Chanaan, and dwelt with them peacefully in the temple, God was said to sit upon the Cherubim, because, as I have already said, the Cherubim sustaining the propitiatory, as it were the seat of God, exhibited a certain appearance of a chariot-throne. Hence note thirdly: By this phrase, in which God is said to be carried and to sit upon the Cherubim, it is signified first, that God far transcends the most wise angelic spirits in knowledge, and as it were treads them under His feet. For Scripture is wont to commend the power and wisdom of God especially from the fact that He is the God of hosts, namely of the Angelic hosts, that thousands of thousands minister unto Him, that He maketh His Angels spirits, etc. Again, the two Cherubim in the Holy of Holies, which with faces turned toward each other always looked at one another, signified that God would show Himself to be seen by the blessed, both Angels and men, burning with the greatest mutual charity (which is signified by the pair, and by faces turned toward each other), and by this glorious vision of Himself would make them blessed. Finally, that I may assign a brief allegory, tropology and anagogy of all these things, the Holy Place is allegorically the Church of Christ herself militant on earth. In the Holy Place there are these three things: first, the candlestick, that is, faith and Christian doctrine; secondly, the table of loaves, that is, hope and the provision of the nourishment of the Eucharist, grace and beatitude; thirdly, the altar of incense, that is, the ardor of charity. Again, by these three things three good works can be understood. For the altar is prayer, the table is almsgiving, the candlestick is fasting, which purifies and illuminates the mind. Finally, some quite aptly accommodate these three things to religious vows, so that the altar is obedience, the table is poverty, which offers itself and its possessions to God as it were on a table, and in turn is nourished by God, not by man, but by God Himself as it were at His table, by His care and expense; the candlestick is chastity, of which it is said: "O how beautiful is a chaste generation with glory!" Anagogically, the Holy of Holies is heaven, in which is the ark of the covenant, that is, the Church of the Blessed, and the golden propitiatory, that is, the glorious humanity of Christ, finally the Cherubim, that is, the holy Angels: in these the glorious God and the Most Holy Trinity, which is invisible to us here, shines forth and is seated, and shows Himself to be seen clearly by all the blessed, both Angels and men in heaven, and thus, as I have said, makes them blessed. Thus the Venerable Bede in chapter 25 of Exodus, and others.
9:6
"These things being thus prepared" — that is, these things being thus prepared, made and arranged: for this is the Greek "kateskeuasmenōn" — "into the first tabernacle the priests went always (that is, daily), accomplishing the offices of sacrifices." You will say: Sacrifices were immolated outside and before the tabernacle in the courtyard under the open sky, so that the smoke and odor of the burnt victims might be scattered into the air; otherwise indeed there would have been an intolerable stench, if all these victims had been burned in the Holy Place, or in the tabernacle enclosed on all sides: how therefore does Paul here say that these sacrifices were accomplished in the tabernacle itself? Ribera responds that Paul takes tabernacle to mean also the neighboring courtyard, in which was the altar of holocausts. But because Paul mentions neither the courtyard nor the altar of holocausts, but only the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, it can be answered more conveniently that for "offices of sacrifices," the Greek is "latreias," that is, ceremonies, worship and sacred rites: whence the Syriac translator rendered it "tesmestehun," that is, their ministry. Now it is established that ceremonies and sacred rites were accustomed to be performed in the Holy Place, and these were threefold according to the three vessels and instruments of the Holy Place. First indeed, the priests had daily to adorn the candlestick, lighting, extinguishing, purifying and arranging its lamps. Second, on each sabbath they had to place new loaves of proposition on the table. Third, on the altar of incense both morning and evening after the continual sacrifice was completed they burned incense, which incense-offering and oblation of incense is properly called and is a sacrifice, equally as "mincha," or a sacrifice of bread or grain, which was burned and offered to God, Leviticus II. This oblation of incense therefore (which Paul properly refers to here, for this was the completion and conclusion of all the sacrifices of the whole day) our Interpreter calls here a sacrifice, or rather a completion of sacrifices. Thus Moses says in Numbers XVI: "Respect not their sacrifices," that is, respect not the incensing, which they offer and burn in their censers, Core, Dathan and Abiron. Add that, although the victims of sacrifices were immolated outside the Holy Place in the courtyard, yet the blood of the immolated victims was afterwards brought into the Holy Place, as happened in the victim of the calf for the sin of the people immolated, concerning which Leviticus IV, 16 thus has it: "And when the calf is immolated in the sight of the Lord, the priest who is anointed shall bring of its blood into the tabernacle of the testimony, sprinkling with his finger seven times against the veil (of the Holy of Holies, in which God dwells, so that it may be signified to the Lord that this blood is sprinkled and offered for sin), and he shall put some of the same on the horns of the altar, which is before the Lord in the tabernacle of the testimony."
9:7
Note: The Holy of Holies, because it was a type of the throne of God in heaven, was so holy and venerable to the Hebrews that no one could enter into it except the high priest alone, and that not except with many ceremonies, and once only in the year, namely on the day of expiation, when indeed the sins of the whole people committed throughout the year were expiated by the blood of the victims. Note secondly: From the fact that Paul says, "for his own and the people's ignorance," Oecumenius thinks that on the day of expiation, the high priest entering the Holy of Holies, only the sins of the people committed through ignorance were expiated and forgiven. But this is contrary to Leviticus XVI, 30: "On this day," it says, "there shall be an expiation for you, and a cleansing from all your sins." Whence also on the same day the high priest took a goat, and laying his hands on its head, he imprecated upon it the sins of the whole people, and then through a certain man sent it forth into the desert, there to be devoured by beasts. Hence this goat or he-goat was called the Scapegoat. Therefore St. Thomas, Anselm and others more rightly understand by "ignorance" any sin whatsoever. For, as the Wise Man says, Proverbs XIV, 22: "They err who work evil"; and Aristotle, book III of the Ethics: "Every wicked man is ignorant"; for there is always some ignorance, not speculative but practical, that is, some lack of consideration or imprudence, joined with sin. Hence Scripture often calls sin "ignorance," as Psalm XXIV, 7: "Remember not my ignorances." Thus Wisdom V, 7, the wicked say: "But the way of the Lord we knew not." And in this epistle chapter V, verse 2, Paul says of Christ: "Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and err."
9:8
He calls "the way of the saints" the way, access and entrance into the Holy of Holies, that is to say, The Jews could not enter into the Holy of Holies except the high priest alone, and that once a year, namely on the day of expiation; so that by this the Holy Spirit might signify that the way and access into heaven, which was represented by the Jewish Holy of Holies, had not yet been made open, and that it was to be made open through Christ. First therefore, just as the Holy of Holies was a type of heaven and of blessed heavenly life, so the Holy was a type of the present life through which we tend toward heaven. Second, the Aaronic priests, who were barred from the Holy of Holies, and yet ministered in the Holy, signified that by their sacrifices they could not open the way into the Holy of Holies, that is into heaven, and therefore the way of heaven was not to be opened so long as this tabernacle, namely the Holy, and its law and ceremonies stood and endured. Third, the high priest entering once with blood into the Holy of Holies signified Christ entering through his own blood and opening heaven for us. Whence when Christ died on the cross the veil of the temple was torn, Matt. XXVII, 51, by which it was indicated that heaven, previously veiled, closed and impassable to us, was to be opened and made accessible through the death of Christ. Thus Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Anselm, Primasius and Oecumenius.
9:9
The Greek "hētis," that is "which," Theophylactus refers to "skēnē," that is the tabernacle, that is to say, that the tabernacle was a parable and type of the present time. But whether you translate "which" or "that," the same syntax, meaning and sense holds in Latin. For the pronoun "which" can accord with Latin syntax with the following word "parable," even though it refers back to and regards the tabernacle which preceded. Second, by "parable" the Apostle here understands a type and exemplar; otherwise properly a parable is of words and sentences, while a type and exemplar is of things. The things therefore of the old tabernacle, which were types of things, not so much future as present, under the law of Moses, he calls here a parable. Third, for "is," you translate more clearly "was" or "had been." Again, by "present time" some with the Gloss between the lines understand the present time of grace, of Christ and of Christianity. But far more correctly with Chrysostom and others, you should understand by "present time," the time of the old law, which, while the tabernacle was being built by Moses, was pressing upon and beginning, and thus was inchoately present. Whence Chrysostom and the Syrian understand by "present time" the present time not of the Church and Christ, but of the tabernacle and Moses. Thus in I Cor. VII, 26, the Apostle called "pressing necessity" present necessity, that is to say, That construction and setting up of the old first tabernacle, that is the Holy, and the entrance of priests into it, their ministry and occupation, were a parable, that is a type and representation, of those things which throughout the whole time of the old law, which was then pressing and imminent; and thus was beginning, were to be: namely, it signified that throughout the whole time of the law in the Holy the Aaronic priests were to be occupied about the victims of beasts, incense, loaves and lamps, and never were to open the way into the Holy of Holies, that is into heaven; nor were to enter it. Whence the Apostle, explaining this very thing, adds: According to which gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot according to conscience make perfect the one serving. — For "according to which" in Greek is "kath' hon," that is "according to which," namely the present time of the old law. Now "kath' hon" is the same as "en hō," that is "according to which," which is the same as "in which," namely in the time of the old law. Our Interpreter, however, seems to have read "kath' hēn," that is "according to which," namely the parable, that is to say, This parable or type of the tabernacle is similar, and as it were equally corresponds to the gifts and sacrifices which were offered in this tabernacle. For just as from the first tabernacle one could not go to the second, that is, from the Holy no layman or even priest could enter the Holy of Holies: so the sacrifices of that time could not expiate conscience, and lead man to heaven. Note, "according to conscience," that is "in conscience," that is to say, The legal sacrifices could purge the body, but could not expiate and sanctify the soul and conscience. Second, for "serving" in Greek is "latreuonta," that is "worshipping," he namely who, offering those sacrifices to God, worshipped God by them, and served God.
9:10
The sentence is suspended and incomplete in our text; but in the Greek it is complete and perfect: for in Greek instead of "impositis" there is "epikeimena," that is "imposed," namely gifts or offerings and sacrifices, as if to say: These sacrifices, these offerings did not expiate the conscience, but were only imposed for purifying the flesh, until Christ should come, who would institute sacrifices and sacraments that expiate the soul. Thus Chrysostom. But the Latins consistently read "impositis," which cannot be referred to the offerings. Whence Francis Ribera takes the preposition "in" for "with," so that "in foods" is the same as "with foods," and thinks this whole verse should be referred to the preceding, so that the sense is: Offerings and sacrifices cannot make the perfect man only with foods, drinks, etc., as if to say: The offerings themselves are weak by themselves, nor have they anything whence they might receive virtue, because the other things which are prescribed in the law pertain for the most part to the uses of foods, drinks, and various oblations, which since they are corporeal, cannot purge the soul. But more plainly and aptly, this verse should be referred to the "one serving," as if to say: Legal offerings and sacrifices cannot expiate and make perfect the one serving, that is, him who serves God and worships God, not in spirit and internal piety of mind, but only in foods, drinks, and other justices of the flesh, that is, sacraments and sacrifices, which justify and cleanse not the conscience and mind, but only the body and flesh from uncleanness, that is, from corporeal uncleanness and legal and political irregularity, which rendered men thus unclean excluded from the temple and the society of men. You will say: The Jews did not serve God only in foods, drinks, and baptisms, but also in the observance of the Decalogue and of precepts both moral and judicial. I answer: This is true, but the Apostle here by "one serving" understands one worshiping God. This servitude therefore was not situated in the observance of moral and judicial precepts, but only of ceremonial ones. For in these consisted the servitude of God, the worship, and, as it is in Greek, latria. You will say secondly: The Jews did not serve God only in foods and drinks and other external ceremonies, but also in internal faith, hope, and charity. I answer: There were some, such as David, Samuel, and other Prophets, who did this; but they did not do it by virtue of the law and Judaism, but by virtue and grace of Christ, or the Messiah to come, in whom they believed and hoped, and by that reason they belonged to the New Testament, and so were children not so much of the Old as of the New Testament, as St. Augustine teaches at length, book III Against Two Letters of Pelagius, chapter IV. For Judaism, as it is pure and insofar as it is Judaism, and excludes the law of nature (which dictates internal direction and worship of God), prescribed to the Jews only, and directed and compelled them to external worship of God, so that they might worship God rightly with external ceremonies prescribed by the law of God: but it did not dictate to them internal piety and spirit, much less did Judaism breathe it upon them, but only the faith and grace of Christ. In foods and in drinks. — Unclean and forbidden foods were swine and all animals which do not chew the cud or do not divide the hoof, as I said in Leviticus XI. But drink by itself and commonly was forbidden to no one as unclean, as Chrysostom notes; by accident, however, and to certain persons, for example, it was forbidden to Nazarites to drink wine and strong drink, as also it was forbidden to priests entering the tabernacle to drink wine. Again, if something unclean, namely a carcass, should touch some clean vessel, the vessel and all liquid contained in the vessel was unclean and to be cast away, as is prescribed in Leviticus XI, 32 and 33. Until the time of correction — that is, until the time of the coming of Christ, who was to correct those legal and carnal rites, and with them abolished, was to introduce in their place spiritual worship of God, so that we might worship God in spirit and truth, and thus truly be justified in conscience and be saved. Thus the morals of youth are said to be corrected, not so that they might remain, but so that they might be taken away and changed into better and more serious ones. Thus Theophylactus. Everywhere here the Apostle pricks the old law, and accuses it of weakness and defect, so that it might become vile to the Hebrews, and so that they might not wonder that God took away the law given by him, since he wished it to stand and endure only until the time of Christ.
9:11
Up to this point the Apostle has explained the construction of the tabernacle, the high priest, the victims and the ceremonies, as it were shadows and types of Christ; now he explains their allegory through comparison, and teaches that Christ was foreshadowed in all these things, and that he has exhibited all these things far more nobly and excellently, since he himself once entered the Holy of Holies, that is heaven, through his own blood, and there he remains, as it were our eternal high priest. But Christ standing — namely before the Father in heaven; for Christ after his ascension into heaven always stands before the Father, as it were our advocate, to intercede for us, that he might obtain future goods for us, as Anselmus says; for throughout this entire passage the Apostle urges the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies, so that from this type he might prove that Christ, foreshadowed by the old high priest, entered heaven, to stand before the Father as our high priest, that he might always "appear before the face of God for us," as he himself says in verse 24. But because in Greek it is not τῷ "Patri," but simply "paraginomenos," that is, "made" or "coming," hence "standing" seems to be the same as "approaching," or rather, "after he came and approached and became high priest": for "paragenomenos" is an aorist, which our Interpreter, in order to express it in Latin as much as possible, aptly translated as "standing," that is existing, now standing, and to the tabernacle, that is the Church, standing by and ministering as high priest: and this aptly coheres with what follows, "he entered into the Holy places." For otherwise properly "to enter" the Holy places cannot he who already stands in them. The Apostle therefore signifies here that Christ approaching and coming into the world and flesh, was made and born high priest, so that through blood he might enter into the Holy places, and find for us eternal redemption, as if to say: Christ when he came into his tabernacle, that is the Church, and stood in it as high priest of future goods, did not remain there, as the Aaronic high priests did, who ministered in the Holy place almost the whole year: for Christ penetrated from the Holy place into the Holy of Holies, and opened it to all of us. High priest of future goods — so that by his prayer and sacrifice he might merit and obtain future goods for us. Note first: The Apostle opposes future goods to the present time or the time of the law, for example; he therefore calls them future with respect to the law, as if to say: The law had Aaron and his high priests, who obtained for us present and earthly goods, but they were not able to obtain for us spiritual and heavenly goods; but these goods, as it were future and to be expected from Christ the high priest, they demonstrated. Hence secondly, he calls future goods the remission of sins, grace, virtues, and finally eternal glory and all the gifts and goods both of soul and body, which we await in heaven: for these are properly future and are so called. Through a greater and more perfect tabernacle. — as if to say: The high priest about to enter the Holy of Holies passed through the first tabernacle, that is through the Holy place: but Christ through a greater, in Greek "meizonos," that is greater, more perfect and more august tabernacle, or Holy place passed through, so that he might enter the Holy of Holies, that is heaven. You ask, what is this more perfect and more excellent tabernacle through which Christ passed? First, St. Thomas and Anselmus answer that it is the lower heavens, through which one passes to the empyrean heaven. Second, Catharinus answers that it is the Blessed Virgin, through whom Christ passed into this world. Third, Theodoretus, Primasius and Haymo answer that it is the human nature of Christ, through which the Deity of the Word passed, as it were, in this world. Fourth, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Oecumenius and Ribera answer that it is the body and flesh of Christ. For this is the "greater tabernacle," because in it God dwells and inhabits, the Word and all the fullness of the Holy Spirit; and it is "more perfect," because it does greater things than the old Mosaic tabernacle, and sanctifies and saves those who approach it. This tabernacle "is not made by hands, nor of this creation," because the flesh of Christ was conceived and formed not by human work, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. And just as the high priest trod upon the first tabernacle, so that he might enter the second, so Christ as it were trod upon his flesh, when he delivered it to the hands of the wicked to be torn apart; and thus through this tabernacle, namely his body, that is through the oblation of his body, and, as the Apostle explaining adds, "through his blood," he entered into the Holy places. This exposition seems sufficiently probable; but it does not stand in the way of the fact that the Apostle does not oppose the blood and flesh of Christ to that old shadowy tabernacle, but to the blood and flesh of goats and calves, which were sacrificed in the old tabernacle; for he says: "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood once entered into the Holy Places." And indeed the very nature of things itself demands this, according to which the flesh and blood of Christ are not rightly represented by the tabernacle, but rightly by the blood and flesh of the victims, when they are compared with it and opposed to it as antitype to its type. We must therefore seek another tabernacle, in which Christ offered himself and his sacrifice, just as the Aaronic priests in their tabernacle offered their goats and calves. Second, it cannot be said with sufficient propriety that Christ passed through his body, as it were through a tabernacle, into heaven, since he did not pass through by his body, but remained in it, and thus carried it with him into the heavens: for everywhere the body was with Christ, and Christ with his body passed through. Again, the tabernacle which was called the Holy Place could not be brought in and enter into the Holy of Holies itself; but the flesh of Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven: therefore the flesh of Christ could not be represented by the tabernacle which is called the Holy Place, in the present figure and type, by which it is said that the high priest passing through the Holy Place and entering the Holy of Holies represented Christ passing through his tabernacle into heaven: for in this the Apostle places and founds his likeness and allegory; and therefore all things which exist in this type must be aptly applied to the antitype, and must correspond with a certain analogy and proportion: for this is required in order that the allegory be apt and solid. I say therefore: this tabernacle is the Church of Christ gathered here on earth, journeying and warring, which Christ himself founded: concerning which he said in chapter VIII, verse 2: "The tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man": for this is the same as what he says here, "a tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation," namely not of human art and fabrication, as was the tabernacle previously made by Beseleel: for the tabernacle aptly represents the Church, as I said in verse 3, in which Christ dying on the cross offered himself to the Father, as it were a victim for the sins of men; and just as the high priest went from the Holy Place and through the Holy Place into the Holy of Holies, so Christ (and we with Christ) passed from his Church here warring to the Church heavenly and triumphant. For since it is established that the Holy of Holies signifies the heavenly Church, in order that we may speak consequently and aptly, it seems necessary to say that the Holy Place represented the earthly and warring Church. Thus Cajetan.
9:12
Neither by the blood of goats or calves — as the Aaronic high priest did, who, about to enter into the Holy of Holies, sacrificed a goat for the sins of the people and a calf for his own sins, and bringing their blood into the Holy of Holies, sprinkled and expiated the Holy Place with it, as is evident from Leviticus XVI. But Christ, cleansing the Church not by the blood of goats, but by his own blood, entered into the Holy Places. But by his own blood he entered once into the Holy Places, having found eternal redemption. — Note the word "found," that is, properly "discovered": for this word signifies that this redemption was unexpected by us, and obtained by Christ with great zeal, pain and labor, as it were a gem lost in the depths of the sea, sought and found. Second, he adds "eternal," as if to say: the Levitical priests had to enter the Holy Places every year and expiate them with the people, because their expiation was only temporary, namely annual; but Christ, once on the cross expiating all the sins of the whole world, entered heaven, and there glorious he remains and will remain forever, because by the unique oblation of the cross, being most precious and most efficacious, he merited for us and obtained eternal redemption, that is, which will fail at no time, or be diminished; but will endure forever, and will exert its power in all ages, so that it may expiate and purge the sins of all ages.
9:13
Note: The Lord commanded in Numbers XIX that a heifer, or red cow, be burned, and the ashes of the burned animal be kept for the expiation of the unclean. But by this rite this expiation was performed: these ashes were cast into a vessel, or some other container full of living water, for example spring water; then some other clean person sprinkled the unclean with this water, and thus he was expiated: but in such a way that until sunset he was still considered unclean. Whence secondly, this "ash" did not "sanctify the defiled for the cleansing" of conscience, but only "of the flesh," because it did not expiate sin, but only removed the legal uncleanness contracted from contact with a corpse or some other unclean thing: and therefore by the Apostle here it is called fleshly or carnal uncleanness, because namely it affected not the conscience, but the flesh and the external man only, so that he was considered unclean, and therefore was barred from divine offices and the temple. Allegorically, this ashen and lustral water was a type of the blood of Christ, as the Apostle here intimates; again it was a type of lustral or blessed water, which we use in the Church for the expiation of venial sins. For, as Alexander I, Pontiff, who was the sixth from St. Peter, rightly argues in his epistle I To All the Orthodox: "If the ash of a heifer sprinkled sanctified and cleansed the people, how much more does water, which sprinkled with salt and consecrated by divine prayers, sanctify and cleanse the people?"
9:14
"Through the Holy Spirit," that is, the Holy Spirit moving and impelling Him to offer Himself willingly to the Father for our sins. Some Greek codices have "dia pneumatos aiōniou," that is, "through the eternal Spirit": and thus Theodoret and the Syriac read. But Chrysostom and others read as our text reads, "through the Holy Spirit." Ribera notes that this can be understood of the Spirit both as created and as creator, because the article is lacking in the Greek, which is usually added to the created Spirit, as if to say "Through the Holy Spirit," that is through the holiness of His spirit, by which Christ thirsted for the salvation of all men, He offered Himself for them to God the Father. But it is better here to understand the Spirit as creator. For He in the Greek often does not have the article, and He is properly understood when it is said "the Holy Spirit"; and finally to Him, as to the first font of all grace and holiness, is to be attributed, just as Christ's conception, so also His oblation and redemption, and all our sanctification. From dead works. — That is from sins, which are foul before God, as corpses are; and which defile the soul of one touching them, just as corpses in the old law defiled the body of one touching them: concerning which see Chrysostom here in the moral homily 15. To serve the living God. — as if to say Christ cleanses us from sins, which are dead works, not only that we may be clean, but also that we may be alive, and with a living spirit serve the living God. The Apostle intimates that he who wishes to serve the living God must plainly flee from sins, as from dead works, which are diametrically opposed to the living God.
9:15
Note "therefore"; for it gives the reason why Christ is mediator, namely because, as he went before, entering into the Holy Place, he found and obtained eternal redemption for us, while he cleansed our conscience from dead works with his blood. Note: Christ is the mediator of the New Testament or covenant and pact between God and Christian men established. First, because Christ reconciled this new covenant between God and men, and brought both parties, namely both God and men, into this covenant and united them. Thus also Moses is said to be the mediator of the Old Testament, Deut. V, 5, because he was the intermediary, interpreter and as it were reconciler of the covenant between God and the Hebrews. Secondly, because Christ by his life, passion and death merited from God this new covenant, and all the good things which God promises to men by this covenant, namely the remission of sins, grace, glory and eternal inheritance; therefore of all these things Christ is the mediator, because he obtained and reconciled all these things for us from God. Whence the Apostle, explaining this work and office of mediator, adds: "That by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." You will say: Christ is the institutor, founder, and, as the Apostle says in verse 16, testator of the New Testament: therefore he is not its mediator. I answer, denying the consequence; for both things are true. For Christ for the reasons already stated is the mediator of the New Testament, inasmuch as he, standing as a middle party, interceded so that he might bring both God and men into this new covenant and bind them together. Christ is also the founder and testator of the New Testament, because in the place of God and as a legate sent by God he founded and instituted this new Testament; for the Father gave all things into his hands, so that whatever Christ determined and sanctioned concerning this covenant, he himself would ratify. For Christ accomplished all things in this covenant, and acted both the parts of God and of men: inasmuch as he acted the parts of God, he was the founder and testator of this covenant; inasmuch as he acted the parts of men, he was the advocate, interpreter and legate of men; inasmuch as he intervened as a middle party and reconciler between God and men, to that extent he was mediator. Whence the Syriac translator for "mediator" rendered "metsaia," that is, "made into two halves," both in nature, because namely Christ in his middle part was man, in his middle part God; and in office, because namely Christ acted partly the parts of God, partly of men in this covenant, and constituted himself as a middle party between our guilt and punishment, and between the Father's offense and wounded justice. For Christ so acted the cause of his client men, that nevertheless he protected God the Father's justice, so that he would not leave the sins of men unavenged, but would expiate them by his blood and death, and thus satisfy the Father's wounded justice. That by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament. — The Hebrews were offended by the passion and death of the Messiah so shameful, and thought that the Messiah ought always to live and remain with them. Whence the Jews to Christ, John XII, 34: "We," they say, "have heard out of the law, that Christ remaineth for ever, and how sayest thou: The Son of man must be lifted up?" (they call the sacred Scripture "the law") namely Psalm CIX, 4: "Thou art a priest for ever." Hence the Apostle here demonstrates to them that this death was not a disgrace to Christ, but glory, inasmuch as it made Christ the mediator and redeemer, and by its virtue expiated our sins, and reconciled life and eternal inheritance to us; and this as the Father's justice required and demanded, as if the Father had said to the Son: If thou wishest me to spare men, O Son, who have sinned so gravely against me, it is necessary that thou die for them, and pour out thy blood: because satisfaction must be made to my justice and to my law and eternal decree concerning the punishment of sin. The Son indeed accepted this, and by the highest right paid all our debts to the Father down to the last farthing; and he made it so that without fear and with uncovered (as they say) head, before God and the angels we might walk, and raise our minds and hopes toward God. For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the former testament. — He shows to the Hebrews the weakness of the Old Testament and the necessity of the New, and consequently also of the death of Christ, as if to say: Christ the expiator not only redeemed and expiated the sins of his people and testament, but also of the old and your testament, O Hebrews. For neither could your testament and sacrifices expiate your sins, but they were only signs and figures of the sacrifice and testament of Christ, who by his death and blood was to redeem and expiate all the sins of all men, both of the New Testament and of the Old, and consequently also of the law of nature, which was weaker and more imperfect than either Testament. That they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. — This is the end of the death, redemption and mediation of Christ, and of the whole New Testament instituted by Christ, namely that we may obtain the eternal inheritance promised through Christ. For "promise" in Greek is "epangelia," that is, a promise: for Christ merited, obtained and procured for us the first promise of eternal inheritance, both because he merited by his holiness, obedience and death from God the Father, that he himself would promise us eternal inheritance on account of Christ; and because by the same reason he merited for us the execution and bestowal of this promise, namely that we might truly see and obtain this eternal inheritance promised to us on account of Christ. Note: "Called" he calls both those who are under the Old Testament and those who are under the New. Again, "called" can cohere with "eternal inheritance": for, as I said on Rom. I, 1, "called" is a substantive, as if to say, Those called to eternal inheritance, that is, as the Syriac translates it, "etkerif leiaretuta dalalam," that is, called and belonging to eternal or everlasting inheritance. More simply, however, you should refer "eternal inheritance" to "promise," as if to say: That those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance, that is, that the called may receive the eternal inheritance promised to them, to which they are called.
9:16
This is the argument of the Apostle, by which he proves that the Hebrews ought not to be offended at the death and cross of Christ, as being necessary for us and our salvation: wherever there is a testament, there in order that the testament may have its force, it is necessary that it be confirmed and sanctioned by the death of the testator, and therefore it is necessary that the testator die: but Christ established a new testament for us, and is the mediator and founder of the New Testament: therefore it was necessary that Christ die, that by his death he might sanction and confirm this new testament of his.
9:17
"By the dead," that is, by dead testators, or after the death of the testators, then at last is the testament ratified and confirmed. For in the living, or so long as testators live, they can always change and revoke their testament; whereas other pacts and donations made between the living, as soon as they are made and entered into, are by that very fact ratified and firm, nor can they be rescinded or revoked. For "a testament (as it is said in book I, ff. D. Testaments) is the just determination of our will, concerning that which anyone wishes to be done after his death."
9:18
That is, in order that "the first," that is the Old Testament, might signify the second, that is the New Testament, which was to be confirmed by the death of the testator Christ, for this reason the first Testament had to be sanctioned by death and the blood of victims, like a testament properly so called, that it might signify that the second or New Testament was to be sanctioned by the death of Christ. But just as the first, or Old Testament, was typical, so it had a typical death of the testator, namely the death and blood of victims, which represented the death of the testator both God and Christ, as I shall say more fully at verse 20. Note: For "dedicated" the Syriac translates "estarrat," that is, "it was confirmed, it received its strength." So also Chrysostom and his followers. In Greek it is "enkekainistai," that is "it was initiated, it took its beginning, it received its newness and commencement." But because in sacred things this beginning was taken from some sacred and solemn sacrifice, rite and ceremonies, by which a thing was as it were consecrated and dedicated to God and to holy uses, hence "enkainizein" in sacred matters signified to consecrate and dedicate: whence "encaenia" are called the feasts of the dedication and consecration of the temple. So also here Paul says that the Old Testament was consecrated by the blood of victims, not only begun and as it were inaugurated, but also dedicated, that is consecrated.
9:19
Note: Moses, about to enter into a covenant with the people in the place of God, first read to the people the laws of God given to him, which are recounted from chapter XX of Exodus up to chapter XXIV. For these laws were the conditions of the covenant which God wished to establish with the Hebrews: the people, by their silence accepting and assenting to these laws, entered into a covenant with God, and it was sanctified by the blood of victims. Note secondly: Moses sprinkled this blood of victims partly on the altar, partly on the people; first, so that it might be signified that he who violated this covenant would in like manner expiate the violated faith of the covenant by his own blood and death; for the altar represented God. Concerning this rite of covenants I have said more at I Corinthians XI, 23. Secondly, because this covenant, as I shall say at verse 20, was at the same time as it were a testament of God, and was a type of the new Testament which Christ established at the last supper and on the cross. Hence this blood sprinkled on the altar represented symbolically as it were the blood and death of God the testator: for a testament and the last will of the testator are sanctified by death. Again, the blood sprinkled on the people signified the blood of Christ sprinkled upon us, by whose sprinkling we are washed from all sins. For by his own blood and death Christ sanctified his new Testament, and merited and obtained for us all the good things promised therein. With water and scarlet wool and hyssop. — Moses omitted all these things, as also the immolation of goats, in Exodus XXIV, because he narrates these things briefly; but the Apostle, partly by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, partly from the custom of the legal rite, which he had learned both from Holy Scripture and from the very practice itself to be customarily used in such lustrations, supplied and expressed these very things. For that water was accustomed to be mixed with blood in sacred sprinklings is evident from Exodus XXIX, 22. The same is evident concerning scarlet, or scarlet wool and hyssop, from Numbers XIX, 6 and 18. Again, that goats were also offered along with the calves is evident, because a goat, as being suited by its stench to represent sin, is accustomed to be offered for sin, as is evident from Leviticus IX, 3 and 15. These goats therefore in the covenant and testament of Moses were immolated for the sins of the people, signifying Christ to be immolated on the cross for the sins of the whole world. By which immolation the new Testament of Christ was sanctified. Note: In the ancient lustrations of the Hebrews water was applied to blood, lest the blood should congeal, but might become more liquid and sprayable, and thus suitable for sprinkling upon so great a people. Again, allegorically this water and blood of victims were a figure and type of the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ, and consequently were types of Baptism and the Eucharist. For water represents Baptism, blood represents the Eucharist. Secondly, in lustrations scarlet wool and hyssop were used, so that from them an aspergillum might be made: for they are very suitable for this, both on account of their density, and on account of the retentive power which they have: for they are absorbent of moisture, like a sponge. Again, allegorically wool signifies the whiteness and innocence of Christ, or the flesh of Christ in itself white, but on account of our sins scarlet, that is, reddened by the blood of his passion. But hyssop was a type of the charity and grace of Christ; for hyssop is by nature hot, whence it serves the mystery, and by its heat and fervor denotes the most ardent heats of the Holy Spirit, by which the minds of the pious are set on fire. Secondly, hyssop was a type of the humility and humanity of Christ, through whom God healed our pride and other sins. For hyssop is a humble herb, and, as Dioscorides teaches, book III, chapter XXVIII, it heals the swelling of the lungs, which is a symbol of pride, as Rupert has noted. He sprinkled also the book itself and all the people. — Nor does Moses have this, but Paul supplies it. The Hebrews understand by this book Genesis. But whether Genesis was then written by Moses is very uncertain. It is certain that this book was not Genesis, but Exodus, that is, the laws given by God to Moses and the people, from chapter XX of Exodus up to chapter XXIV, which Moses wrote in a book, and from it read to the people. For these laws were the condition of the covenant to be entered into between God and the people. All these things are evident from Exodus XXIV. You will ask: Why did Moses sprinkle the book itself with the blood of victims? I answer: First, so that it might be signified that both the laws and the covenant itself are sanctified. Secondly, so that it might be signified that he who violated these laws would expiate this violation by his own blood and death. Thirdly, so that it might be signified that the law in itself is weak for expiating sins committed against the law, and therefore for doing this needs the blood not so much of victims as of Christ, whom this blood of victims represented. For by the blood and grace of Christ sprinkled upon us, we are not only expiated from all sins committed against the law, but are also henceforth strengthened and inflamed to keep and perfect the whole law.
9:20
The Apostle cites Exodus XXIV, 8. You will object: There it is said: "This is the blood of the covenant," that is, of the pact: therefore Paul translates badly in this place, saying, "this is the blood of the testament," which namely is confirmed by the death of the testator: for other pacts and covenants are not confirmed by the death of those making the pact, as the old pact of God with the Hebrews, of which Moses speaks in that chapter XXIV of Exodus, verse 8, was not confirmed by the death of God or of the Hebrews making the pact; how therefore does Paul here press the death of the testator so much for the validity of this testament? On account of this argument Erasmus and Cajetan judge that this epistle is not canonical, but of uncertain and doubtful faith and authority: Calvin however judges it not to be of St. Paul; Beza finally asserts it was written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, because the Hebrew "berit" signifies only "covenant," but the Greek "diathēkē" signifies both "testament" and "covenant": but in this place, since according to the Hebrew it ought to have been translated "covenant," the author of this epistle translated it "testament." Indeed some Catholics think that Paul here plays in the manner of orators with the word "diathēkē," so that, when he knew that one in Exodus XXIV, 8 signifies "pact," inasmuch as it there corresponds to the Hebrew "berit," that is "pact," he nevertheless here takes the same for "testament." But thus Paul would weave a sophistical argument from the ambiguity of the word and would deceive, while he attributes to any covenant and pact that which was of a testament, namely that it be confirmed by the death of the testator. For the response, note first, that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew "berit" everywhere as "diathēkē," which properly signifies "testament," as our Interpreter translates it; hence in the Scriptures these three, namely the Hebrew "berit," the Greek "diathēkē," and the Latin "testament" signify the same thing. Again these three are taken in two ways, first generally, for any covenant, pact and promise, as St. Jerome teaches in chapter III to the Galatians, and St. Augustine in Genesis, discourse 94. Thus it is taken everywhere when it is said "new" or "old Testament," that is, new or old ordinance of God, disposition, promise of God (which elsewhere is called God's mercy and truth), new or old pact and covenant between God and men entered into with the condition of keeping God's law. For this is God's pact with men: I God stipulate and promise that I will be to you, O men, God and father, and you will be to me sons and heirs, if you keep my law. Thus "testament" is taken for "covenant," Genesis IX, 13; Psalm LIV, 21; Psalm LXXXVIII, 4 and 29; Psalm CV, 45 and elsewhere often. Second, these three are taken specifically for a testamentary covenant, or testamentary promise, which is most firm and most certain, that is, for a testament and last will, or disposition of the testator. For this properly signifies the Greek "diathēkē," and the Latin "testament"; the Hebrew "berit" also, when it signifies any pact, rightly also signifies a testament or testamentary pact, which is the last and most firm, by synecdoche, by which a genus is wont to be taken for a species, especially the most perfect and most noble. Note second, that both the old testament of Moses and the new of Christ, in both significations and in both ways just mentioned, were a testament. Concerning the new it is clear: first indeed the new testament was a new covenant of God with men through Christ entered into; second also the new testament was properly a so-called testament or testamentary and mortuary covenant: both because God willed that our sins be expiated by just satisfaction, so that the promises of the new Testament concerning the remission of sins, grace and glory, or the heavenly inheritance to be given to us, be sanctioned by the death of Christ the testator; and because, so that these be given to us, it was the last, supreme, most certain and most firm will and promise of Christ, as the Apostle sufficiently signifies here. This therefore is Christ's new pact and testament: I Christ in the place and name of God the Father promise to you, O Christian, forgiveness of sins, God's grace and friendship, and finally the kingdom of heaven, under this condition, if you believe in me, obey me, and keep and fulfill my commandments until the end of your life. Which condition is expressed by Christ, Matthew XIX, 17; John XVII, 20 and 24. Note third: This was the old Mosaic pact and testament, as sufficiently appears from Exodus chapter XXIV, verse 8: I God promise to you, O Hebrews, my aid, benevolence and protection; and I assign to you a kingdom and a quiet and fertile inheritance in the land of Canaan, if you keep my laws, ceremonies and judicial precepts. Whence it is clear that this old covenant and testament was also a "diathēkē" and testament in both significations and in both ways already mentioned. Concerning the former, it is clear: for it is a pact with a condition, as is evident from the formula of the pact already given. Concerning the latter signification and way, it is proved because this old covenant of Moses was a typical testament, or a type of the New Testament, and the inheritance or kingdom of Chanaan promised in the Old Testament was a type of the kingdom of heaven, which is promised in the New Testament. Again, the death of the victims by which the old Testament was sanctioned, Exodus XXIV, was a type of the death of Christ the testator, who by his death and blood sanctioned the new Testament and his ultimate will, as the Apostle here explains. I respond therefore and say that Moses, when he said Exodus chapter XXIV: "This is the blood of the covenant," understood what has already been said: and therefore the Apostle rightly interprets that Mosaic covenant here by "testament," because it was truly a testament, namely a typical one. For the entire Old Testament, and all things which were done in it, were a shadow and type of Christ and of things to come in the New Testament, and therefore the whole scope and end of the Old Testament was to foreshadow and prefigure Christ and his new Testament: so that the whole reason, condition, nature and institution of the Old Testament was no other than this, namely that it should be a figure and representation of Christ and of the new Testament. Since therefore the new Testament of Christ was properly called a testament, which was confirmed by the death of the testator, namely Christ, it follows that the old Testament was also a type of the new Testament properly so called, and consequently the old Testament itself was also a typical testament, testamentary and properly so called. For such as the thing is in itself, such also is its type in representation. Since therefore the new Testament in itself is a testament properly so called, it follows that the old Testament, which was a type of the new, in representation, or typically, was a testament properly so called. The old Testament was therefore testamentary and properly so called, first, on account of the general reason which St. Augustine brings forward in chapter III to the Galatians, verse 17, where he thus says: "Every promise and covenant of God, even for giving earthly goods," for example the land of Chanaan to the Hebrews, "can be called a testament, because what the death of the testator avails for confirming a testament, this the immutability of God's promise avails for sanctioning his covenants and promises." Secondly, on account of a proper and special reason, namely because this covenant of God with the ancient Hebrews was among those Hebrews the greatest, supreme and ultimate will of God, and was sanctioned by the death of victims, which God, because he cannot die, as it were devoted to death in his stead, so that by their death he might sanction his ultimate will as it were as a testator. For thus this old Testament of God had a certain appearance of a testament properly so called and of an ultimate will, which is sanctioned by the death of the testator, while victims consecrated to God die in place of God the testator, by which death this testament is sanctioned. In order to signify this, Moses poured part of the blood of the victims upon the altar, Exodus XXIV, for the altar here represents God. God therefore here sprinkled as it were with his own blood, and thus seemed to seal and confirm this testament as it were with his own blood. And this is what the Apostle here signifies, when he says: "Whereupon neither was the first (Mosaic) indeed dedicated without blood." Thirdly, most properly and genuinely according to the mind of the Apostle, the Old Testament was a mortuary, but shadowy and typical, as I had already begun to say, because the Old Testament was a shadow, type and representation of the New Testament of Christ, properly so called. Whence just as the new testament of Christ the testator was ratified by death, so the old was ratified by the slaying of victims of God, as it were a typical death of God and Christ: so that by this very fact the Old Testament signified that the New Testament was to be ratified by the real death of Christ. That this is the genuine mind of the Apostle is evident from verse 23, where concluding he says: "It is necessary therefore that the exemplars indeed of heavenly things should be cleansed with these (the death and blood of victims): but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices (namely with the death and blood of Christ) than with these," that is to say, the Old Testament, because it was a type of the new and heavenly Testament, by which souls are cleansed from sins, was therefore ratified by typical sacrifices, namely by the death and blood of animals: but the new testament of Christ, as being solid, sublime and heavenly, and which cleanses and purges souls themselves from sins, could be ratified only by the most noble blood and death of Christ. And this is what he said in verse 12, "Christ not by the blood of goats or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption." Again, that "the blood of goats and the ashes of a heifer sanctify the flesh, but the blood of Christ cleanseth the conscience from dead works." For this cleansing and remission of sins is a certain principal good which Christ bequeathed to us in his testament, and sealed and delivered by his death and blood. Finally, that this is the sense of the Apostle is evident from the fact that he throughout this chapter, and indeed throughout the whole epistle, urges and explains that the things which were done in the Old Testament were shadows and types of Christ and of the things which are in the New Testament: therefore much more ought he to have urged that the Old Testament itself, and its institution and ratification, was a type of the New Testament properly so called, and consequently to show that the Old Testament also was typically and representatively a testament properly so called. And this is the reason why the Septuagint, Exodus chapter XXIV, verse 8, and elsewhere, do not translate the Hebrew "berit" as "covenant" or "pact," but as "diathēkēn," that is "testament," so that they might indicate that this Mosaic covenant was a typical and figurative testament of the new testament, which Christ the testator sealed by his death. For this same reason we are accustomed to call the new and old instrument, not commonly the new or old covenant or pact, but "testament." The Greeks do the same; indeed the Syrian in the Syriac text of Holy Scripture retained the Greek word "diathēkē," that is "testament." For it has "diiatiki": for among the Jews and Syrians after the empires of Alexander and other Greeks, the Greek language was so much used and worn that many words passed from Greek into Syriac, as "agoresa," Matthew XXVII, 8; "bouleutēs" into "buleuti," Mark XV, 43. Thus "Evangelium," "kephalaion," "namusa" from "nomos," that is law, and many other things were translated from the Greeks to the Syrians. The same is evident from Philo, Josephus and St. Justin Martyr, who although they were Hebrews, were nevertheless most skilled in Greek, and cite Scripture not in Hebrew, but in the Greek of the Septuagint interpreters, as being then the most common and celebrated. Matthew Galenus adds that Paul wrote here in Syriac "diiatiki," by which word the Septuagint render and translate the Hebrew "berit," Exodus XXIV, 8. For he thinks that the Syriac text which is found in the Royal Bibles is the autograph of Paul. But this does not seem to me probable, for the reasons which I have set forth at the beginning of this epistle. Fourth, another explanation and reason why Paul translated what Moses has, Exodus XXIV, "this is the blood of the covenant," as "This is the blood of the testament," and therefore why Paul calls and interprets the old covenant a testamentary and properly so-called testament, is given here by Francis Ribera: Because, he says, the old Testament, although it explicitly promised earthly goods to the Jews, nevertheless implicitly under them promised heavenly goods and a heavenly inheritance, if to that extent not only the new but also the old Testament was sanctioned by the death of the testator Christ: for indeed heavenly goods were obtained by no Saint of the old Testament except after and through the death of Christ, which the blood of the victims poured out in the institution of the old Testament prefigured, Exodus XXIV. For just as in that old Testament through the land promised to the sons of Abraham, a heavenly inheritance was promised, so through the blood of the victims the blood of Christ was promised, through which that was to be given. But in this sense Christ would be mediator and testator of the old Testament, although the Apostle asserts that Christ is mediator only of the new Testament. Again, the Apostle here teaches that by the death and blood of Christ only the new Testament is sanctioned, but by the death of the victims the old was sanctioned, as being earthly, imperfect, weak, and explicitly promising and bestowing only temporal goods; therefore he sufficiently insinuates that by the death of Christ the old Testament was not sanctioned. For throughout this epistle he opposes and prefers the new Testament to the old, and teaches that it is excluded and shut out by that one. Yet the Apostle tacitly insinuates this sense and reason when he says that Christ was dead "in redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, that they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Where he sufficiently insinuates that not only the sons of the new Testament, but also the fathers of the old Testament, were called to an eternal inheritance and it was promised to them, but in such a way that it was not to be given and exhibited through Moses, but through Christ, nor through the old, but through the new Testament. And by this reasoning Christ was explicitly indeed mediator and testator of the new Testament, implicitly however also of the old, as Lactantius teaches, book IV, chapter XX. Therefore this fourth exposition the Apostle insinuates implicitly; but because he delivers and presses the third not only implicitly but also explicitly, hence the third already given seems most to be the genuine one and according to the mind of the Apostle, as I have said. Which he commanded. — That is, which he ordained, disposed, and, as it is in Hebrew, "karat," that is, made a covenant with you God. For thus the Hebrews call every ordinance and disposition of God a "commandment" and "precept" of God; as when David says, II Kings XVI, verse 10: "The Lord commanded him (Shimei) that he should curse David": commanded, that is, ordained and determined to permit Shimei, that he might pour forth his virulent and cursing speech against me, and he disposes and ordains it for the punishment of my and my people's sins. Thus God says to Elijah, III Kings XVII, 4: "I have commanded the ravens to feed thee": I have commanded, that is, I have ordained, and by my ordinance I will cause the ravens to feed thee. Again properly, "which he commanded," that is, whose covenant namely the conditions and laws God commands and orders you, O Hebrews, to observe.
9:21
Moses omitted this same thing, but Paul supplies it, and thus teaches that it was done by Joseph, book III of the Antiquities, IX. Note: The sprinkling was made not at the time when God made a covenant with the Hebrews: for at that time the tabernacle had not yet been built, but later when the tabernacle was made, erected and dedicated. Second, "ministry" here he understands as sacred, by which they ministered to God in victims and oblations; for this is what the Greek "leitourgia" signifies. Third, by this sprinkling of blood the tabernacle was expiated and as it were sanctified, so that it might be signified that by the blood of Christ the Church, which is the true tabernacle of God, was to be expiated, sanctified and as it were consecrated.
9:22
Moses had commanded, Leviticus IV, that if anyone had sinned, he should immolate a victim for sin: which if he had done, "the Lord," he says, "will be merciful to him," that is, God will not inflict upon him the punishment of his life, which otherwise he would have inflicted upon him. Thus therefore through the blood of the victims there was made a remission not of guilt and liability before God, but a legal remission, taking away guilt and legal uncleanness, and temporal punishment. For as to guilt and punishment of another life, this was not taken away by sacrifice or by the prayer of the priest, since not even in the new Testament is guilt taken away by sacrifice, but by the Sacrament of penance. Guilt therefore was taken away then by the contrition of those who had sinned, joined with faith and hope in Christ about to come, and about to die for sins: of which faith and contrition the sign and protestation was the sacrifice, which those sinning offered for themselves. But I shall say more about this matter in chapter X, verse 4.
9:23
By "heavenly things" the Apostle understands the Mosaic tabernacle and testament, and the people themselves, that is the Jews, and all things which were in that tabernacle and testament. This is evident from the inferential word "therefore," as if to say: I have said that the old Testament and tabernacle were expiated and dedicated by the blood of victims, and the old law prescribes that all things be expiated by blood, and without blood there is no remission: therefore from this prescription of the old law it was necessary that all things which were in the old Testament, as types and exemplars of heavenly things, be cleansed by such beasts as victims and blood. But it is doubtful what the Apostle understands by "heavenly things." St. Thomas, Lyra and Ribera understand heaven itself. For thus the Apostle seems to expound in the following verse when he says: "Jesus entered not into the holy places made by hand, the figures of the true, but into heaven itself." If you object: Heaven needs no cleansing: but the Apostle here asserts that heavenly things are cleansed by better victims, therefore by "heavenly things" he does not understand heaven itself; they respond that, although heaven in itself is most pure, so that it needs no expiation, yet metaphorically heaven is said to be defiled by sins, because our sins when they ascend to heaven through penance, by their reputation, as it were by some foul odor, defile and pollute heaven itself in a certain way; and consequently when those sins themselves are expiated, heaven itself thus polluted by sins, as I have said, is said to be expiated. For thus the Mosaic tabernacle was said to be polluted by the sins of the Jews, and to be expiated and cleansed by them through the blood of goats offered for sin. For by sins injury was done both to God and to the tabernacle itself, in which God dwelt: just as the Church is polluted when it is defiled by blood or human seed, or by some other sin committed in the Church. But this seems sufficiently harsh, remote and forced. For no one speaks thus, and nowhere else in the Scriptures is heaven itself and the place of the Blessed, being most pure, said to be expiated or cleansed. Secondly, this exposition is contrary to the mind and phrase of the Apostle, as will soon be evident. I say therefore that by "heavenly things" is understood the Church, that is, the faithful and sons of Christ, from which the Church, that is the congregation of the faithful, is formed and arises. The Church is called "heavenly" or "heavenly things" because the Church of Christ is as it were a heavenly tabernacle having a heavenly victim, namely the body of Christ, heavenly doctrine, and a people of heavenly and angelic life, to which heaven itself is promised, proposed and prepared as an eternal dwelling and reward. Thus Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Primasius, Anselm, Haymo and Vasquez, who explain thus: "heavenly things" are our consciences, whose cleansing pertains to a temple not old but heavenly, namely to heaven itself. That this is the mind of St. Paul is proved first, because he plainly says the same thing here, and in the same words both Greek and Latin as what he said in chapter VIII, 5, where he says: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things"; but there by "heavenly things" he understood the Church of Christ, as is evident, and all confess: therefore also here. Secondly, because concluding this discourse in the following chapter, verse 1, he thus says: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things," where he calls "shadow" what he here calls "exemplar"; but "good things to come" and "image of the things" he calls what he here calls "heavenly things"; but there by "good things to come" and "image of the things" he understands the remission of sins and other gifts and graces of the Church bestowed by Christ, as he himself explains in what follows: therefore also here he understands "heavenly things" not those which are in heaven, but those which are in the Church. Thirdly, because throughout these chapters the Apostle opposes, compares and prefers Christ to Moses, the Gospel to the law, the tabernacle to the Church, not to heaven, as if to say: From what has been said concerning the lustration of the old tabernacle and testament through the blood of victims, and of the new tabernacle and testament through the blood of Christ, it is clear that it was necessary that those things which are of the old tabernacle and testament, as "exemplars," in Greek "hypodeigmata," that is certain obscure pictures (as I said in chapter VIII, verse 5) of heavenly things, that is of the things and faithful of the Church, be cleansed by the blood of victims: but the heavenly things themselves, that is the faithful and things of the Church, be cleansed by better victims, namely by the blood and sacrifice of Christ, both that accomplished on the cross and the Eucharistic, which is accomplished and repeated daily in the Church: for these mysteries of the Eucharist repeated daily, just as they are called many Sacraments and sacrifices, so they are called not one but many victims, as Ribera has noted.
9:24
Note: The Apostle does not here call by the name "exemplaria" the old tabernacle and testament itself, and those things which were in it, as he called them in the preceding verse; but he here limits and restricts "exemplaria" to the Holy of Holies: and he says that Jesus did not enter into the old and typical Holy of Holies, as the Aaronic priests were wont to do, but into heaven itself, which was foreshadowed by those old Holy of Holies. Note secondly: Those old Holy of Holies the Apostle calls "exemplaria," in Greek "antitypa," that is, "of the true things," namely the heavenly things, or of the empyrean heaven itself, which is the dwelling-place of the Blessed: for this is the truest Holy of Holies, of which the old Mosaic Holy of Holies was the antitype, because from that this was formed, so that it might refer to and represent it, as I said in chapter VIII, verse 3. Note thirdly, that these things may be connected with the preceding verse, for the word "for" gives the reason why the Apostle called the Church in the preceding verse "heavenly" or "heavenly things," as if to say: I called the Church "heavenly things" for this reason, because Christ, having entered into heaven, opened it to the Church, that is to the faithful, and there as our priest always appears before the face of God for us, that he might obtain for us grace, virtues, glory and all heavenly goods. For this is what the Apostle presses home repeatedly in these chapters, namely that Christ, or our Messiah the priest, ought not to have remained here on earth, and to have always exercised his priesthood in the temple of Solomon, as the Jews thought and hoped; but after accomplishing here on the cross our redemption, he ought to have entered heaven and opened it, so that there sitting at the right hand of God he might intercede for us, and prepare a place in the heavens for us. For this is what he said in chapter VIII, verse 1: "Such a priest, he says, we have, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens, a minister of the holy things and of the true tabernacle, which God set up, and not man," which he explains more clearly in what follows. Again he said the same thing in this chapter, verse 12, when he says: "Christ through his own blood entered once into the Holy of Holies, having found eternal redemption." And in the last verse: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; a second time without sin shall he appear to those who are waiting for him, unto salvation." Again in chapter X, verse 12: "He, he says, offering one sacrifice for sins, sits forever at the right hand of God." And concluding in verse 19, he thus speaks: "Having therefore, brethren, confidence in the entrance into the Holy of Holies (that is, heaven) in the blood of Christ, which he initiated for us as a new and living way, through the veil, that is, his flesh, and a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart," etc. That he may now appear before the face of God for us. — "That," namely, as St. Cyprian says in his sermon On the Baptism of Christ, the wounds always preserved in the body of Christ may demand the price of human salvation, and may require the gift of obedience. Secondly, "that he may appear," that is, appearing he may pray and intercede for us. For this is a catachresis.
9:25
Here there is a threefold comparison and antithesis of Christ with the Aaronic priests. First, the Aaronic priests entered into the Holy of Holies, but Christ entered into heaven. Now lest the Hebrews think that Christ entered heaven for this reason, that he might again and often offer and immolate himself to the Father there, and thus compare Christ with the Aaronic priests often immolating their sacrifices, the Apostle adds a second antithesis: The Aaronic priests, he says, repeated the oblation every year, because it was weak and insufficient; but Christ, offering himself once only, abolished all sins, both of past and future ages, and found for us all eternal redemption. Third, the Aaronic priests entered into the Holy of Holies with, that is, in, the blood of another, namely of goats and calves: but Christ entered into heaven through his own blood.
9:26
He proves that Christ did not often offer and immolate himself, but by a single oblation obtained eternal redemption for us: because since sins can be expiated only by the blood of Christ the redeemer, if his single death and shedding of blood were not sufficient to expiate all the sins of all ages, but only expiated the sins of his own age, therefore Christ ought to have suffered frequently, namely in each age, so that by his death and blood he might abolish the sins of each age: but this is absurd. You will object: In Apocalypse XIII, 8, it is said that Christ is "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Aretas, Ticonius and others respond to that passage, referring "from the foundation of the world" not to "the lamb," but to "whose names are not written in the book of life," that is to say: From the foundation of the world, indeed from eternity, the names of those who will adore the beast are not written in the book of life, but of death, that is, they are reprobate and damnable. More simply and plainly, however, you will refer these words to "the lamb": Christ is therefore said to be the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that is, already long ago from the beginning and before all things that were created in the world and with the world, because from eternity Christ was slain, that is, it was decreed that he be slain, foreseen and predestined. For the death of Christ was decreed from eternity, and proposed to all men of all ages, so that by believing in it, hoping in it, and through it seeking the remission of sins, they might obtain the same. In a similar phrase the Apostle said that God gave us, that is, decreed to give and predestined to us his grace before the times of the ages, II Timothy I, 9, and Titus I, 2. See Canon 36. Now however once in the consummation of the ages. — Some read, "in the consummation of the ages," and by "consummation" understand perfection, that is to say: Christ died so that he might expiate and perfect all ages by his blood. But the Greek "synteleia" throughout the Scriptures signifies not perfection, but consummation and end. You will ask, how is Christ said to have suffered in the consummation, that is, the end of the ages, when 1600 years have already flowed since his passion, and many more will flow until the end of the world? Chrysostom and Theophylactus respond that "the consummation of the ages" is called that time of the world in which sins had utterly prevailed and as it were reached their height, which was in the time of Christ. Whence the Nyssenus, in his sermon On the Nativity of Christ, teaches that Christ imitated an excellent physician, who does not succor the fevered while the fever is still increasing and being inflamed, but when it has exerted all its force, and vomited forth everything and reached its height: for then indeed it begins to cool and subside with its strength exhausted: thus also Christ, as a most skilled physician of souls, waited for the opportune time, so that he would not apply his hand to our disease before the entire sickness of malice revealed and displayed itself, lest he leave any hidden and uncured virus of evil. But in this sense, the Apostle would rather have said that Christ appeared in the consummation not of the ages, but of sins. Secondly, Ribera limits these ages, and understands by ages not any ages whatsoever, but those appointed by God the Father before the incarnation of Christ; as if to say, When the times and ages which the Father had predetermined for the nativity and passion of Christ had been completed, then Christ was born and suffered. Whence the Apostle calls this completion of the ages Galatians IV, 4, the fullness of time: for he says that Christ came in this. But because the Apostle does not limit these ages, hence thirdly, you may understand them more plainly in a general sense: namely, so that all ages, or the whole age, is divided into the age which was before the flood; secondly, into the age which was from the flood until Abraham; thirdly, into the age which was from Abraham to Moses; fourthly, into the age which was from Moses to David; fifthly, into the age which was from David to the Babylonian captivity; sixthly, into the age which was from the captivity until Christ. Or more briefly and forcefully, the first age is the age before the flood; the second age is after the flood while the law of nature still endured; the third age is that of the Mosaic law and of the Jews; the fourth and last is that of Christ. Thus Oecumenius, who divides all time from Adam to the end of the world into first, middle and last, and says the first is the age of the law of nature, the middle is the age of the Mosaic law, the last is the age of the Evangelical law. For God willed that these ages should precede Christ, so that the weakness of the law, both natural and Mosaic, might be shown; and thus men might long for Christ and the Evangelical law. With respect to these, therefore, the age of Christ is the last and the completion of all the preceding ages: because no other age will succeed the age of Christ, until the judgment, but it will endure until the blessed age of eternity and immortality. Thus the Apostle calls this completion of the ages, I Corinthians X, 11, the "ends of the ages"; St. John, epistle I, chapter II, 18, calls it the "last hour"; hour, that is, time, or age, and in this sense the Prophets call the time of Christ the last, because this is the last state of the world, the last age. Thus Isaiah calls it, chapter II, verse 2; Micah, chapter IV, 1, and others often. To the putting away of sin. — Some read here, "to the destruction of sin." But the Roman Bible and others read more correctly, "putting away." For in Greek it is "eis athetēsin," that is, to the rejection, reprobation and abolition (as Vatablus translates it) of sin; so that sin may be abandoned by all, rejected, reprobated and abolished. Our translator therefore aptly renders it "putting away": for "athetō" is opposed to "tithenai," which signifies to place, to establish; it is therefore the same as to put down, to put away. Anselm explains "to put away" so that it is the same as to place downward. "Christ," he says, "offered himself so that he might place sin downward, so that it might not be above us, but beneath us." This exposition is true, but does not attain to the propriety of the Greek word. The Syriac translates "danbatteleha," that is, so that he might shake, weaken and abolish sin; for "batal" signifies to shake and weaken a man so that he can scarcely move any limb. By his own sacrifice appeared — not on earth: for there, before his sacrifice offered on the cross, born and living for thirty-three years, he appeared; but in heaven after his death and ascension he appeared to God the Father, offering his blood, just as the high priest entering the Holy of Holies appeared before God sitting upon the mercy seat, with the blood of goats and calves. For it refers to that which he said in verse 24, namely that Christ entered into heaven, that he might appear before the face of God for us. Namely for this end, that through his merits and prayers, which he offers and represents, he might obtain grace, by which God might put away and abolish sin from the human race, and by which men, prevented and inflamed by this grace of God and by so great a charity of Christ suffering and dying for them, might of their own accord put away, repel and abolish sin.
9:27
(Supply: it remains): so also Christ, etc. — He removes from the Hebrews the scruple and scandal of the cross; for they said: If this is Christ and our Messiah, how is he dead and crucified? The Apostle responds that it is a common law of nature that all men are subject to death; therefore it is not surprising if Christ died, since he willed to undergo this law with us and for us, having been made man. Note: the «quemadmodum» requires a comparison, that is to say, Just as all men tend toward death, toward judgment: so also Christ approached death, and will approach judgment, not that he might be judged like other men, but that he might judge them, and save and make blessed his faithful ones who await him. Note secondly the «it is appointed,» namely by a fixed, immobile and indispensable decree of God. For, as Ecclesiastes chapter XIV, verse 12 says: «The testament of this world is, he shall die the death.» Thus to each of the patriarchs, who lived 900 years, is added: «And he died,» Gen. chapter V. Apelles painted, says Pliny, Alexander the Great holding a thunderbolt in his hand, as if he who most swiftly by his dominion penetrated from east to west, but again most swiftly disappeared: namely, as Juvenal sings of him, «One world suffices not the Pellaean youth, A coffin shall content him. Death alone Declares how small are human bodies.» Peter Alphonsus relates that after Alexander died, several philosophers gathered together, of whom one said: «Yesterday the spacious extent of the whole earth did not suffice for Alexander, now a space of three or four cubits suffices for him.» Another said: «Yesterday Alexander could free many from death, today he cannot free himself.» Another, when he saw his golden coffin: «Yesterday Alexander made gold into a treasure, today he has made gold into a treasure from himself.» Another: «Yesterday Alexander oppressed the earth, today he is oppressed by the earth.» What then is man? A plaything of fortune, an image of inconstancy, a mirror of corruption, a spoil of time, a passing traveler, a slave of death, a mockery of the world. Whoever therefore you are mortal and about to die, learn to die.
9:28
«Many,» that is, all men; who are many, says Theophylactus. Secondly, for «to exhaust» the Greek is «anenegkein,» which signifies to offer, to bear and to suffer, that is to say, Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of men, when he offered himself as a victim for sin, and as it were laden with the sins of men to the Father on the cross. Thus Chrysostom and Theodoret. Whence the Syriac translates, «and in himself debach,» that is, he immolated or sacrificed the sin of many, thus namely, that by sacrificing it he removed and abolished it altogether. Again, «anenegkein» signifies to lift up, and consequently to exhaust: just as water from a well when lifted up is exhausted; or as a cup of wine when lifted up to the mouth and drunk is exhausted: so Christ lifted the cup of passion and the penalties owed to us to his mouth, drank it and exhausted it, and thus consumed and abolished all guilt. Our Interpreter followed this signification, when he translated «to exhaust.» Learn here, Christian, that through the grace of Christ your sins are not to be scraped away, not to be cut away, not to be plucked away; but plainly to be exhausted, eradicated and extirpated. Secondly without sin he will appear to those awaiting him, unto salvation. — «Without sin,» that is, with sin abolished. Secondly and better, «without sin,» that is, not that he might again offer himself as a victim for sin, so that it is a metonymy, in which «sin» is the same as «victim for sin.» And this aptly agrees with the preceding words, in which he said Christ was offered to exhaust the sins of many, in Greek «anenegkein,» that is to bear, to pay and to expiate, as a victim for sin, as Chrysostom and Theodoret explained. «In judgment,» says Anselm, «Christ will appear not as a victim, but as justice in rewarding, namely in punishing and condemning the unfaithful and wicked; and in rewarding, saving and glorifying the faithful and good.» Wherefore, O Hebrews, believe in Christ dead and crucified, persist steadfastly in the faith of Christ, and endure all hardships for it, because Christ will soon come to judgment, to bring destruction to your enemies, and to you and all who await him, eternal salvation.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
9:1
Supra 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.
9:2
Pars autem viginti cubitorum dicitur sancta, et tabernaculum primum; sed illa decem dicitur sancta sanctorum et tabernaculum secundum. 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. 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.
9:3
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.
9:4
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. 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. 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. 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.
9:7
Supra 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. 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. 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. 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.
9:8
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.
9:9
Item in prima parte primo ponit officium ministrorum quantum ad primum; secundo subdit positionis rationem iuxta quam munera. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.
9:10
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.
9:11
Supra 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
9:12
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. 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. 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. 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? 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.
9:13
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. 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.
9:14
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? 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. 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.
9:15
Supra 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. 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. 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.
9:16
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. 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.
9:17
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.
9:18
Deinde cum dicit unde nec primum. 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. 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. 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. 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.
9:19
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. 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.
9:20
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.
9:21
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. 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.
9:22
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.
9:23
Supra 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. 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. 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. 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. Deinde cum dicit non enim in manufactis, etc., ostendit, quod caelestia mundantur melioribus hostiis.
9:24
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
9:25
Nec ut saepe offerat seipsum, quemadmodum pontifex intrabat in sancta per singulos annos cum sanguine alieno. 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. 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. 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.
9:26
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. 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. In quolibet enim homine duo invenimus, scilicet necessitatem moriendi; item quod resurgat, non ut emundetur, sed ut iudicetur de factis eius.
9:27
Primum tangit cum dicit et quemadmodum statutum est hominibus semel mori. 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. Deinde cum dicit sic et Christus, etc., ostendit quomodo haec conveniunt Christo.
9:28
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. 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.
9:3
salutem. SUiWMARIUM CAPITIS XOXI. delevisse peccata. 1. Habuit quidem et prius justificationes culturae. Graece: Habebat quidem igitur et primum seu jjrius etc. Videtur oculum reflectere ad id, quod dixerat capite Buperiori, sacerdotes Leviticos exemplari et umbrae coelestium deservire, quasi dicat: Quod breviter attigi de ministerio sacerdotum in tabernaculo, nunc explicatius dicani, ab ipsius tabernaculi forma, et iis, quae a sacerdotibus in tabernaculo agebantur, osteasurus infirmitatem prioris sacerdotii, cui proinde succedere debuerit aliud, ad sanctificandum efficax. Nam de comparatione sacerdotii Christi cum Levitico actum est in praecedentibus, eandemque disputationem Apostolus hoc et sequenti capite prosequitur. Quod in Graecis quibusdam exemplaribus, addito substantivo, legitur: 'H TtpWTTj oxt^vtj prius tabernaculum j aduherina est additio, sensum Apostoli depravans. Neque enim (ut apud Oecumenium Photius ait) tabernaculum cum novo testamento conferebat, sed totum testamentum vetus. Nam tabernaculi mentio mox sequitur. Itaque subaudiendum est ex antecedentibus vocabulum: ^ta^TJxTj, testamentum. Quod etiam Chrysostomus, et post eum Theophylactus studiose admonent. Sentit enim Apostolus, in priori testamento fuisse justificationes culturae seu cultus, ut ahi vertere malunt id, quod in Graeco est: Xaxpstac;. Quamquam interpres consulto vertit: culturae, genitivo singulari, ut ambiguitatem tolleret, quae in Graeco est, quaeque in Latino remaneret, si verteret: cultus. Possent enim alioqui Graeca sic accipi, ut commate distinguantur justificationes et cultus, utrumque numero plurali; sed id ab Apostoli mente alienum videtur. Non enim generatim loquitur de justificationibus, id est mandatis Dei, sed de iis tantum, quae spectant ad ministerium tabernaculi. Unde et Syrus ita transtulit: In primo autem erant mandata ministerii. Igitur justificationes culturae sunt mandata ad cultum Dei pertinentia, velut de sacrificiis, eorumque ritibus. FoTTo justificationes, Graece 5txatcofjiaTa, vocabulo a LXX. translatoribus usurpato, dicuntur in Scripturis mandata, non hominum, sed Dei, propterea quod in eorum observatione proprie consistat hominum justitia, testante Apostolo Rom. 2.: Factores legis justificabuntur. Quamquam, quum infra v. 10. mentionem faciat Apostolus justificationum (sic enim est graece) carnis, videri potest hic de iisdem loqui, de legalibus scilicet illis observationibus et mundationibus; et tunc illa commatica distinctio foret ponenda, de qua dixi, reddendo illud Xaxpsiag per quartum casum pluralem. Et glossa interlinealis MS. iu eum sensum interpretatur etiam id, quod noster interpres dedit, hoc modo: Justificationes culturae, non veras, sed pro modo culturae carnalis carnales. Et sanctum saeculare. Quod Graece est xoo|jLix6v, id est mundanum, interpres vertit: saeculare; quemadmodam et ad Tit. 2.: saecularia desideria, Graece: XGO|jLtxac; e7iL^'j,uiag. Neque enim alibi xoo/jitxov in Scripturis arbitror reperiri. Sjrus etiam interpres vertit eo vocabulo, quod a saeculo, non a mundo deductum est. Quaerendum igitur, quodnam ab Apostolo vocetur sanctum saeculare seu mundanum. Nam quod quidam putant, eo nomine significavi templum, quia saeculare, id est temporale erat, non perpetuum, bene rejicit S. Thomas auctoritate Graeci textus, qui, sicut dictum est, mundanum habet, non saeculare. Qua ratione etiam errare convincuntur, qui e contrario saeculare dictum templum putant, quod multis saeculis duraturum crederetur. Refellitur etiam utraque opinio, quia non de templo nunc agit Paulus, sed de tabernaculo, quod jussu Domini factum est a Mose secundum exemplar in monte monstratum; quemadmodum praefatus est capite praecedenti; tametsi non negamus, templum, quoad partium interiorum dispositionem, fuisse factum ad simiiitudinemquandam tabernaculiMosaici. Chrysostomus sanctum mundanum interpretatur locum, seu tempH, seu taoernaculi, ad quem non solum vulgo Judaeorum, sed promiscue cujusvis nationis ac totius mundi hominibus accessus patebat. Inde enim vult dictum fuisse mu7idanum. Nam Judaei, inquit, non erant mundus. Sequuntur hac in parte Chrysostomum Theophylactus, Oecumenius et Haymo. Contra quod tamen objiciunt alii, neque in tabernaculo, neque in templofuisse locam aliquem, quo fas esset gentilibus Ingredi, quod vel ex eo constare arbitrantur, quia, sicut legitur Act. 21., gravissimus adversus Paulum tumultus concitatus fuit a Judaeis, quod hominem gentilem putaretur introduxisse in templum. Fatentur quidem, gentiles potuisse consistore et orare in loco patente et subdiali, qui erat ante atrium tabernaculi vel templi; atque de hujusmodi loco dicunt accipiendum, quod dicitur in oratione Salomonis 3 Reg. 8. et 2 Paral. 6. de ahenigeiia veniente adtemplum orandi causa, et quod ad Caligulam Philo refert, fuisse locum, ex quo gentiles pussent adorare Deum, et, quae pro se offerrentur, intueri; sed eum locum dicunt neque tabernaculi, neque templi partem fuisse; nec omnino locum signatum gentilibus ulium ad orandum fuisse, praesertim circa tabernacuhtm. Denique nec, si signatus esset, sanctum dici potuisse; non enim dicebatur locus sanctus, sed profanus, qui gentilibus patebat. Quare quod Theophylactus et Oecumenius extra Scripturae auctoritatem dii3tinguunt in tabernaculo tria loca, velut tria eancta, vel, ut Oecumenius loquitur, tria tabernacula, quorum tertium sit locus ille, de quo nunc agitur, non esse recipiendum. Quod si e diveiso objicias exempla gentilium, qui in templum pacifice leguntur ingressi, aut etiam honorifice a sacerdotibus introducti (scribit enim Aristaeas Hbro de LXX. interpretibus, se, Jerosolymam missum a Ptolemaeo rege, in eam templi partem fuisse admissum, quae primae parti tabernaculi respondebat; refert item Josephus libro yecundo de bello Judaico, capite decimo sexto, Politianum quendam, a Cestio Praeside missum, adscendisse in templum et orasse; de Nicanore et Heliodoro nihil dico, quod magis per vim aut improbitatem, quam quod ita liceret, templum ingressi legantur, 1 Machab. 7. et 2 Machab. 3. et 14.): ad haec, inquam, responderi potest, interdum dispensatione quadam datum hoc fuisse magnis et potentibus viris, ut in temphim introirent; atque id ipsum, quoniam extraordinarium erat, argumento esse, quod ordinaria lege non fuerit Hcitum; et, ut de templo haec ita aut secas se habeant, non tamen esse trahenda ad tabernaculum Mosaicum, de quo Paulus disserit: Cujus certe nulla pars videtur umquam jure patuisse gentilibus. Ex his apparet, expositionem Chrysostomi non multum habere probabilitatis. Nec magis probabilis opinio Cajetani, qui sanctum mundanum interpretatur abstractive: sanctitatem, id est munditiam, in oculis mundi hujus. Quamvis enim sanctum Hebraei vocent t^"|p, sanctitatem, hoc ipsum tamen apud illos concertive sumitur pro re sancta. Quare inter alios plerosque convenit, ipsum tabernaculum (quod idem sanctuarium dictum saecularis sive mundani. Theodoretus absolute tabernaculum intellexit, idque censet appellari mundanum, eo quod totius mundi figuram teneat. Velo enim interposito dividebatur in duas partes, quarum una vocabatur sancta, altera sancia sanctorum. Et sancta quidem repraesentabant vitam, quae in terra agitur; sancta autem sanctorum formam ac rationem vitae, quae agitur in coelis. Ipsum autem velum implebat usum firmamenti, dividentis haec inferiora a supernis. Ita Theodoretus. Quam sententiam etiam Oecumenius suis coUectaneis inseruit. Eandem breviter indicat commentarius Ambrosio adscriptus, Josephum citans auctorem. Locus apud Josephum est lib. 3. antiq. Judaic. cap. 5. Cujus tamen speculatio, qua tabernaculi formam ad universitatis naturam accommodat, non prorsus convenit cum sententia Theodoreti. Nobis ratio Theodoreti speciosa magis, quam vera videtur; quamquam illud amplectimur, quod sanctum hoc, de quo Paulus loquitur, non partem tabernaculi, sed totum tabernaculum interpretatus est. Sic enim et capite superiori, ubi Christus, Pontifex noster, vocatur sanctorum minister et tabernaculi t>€ri, dictum est, non aliud per sancta, quam tabernaculum intelligi. Certius hoc ipsum probat subjuncta partitio, qua mox Apostolus sauctum distinguit in partes, id est, in tabernaculum primum et secundum. Sed quare xoo|jitx6v dicitur? Utique non ob aliud, quam quia juxta morem, quo Christus et Apostoli solent de mundo loqui, mundanum erat et saeculare, id est terrenum, non coeleste; quatenus scilicet ministerium ejus terrenum erat, ac ministri ejus super terram, et testamentum in deterioribus, hoc est, terrenis promissionibus sancitum. Quae omnia superiori capite satis indicantur. Hoc modo xoo/Jiixov accipi in eo, quod citavimus ex Epist. ad Titum 2., manifestum est. Nam desideria mundana quid aliud sunt, quam terrenae cupiditates, quibus nimirum terrena concupiscuntur? Ita vero Christum passim de mundo loqui, facile est ostendere, Matth. 5.: Vos estis, inquit, lux mundi; et cap. 16.: Quid prodest homini, si mundum universum lucretur? et Joan. 5.: Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi. Sic et Apostolus 1 Cor. 7.: Qui utuntur hoc mundo, tamquam non utantur; praeterit enim figura hujus mundi. Confirmat hanc expositionem antithesis tabernaculi coelesfis, quod in capite praecedenti vocatur: tabernaculum verum et sancta coelestia, quorum exemplari et umbrae deserviunt, qui super terram fiunt, quodque rursum in hoc capite vocatur tabernaculum et sancta non manufacta, sed coelestia. Ex his enim aperte datur intelligi, sanctuarium illud Mosaicum et umbratile e diverso mundanum propterea vocari, quia de hoc mundo est, quia terrenum, quia manufactum. Et hoc voluerunt interpretes Latinus et Syrus, quando pro mundano verterunt: saeculare, quasi quod sit hujus saeculi; quandoquidem mundus Qt saeculum in Scriptura novi Testamenti fere confunduntur. Ad extremum moneo, istud xoo|itx6v per hypozeugma referri posse etiam ad justificationes culturae. Nam et illae saeculares erant eodem sensu, quo sanctum dicitur saeculare. Unde et infra justitiae carnis appellantur.
2. Tabernaculum enim factum est primum. Quod dixit de sancto saeculari, nunc partibus explicat, uti paulo ante significavi. Primum non adverbium est, ut apparet prima fronte, sed nomen, Graece: 7^ TipwTT). Caeterum non tam ordinem temporis significat (ut doceri potest ex historia constructionis tabernaculi, Exod. 37.), quam ordinem loci. Nam ea pars tabernaculi, quae hic describitur, ingredientibus prior erat. Porro factum intellige non quomodocumque, sed instructum et adornatum. Id enim significat Graecum xaTSOXsuao^y]. In quo erant candelabra. Laborant hic non pauci Latinorum, quomodo dicat Apostolus, in priore tabernaculo fuisse candelabra, cum in descriptione et structura tabernaculi Exod. 25. et 37. tantum unius candelabri mentio fiat. Haec diflicultas auctorem commentarii titulo Primasii super hanc Epistolam, una cum Haimone, in eam compulit opinionem, ut dicerent, Apostolum hic non agere de tabernaculo, quod Moses fecit, sed de templo, quod Salomon aedificavit, in quo fuere candelabra decem, ut habetur 3 Reg. 7. et 2 Paral. 4. Alii, nt Anselmus, Aquinas et Liranus, respondent, unum fuisse candelabrum, quantum ad stipitem, sed plura, quantum ad ramos seu calamos e stipite surgentes, qui fuere numero septem, in quibus ponebantur totidem lucernae. Hoc etsi verum sit, vera tamen et prompta solutio petenda est ex textu Graeco, ubi singulari numero legitur: 7] Xux'^ia, id est candelabrum; videlicet eadem voce, quaLXX. usi sunt in Exodo. FaUuntur enim Erasmus et Hentenius, qui Graeca voce hicernam putant hoc loco significari. Graecis consonat interpres Sjriis. Erat autem candelabri lccus in australi parte tabernaculi, et quidem e regione mensae in aquilonari parte collocatae, de qua sequitur: Et mensa, et propositio panum. De his agitur Exod. 25. Usus mensae erat, ut in ea ponerentur panes, qui vocabantur propositionis. Ponebantur autem singulis hebdomadis novi. Caeterum pane» propositionis vocati sunt, non quia ponebantur in mensa, sed quia ponebantur coram Domino. Quos enim LXX. vocant panes propositionis, Hebraica veritas appellat: panes facierum, id eSt, ante faciem seu conspectum arcae, quae praesenliam Domini significabat. Sic et Syrus eos vocat hoc loco. Rationem vero, quam dixi, Dominus ipse Mosi praecipiens assignat Exod. 25. Nam pro eo, quod Hieronymus vertit: Et pones super mensam panes propositionis in conspectu meo semper, in Hebraeo sic ad verbum legitur: Et dabis super mensam panem facierum, ad facies meas jugittr. Quare quod quidam volunt, dictos fuisse panes facierum, eo quod, ordine duplici collocati, se mutuo respicerent, praeter Scripturam dicitur. Notanda hypallage in eo, quod Apostolus propositionem panum dixit pro: panibus propositionis. Quae dicitur Sancta. Ambiguum est in Graeco, utrum ad id, quod proxime praecessit, particularelativa sit referenda, id est, ad propositionem panum vel etiam ad mensam, an vero ad tabernaculum primum. Sunt enim haec omnia foeminei generis in Graeco. Sed attendenti ad contextum sermonis Apostoli dubium esse non potest, quin ad taher" naculum respiciat. ut legendum videatur, quemadmodum alii transtulerunt, imo quemadmodum nostrum interpretem vertisse probabile est ex eo, quod in codice Laudensi scriptum videmus: Quod dicitur Sancta. Est enim Sancta numeri pluralis, respondens ad id, quod mox sequitur: Sancta sanctorum; tametsi in his plurale per singulare exponendum est, uti paulo post docebimus. Unde et Syrus interpres vertit: Et vocabatur do^ mus sancta. Sensus igitur est, tabernaculum illud primum communi nomine vocari Sancta vel Sanctum, vel Sanctuarium, utpote ad cujus distinctionem tabernaculam secundum vocaretur Sancta sanctorum. Unde sequitur.
3. Post velamentum autem secundum, tabernaculum, quod dicitur San^ eta sanctorum. Quamvis hic de secundo tabernaculo loquatur Apostolus, in verbis tamen ejus dictio secundum non est ad tabernaculum referenda, sed ad velamentum. Nam in Graeco tabernaculum et secundum genere differunt, estque ibidem blc ordo verborum: Post secundum autem velamentum, tabernaculum, quod dicitur etc. Ut mirum sit, interpretem metathesi dictionis sensum ambiguum facere voluisse. Syriaca translatio sic habet: Habitaculum autem interius, quod erat intra velum secundum, vocabatur Sanctum sanctorum. Sentit ergo Apostolus, post secundum velum fuisse alterum tabernaculum, id e?t, eam totius tabernaculi partem, quae Sancta sanctorum vocabatur. Dicit aut^m secundum velum 'j nam Exod. 26. duo vela fieri jubentur: alterum interius, quod Sanctum divideret a Sancto sanctorum, quod velum hic vocatur secundum; alterum exterius, quod Sanctum separaret ab atrio foris posito, quod proinde ingredientibus erat primum. An autem praeter haec duo fuerint adhuc alia tabernaculi vela, quemadmodum ex Levitici locis inter se collat.is probari posse putat Galenus, studiosis investigandum relinquo. Certe in templo Salomonis plura duobus fuisse, variis usibus aptata, satis credibile est. Obiter admoneo, non esse velis anuumerani^as decem cortinas, et undecim saga cilicina, quibus operiebatur tabernaculum, ut nec reliqua duo ejusdem tabernaculi operimenta facta ex pellibus. Quorum omnium descriptio est apud Mosen Exod. 26. et 36. Nam operimenta proprie non dicuntur vela. Porro, quae Apostcliis vocat Saticta et Sancta sanctorum, \n Hebraeo dicuntur numero singulari: Sanctitas et Sanctitas sanctitatum; sed quia sanctitas pro re sancta more Hebraeoru.n accipitur, recte interpretes Sanctum vel Sanctuarium pro sanctitate, et Sanctum sanctorum pro Sanctitate sanctitatum transtulerunt. Quemadmodum etiam in Exodo legitur apud LXX., licet alibi interdum pluraleposuerunt, utPsalm. 133.: Extollite manus vestras in Sancta, et Psalm. Oail. £itii Comm. Tom. HI. 160.: Laudate Dominum in Sanctis ejus. Dicitur autem Hebraeis Sanctum sanctorum,tamquam eximiesanctum, quomodo dicunt canticum canticorum, id est, praestantissimum canticum, et coelum coelorum, id est supremum coelum. Quod et nos imitamur, quibus B. Maria Virgo virginum appellatur, id est exoellentissima, Virgo. Itaque prior quidem pars tabernaculi Sanctum erat, propter res sacras inibi contentas, candelabrum, mensam et panes propositionis, et propter quotidiana sacerdotum ministeria, quae in ea parte iiebant. Interior autem para Sanctum sanctorum, quia continebat ea, quae sanctissima et secretissima habebantur, arcam testimonii, propitiatorium, Cherubim; tum quia solus pontifex illuc intvoibat semel in anno, sicut infra dicitur. Unde et ad declarandam loci sanctitatem, Deus interdum ex eo responsa dabat.
9:4
4. Aureu7n habens thuribulum. De thuribujo aureo, quod erat in Sancto sanctorum, nihil habemus in Scriptura. Leguntur quidem Exod. 25. et 37., jubente Deo, facta thuribula aurea, simul cum acetabulis et phialis ac cyathis, itidem aureis; sed horum thuribulorura aliquod in Sancto sanctorum fuisse collocatum, nusquam legitur. Ergo quaestio est, unde Paulus habeat, quod hic dicit. Sunt, qui suspicentur, id eum habere ex traditione non scripta. Alii dicunt, sermonem hic esse de thuribulo, in quo pontifex, ingressus in Sanctum sanctorum, adolebat thymiama, cujus ex fumo nebula excitata cooperiret oracalum; sicut praecipitur Lev. 16.; simul ut suffitu suavissimi odoris locus sacratissimus honoraretur. Apostolum autem dicere, quod thuribulum hoc fuerit in Sancto sanctorum, eo quod pontifex illuc cum thuiibulo ingrediebatur. At haec responsio scrupulum non tollit. Non enim Apostolus de singulari quodam thuribulo loqueretur, tamquam de re memorabili, nisi Moses in descriptione tabernaculi singulariter illius meminisset, eicut meminit caeterorum, quae hic referuntur. Veriorem itaque censeo responsionem eorum, qui dicunt thuribuli nomine significari hoc loco altare thymiamatis, quod describitur Exod. 30., sicut intellexit Origenes homil. 9. super Exodum. Quam sententiam pluribus argumentis probat Abulensis in Exod. 25. q. 6. et in 3 Reg. 6. q. 16. Eandem docte confirmat FranciscHS Ribera lib. 2. de templo, cap. 8., et in comment. praesentis loci. Sciendum enim, vocem Graecam 0u|uLiaT7)ptov non solum significare thuribulum, verum etiam locum aut aram, in qua fit suffitus. Et ita sine dubio Josephus accepit lib, 3. antiq. Jud. cap. 7., et lib. 6. de bello Judaico, cap. 6., licet hoc posteriore loco Latinus interpres verteritthuribulum. Nam et revera non aliud erat illud altare, quam magnum thuribulum; nec majus tamen, quam cubitum habens longitudinis, et cubitum latitudinis, utpote cujus non alius esset usus, quam ut in eo ignis imponeretur, et odores incenderentur. Huju8 sententiae breviter etiam meminit S. Thomas, nec refellit. Sed adversus eam Liranus et alii nonnuUi objiciunt, altare thymiamatis intelligi non posse, quoniam illud situm erat extra velum, ubi candelabrum et mensa, sicut habetur Exod. ult. Quod et Theophylactus afiirmat, exponens illud hujus capitis: Non sine sanguine. Paulus autem loquitur nunc de his, quae erant intra velum, in Sancto sanctorum. Nam quod B. Augustinus q. 133. et 174. superExod. scribit, altare incensi intra velum fuisse, ideoque sacerdotem quotidie debuisse ingredi in Sanctum sanctorum, ut quotidie,juxta legis praeceptum, super eo altari incensum poneret, non consonat cum iis, quae Exod. 30. et 40. leguntur. Sed Augustinum fefellit obscuritas versionis interpretum LXX., quae non distinguit, utrum exterius, an interius contra velum altare collocatum fuerit. Igitur cum Ribera respondeo, altare thymiamatis factum fuisse, ut deserviret Sancto sanctorum. Cum enim soli pontifici fas esset illuc intrare, nec id, nisi semel in anno i ne ea pars tabernaculi, quae sacratior erat, honore thuris careret, jussit Dominus, juxta statui altare, iu quo thymiama adoleretur, cujus fumus e proximo sanctum locum occupans obnubilaret. Quam ob causam etiam altare oraculi, id est Sancti sanctorum, vocatur 3 Reg. 6., et altare, quod erat coram DominOj id est, coram arca testimonii, Levit. 16. Notandum enim, Apostolum non sic dicere: Tabernaculum, in quo erat aureum thuribulum; sed: aureum habens thuribulum, videlicet proxime sibi admotum, ut ipsi serviret ad usum supradictum. Pro confirmatione hujus sententiae plurimum etiam valet, quod altare thymiamatis fuerit unum ex praecipuis, quae in tabernaculo erant. Unde non est ullo modo verisimile, fuisse ab Apostolo praetermissum, ubi caetera recensuit. Cur autem ipsum numeraverit inter ea, quae erant post velum eecundum, ratio jam reddita est. Verum adhuc objiciet aliquis, thuribulum ab Apostolo vocari aureum, quod in altare non competit. Neque enim altaria ex auro fieri solent, sed thuribula. Deinde constat ex memoratis locis Exodi, altare thymiamatis factum fuisse ex lignis setim. Respondemus, etiam altare illud aureum fuisse, sicque vocari a Mose Exod. 39. et 40. et Num. 4.; non quod ex auro solido conflatum esset, sed quia totum auro tectum; sicut et mensa vocatur aurea 3 Reg. 7., quamvis ex lignis setim facta, quia nimirum tota auro cooperta erat. Atque ita de altari Augustinus ipse quaest. ult. super Exodum: Altare, inquit, incensi aliquando aureum dicit Scriptura, aliquando deauratum; aureum utique appeUans, quod erat inauratum. Sic ille. Similiter autem et altare holocausti dictum est aereum, hoc est, aere circumvestitum. Eadem ratio de arca, de qua jam sequitur:
Et arcam Testamenti circumtectam ex omni parte auro. Quod Graece est TiavT&^sv, undique, id interpres explicatius dixit: ex omni parte. Legitur Exod. 25. et 37., arcam Dei jussu factam ex lignis setim, et auro purissimo intus ac foris obductam; ut merito etiam aurea dici potuerit, etsi Scriptura sic eam non appellet. Habet enim proprium nomen in Scripturis, ut dicatur arca Testamenti s^u foederis, quod in ea servarentur duae tabulae legis, quae vocabantur tabulae testamenti (^cnt et infra vocantur ab Apostolo) propterea, quod, testamento seu pacto intervenieate, lex a Deo data erat. Dicebatur etiam arca teatimonii, quia in ea repositum erat testimonium, Domino praecipiente Mosi, Exod. 25.: Pones in ea testimonium, et Mose de se narrante Exod. ultimo: Posuit et testimonium in arca. Hoc enim nomine lex vocabatur, quod per eam Deus testatam faceret hominibus suam voluntatem. Hinc et David in Psalm. 77.: Suscitavit testimonium in Jacob, et legem posuit in Israel. Porro sciendum, arcam, postea a Salomone illatam in templum, non perseverasse, nisi usque ad tempus captivitatis Babylonicae. Tunc enim vel ablata fuit a Chaldaeis cum reliqua pretiosa templi supellectile, de qua 4 Reg. ult., 2 Paral. ult. et Jerem. ult., licet arca non nominetur; vel potius juxta narrationem, quae habetur 2 Machab. 2., abscondita in monte Nebo. Nec de ejus inventione seu recuperatione postillud tercpus quidquam apud scriptores invenitur. Itaque in templo per Zorobabel instaurato nec avca testamenti fuit, nec caelera, quae hic in secundo tabernaculo fuisse raemoraiitur. Unde 1 Machab. 1., ubi recensetur supellex templi, quam inde abstulit et comminuit Antiochus Epiphanes, et pro qua novam postea fieri jussit Judas Machabaeus, sicut refertur ejusdem lib. cap. 4., nominatur quidem inter alia vasa altare aureum, quod est thyraiaraatis, quod jam ostendimus extra vehim fr.isse; de arca vero ac caeteris, quorum locus esse debebat intra velum, nulla mentio. Vernra Apostolus non de templo loquitur, vel primo, vel secundo; sed da tabernaculo Mosaico.
In qua urna aurea habens manna. Respicit ad historiam Exod. 16., ubi legitur Dominus praecepisse Mosi, et Moses Aaroni, ut de manna coelitus dato vas unum implerent, quantunl posset capere gomor, idque reponerent coram Domino ad servandum in futuras generationes. Unde et subditur: Posuitque illud Aaron in tabernaculo reservandum. Quod utique per prolepsin dictura est; nondum enim tunc exstructum erat tabernaculum. Porro de materia hujus urnae nihil Moses scriptum reliquit. Hebraei sua proferunt commenta. Nos, urnam auream fuisse, indubitate credimus Apostolo, quem verisimile est id habuisse ex traditione majorum. Sane cum caetera vasa tabernaculi fuerint aurea vel auro tecta, convenit idem intelligi de hoc vasculo ibidem reponi jusso.
Et virga Aaron, quae fronduerat. Graece: ^ ^'koiOirpa.Qa, quae germina^ verat. Locus est Num. 17., ubi virgam Aaron, quae pro confirmationo sacerdotii ejus, ad sedandas aliarum tribuum querelas, sola inter tredecim virgas germinaverat floresque emiserat, jussit Dominus in tabernaculo testimonii servari. Fuit autem haec virga eadem cum virga Mosi, queraadraodum constat ex historia Num. 20. et aliunde. Corarauniter enim ad edenda signa et prodigia Moses et Aaron hac virga pro instrumento utebantur, Deo videlicet per eam operante. Propter quod et virga Dei dicta est, Exod. 4. et 17. Jam ex eo, quod Scrip^ara Numerorum refert, flores ejus, dilatatis foliis, ira araygdalas fuisse deformatos, bene colligunt interpretes, amygdalinum baculum fuisse.
Et tabuJae testamenti. Noa priores illae, quas Moses, populo propter adoratum vitnlnm iratus, confregit ad radicem montis, Exod. 32.; sed posteriores, in quibus denuo verba legis suae Dominus descripsit, ut habetur Exod. 34. Has enim tabulas in arca repositas fuisse, legimus Exod. 40. et Deut. 10. Cur autem tabulae testamenti dictae fuerint, ratio superius reddita est. Sed hic exsurgit quaestio, quomodo dicat Apostolus, in arca fuisso haec tria; urnam habentem manna,
13 • et virgam Aaron, et tabulas legis; cum id de solis tabulis Scriptura testetur. Nam duo priora coram Domino in tabernaculo posita fuisse, Moses scribit; at in arca locum eis datum non meminit. Imo Scriptura alibi repugnat, ut 3 Reg. 8. et 2 Paral. 5. Quo utroque loco expresse dicitur, in arca non aliud fuisse, quam duas tabulas lapideas, quas Moses in ea posuerat. Hic scrupulus multos torquet, et apud quosdam tanti est, ut eo inter alia argumento nitantur, quo divinam auctoritatem huic Epistolae detrahant. Inter quos Cajetanus suspicatur, auctorem Epistolae scripturam Exodi non bene intellexisse, ut, quae jussa sunt reponi coram Domino, sive coram testimonio Domini, putaverit mandatum, ut in arca servarentur. Qui vero pro canonica Scriptura, sicut oportet, hanc Epistolam recipiunt, varie respondent; sed Theophylactus hoc modo conciliat: Urnam et virgam non a principio reconditas in arca fuisse; sed demum tempore Jeremiae, quando necesse erat, ut arca occultaretur; idque fortasse Paulum, in sacris Judaicis a Gamaliele institutum, ex traditione accepisse: quandoquidem, inquit, hodieque Pharisaeorum sectam ex Hebraeis tuentes assentiuntur, rem ita se habere. Huic responsioni vicinum est, quod Melchior Canus lib. 2. de locis Theol. cap. 11. et alii quidam dicunt, non quidem tempore Jeremiae, sed tamen post Salomonem in arca fuisse repositas urnam et virgam, quo sic melius servarentur. Verum qui ita respondent, non satis attendunt, ad quod tempus respiciat Apostolus hoc loco. Jam enim supra admonui, et res ipsa loquitur, hic agi de tabernaculo, non de templo. Qua ex re manifestum est, non d' tempore Salomonis aut Jeremiae, sed de tempore Mosi, quae hic dicuntiU; esse accipienda. Quocirca Catharinus invertit responsionem, dicens, haec duo tempore Mosi fuisse in arca; sed inde educta tempore Salomonis, quando arca in templum erat inducenda. Atqui nihiladfertCatharinus, quo probet hanc suam responsionem. Nec enim usquam, vel in Scriptura sacra, vel apud Josephum aut Philonem, aut quemvis alium rerum Judaicarum scriptorem, legitur, aliud quidquam praeter duas tabulas legis in arca testamenti positum a Mose fuisse. Quin ex eo, quod jussus est, Exod. 16., urnam manna refertam coram Domino reponere, consequens videtur, non fuisse positam in arca, sed extra. Nam illud: coram Domino, tantundem est, ac si dicas: coram arca testamenti, quae Dominum repraesentabat. Eadem consequentia est ex eo, quod tam urna, quam virga reponi jussa sunt CO" ram testimonio, sive ante testimonium; sicut iu Hebraeo legitur tam Exod. 16., quam Num. 17., ubi vulgata versio habet: in tabernaculo. Nam per testimonium iis locis metonymice significatur arca, in qua erat testimonium. Alia responsio est, cum dicitur in historia translationis arcae sub Salomone, non aliud in ea fuisse, nisi duas tabulas, sensum esse non prorsus absolutum; sed tantum significari, quod ex tota lege nihil aliud continebatur in arca, nisi decem praecepta decalogi duabus tabulis inscripta. Sic Vatablus in scholiis ad locum Scripturae 3 Reg. 8. Sed refellitur ex iis, quae jam diximus. Exponenda est enim illa Scriptura secundum ea, quae Moses oh'm scripserat, qui sic tabulas arcae inclusit, ut excludat caetera. Per quod eliduntur et aliae duae responsiones: una S. Thomae et aliorum quorundam, dicentium, solas tabulas in arca fuisse principaliter, ut quae propter eas conservandas esset fabricata; per occasionem vero etiam urnam et virgam in ea fuisse repositas; altera eorum, qui dicunt, medium ac praecipuum arcae locum deputatum fuisse tabulis testamenti; reliqua duo collocata ad latus in sinu qaodam separcito. Haec, inquam, dici non possunt, quia cum Moso, qui solas, ut dixi, tabulas arcae inclusit, minime consentiunt. Denique constat ex Scriptura Exod. 25. et 37., longitudinem arcae tantum fuisse duorum et semis cubitorum. ut proinde virgam Aaron verisimiliter capere non potuerit; erat enim haec oblongior, ut solent esse virgae pastorales. Siquidem ad oves soceri sui pascendas in Madian Moses ea primum usus fuerat. Atque hoc argumento iu universum destruuntur opiniones eorum, qui putant, virgam aliquando fuisse in arca. Sunt autem nonmilli, qui virgam et urnam non intra arcam ponant, sed extra, videlicet in arcnla quadam ad eum usum facta, quae lateri arcae conjuncta eeset, ut quodammodo dici possent esse in arca. Sic enim post Liranum scribentem super 3 Reg. 8. etiam Cajetanus glossari posse putat hunc locum Epistolae, si defendenda sit ejus auctoritas. Sed et hoc merito velut commentitium rejiciendum; tum quoniam ejusmodi arcula virgam non caperet, nisi faceres eam ipsa arca longiorem; tum quia nec Moses, qui nobis omnia, quae ad arcae fabricationem pertinent, exacte descripsit, nec Josephus, aut alius quisquam veterum, hujus arculae meminerunt. Nam quod adfertur tamquam huic opinioni consonum ex Deut. 31., ubi Moses Levitis praecipit, ut librum Deuteronomii ponant observandum in latere arcae foederis, id quomodo sit intelligendum, infra dicemus. Aliam quandam solutionem adfert Jacobus Stapulensis. Cum enim existimet, Epistolam hanc Hebraice scriptam esse, nec tamen Hebraice, ut scripta est, exstare, dicit, nos nescire, qua praepositione Paulus usus fuerit; Graecum autem interpretem subinde praepositionem diversam aut minus propriam reponere. Quare pro eo, quod ex Graeco habemus: in qua, putat Apostolum in Hebraeo scripsisse: cum qua; et adeo putat, ut etiam ausit ita vertere: cum qua urna aurea etc. Quae versio si valeret, haud dubie tolleret omnem diaphoniam, quae videtur esse hujus loci cum historia Regum. Sed Epistolam hanc Hebraice scriptam esse, Stapulensi non damus. Et si detur, non tamen est fidi interpretis, omisso textu, quem vertendum susceperis, aliud quiddam reddere tamquam ex fonte, quem nusquam videris. Sunt igitur alii, quibus ex Graeco textu vera difficultatis enodatio petenda videtur. Dicunt enim, particulam: in qua, non ad arcam referri debere, sed ad remotius vocabulum, nempe tabernaculum, quod et ipsum in Graeco foeminei generis est, sicut arca, ut sensus sit: In quo taber' naculo, post velamentum secundum posito fquod dicitur Sancta sanctorum), urna erat aurea, habens manna, et virga Aaron etc. Qui sensus perspicuam habet veritatem. Verum nec ista responsio, quamvis eam ut plausibilem adducant Ribera et Tremelius, nobis probari potest; tum quia nulla ratio est, cur Apostolus in contextu mutet sermonem, ut, cum de tabernaculo secundo dixisset: aureum habens thuribulum, et arcam testamenti, postea de eodem dicat: in quo urna aurea et virga Aaron, ac non potius: et urnam auream et virgam Aaron, sicut consequentia sermonis postulabat. Tum vero quia, quod proxime sequitur: superque eam erant Cherubim, non de tabernacalo, sed de arca dictum est. Non enim super tabernaculum, sed super arcam testamenti, in ipso tabernaculo, Cherubim alas suas expandebant. Quare et illud praecedens: in qua, ad arcam refeiendum est, non ad tabernaculum. Etenim prius dicere voluit, quid in arca fuerit, deinde, quid super arcam. Quod si ad diversa referas: in qua et super eam, implexa et perturbata reddetur oratio; quemadmodum facile patet attentius consideranti. Restat adhuc una solutio, quae apud Hervaeum in comment. legitur, ut in arca fuisse dicantur urna et virga, quia juxta arcam erant. Nam more Scripturae nnidpiam in loco aliquo esse dicitur, si •i loco ipso contineatur, vel sit in loco oontiguo. Sic enim dicit Dominui^ id Jeremiam cap. 35. de Rechabitis: Jit in^ troduces eos in domum Domini in unam exedram thesaurorum; et dabis eis bibere vinum. Sic et Joannes cap. 10.: Et ambulabat Jesus in templo, in porticu Salomonis; quum tamen neque exedra, neque porticus essent partes templi, sed structurae foris adjimctae. Nec secus accipiendum, quod apud omnes Evangelistas legitur, Joan. 2., Matth. 21., Marc. 11. et Luc. 19., eos, qui erant ementes et vendentes in templo, fuisse a Christo inde ejectos. Nam illa negotiatio in porticibus templi fiebat. Simile et illud Lucae 9.: Et dicebant (Moses et Elias) excessum ejus, quem completurus erat in Jerusalem, et cap. 13.: Non capit, Prophetam perire extra Jerusalem. Nam Christus, de quo utrumque dictum est, non intra Jerosolymam urbem occisus est, sed prope eam in monte Calvariae. Quod satis erat, ut excessum suum in JerusaJem completurus, et non extra Jerusalem periturus diceretur. Hoc igitur sensu putat auctor ille dictum a Paulo: in arca fuisse haec tria, urnam, virgam et tabulas testamenti; tabulas quidem, ut intra arcam inclusas; urnam vero et virgam, ut juxta positas, quod alibi dicitur: in latere arcae, ut Deut. 31., ubi Moses praecipit Levitis, ut librum Deuteronomii ponant in latere arcae foederis, id est foris juxta arcam, non intus, ut male quidam existimant. Expositio certe probabilis, quae nec Francisco Ribera*3 displicet, et nobis prae caeteris arridet. Nam et pars illa praecedens: aureum habens thuribulum, prout a nobis exposita est, hunc adjuvat intellectum. Diximus enim, ex menle Apostoli tabernaculum secundum habuisse thuribulum aureum, non quasi proprie thuribulum in eo fuerit; sed quia proxime erat admotum.
9:5
5. Superque eam erant Cherubim gloriae obumbrantia propitiatorium. Cherubim gloriae dixit Hebraea phrasi, id est Cherubim gloriosa. Quo epitheto vocantur, quod multum*majestatis ac venerationis adferrent illi loco, in quo Deits suam Quodammodo praesentiam exhibebat. Erant autem effigies qiJaedam ex mero auro conflatae, habentes alas, ut quibusdau; placet, quaternas, ut aliis, binas; quae quidem a dextra laevaque arcae stantes, alis super propitiatorium, quo arca tegebatur, expassis, atque illud obumbrantibus, se mutuo, versis in ipsum propitiatorium vultibus, aspiciebant. Describit eas Moses Exod. 25. et 27. Sed qua figura fuerint, ab eo non est proditum. Opinio vulgata est, humanam habuisse figuram, vultu juvenili, quales pinguntur angeli; quem pingendi morem agnoscunt etiam et probant Patres septimae Synodi, Nicaenae, Act. 4. Consentiunt Hebraei quidam, sumpto argumento ex etymo vocis Cherub, quam dicunt esse compositam, et sonare: sicut puer; quamvis aliis plerisque, teste Dionysio lib. coelestis hierarch. cap. 7., magis placeat, ea voce significari multitudinem scientiae. Quod et B. Hieronymus sequitur in comment. Jesai. 6. et Ezech. 10. Favet eidem opinioni plurale Cherubim masculini generis, quod eodem geneie vertunt ex Hebraeo Hieronymus ac caeteri Latini interpretes, tametsi LXX. tribuant eis adjectiva neutri generis. Quos et Apostohis imitatus est hoc loco, dicens xaTaaxiiC^iVTa, id est obumbrantia, non obumbrantes. At vero Josephus lib. 3. antiq. Jud. cap. 8. de figura rem facit incertam. Dicit enim, Cherubim fuisse animalia volucria, nova specie, nec umquam cuiquam hominum visa, quae Moses in Dei solio viderat figurata. Ac rursum lib. 8. cap. 3., ubi de structura sanctuarii Salomonici disserit, affirmat, neminem, qua specie fuerint, vel conjicere posse, vel eloqui. Verum nonnullis suspicio est Josephum calumnias adversariorum veritum, studio dissimulasse de figura Cherubinorum, cum homo sacerdos Judaicae gentis eam, ipsorum judicio, ignorare non potuerit. Quidam sane recens scriptor, conjecturis haud levibua adductus, existimat, ea vitulini vultus habuisse similitudinem, saltem, quae Moses finxit. Nam quae Salomon fabricavit, humani corporis speciem habuisse, ex ipsa eorum descriptione, quae legitur 3 Reg. 6. et 2 Par. 3., satis colligi videtur. Sive autem hominis, sive cujuscumque animalis similitudinem habueriat (ut id obiter admoneamus): recte ex illis, jussu Dei factis, et in loco sacratissimo collocatis, argumentantur Catholici contra Judaeos et haereticos, non fuisse simpliciter vetitum Israelitis, ne quam haberent imaginem aut similitudinem eorum, quae vel in coelo, vel in terra, vel in aquis sunt; sed ne haberent ad colendum, sicut ipsa lex exponit. Neque enim ad cultum posita fuerunt Cherubim in sanctuario, sed tum ad significationem futurorum, tum ad augendam loci majestatem, uti dictum est. Porro propitiatorium erat tabula aurea paris longitudinis et latitudinis cum arca testamenti, quam totam operiebat, ut patet ex locis Exodi paulo ante citatis. Dicitur autem propitiatorium, Graece iXaoTT^ptov j quod ibi locus esset, ubi propitiaretur sive placaretur Deus. Hieronymus interdum vertit: oraculum, forte significare volens, quod ex eo loco Deus responsa dare solitus fuerit. Quamquam Hebraea vox ambiguae est significationis. Ve/bum enim primitivum duo significat: expiare et operire. Unde plerique ex Hebraeo vertere malunt: operculum. Hoc enim nomine usus ejus significatur, qui erat operire arcam. Alii vero, conjungentes utramque significationom, verterunt: operculum propitiatorium.
De quibus non est modo dicendum per singula. Non est, inquit, ut quis a me exspectet horum omnium, quaejam enumeravi, mysticam interpretationem. Habent quidem illa singula suum mysterium, ad Christum aut Ecclesiam ejus pertinens; sed id explicare, non est hujus t^^mporis, non est nunc oportunum, quia disputatio instituta nos ad alia vocat. Sensum hunc expressit Syrus interpres, quando pro eo, quod habetur in Graeco: No7i est nunc dicere, sic vertit: Non est tempus nobis dicendi. Dum autem Apostolas negat, sibi, hanc Epistolam scribenti, tempus esse de rebus meraoratis singulatim disserendi, non utique negat, allegorias ac mysteria sub iis latentia posse inveniri, sed magis affirmat. Quare laudandi sunt Glossator, Anselmus, Aquinas, Liranus, Stapulensis et si qui alii conati sunt, in gratiam studiosi ac pii lectoris allegoricam eorum, quae dicta sunt intelligentiam aperire. Quod quidem maxime videtar adsecutus Angelicus doctor, ad quem proinde lectorem remitto.
9:6
6. His vero ita compositis. Id est: apparatis sive ordinatiSj ut alii transtu* ierunt. Ex omnibus praemissis illud sibi tractandum et interpretandum sumit Apostolus, quod ad suum spectabat institutum, quo nimirum vult ostendere veteris sacerdotii infirmitatem, ut novum Christi sacerdotium stabiliat. Sensus: Cumigitur haec, quae dixi, fuerint ad hunc modam parata et ordinata.
In priori quidem tabernaculo semper introibant sacerdotes. Graece: In pri^ mum quidem tabernaculum semper ingrediuntur sacerdotes. Semper, id est quotidie. Nam hoc opponit ei, quod mox ait: semel in anno. Dicit autem: ingre^ diuntur, praesentis temporis verbo, sicut et paulo post: quem offertj non quasi loquens de tempore, quo haec scribebat; jam enim superius admonui, quae hic dicuntur, non ad templum (quod inconsiderate facit Erasmus in paraphrasi), sed ad tabernaculum Mosaicum esse referenda. Nam templo accommodari non possunt, quale praesertim erat aetate Pauli, privatum arca aliisque monumentis, quorum hic est mentio; sed verbo praesentis tomporis utitur' ad significandam consuetudinem; ac si dicat, in prius tabernaculum quotidie solitos ingredi sacerdotes.
Sacrificiorum officia consummantes. Quod in Graeco est: Tag XaTpstag, id est cultus seu ministeria, duabus vocibus interpres reddidit, dicens: sacrificiorum officia. Similiter Erasmus, dura vertit: sacrorum ritus. At simplicius est: sacra ministeria. Syrus nude ministerium dixit, sicut et noster paulo ante: culturam. Consummantes, Graece S7tt- TsXouvTc';, quod alii vertunt: perficientes sive peragentes. Atqui Graecum verbum non solum consummare sive perficere, sed etiam facere significat; eoque modo cum alias in hac Epistola, tum capite praecedente bis usurpatum est: Cu?n co7isummaret tabernaculum, et: Comummabo testamentum novum, sicut illic observavidus. Unde quod bie dicitur, ita proprie verti potest: sacra ministeria oheuntes. Sed quaeritur, quae ministeria? Nam in priori parte tabernaculi nullae victimae o£Perebantur; tantum in ea erant candelabrum, et mensa cum panibus, et inter haec duo medium altare thymiamatis, offerendis hostiis ineptum. Sacrificia vero mactabantur et offerebantur extra primum velum, et proinde extra tabernaeuium ipsum sub dio, in ea parte atrii, quae erat sanctificata, et in qua altare holocausti. Forte respondebis ex Graeco, Paulum hic non loqui de sacrificiis, sed de ministeriis sacris in genere. Quippe constat, sacerdotes alia quaedam ministeria solitos obire in priori tabernaculo, ut erant, lucernas componere, panes sabbatis mutare, aromata adolere. Huc accedit, quod in lege sacrificium dicitur, non solum quando mactantur hostiae, verum etiam cum incenduntur aromata, aut offeruntur panes ac caetera inanimata, cujusmodi diximus ab Apostolo dona seu munera vocari, cap. 5. et 8. Quocirca Latini fere hunc locum exponunt de eo sacerdotum officio, quo bis quotidie, mane scilicet et vespere, adolebant incensum super altare thymiamatis, quando illuc intrabant ad componendum lucernas. De qua re Moses Exod. 30., et plenius Philo Judaeus in lib. de victimis. Hanc autem adoletionem, inquit B. Thomas, simul et devotionem offerentium Apostolus vocat sacrificium. Cajetanus vero, ut nodum expediat, urget vocabulum: consummantes. Incipiebat, inquit, quotidie, tam mane, quam vesperi, cultus in altari holocaustorum, quod erat ante tabernaculum, offerendo agnum in holocaustum, uti praecipitur Exod. 29. Perficiebatur autem cuJtus, tam mane, quam vesperi, in altari thymiamotis, quod eratinprimo tabernaculo, sacerdote videlicet ibi adolente thymiama. Et propterea dicit Apostolus, quod introibant in illud sacerdotes cultum consummantes. Sic ille. Verum, ut taceam, praeter mentem Apostoli esse, quod in verbo consummantes vim facit Cajetanus, sicut ex dictis intelligi potest; haec Latinorum responsio non omnino satisfacit intentioni Paulinae. Sentit enim, non solum ea sacrificia, quae munera vocantur, sed et hostias offerri solitas quotidie in priori tabernaculo. Huc enim respiciens, ita dicit paulo post: Quae parabola est temporis instantis, juxta quam munera et hostiae offeruntur. Ac sane pertinebat ad Apostoli institutum, loqui de cruentis sacrificiis legis, ut ea conferret cum sacrificio cruento, quod Christus obtulit in cruce. Quare potius videtur, Apostolum ita loqui de priori tabernaculo, ut etiam comprehendat eam atrii partem, ubi erat altare holocausti. Nec obstat, quod tabernaculum illud partibus suis definiens idem Apostolus, nullam fecerit mentionem altaris holocausti, quod utique tam memorabile est, ut praeteriri non debuerit. Potest enim responderi, propterea non esse nominatum cum caeteris, quoniam erat extra velum. Alioqui nihil vetare, quo minus cum iis, quae in priore tabernaculo erant, censeatur. Nam instituto Apostoli satis esse, si inter primum et secundum tabernaculum distinctio servetur. Quae quidem manet, etiamsi priori tabernaculo locum altaris holocausti adjungas. Nonnulli putant, propositam difficultatem ita solvi posse, si dicatur, etiam cruenta sacrificia posse intelligi oblata intra pn-imum velum tabernaculi. Quamvis enim mactatio et crematio animalium fieret extra velum, sive pontifex, sive minores sacerdotes officio sacrificandi fungerentur: eam tamen officii partem, quae consistebat in externa qufidam caeremonia sanguinis offerendi, dicunt fieri solitam intra velum in ipso tabernaculo. Quod probant ex Levit. 4., ubi de sacrificio, quod offerendum erat pro peccato summi sacerdotis, ita praecipitur: Hau~ net quoque de sanguine vituli, inferens illum intabernaculum testimonii. Cumque intinxerit digitum in sanguinem, asperget eum septies coram Domino, contra velum sanctuariij ponetque de eodem sanguine super cornua altaris thymiamatis. Quod ipsum mox etiam jubetar fieri dc sacrificio oblato pro peccato populi. Sed sciendum, hanc caeremoniam istis duobus sacrificiis propriam ac peculiarem fuisse, non omnibus cruentis communem, ut patet ex caeteris, quae ibidem sequunt\ir. Quocirca probabilius est, quod priori loco dixi. Additio B. P In Becundum tabernaculum semel in anno solum Pontificem introiisse, ait Apostolus verbis sequentibus; nec tamen propterea vult, quod intra illud aliquam hostiam mactaverit vel cremaverit; quare in bis, quae nunc dicit, non est necesse intelligi, quod in priore tabernaculo uUa hostia fuerit caesa aut cremata, ut propterea nomine prioris tabernaculi comprehendi debeat ea pars atrii, ubi erat altare holocaustorum. Sufiacit enim verbis Apostoli, quod sacerdotes quotidie, dum hostiam offerrent in atrio, non omittebant introire in tabemaculum illud prius. Faciebant nimirum hoc saltem orationis fundendae causa; item causa offerendi thymiamatis, mane et vesperi, ut est Exod. 30. Nam quamvis illic solius Aaronis fiat mentio, tamen usus et traditio interpretabatur de sacerdote quopiam Aaronico, ut manifestum est ex Lucae 1.
9:7
7. In secundo autem semel in armo solus pontifex non sine sangui^ie. Rectius: in secundum, ut est in Graeco, et apud Ambrosiastrum, qui in versu praecedente legit quoque: primum, ccnformiter Graeco. De hoc ingressu pontificis in tabernaculum, id est, in Sancta sanctorum, agit Moses Exod. 30., sed multo clarius ac distinctius Levit. 16., ubi praecipitur Aaroni pontifici, ut in solemni die expiationum, qui erat decimus septimi mensis, offerat vitulum pro se et pro domo sua; item hircum pro peccato populi; utriosque vero sanguinem inferat in sanctuarium, ut illud eo aspergat atque emundet. Unde hic dicitur: non sine sanguine. Qua parte etiam subindicare voluit Apostolus, sanguinem illum fuisse typum "anguinis Christi, quo emundanda erat Eociesia; sicut et pontifex ille typum gessit pontificis Christi. Movet ergo hoc loco quaestionem Oecumenius ex eo, quod Exod. 30. legitur praeceptum pontifici, ut bis quotidie ingrediatur, oblaturus incensum super aureum altare, quod erat, inquit, in Sanctis sanctorum. Videtur enim hoc contrarium Apostolo dicenti, pontificem semel quotannis illuc ingredi. Respondet Oecumenius, quod cum sanguine quidem ingrediebatur semel quotannis; quemadmodum etiam memorato Exodi loco dicitur: ad adolendum vero bis diebus singulis; ideoque signanfer additum esse ab Apostolo: non sine sanguine, id est cum sanguine. Similiter glossa ordinaria. Saepe quidem, inquit, sine sanguine introibat, sed cum sanguine non, nisi semel. Quae glossa desumgta videtur ex Augustino super Exod. q. 133. et 174. Quibus locis hoc ipsum plane dicit. Eidem sententiae subscribit Gaignaeus. Sed eam merito rejicit Theophylactus, ac bene docet, absolute verum esse, quod hic dicitur, pontificem quotannis semel tantum ingredi solitum in Sancta sanctorum. Nam altare, quod vocatur incensi, ad quod adolendum bis intrabatur quotidie, non intra velum erat in Sanctis sanctorum, ut auctores illi putarunt, sed exterius ei admotum; quemadmodum et nos dudum ostendimus, cum de aureo thuribulo ageremus. Itaque nulla repugnantia est hujus loci cum eo, quod in Exodo dicitur. Quam rem etiam clare demonstrat B. Thomas, Liranus et Franciscus Ribera in suis commentariis, cum expressa refutatione glossae; nec non idem Liranus scribens in Exodum, ubi eandem rem plenius explicat. Annuit huic sententiae etiam Cajetanus.
Quem offert pro sua et populi ignorantia. Additio B. P. Graece quidem est tempore prdesenti: offert'j sed quoniam interpres versu praecedente reddidit: introibant, tametsi et illic Graece sit tempus praesens, idcirco est verisimile, eum hoc loco reddidisse: offerretj quod habent quidam manuscripti, et Ven. Beda; quod erat etiam in prima correctione Sixtina, item in Missali Romano, sabb. 4. temp. mensis Sept. Idem ibidem est in Missali Leodiensi. Graeca sic habent hanc partem: Quem offert pro se ipso et populi ignorantiis; Syrus quoQue transtulit: pro se ipso. Pro 8ua, verti vix potest ex Graeco, propter collocationem articuli xdiv. Quamquam in censu non est diversitas, Nam pro se ipso, intellige propitiando, quod patet ex loco Lev. 16., ubi de hac pontificis oblatione dicitur: Vitulum pro peccato offeret. Porro Moses, describens hanc oblationem, non nominat quidem ignorantiam sive ignorantias, sed peccatum aut peccata, etiam juxta versionem LXX. Res tamen eadem est. Nam ignorantiae passim in Scriptura vocantur peccata, non ea tantum, f[nae dicuntur ex errore sive ignorantia committi, verum etiam, quae ex infirmitate vel malitia; sicut ex professo ostendimus in comment. ad Sententias lib. 2. dist. 22. Unde et in Syriaco vocabulum habetur, quod etsi proprie significet errata sive stultitias, usurpatur tamen pro delictis sive peccatis in genere. Cur autem peccata vocentur ignorantiae, rationem hanc reddunt expositores, nominatim B. Thomas, quia omnis malus ignorat. Nullum est enim peccatum, quod non ex errore judicii practici procedat; uti late probatum e.st a nobis loco jam dicto. Non posse autem ignorantias accipi proprie, scilicet pro peccatis, quae non scienter, sed ignoranter admissa fuerint (ut vult Oecumenius, dicens, Apostolum hic innuere discrimen sacrificiorum legalium et sacrificii Chfisti, quod illa quidem expiabant peccata per ignorantiam commissa, Christi vero sacrificium valeat ad expiationem omnium, etiam scienter admissorum; quam sententiam etiam refert Theophylactus, sed calculum ei suum non addit), hoc, inquam, dici non posse, planum est ex Lev., ubi Moses loquitur omnino generaliter: Et expiet sanctuarium ab immunditiis filiorum Israel, et a praevaricationibus eorum, cunctisque peccatis. Cuncta igitur peccata Apostolus vocavit ignorantias. Nametsiquaedam erant in lege sacrificia peculiariter instituta pro peccatis ex ignorantia commissis, erant tamen et alia pro peccatis scienter admissis. De utroque genere habes Levit. 4. 5. et 6. Adde, quod festum expiationum ad hoc erat institutum, ut in eo per oblationem unius hirci, et emissionem alterius, remissio fieret omnium iniquitatum, delictorum atque peccatonim totius populi; sicut patet ex eodem loco Levit. 16. Verum omnis illa remissio legalis tantum erat ac proinde conscientiam non purificabat, uti patebit ex sequentibus. Notandum obiter, Apostolum dicentem: pro sua vel pro se ipso, tacite voluisse commendare Christi pontificis excellentiam, qui, quod esset sanctus, innocens, impollatus, ut supra dixit cap. 7., non habebat necessitatem pro suis dclictie offerendi, sicut alii sacerdotes.
9:8
8- Hoc significante Spiritu sancto, nondum propalatam esse sanctorum viam. Sanctorum, neutri generis est, sicut cap. praecedenti: sanctorum minister et tabernaculi veri, etpaulo post v. 12. Incipit nunc Apostolus exponere allegoriam eorum, quae proxime dixit de primo et secundo tabernaculo. Ac primum aperit, quid in eo fuerit mysterii, quod solus pontifex ingrediebatur in secundum tabernaculum, quod erat Sancta sanctorum. Nam pleniorem declarationem prioris partis, qua dixit: In priori quidem tabernaculo etc, reservat in caput sequens, ubi dicit: Et omnis quidem sacerdos praesto est quotidie ministrans etc.
Adhuc priore tabernaculo habente statum. Id est stante seu consistente, ut vertit Erasmus. Quaeritur, quod hic vocet prius tabernaculum. Sunt enim, qui velint, id alio sensu accipi, quam supra, videlicet non pro anteriore tabernaculi parte, sed pro toto corpore; quod (iicunt ab Apostolo nunc vocari primum tabernaculum, ordine temporis, respectu spiritualis ac veri tabernaculi, quod postea foret exhibendum. Sed qui id volunt, sensum Apostoli non sunt assecuti. Nec ratio permittit, ut, cum Apostolus in praecedentibus studiose distinxerit inter primum et secundum tabernaculum, nunc subito ea confundat et concludat uno nomine primi tabernaculi. Retinenda est igitur eadem prioris tabernaculi significatio. Sensus enim totius sententiae talis est: Per illud, quod in Sancta sanctorum nemini patebat ingressus, praeterquam uni pontifici, mystice nobis significare voluit Spiritus sanctus, priore tabernaculo stante, id est, lege veteri, quae per prius tabernaculum significabatur, adhuc durante, nondum manifestatam fuisse viam ad Sancta sanctorum, hoc est, ad coelum, per illa sancta significatum; sed demum manifestandam, postqaam Christus, pontifex noster, illuc per sanguinem suum introgressus fuisset. Sanctorum nomine coelum ex Apostoli sententia typice significari, jam pridem ostendimus, ad illud capitis praecedentis: Sanctorum minister, et manifestum est ex v. 12. hujus., Porro sanctorum via gratia est novi testamenti, per quam nobis aditus edi ad coelum. Haec via tempore veteris testamenti nondum erat propalata seu manifestata. Nam etsi nemo fuerit umquam justificatus, nisi per gratiam novi testamenti, cujus auctor est Christus: non tamen ante Christi adventum manifesta fuit ea gratia, id est, palam cognita et praedicata; sed latebat sub umbris caeremoniarum veteris legis, et a paucis spiritualibus, ad novum testamentum pertinentibus, apprehendebatur. Denique post adventum Christi, praedicato ejus Evangelio, ac legalibus umbris per ejus passionem remotis, manifestari coepit ac palam agnosci. Ad quod sigaificandum, moriente Christo, velum templi scissum fuisse legitur a summo usque deorsum, Matth. 27.; illud haud dubie velum, quod erat oppansum Sancto sanctorum, quodque typus erat velatae gratiae. Alii putant, hoc dicere Apostolum: Durante statu veteris legis, hoc est, usque ad mortem Christi, coelum hominibus, quantumlibet justis, mansisse clausum; ipsa vero ejus morte reclusum et apertum fuisse, ut ingressus pateret animabus sanctis. Verum non dicit Apostolus: Nondum apertam sanctorum viam, sed: nondum propalatam, Graece: manifestatam, Syriace: revelatam. Hoc autem sensum habet, quem dixi; quem etiam tradit Hasselanus. Nec ab eo longe recedit B. Thomas, dum viam sanctorum nondum propalatam interpretatur ipsum Christum, dicentem: Ego sum via, Joan. 14. Qui, inquit, stante priore tabernaculo, id est veteri testamento, non erat propalatus, quia adhuc latebat sub figuris literae obumbratus.
9:9
9. Quae parabola est temporis instantis. Graece: Quae parabola in tempus instanSy id est, quae figuralis similitudo referenda est ad tempus instans seu praesens. Ubi relativum quae, si nudam grammaticam spectomus, pertinere potest vel ad tabernaculum, vel ad statum, vel ad parabolam. Sunt enim haec tria foeminini generis in Graeco. Sane Theophylactus et Oecumenius ad tabernaculum referant, hoc sensu: Quod prius tabernaculum fuit similitudo quaedam ac figura temporis ejus, quod tunc erat praesens. Significa])at enim, sicut ante dictum est, legem veterem, quae tunc vigebat. Caeterum magis apparet referendum esse ad parabolam, pront refert textus Syriacus. Sic enim habet: Et erat parabola haec temporis illius. Quamquam sonsus propemodum idem est. Illud, inquit, quod priore tabernaculo significabatur, erat hoc ipsum, quod eo tempore fiebat, quia tabernaculum illud erat typr.s veteris testamenli; quasi dicat: Prius tabernaculum et res eo significata simul currebant. Quidam tempus instans intelligunt tempus hodiernum, id est, tunc praesens, quando haec scribebantur. Ita auctor glossae interlinealis; quasi sensus sit, iis, quae quondam gerebantur in tabernaculo, similia fuisse ea, quae tempore Pauli adhuc fiebant in templo; utpote res ejusdem institutionis. Quem sensum etiam volunt biblia regia, in quibus addito pronomine legitur: in hoc tempus instans. Sed ea lectio vitiosa est, et facile refellitur ex consensu aliorum codicum, quibus et Syriaca versio suffragatur, atque ex ipsis Graecorum veterum commentariis.
Juxta quam munera et hostiae offeruntur. Relativum in Graeco non ad parabolam, sed ad tempus refertur, xcz{}' ov, scilicet xaipov, juxta quod tempus. Et hocmodo legisse Chrysostomum et Theophjlactum, perspicue docent eorum commentarii. Sic etiam legit Syrus interpres. Nec dubium, quin Graecum xaia regat interdum accusativum temporis, in quo aliquid fiat. Ita sensus est: Quo tempore munera et hostiae offerebantur, quae non possunt etc. Scito tamen, Oecumenium legisse: xaO^' r/;, secundum quam. Dicit enim: Secundum quam parabolam seu similitudinem, et secundum quem typum oblationes donorum et hostiarum factae sunt. Ac verisimile est, in Graeco codicenostri interpretis ita etiam scriptum fuisse; nam unius literae tantum est differentia; tametsi prior lectio mihi videtur magis germana. Jam ex eo, quod Apostolus assidue conjungat munera et hostiaSj sacis liquet, ex ejus sententia inter haec duo agnoscendum esse discrimen; quod autem illud sit, ostendimus cap. 5.
Quae non possunt juxta conscientiam perfectum facere seroientem, sive ministrantem. Graece: XaTpe^ovTa. Quae vox sacris ministeriis accommodatur. Erasmus vertit: cultorem, non recte; tum quia cultus non tantum est ministrorum, sed totius populi; tum quia participium non erat mutandum in nomen, ob rationem, quae patebit ex sequentibus. Quid sit perfectum facere, quod Graece est TsXsiuiaai, dictum est ad illud cap. 7.: Nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex. Est enim in Graeco idem verbum, pro quo nonnulli vertunt hocloco: sanctificare; sed melius noster: perfectum facere, quod utrique loco congruit. Vim significationis explicat adjuncta particula: juxta conscientiam. Sensus enim est: Quae sacrificia non poterant coram Deo, qui conscientiam intuetur, justificare ministrantem, hoc est, non poterant veram conferre justitiam. Vera namque justitia est, quae Deo judice probatrr. Haec conscientiam perficit, hoc est, animam, sive interiorem hominem, ut exponunt Theophylactus, Oecumenius et Cajetanus. Dicitur autem ad differentiam justitiae carnis, de qua paulo post. Porro, si sacrificia Iftgis non poterant justificare eum, qui ministrabat, certe nec eos poterant, pro quibus ministrabat. Id quod colligendum relinquit Apostolus. Justum est enim et legitimum, ut, qui ministrat altari, primus de eo participet. Qaaeres: Quomodo igitur homines illius temporis justificabantur, si ad justitiam veram sacrificia nihil conferebant? Respondeo, eos, qui justificabantur coram Deo (qui quidem in illo carnali populo valde pauci erant, via sanctorum nondum propalata), justificatos fuisse per fidem Christi Salvatoris venturi; simul tamen adhibitis sacrificiis ac sacramentis illius temporis, non quatenus illa veteris erant institutionis, sicut hic ea considerat Apostolus, sed ut subserviebant veris fidelibus, id est, cum vera fide et pietate ea suscipientibus; quemadmodum fusius a nobis declaratum est super 4. sentent. distinct. 1. De qua re adhuc infra, in hoc et sequenti cap., sermo redibit.
Solummodo in cibis et potibus. Haec pars difficultatem habet non modicam. Neque enim apparet, quomodo cum antecedentibus cohaereat, aut quorsum dicatur. Adde, quod suspensa relinquitur oratio, nec desinit in sensum perfectum. Sed de hoc postea. Primum quod ad contextum attinet, plerique partem hanc disjungunt a praecedentibus, supplentes aliquid, hoc aut simili modo: Sed solummodo consistunt in cibis et potibus etc. Quod et a Syro intorprete fcactuin est. Verum si hoc supplendum est, nimis certe imperfecta ab Apostolo vel ejus amanuensi scripta est oratio; quod non est verisimile, in hac praesertim Epistola, cujus exactior est, quam aliarum compositio. Deinde nec probabilem sensum efficit ista additio. Nam quomodo munera et hoBtiae consistebant, et quidem solum, incibis etpotibus etvariis baptismatibus? Alii aliud supplent, nihilo majori gratia. Nobis eorum sententia probatur, qui partem pendere dicunt a proximo participio: servientem, hoc nimirum orationis contextu: Quao sacrificia non possunt secundum conscientiam perficere seu justificare eum, qui ministrat solummodo in cibis et potibus etc. Haec constructio minime coacta est, et nihil requirit supplementi. Quamquam adhuc obscurum est, quis Apostolo dicatur ministrare solummodo in cibis et potibus ei baptismatibus; cum tam multis aliis a lego praescriptis observationibus occupati fuerint tam sacerdotes, quam reliquus populus, ut propterea legem illam caeremonialem S. Petrus appellaverit jugum im~ portabile, Act. 15. Aut, si caetera omnia intelligantur in particula subjuncta: et justitiis carnis; cur cibos et potus et baptismata prae caeteris nominatim expressit? Igitur, ut res explicetur, illud statuo, sermonem hic esse non de populi), sed de sacerdote, quem vocat: servientemj XaxpsuovTa^, id est, sacro ministerio fungentem, sicut ante interpretati sumus. In quam sententiam etiam B. Thomae commentarius bene expensus invenietur inclinare. Dicitur autem sacerdos servire in cibis et potibus etc, id est, cum certa observatione ciborum et potuum, ac similium. Non enim hic de tota lege caeremoniali agitur; sed de iis, quae sacerdos, munera vel hostias offerens, observare debebat, vel ante sacrificium, vel post. Nam praeterquam quod exactior a sacerdote, quam a plebe, merito exigebatur observatio discretionis ciborum, ut mundum se servaret exercendo suo officio, quemadmodum patet ex Levitico, praesertim capite 17. et 22., etiam de potu peculiare datum fuit ei praeceptum, Domino dicente ad Aaron: Vinum et omne^ quod inebriare potest, non bibetis, tu et filii tui, quando intrabitis in tabernaculum testimonii-, ne moriamini. Levit. 10. Quem locum huc allegat etiam Theophylactus. Rursum serviebat in cibis sacerdos, oblato jam sacrificio, quia praescriptum habebat, de quibus muneribus et hostiis, et quam eorum partem edere posset ipse et domestici ejus; et quos ab eorum esu deberet arcere. Porro de baptismatibus mox dicemus. Cum ergo dicit Apostolus, sacerdotem Aaronicum servire solum in cibis et potibus etc, argumento quodam ex actionibus adjunctis, quae vel praeparatoriae sint, vel consequantur oblationem sacrificii, probat, quod dixerat: munera et hostias ab eo oblatas non potuisse juxta conscientiam perfectum facere servientem; quia scilicet, sicut sacrificia carnalia erant, ita et hae actiones tantum carnales, nimirum suis sacrificiis respondentes. Atque id declarat particula: solummodo, quae excludit actiones cultus interni, de quibus in Levitico nihil auditur. Nusquam enim lex praecipit sacerdoti, ut corde contrito et munda conscientia ad offerendum sacrificium accedat; nec ibi legitur: Probet se ipsum homo. Legitur quidem ac subinde repetitur: Sancti estote, quoniam ego sanctus sum; sed omnis illa sanctitas atque munditia legalis erat, ac tota in externo cultu posita. Denique, quid hic velit Apostolus, a contrario pctest intelligi. Nam ei, quod nunc dicit: solummodo in cibis etc, opponit in capite sequenti praeparationem internam ac spiritualem, cum ait: Accedamus cum vero corde, in plenitudine fidei, aspersi corda a conscientia mala etc. Nonnulli, quod hic dicitur de potibus, pertinere putant ad caeremonias Nazaraeorum, quibus, durante tempore suae consecrationis, a vino abstinendum erat, Num. 6. Alii ad liquorem seu potum forte repertum in vasis aliquo casu immundis, de quibus Levit. 11. Sed haec magis conveniunt alteri loco, qui est Col. 2.: Nemo vos judicet in cibo et in potu. Chrysostomus putat, Apostolum hoc addidisse per contemptum, cum de potu nil fuerit in lege traditum. Quibusdam placet, additum ornatus causa propter jucundam Graecarum vocum paronomasiam: f pco- ^aot xai 7:6|jiaat. Sed hae conjecturae potius sunt, quam opiniones. IUud maxime probabile, quod diximus de potu inebriativo sacerdotibus tabernaculum ingressuris interdicto.
9:10
10. Et variis baptismatibus. Interpres Graecum vocabulum retinuit, sicut et Marci 7. semel et iterum. Latine vertas: et diversis lotionibus sive ablutionibus. Multae quidem erant lotiones a lege praescriptae, quibus mundarentur, qui immunditiam aliquam contraxissent; sed hic de lotionibus agitur ad sacrificia ordinatis, quales erant illae summi sacerdotis ante et post ingressum sanctuarii in die expiationum, de quibus Levit. 16.; nec non aliorum sacerdotum, atque etiam eorum, pro quibus oblationes fiebant; imo et victimarum et intestinorum ac pedum hostiae caesae; de quibus omnibus passim in eodem libro. Unde et ad usum hujusmodi lotionum jussus est Moses, Exod. 30., facere labrum ac-neum. Cui successerunt in templo Salomonis mare fusile et decem luteres aenei, de quibus 3 Reg. 7. Recte B. Thomas annotat, eos Apostoli mentem non assecutos, qui de pharisaicis lotionibus, quarum mentio est Matth. 23. et Marc. 7., locum hunc exponunt. Agit enim Apostolus de sacrificiis et caeremoniis legis, non de institutis humanis. Etjustitiiscarnis. Graece: 5ixai(jL)|j.aa'.^ justificationibus, quas initio capitis vocavit; justificationes culturae, id est, caeremonias ad Dei cultum ordinatas, sicut illic exposuimus. Ex quo etiam loco confirmatur, quod dixi, non agere Apostolum de caeremoniis legis in universum; sed de iis, quae ad ministerium tabernaculi pertinent. Vocat autem justitias seu justificationes carnis, id est carnaleSf quia valebant tantum ad munditiam corporalem et externam, quam lex exigebat, ut quis esset aptus sacrificiis offerendis et sacris tractandis; ad animam vero non pertinebant. Notanda antithesis inter carnem et conscientiam, juxta quam negavit, ea, quae in lege offerebantur, hominem posse perfectum reddere. Addit Apostolus hancpartera: etjustitiis carnis, non quasi diversum aliquid dicat a praecedentibus; sed, quod dixit per species, genere concludit; quasi dicat: Et, nt verbo comprehendam, justitiis carnis. Erant enim pt aliae quaedam observationes eodem pertinentes. Additio Censorii. Ex his, quae jam proxime dicta sunt, videri potest, quod ista: in cihis, et in potibus, et varii? baptismatibus, et justitiis carnis, pendeant ab illo complexo: perfectum facere; ut scilicet tota haec congeries istarum determinationum ex adverso opponatur illi, quod praecessit: juxta co7iscientiam. Et conformiter videtur, quod per servientem indifferenter intelligatur sacerdos offerens, et populus vel laicus quilibet, pro quo fiat oblatio, seu qui curet offerri. Quae hoc capite sequuntur, huic sensui favent.
Usgue ad tempus correctionis impositis. Graece: imposita, quemadmodum etiam habet textus Ambrosianus. Juxta quf^.m lectionem hyperbaton est (ut monet Oecumenius), sententiam nonnihil obscurans. Sic enim referendum erit participium imposita, non ad proxime praecedentia, sed ad munera et hostias; ut sensus sit: Illa veteris legis sacrificia, cum non possent juxta conscientiam perfectum facere servieutero, imposita fuisse usque ad tempus correctionis. Habet tamen haec constructio scrupulum in Graeco; nam genus non respondet. Hic enim neutrum est: l7:tx£i/ji£vaj imposita; superius vero foemininum: /jltj 5uva'|i£vat, non potenfes, id est quae non possunt, quod ad boaia.z, id est hostias, refertur. Nisi quis dicat, literulam jota vel in altero redundare, vel in altero desiderari; aut certe contendat, utrumlibet dici posse secundum legem grammaticam. Porro vulgatae lectioni favet Syrus iuterpros, participium referens ad proxima. Sic enim habet: Quae sunt mandata carnis, imposita usque in tempus rorrectionis. Hoc modo sensus est, cibos et potus legales, ac reliquas justitias carnis fuisse impositas usque ad tempus correctionis. Utraque constructio probabilis est; nec multum interest ad sensum, utram eligas. Nam et ipsa sacrificia et caeremonias iis subservientes usque ad tempus correctionis impositas fuisse, constat. Est autem in hac postrema parte species quaedam occupationis, ut annotat B. Thomas. Dicere enim quis poterat: Quorsum illa Deus instituit, quae non possunt utentem perficere? Respondet Apostolus, non esse instituta, ut perpetuo serventur; sed imposita tantum usque ad tempus correctionis. Ubi indicat institutionis illorum hanc fuisse utilitatem, ut iis sibi impositis interim exercerentnr, ct in Dei cultu continerentur aliquatenus, tam sacerdotes, quam populus, donec veniret Christus auctor perfectionis. Sic de universa lege caeremoniali idem Apostolus Galat, 3.: Prius, inquit, quam veniret fideSj sub lege custodiebamur conclusi in eandem fidem, quae revelanda erat. Itagiie lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo; et cap. 4.: Sub elemetHis mundi eramus servientes; at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum etc. Huc facit vocabulum: impositis aut imposita, quo Apostolus utitur hoc loco; velut insinuans, caeremonias, de quibus agitur, fuisse grave onus, quo serviliter premerentur, qui tabernaculo ministrabant. Nam et B. Petrus ita loquitur, Act. 15.: Quid tentatis Deum, imponere jugum super cervices discipulorum, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos portare potuimus. Porro: tempus correctionis Apostolo est tempus adventus Christi, qui vetera correcturus erat novis ac melioribus institutis; correcturus, inquam, vetera, non ut mala, sed ut imperfecta. Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex. Certe qua ratione vetus testamentum dicitur culpa seu reprehensione non vacasse, etiam instituta ejus corrigenda recte dicuntur, id est, mutanda in melius. Potest etiam correctio referri ad personas, hoc sensu: Usque ad tempus novi testamenti, quo corrigantur seu perficiantur homines, id est justificentur; ut idem sit corrigere cum eo, quod modo dixerat: perfectum facere, et id tribuat novae legi, quod removerat a veteri. Nam Graoca dictio ^idpO^caotc; proprie significat rectificationem, ut eo nomine justificatio possit intelligi. Quod vero Latini correctionem dicunt, Graecis usitatius £7iav6pOa>otg appollatur. Qua voce utitur Apostolus 2 Tim. 3., ubi nos legimrs: ad corrigendum,
9:11
11. Christus autem assistens pontifex futurorum bonorum. Mysteiium eorum, quae dixit agi in secundo tabernaculo, quo status novi testamenti repraesentabatur, nunc plenius ac distinctius exponit, adeo quidem, ut S. Thomas quinque peristases sen circumstantias ministerii, quod fiebat m secundo tabernaculo, colligat hic ab Apostolo applicatas ministerio Christi in novo testamento. Quarum prima est, quis ministraturus intrabat, nempe solus pontifex. Secunda, quomodo intrabat: nonenim sine sanguine. Tertia, quando intrabat; videlicet: semel in anno. Quarta, dignitas et sanctitudo loci, quo intrabat; erat enim Sancta sanctorum. Quinta, quare intrabat; utique pro expiatione peccatorum, quod significatum fuit illa parte: pro populi ignorantia. Addi potest sexta circumstantia, per quid seu qua via intipbat: nempe per prius tabernaculum. Verum id Apostolus hic aperto non explicat; sed explicandi materiam praebet, ut modo videbimus. Primam circumstantiam applicat in eo, quod Christum nominat, eumque pontificem futurorum bonorum. De Christi dignitate, ejusque comparatione cum pontifice Aaronico, multa in superioribus hujus Epistolae dicta sunt. Idem futurO' rum bonorum pontifex dicitur, quia per ministerium sui sacerdotii nobis intercessor est et dux ad bona coelestia et aeterna, quae in futuro saeculo exspectamus. Unde ct Jes. 9. pater futuri saeculi vocatur. Quamvis enim Ecclesia per Christum interdum petat a Deo bona quaedam temporalia, non alia tamen intentione petit aut petenda novit, quam ut adminiculo nobis sint ad bona futura. Velut cum petit pacem reipublicae, panem quotidianum, sanctitatem corporis, pluviam opportunam, salubritatem aeris, fructus terrae, et id genus alia. Ac multo propius ad illum finem respicit, quum petit gratiam, peccatorum remissionem, bonae vitae perseverantiam, Evangelii propagationem, et his similia; haec enim per se ducunt ad bona futura, ut sub eis etiam comprehendi possint. Hinc rursum e contrario disce, pontificem veteris testamenti non futurorum bonorum, sed tantum praesentium pontificem fuisse; ideoque nec gratiam, nec remissionem peccatorum, nec quidquam ejusmodi per ejus ministerium praestari potuisse. Quae res expressius significatur infra cap. sequenti, ubi lex dicitur umbram habuisse futurorum bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum. Id ipsum ostendunt promissa veteris testamenti, quae sunt in Levitico et Deuteronomio, in quibus nulla mentio bonorum futuri saeculi. Quod ad textum attinet, pro verbo: assistens, Graece est: 7iapaycv6|i£voc, id est accedenSf adveniens, vel potius: cum accessisset, ut vertit Hentenius; aut: cutn advenisset, ut Theophylacti interpres. Est enim aoristus habens significationem praeteriti, ut sensus sit: Christus adventu et incarnatione sua factus pontifex. Non enim, aliorum more, prius natus et adultus, et disciplinis instructus pontifex factus est; sed advenire, id est incarnari, fuit ei pontificem fieri. Ita fere Graeci commentatores. Graecae lectioni Syriaca consonat. Igitur hoc significatur, quod sequenti capite dicitur aliis verbis: Ideo mundumingrediensdicit: Hostiam et oblationem nduistij corpus autem aptasti mihi. Conveniunt etiam huic sensui, quae sequuntur.
Per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum. AmpHus, Graece majus. Quod tamen utrum ad quantitatem extensionis pertineat, an ad dignitatis excellentiam, pendet ex ipsius tabm-naculi interpretatione, de qua mox agemus. Est autem comparatio mystici tabernaculi cum illo vetere atque umbratili.
Non manufactum, id est, non hujus creationis. Dicitur hoc quoque ad differentiam veteris tabernaculi, quod hominum manibus et arte fabricatum fuisse Scriptura memorat, quodque proinde erat hujus, id est terrenae, creationis, Graece XTtascog, hoc est, fabricationis aut structurae, ut alii vertunt. Non ita tabernaculum illud, quod hic significatur. Quod autem illud sit, priusquam exponamus (neque enim Apostolus exponit), videndum, quo pars ista: per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum etc, referenda sit. Nam dubitari potest, utrum praecedentibus annccti debeat, hocmodo: Christus accedens pontifex futurorum bonorum, accedens, inquam, per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum etc.; an vero sequentibus adjungi, ut sententia compleatur in verbo: introivit, infra posito. Quae posterior constructio magis recepta est, eademque textui congruentior propter sequentem "particulam: neque per sanguinem etc, quae cequentia praecedentibus copulat; cum alioqui prior etiam constructio probabilitate non careat, si diligenter attendamus, quid hoc loco tabernaculi nomine significatum velit Apostolus. Qua de re non parva est opinantium varietas. Glossa, tam ordinaria, quam interlinealis, nec non commentatores Ambrosii et Anselmi titi:Iam gerentes, tabernaculum hoc interpretnntur coelum. Eandem opinionem B. Thomas adfert priore Icco, nec improbat. Liranus autem omnino sequitur, adducto testimonio Jesaiae, de coelesti Jerusalem loquentis cap. 33.: Oculi tui videbunt Jerusalem, habita' tionem opulentam, tabernaculum, quod nequaquam transferri poterit. Potest et illud non minus apertum de eadem Jerusalem adferri ex Apoc. 21.: Ecce, tabernaculum Dei cum hominibus, et habitabit cum eis. Item hae Scripturae: Domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo? Psalm. 14.: Ut, cum defeceritis, recipiant vos in aeterna tabernacula, Luc. 16. Magis autem, quod capite praecedenti dictum est, et de coelis expositum: Sanctorum minister et tabernaculi veri. Sed haec non convincunt. Neque enim necesse est, eandem ubique fingi mysticam aut figuratam tabernaculi significationem, ne Mosaici quidem; vel ideo, quod eo nomine nunc prima tabernaculi pars significetur, nunc secunda, alias vero totum tabernaculi corpus 5 quae singula suum ac proprium habent mjsterium. Deinde refellitur ea sententia manifeste ex verbis Apostoli, quibus dicit, Christum per hoc tabernaculum introiisse in sancta, id est in coelum. Quare tabernaculum ipsum non potest coelum intelligi, nisi (quod absurde sonat) fatearis, Christum per coelum introivisse in coelum. Porro Cajetanus significari vult Ecclesiam, Catharinus Virginem Deiparam. Nec sane dubium, quin tam Ecclesia, quam Deipara virgo sint tabernaculum, Mosaico long3 majus ac perfectius 5 idemque non manufactum, nec hujus creationis. Sed hae tabernaculi significationes nusquam a Paulo attinguntur. Igitur alii plerique existimant, Apostolum loqui de corpore seu carne Christi, vel, quod eodem recidit, de natura Christi humana. Sic Graeci omnes, et inter Latinos Primasius, et Haimo, et Thomas posteriore loco; denique Augustinus verbis a glossa citatis. Quae sententia sicut multis recentioribus, ita et nobis quam maxime probatur; habet enim in ipso Apostolo fundamentum. Primum quia mox sequitur de sanguine Christi, quem opponit sanguini hircorum et vitulorum, dicens: sed per proprium sanguinem. Unde in hac parte nobis intelligendum relinquit corpus Christi, et quasi supplendum, hoc modo: Per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum, non manufactum, id est, non hujus creationis, sed per proprium corpus. Nam corpus hoc mortale interdum vocari tabernaculum, ex eodem Apostolo liquet. Ita enim scribit 2 Cor. 5.: Nam et qui sumus in hoc tabernaculo, ingemiscimus gravati, quod paulo post exponit de corpore, dicens: Dum sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a Domino. Similiter Petrus 1 Epist. 2.: Quamdiu sum in hoc tabernaculo. Et iterum: Velox est depositio tabernaculi mei. Quin et de suo ipsius corpore Christus ita loquitur, Joan. 2.: Solvite templum hoc, ct in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Hoc dicebat, ait Evangelista, de templo corporis sui. Est autem par ratio templi et tabernaculi. Nam et vetus tabernaculum domus Dei vocabatur, ut Judic. 18. 19. 20. et alibi. Istud vero, quod dixi, supplendum reliquit Apostolus ex iis, quae erat infra dicturus. Nam cap. sequ. ex professo docet, Christum nos sanctificasse, et in coelum introiisse, per oblationem sui corporis; opponens illud hostiis veteris testamenti, et hunc citans versiculum Psalmi: Hostiam et oblationem noluisti; corpus autem aptasti mihi. Hoc ergo tabernaculum, id est, corpus Christi, majus est et amplius tabernaculo veteri; non mole corporea, sed dignitate rei, quia vivum est habitaculum Spiritus sancti; nec id qualecumque, sed hypostatice conjunctum Verbo Dei. Est quoque perfectius, tum quia divini est operis, supra naturae facultatem conceptum et formatum in utero Virginis; tum quia perficit et sanctificat accedentes ad ipsum. Item non manufactum, id est, non factum manu artificis, quomodo vetus illud factum legitur in Exodo. Unde exponendo sequitur: id est, non hujus creationis sive structurae; hoc est, non humano opificio aut arte elaboratum, quemadmodum et de coelo conformiter infra dicit: Non enim in manufacta sancta Jesus introivit. Ex quo tamen intellectu ne colligas, Christum attuHsse corpus suum de coelo, quae quondam fuit haeresis Valentinianorum. Tantum enim negatur, esse quiddam manibus aut arte humana factura, sicut templa, domus, circumcisio, totumque vetus tabernaculum erant, et in Scripturis dicuntur manufacta Marc. 14., Act. 17., 2 Cor. 5., Col. 2. Quare nec ea, quae sola natura perficit, ad sensum Scripturae manufactadicuntur; quanto minas Christi corpus, quod, etsi terrenae fderit substantiae, tamen supra consuetum naturae modum de Spiritu sancto conceptum est, et ex virgine natum? Verum adversus hanc expositionem objectio est una et altera, breviter dissolvenda. Vult enim Apostolus, Christum per tabernaculum hoc, de quo loquitur, introiisse in sancta, quemadraodura olim pontifex Aaronicus per primum tabernaculum intrabat in secundum, quod erat SanctA sanctorum. Atqui primum tabernaculum, ut paulo ante docuit Apostolus, typice repraesentabat statum veteris testamenti. Non ergo recte nunc refertur ad corpus Christi. Rursum: Christi caro significata fuit per velum, dividens inter utrumque tabernaculum, ipso Apostolo teste capite sequenti, ubi dicit, Christum initiasse nobis viam novam et viventem per velamen, id est carnem suam. Male igitur hic exponitur significata per ipsum tabernaculum. Ad utrumque responderi potest, nihil vetare, quo rainus eadem res my&tice vel plura ac diversa significet, vel pluribus ac diversis rebus significelur; praesertim si diversae rationes spectentur. Ita Chrislus in eodem sermone modo se vocat ostium, modo pastorem, qui per ostium intrat, Joan. 10. Quamquam non dicimus, Apostoli mentem esse, quod primum tabernaculum gesserit typum corpoiis Christi; sed quod cura eo habuerit aliquid simile; ut, sicut per ipsum intrabat pontifex in sancta, sic Christus per corpus suum, velut per tabernaculam, introierit in coelum. Dicitur autem per corpus suum illuc introivisse, quia per passionem et oblationem sui corporis ingressum sibi paravit in gloriam coelestem, juxta ea, quae dicta sunt cap. 2. de Jesu propter passionem mortis gloria ct ho" nore coronato. Quare etiam ex hoc loco statui potest, Christum non nobis tantum, sed et sibi ipsi meruisse; quod negat Calvinus.
9:12
12. Neque per sanguinem hircorum aut vitulorum. Vera lectio: et vitulorum; quae non modo Graecorum et Syrorum est codicum, verum etiam in multis est Latinis MSS. atque in textu commentarii Ambrosiani. Deinde eam lectionem res postulat. Nam utriusque sanguinem, et vituli, et hirci, pontifex inferebat intra velum ia Sancta sanctorum: ut praecipitur Lev. 16. Dicit autem de utroque pluraliter: hircorum et vitulorum, non quod plures offerrentur eodem tempore, sed diversis annis.
Sed per proprium sanguinem introivit semel in Sancta. Ecce tres alias Christo per coraparationera applicatas circumstantias ministerii Aaronici, de quibus supra. Nam pontifex Aaronicus intrabat cum sanguine hircino et vitulino; Christusintravit per proprium sanguinem. TUe semel in anno; hic semel omnino. Ille in sancta manufacta; hic in sancta coelestia. Tacite vero nobis insinuat Apostolus amoris Christi, pontificis nostri, erga nos magnitudinem, quod et proprium corpus, et proprium sanguinem impenderit ncstrae saluti. Est enim emphasis in voce proprium. Quam adhuc iii^aTixa)ilpcog expressit interpres Syrus, dicens: cum sanguine animae suae. Caeterum pro nobis haec ab illo facta esse, declarat, quod sequitur.
Aeterna redemptione inventa. Id est, postquam, dato in pretium sanguine suo, nobis ob peccata servituti mortis obnoxiis SiC(]}\is\y\ss%t redemptionem aeternam, id est veram et soli*dam, seraperqne mansuram, ut altera passione vel redemptione non sit opus; quemadmodum plenius docet in sequentibus. Vel dicit aeternam, quod aeterna sit haereditas, quam nobis acquisivit, nt paulo post dicitur. Juventam autem ideo dicit, ut vult Chrysostomus, quia res erat difficilis et pretiosa, quamque nemo alius reperire potuerit. Vel ideo potius, ut significet, Christum esse nostrae redemptionis ac salutis auctorem; sicut locutus est cap. 2. Nam qui res novas inveniunt, auctores earum vocantur. Haec postrema periodi pars applicat Christo quintam, eamque postremam circumstantiam Aaronici ministerii, quae erat de eo, cujus gratia. Pontifex enim Aaronicus oblationem faciebat pro suis et populi peccatis expiandis; Christus sua oblatione aetemam invenit redemptionem. Ubi duplex indicatur discrimen. Unum, Christum non pro suis, sicut legalis pontifex, sed tantum pro alienis peccatia sacrificium obtulisse. Alterum, Christi sacrificium valuisse ad aeternam redemptionem; non item sacrificium Aaronicum. Id enim intelh*gendum relinquitur ex antithesi.
9:13
13. Si enim sanguis hircorum et taurorum, et cinis vitulae aspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem car^ nis, Probatio est ejus, quod proxime dixit: aeterna redemptione inventa. Graece non est: aspersus, sed: aspergens, pav- TtCouoa, trahitque secum accusativum subsequentem: inquinatos, eumque separat a verbo: sanctificat. Quod et videre est in versione Syriaca. Quae quidem lectio multum lucis adfert huic pericopae. Non enim sentit Apostolus, sanguinem hircorum et taurorum sanctificare inquinatoSf quod Graece Qst: communicatos, id est eos, qui immunditiam aliquam legalem contraxerant. Nam sanguis animalium fundebatur ad expiandum peccata, non ad tollendas legales immunditias. Ad hunc enim usum peculiariter instituta erat aqua aspersionis commista cinere vaccae rufae. Sed ordo sententiae sensusque talis est: Quod si sanguis taamrum et hircorum, et cinis vitulae super inquinatos et immundos aspersus sanctificavit homines ad emundationem, Graece: puritatem, carnis; sanguis quidem animalium praestans iis, pro quibus oblatio fiebat, expiationem peccatorum legalem, qua nimirum legis comminationes evaderentur, conscientia vero neutiquam emundaretur, quae proinde carnalis et externa tantum erat purificatio; cinis autem vitulae aspersus, immunditiam tollens itidem legalem et externam, qua impediebantur homines, ne vel sacris interessent, vel cum aliis conversarentur, animae vero munditiam nuUam conferens. De sanguine taurorum, qui ofierebantur pro peccato sacerdotis, et hircorum, qui pro peccato populi, locus est Levit. 9. et 16., de cinere vaccae rufae et aqua aspersionis Num. 19. Manifeste autem docet hic locus, quid Apostohis sentiat de virtute sacrificiorum et caeremoniarum veteris legis; quae res amplius etiam patebit ex sequentibus hujus Epist. Caeterum illud lectorem non turbet, quod hoc loco tauros dicat Apostolus, quos paulo ante vitulos; ac rursus, quod vitulam seu juvencam nominet, Graece ^d\i.aX\.v, quam Moses vaccam appellat. Nam in his, propter aetatum confinia, frequenter alterum pro altero ponitur. Ita Lucas Act. 20. Eutychum Troadensem modo vsaviav, adolescentem, modo Tzalda,, puerum, vocat. Atque hunc Scripturae morem pluribus exemplis bone declarat Ribera. Quamquam Apostolus, pro vacca scribens vitulam, secutus est LXX., qui bd\iakiv, id est juvencam transtulerunt. Sed et Hebraicum vocabulum aetatem non determinat. Haec enim ex adjunctis intelligitur: Praecipe filiis Israel, inquit Dominus ad Mosem, ut adducant ad te vaccam rufam aetatis integrae, in qua nulla sit macula etc, ubi pro vacca, alii juvencam, alii huculam, alii junicem Latine reddunt.
9:14
14. Quanto magis sayiguis Christi, qui per Spiritum sanctum semet ipsum obtulit immaculatum Deo. Argumenlum est a minori simul et a proportione, paulo post a nobis expiicandnm. In Graeco non legitur: Per Spiritum sanctum, sed: per spiritum aeternum, pro quo Syrus vertit: per Spiritum aeternitatis. Theodoretus etiam et Theophylactus spiritum aeternum exponunt. Inter Latinos quoque S. Ambrosias lib. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 8., sempiternum legit, eoque testimonio probat aeternitatem Spiritus sancti. Quid vero Chrysostomus et Oecumenius legerint, ex coram commentariis non liquet; nisi quod Spiritum sanctum nominant, aeterni mentione penitus omissa. Intelligi autem Spiritum sanctum increatum, id est tertiam in divinis personam, inter expositores convenit, tam qui Spiritum sanctum legunt, quam qui Spiritum aeternum; nisi quod unus ex recentioribus existimat, intelligi posse spiritum creatum Christi, id est vel animam, vel voluntatem ejus humanam; adducens quaedam Scripturae loca similia, sed quae revera id non probant. Nec vero ullum arbitror esse locum Scripturae, in quo Spiritus sanctus de spiritu creato dicatur. Graeca autem lectio adeo repugnat, ut Theodoretus inde probet, increatum esse Spiritum sanctum; quia, quod aeternum est, inquit, non est creatum. Intelligenda est enim aeternitas absoluta, id est tam initii, quam finis expeis. Alioqui nihil peculiare de Spiritu sancto diceretur, cum aeternitas fine carens omni spiritui rationali communis sit. Quod autem ille neotericus scriptor, bonus alioqui et doctus pro argumento adfert suae opinionis, quod hic in Graeco codice non additur articulus, nihil probat, quia etiam capite 2. hujus Epist., ubi dicitur: Et variis Spiritus sancti distributionibus; et cap. 6. ibi: Participes facti sunt Spiritus sancti, nullus est in Graeco articulus appositus. Dicitur sane et alia Christus fecisse per Spiritum sanctum aut in Spiritu sancto, veluti baptizare, daemonia ejicere, praecipere; hoc postremum, Act. 1. Sive autem Spiritum sanctum legamus, sive Spiritum aeternum, significat Apostolus, Christum, movente eum et incitante Spiritu sancto (nam opera divinae bonitatis nostraeque sanctificationis Spiritui sancto solent appropriari), semet ipsum obtulisse Deo, Ivelut hostiam immaculatam, id est ab ' omni sorde peccati liberam, utpote repraesentatam sub typo vaccae rufae, quam lex immaculatam exigebat, uti supra dictum est. Quod enim nonnulli putant, per antithesim veterum sacrificiorum Christum dici immaculatum, quod illa fuerint immunda et sordida, scilicet sanguis hircorum et vitulorum, et cinis vitulae combustae, quorum videlicet contactus et aspersio magis inquinaret homines, quam mundaret: ea speculatio nobis aliena videtur a mente Apostoli, nec fundamentum habere in Scriptura. Porro emphasim habent in verbis Apostoli haec tria, per Spiritum sanctum, et: sejnet ipsum, et: immaculatum, Graece: a/jicofioy^ irre^ prehensibilem. Quae singula facile per se studiosus lector expendet.
Emundavit conscientiam nostram db operibus mortuis. Legendum in futuro: emundabit. Ita enim habent meliores codices MSS., Graeco Svroque textu, et Clementina editione sufi^ragantibus. Pro: nostram, quidam Graeci ac Latini codices legunt: vestram. Nata varietas ex similitudine Graecarum vocum ri\k(bv et Gfiaiv. Veteres Graeci legisse videntur: nostram, quod et sensum facit pleniorem. Opera mortua vocat peccata, quemadmodum et supra cap. 6.: Non rursum jacientes fundamentum poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis. Cur autem ita vocentur ibidem exposita est ratio; quia nimirum finis et stipendium illorum mors est, Rom. 6. Chrysostomus alludere putat Apostolum ad id, quod fiebat in figura. Nam si, qui corpus mortuum tetigisset, polluebatur, ita, qui facit opus mortuum, polhiitur. Et illic quidem carnem a pollutione contacti cadaveris eraundabat cinis vitulae aspersus; hic vero conscientiam, id est animam seu mentem, ab operibus mortuis expurgat sanguis Christi. Conscientia non potest intelligi proprie, quasi sensus sit: Efficiet, ut non simus conscii peccatorum. Nam saepe contingit, esse peccatum, ubi non sit peccati conscientia; quin et Apostolus dicit: Nihil mihi conscius sum; sed non in hoc justificatus sum, 1 Cor. 4. Porro notandus hic locus contra Novatianos. Scribit enim Apostolus ad baptizatos, et tamen eorum conscientiam ab operibus mortuis, id est peccatis, Christi sanguine mundandam affirmat.
Ad serviendum Deo viventi. Id est: Ut serviamus Deo viventi. Kursum antithesim observa inter opera mortua et Deum viventem. Chrysostomus et Theophylactus amplius aliquid legerunt: Deo viventi et vero. Sed apud alios non reperilur, ut nec apud Syrum interpretem. Unde plus quam verisimile est, additamentum esse aliunde acceptum; scilicet ex 1 Thess. 1., ubi simili sententia legitur in hunc modum: Et quomodo conversi estis ad Deum a simulacris, servire Deo vivo et vero. Porro notandum hoc loco, adversus imputativam sectariorum justitiam, Paulum justiticationis nostrae, quam ex sanguine seu passione Christi percipimus, duas assignare partes \ emundationem conscientiae ab operibus mortuis, id est peccatorum remissionem; et servitutem seu cultum Dei, id est bonorum operum exercitium, ut intelligamus, utrumque esse homini ad sahitem necessarium, et utrumque per Christi sanguinem a Deo exspectandum. Restat nunc, ut tot&m argumentationom Apostoli breviter explicemus. Quondam, inquit, sanguis hircorum et vitulorum effusus et in sanctuarium illatus per pontificem, valebat ad expianda populi peccata quadam expiatione carnali; similiter et cinis vaccae rufae, quo aqua mixto respergebantur ii, qui secundum legem erant immundi, valebat ad sanctificandos eos, id est purificandos ab immunditia, ut secundum carnem et forinsecus mundi essent. Quanto magis igitur sanguis ipsius Christi, qui aiactore et impulsore Spiritu sancto semet ipsum agnum immaculatum in mortem Deo pro nobis obtulit, emundabit animas nostras a peccatis mortiferis, ut Deo vivo in vera sanctitate et justitia serviamus? Ratio consequentiae est, quia plus valet sanguis Filii Dei ad purgandas et sanctificandas hominum animas, quam valere potuerit sanguis animalium brutorum occisorum ad emundationem carnis.
9:15
15. Et ideo novi testamenti mediator est. Redit ad mentionem testamenti, ut explicet promissa, quae per Christum consequimur (testamentum enim in promissis consistit); simul ut doceat, ad ea consequenda opus fuisse morte Christi. Ratio pendet a praecedentibus, hoc modo: Quoniam Christus, fuso sanguine suo, semet ipsum obtulit Deo ad emundationem animarum nostrarum, et per hoc aeternam nobis redemptionem invenit, qui sunt eflfectus novi testamenti: consequitur, ipsum novi testamenti, quod Deus per Jeremiam promisit, esse mediatorem; ut qui suo sanguine illius testamenti promissa nobis confirmarit et praestet. Is enim mediator testamenti seu foederis dicitur, qui tamquam medius inter partes intercedit, hoc agens, ut pacta et promissa praestentur. Eam rem declarant verba sequentia.
Ut morte intercedente. Graece: ut morte facta, scilicet ipsius Christi, hoc est, ut, cum prius mortuus fuerit. Nec aliud volunt interpres noster et alii, qui vertunt: morte intercedente. Id redemtionem earum praevaricationum, quae erant sub priori testamento. Vitiose quidam codices: in redemtione. Nam Graece est: el<z aiioXuTpajatv. Et cohaeret haec pars cum praecedenti. Sensus enim est, mortem Christi factam, id est Christum mortuum esse, ut sua morte redimeret praevaricationes, Graece Tiapapaasig, transgressiones, sub priori testamento perpetratae; id est, ut nos ab illis redimeret, solvendo poenas pro hujusmodi transgressionibus debitas. Addit: sub priori testamento j id est durante statu veteris testamenti, ut innuat, vetus testamentum adeo non profuisse ad veram peccatorum remissionem, ut etiam occasionem dederit gravius peccandi. Lex enim propter transgressiones posita est, Galat. 3.; eademque subintravit, ut abundaret delictum, Rom. 5. Non sentit Apostolus, transgressiones illas antiqui temporis non ante potuisse redimi, quam Chiistus moreretur; sed eas non nisi morte Christi redimi potuisse. Cujus quidem mortis efficacia, simul cum novo testamento, etiam ad priora tempora se extendit. Porro de peccatis eorum, qui legem non acceperant, nihil hic dicit; non quin pro horum etiam redemtione morfuus sit Christus, qui dedit redemtionem semet ipsum pro omnibus, 1 Tira. 2.; sed quia scribens ad eos, qui legem acceperant, tantum de eorum peccr.tis ac peccatorum remissione sibi censet hinc agendum.
Repromissionem accipiant, qui vocati sunt, aefernae haereditatis. Syrus interpres ita vertit: Ut accipiant prnmissionem y qui vncaii sunt ad haereditotem aeternam. Quae versio genitivum: aeternae hasreditaiie, accipit, tamquam regatur a verbo: vocafi sunt. Id quod Graecustextusaegre patitur. Multo certe commodius juxta Graecos et Latinos expositores refertur genitivus ille ad promissionem aeternae haeredifatis, id est promissam aeternam haereditatom. Vocafos intelh*ge vocatione Dei gratuita et efficaci, id est electos, praedestinatos ad vitam aeternam; quos idem Apostolus Rom. 8. secundum propositum vocatos appellat. Ifa exponunt B. Thomas et Cajetanus. Notandum igitur, quod non dicat Apostolus: omnes, red: qui vocati sunt; utique volens significare, promissionem aeternae haereditatis, quae novo testamento propria est et inter ejus promissiones praeci{)ua, ad solos pertinere electos seu praedestinatos. Quod male et parum orthodoxe negat Catharinus in hujus loci commentario. 16 Ubi enim testamentum est, mors, necesse est, intercedat testatoris. Graece: TOL) diaOe/jiEvou, ejus, qui testatus est. Sic interpres ipse paulo post vertit. Probatio est ejus, quod dixerat: morte intercedente, sumpta ex vocabulo et propria ratione testamenfi. Si enim Christus novi testamenti mediator est, ut autem testamentum valeat, suumque effectum sortiatur, necesse est, ut mors testatoris interveniat: igitur mori debuit Christus, ut, qui vocati sunt, haereditatem testamento promissam acciperent. Supponit haec Apostoli argamentatio, Christum ita mediatorem esse novi testamenti, ut idem ipse etiam testator sit, id est testamenti auctor, et haereditatis promissor, juxta quod loquitur ad discipulos, Luc. 22.: Ego dispono vobis, sicut disposuit mihi Pater meus, regnum. Qua animadversione adhibita, locus hic non obscure ccmmendat divinitatem Christi, quum docet, oportuisse, ut testator, id est Deus, moreretur.
9:17
17. Testamentum enim in mortuis confirmatum est. Confirmatum, Graece: ps^afa, firmum, ratum. Nam, inquit, testamentum ita demum jure ratum habetur, si mortuus fuerit testator. lUud: in mortuis, Graece STil vsxpoTc; idem esse videtur, quod in morte; \\t sit Hebraica phrasis, qualis est, cum dicitur Christus a mortuis surrexisse, id est a morte, sive a statu mortuorum. Quamquam Graeca praepositio etiam causae significationem habet, ut intelligi possit, moitem testatoris causam esse firmitatis testamenti, idque ratum efficere. Undo S. Thomas interpretatur in tnortuis, id est, per mortem.
Alioqui nondum valet, dum vivit, qui tentatus est. Nondum valtt, id est robur ac firmitatem non habet, jus nullum tribuit. Neque enim agere quis potest jare testamenti, testatore adhuc superstite, ut cui liberum sit, dum vivit, testamentum mutare. Dices: Igitur nec novum testamentam valuit ante mortem Christi testatoris. Quod si ita est; quomodo tam multi ante ejus mortem justificati? Respondeo, vahiisse testamentum propter praescientiam et acceptationem Patris, qua mortem Filii sui, futuram aspiciens, acceptavit ut factam; non sic quidem, ut omnes testamenti partes impleret in electis Christi mortem praecedentibus; sed ut eas saltem, quas impleri contingit in hafc vita; ut suni omnes parces justificationis nostrae, quas ex Jeremia lecensuit Apostolus in capite praecedenti. Nam coelestem haereditatem cuiquam dari ante mortem et glorificationem Christi, nequaquam fuit conveniens. Ex praesenti loco, ubi Apostolas urget vocabuhim testamenti, ejusque propriam significationem, ut doceat, oportuisse Cbristnm mori, validum mihi videtur argumentum sumi, quo doceatur, hanc. Epistolam non Hebraice, sed Graece primum scriptam fuisse. Nam ut ex Latina voce testamentum, ita ex Graeca StadT^XTj bene procedit ratiocinatio; scilicet ratam non esse dispositionem, nisi morte disponentis confirmetur. Atqui vox Hebraea: Berith, quae legitur illis Scripturae locis, ad quae Paulus respicit, ut Jerem. 31. et Exod. 24., non aliud significat, quam foedus seu pactum in genere; sive illud sit Dei cum hominibus, sive hominum inter se; et sivo morte alicujus confirmetur et ratum fiat, sive non, quemadmodum ex innumeris Scripturis ostendi potest. Itaque nulla consequentia est ex Hebraeo vocabulo Berith, ut mori debeat, qui pactum fecit. At neque aliud exstat iu sacris literis vocabuhim Hebraicum, quo proprie significetur ea res, quam Latini testamentum, Graeci Sia^VjxTjv nominant. Quod intelligens Syrus intei pres, necessitate compulsus est, omisso Hebraico: Berith, quo alias semper utitur, etiam in hac Epistola Graecam vocem hoc loco retinere, eamque Syriacis literis oxprimere. Sed de hac re satis egimus in prolegom. hujus Ep^st, adductis etiam auctoribus, qui nobiscum sentiunt. Verum hic oritur magna difiGi?>ultas. Nam si vox Hebraea, quae respondet testamento, non aliud significat, quam pactum aut foedus, ex quo non liceat inferre mortem ejus, qui pacti sit auctor, valde igitur infirmo fundamento nititur Apostoli ratiocinatio, qua, adsurapto testamenti vocabulo, colligit, oportuisse Christum mori. Sumit enim, quod in Scripturis ab ipso citatis non habetur, neque ex iis colligi potest. Nam ex pacto non magis inferas testamentufn, quam ex animali hominem. Motus hoe argumento Erasmus in suis annotat. auctori hujus Epistolae peritiam detrahit Hebraicae linguae. Cajetanus autem, longius progressus, non solum dicit, hanc Epistolam numquam Paulo visam fuisse; verum etiam dubiam reddit ejus auctoritatem, sicut admonuimus in prolegomenis; ubi inter alia, quae contra hanc Epistolam objiciuntur, etiam hoc argumentum posuimus, ordine sextum, solutione ejus in praesentem locum dilata. Multum certe in eo solvendo laborant neoterici Cajetano posteriores. Nam a scriptoribus antiquioribus haec difficultas non invenitur tractata. Nonnulli, ut huic objoctioni satisfaciant, fatentur quidem, Hebraeum vocabulum Berith passim in Scripturis ita generale esse, ut non aliud, quam pactum significet; caeterum interdum etiam specialiter ilhid accipi volunt pro pacto testamentario. Sed dum locus exigitur, revera nihil adferunt, quo probent hanc suam exceptionem. Quod enim scriptum est Zach. 9.: Tu quoque in sanguine testamenti tui emisisti vinctos tuos de lacu, docet quidem, pacta interdum sanciri sanguine, quod nemo negat; non tamen ostendit in significatione vocis Hebraicae Berith, quae eo loco ponitur, ejusmodi sanctionem includi. Dices, Hieronymum ita sensisse, qui testam entum YQviQvii i nom pactum, Ad hoc optime respondet Ribora, quoniam istius Scripturae locus erat vulgatus et celeber in Ecclesiis, in quibus semper juxta LXX. legebatur: Et tu in sanguine testamenti etc., retinuisse quidem Hieronymum testamenti nomen, sed quid intelligeret, expressisse in commentario, cum ait: In sanguine testamenti sive pacti tui. Unde et ad illa verba Malach. 2.: Ut esset pactum meum cum Levi, idem Hieronymus generaliter admonet, in plerisque Scripturarum locis testamentum non voluntatem defunctorum sonare, sed pactum viventium. Dicit autem: plerisque, quia negare non voluit, quin ad vohmtatera defunctorum etiam extendatur, ut proinde eam aliquo modo sonare possit; sed ad eam significatio vocis ntisquam contrahitur. Sane sicubi in tota Scriptura vocabulum Berith fiignificat idem, quod testamentum, erunt utique ea loca, quae in hac Epistola citantur, et ad quae respicit Apostolus, ex testamento ducens argumentum, videlicet Jerem. 31. et Exod. 24. Id autem esse praeter mentem Hieronymi, constat, ut qui utroque loco transtulerit: foedus aut pactum, non testamentum. Adde, quod et alii doctissimi quique interpretes non aliter eam vocem, ubicumque positam, reddiderunt. Alii respondent, tametsi Berith non aliud significet, quam pactum in genere, satis tamen ex circumstantiis intelligi, Mosen Exod. 24. (qui locus hic continuo post citatur) non agere de quocumque pacto, sed de eo, quod morte et sanguine confirmatur. Nam sanguinis meminit, dicens: Hic est sanguis foederis, ubi LXX.: Hic sanguis testamenti. Sicut autem vetus illud pactum in sanguine et morte pecudum sancitum est, ut hac ratione non absurde testamentum vocari potuerit: itanovum, inquiunt, propriissime testamentum dicitur, eo quod, intercedente morte testatoris, factum sit ratum et validum. Alii plus adjiciunt, dicentes, de eadem re loqui Mosen et Paulum, scilicet de pacto dandae haereditatis, quae non obvenit, nisi post mortem testatoris; ac Paulum quidem apertis verbis id agere; Mosen vero obscure ac typice sanguinem aspersisse in populum, qui figura erat sanguinis Christi pro nobis effundendi. Sed nec hae responsiones diflScaltatem expediunt. Nam Paulus in verbis jam explicatis non argumentatur ex re gesta per Mosen, cujus adhuc non fecit mentionem, sed ex vocabulo et significatione testamenti; quamvis huic probationi mox aliam subjungat, ex eo scilicet, quod Scriptura narrat a Mose factum in confirmatione veteris pacti. Quod ipsum tamen, etsi sancitum ia sanguine, proprie testamentum non fait, quia morte testatoris minime confirmatum; id quod ad testamenti rationem exigit Apostolus. Deinde nec illud proprie verum est, Mosen et Paulum de eadem re loqui. Nam Moses de veteri testamento loquitur, Paulus de novo. Sunt autem haec testamenta re distincta, licet vetus ad novum referatur, ut imperfectum ad perfectum. Non quidem negamus, vetus testamentum interdum vocari promissionem haereditatis; sed more Scripturae, quae de haereditate generaliter loqui solet; quemadmodum ostendimus ad illud cap. 1. hujus Epistolae: Quem constituit haeredem universorum. Neque enim coelestis haereditatis promissio vetus testamentum fuit, sed terrenae; quam et praestitit juxta illud, quod de regnis Ohanaan dicitur Psalm. 134.: Et dedit terram eorum haereditatem, haereditatem Israel po' pulo suo. Quare nec ex eo, quod vetus pactum continet promissionem haereditatis, sequitur testamenti proprietatem, quomodo hic accipitur, ei convenire. Nondum igitur apparet, quomodo valeat argumentatio Pauli, qua ex ratione testamenti colligit necessitatem mortis Christi. Quae causa fuit Melchiori Cano, lib. 2. de locis Theol. cap. 11., ubi de hac re agit, ut tandem dicaret, Apostolum in nomine Hebraico ludere potuisse Rhetorum more, et vocem a proprio significato ad improprium flectere. Dicit autem: in nomine Hebraico, quod existimet, ut et alii multi sentiunt, Hebraice scriptam hanc Epistolam. Cum ergo nil istorum satis sit ad tollendam diflicultatem, videndum, possitne quid probabilius adferri. Quod ut fiat, primum statuo, quod me puto satis in prolegomenis docuisse, Paulum Graece hanc Epistolam scripsisse, non Hebraice; et proinde usum Graeco vocabulo Sia^TjxTj^ non Hebraico Berith. Atque ea in re secutum (sicut assidue sequitur) LXX. interpretes, qui Hebraicum Berith ubique vertunt in 5tad7]xr^v, id est foedus in testamentum. Quamvis enim 6ia^>5^Yj, si vocis etjmon attendas, non plus sonet, quam dispositionem, et apud auctores Graecos interdum, Budaeo teste in commentariis linguae Graecae, significet in genere pactum, conventum, pollicitationem: constat tamen, vulgarem et receptissimam ejus significationem esse, qua denotet idem, quod apud Latinos testamentum, id est voluntatis decretum de eo, quod quis post mortem suam fieri velit, quemadmodum illud Jurisconsultus definivit. Deinde suppono ac statuo, non temere, nec absque singulari Dei consilio factum, ut hanc Graecam vocem pro illa Hebraea memorati interpretes perpetuo redderent, cum non deesset aliud Graecum nomen, quo pactum aut foedus exprimerent, velut auv- ^TJXY], quomodo vertere solet Aquila. Tertio sciendum, Apostolorum tempore Judaeos ac proselytos, quod essent dispersi per varias orbis regiones, atque a temporibus Alexandri magni Graecae linguae consuetudinem habere coepissent, plurimum ac libenter usos fuisse versione LXX. interpretum, virorum sapientum, suaeque gentis ac religionis hominum; nec solum usos, verum etiam propter auctoritatem tot ac talium interpretum, versionem ipsam in magno pretio ac veneratione habuisse. Postremo notandum est, Apostolo disputationem in hac Epistola (quod tum in ejus argumento, tum et alias admonui, nominatim ad illud capitis primi: Ego ero illi in patrem) non esse institutam cum Hebraeis infidelibus et praefractis, sed cum iis, qui Christum jam receperant, ejusque sacramentis jam erant initiati, sed tamen adhuc plenius instruendi de quibusdam Christianae religionis mysteriis, ac nominatim de dignitate et officio ejus, in quem credidissent; apud quos proinde, tamquam benignos et propensos auditores sive lectores, non putavit Apostolus sibi perpetuo utendum esse argumentandi genere pugnaci et contentioso, ut vocant Rhetores, quo nimirum pressus advers^rius vel invitus cogatur in sententiam; sed interdum rationes adducit suasorias ac probabiles duntaxat; interdum etiam argum6ntatur ex propositionibus concessis aut receptis apud eos, cum quibus disputat, ut in earum probatione non sit oi laborandum. Quam disputandi rationem in hac Epistola non mirabitur, qui noverit, etiam in aliis Pauli Epistolis similes argumentationes inveniri, velut Galat. 3., quum urget numerum singularem in vocabulo seminis, ut probet, Christum intelligi in eo, quod dictum est ad Abraham: Et semini tuo. Item 1 Cor. 11., ubi, quo doceat mulieri velato capite orandum esse, rationes adducit quasdam, non tam cogentes, quam suadentes. Unde tandem subjungit: Si quis videtur contentiosus esse etc. Fallitur enim, si quis existimet, totum hoc genus argumentandi ex propositionibus tantum probabilibus aut concessis a Scripturis sacris esse removendum. Jam his velut hypothesibus constitutis (quarum nonnullas, ac speciatim tertiam, lector debet Joanni Hassellano, Caesareo apud Lovanienses Scripturae interpreti, in Comm. nondum editio), ad propositam difficultatem respondeo, Paulum non argumentari ex Hebraeo et originali vocabulo Berith f sed ex eo, quod illius loco reddideruyt LXX. interpretes, id est ex Graeca voce Sia^TJXTQ; quae cum significet idem plane, quod Latinis testamentum, rite procedit Apostoli ratiocinatio, qua colligit, necessariam fuisse Christi mortem, ut valeret ac ratum esset testamentnra ab ipso conditum. Quod si resistas adhuc, et dicas, LXX. male pro Berith vertisse Sta^T^xrjv, id est pro foedere testamentum, quum foedus multo latius pateat testamento: occurrit tibi tertia hypothesis, ex qua intelligitur, tantam fuisse LXX. interpretum apud Judaeos auctoritatem ac reverentiam, praesertim tempore Christi et Apostolorum ejus, ut, si quod testimonium ex iis citaretur, nemo facile putaret rejiciendum. Unde non solum in hac Epistola, verum in aliis quoque Epistolis, imo et in Evangeliis, multa citantur Scripturae testimonia secundum LXX. Quodque propius facit ad rem praesentem, cum Christus iu ultima coena sacramentum sanguinis sui instituens diceret: Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, utique Hebraice ant Syriace loquebatur; nec credenclnm est, alio voeabnlo usum, quam Berith, pro quo tamen Evangelistae, el Paulus ipge 1 Cor. 11., secuti consuetudinem LXX. interpretum, reposuerunt ^ia^igxTjv, testamentum. Erat igitur apud lectores hujus Epistolae propositio concessa et probatu non necessaria, LXX. interpretes recte vertisse: testamentum. At forte dices, interpretes illos non aliud significare voluisse Graeca voce StaQ^TJxrj, quam quod Hebraeum Berith significat, id est pactum seu foedus, quoniam et ipsum Graecum vocabulum in hac generali significatione reperitur apud ejus linguae auctores; sicut ex Budaeo observavimus. Ad hoc respondetur ex secunda hypothesi, non temere, sed provido Dei consilio factum, ut LXX. interpretes, quorum aliquando futura erat in Ecclesia Dei non parva auctoritas, ubique pro Berith scriberont oam vocem Graecam, quae, quamvis usurpetur aliquando pro pacto seu convento in genere, multo tam.en frequentius et usitatius accipiatur pro testamento. *Providexis enim Spiritus sanctus, Christum auctorom futurum novi et aeterni foederis, quod ipse morte sua coufirmaturus esset, voluit illud foedus appellari nemine testamenti, sicut usque hodie vocatur in Ecclesia; atque ad eam rem ordinavit LXX. seniorum interpretationem, cujus in ejusdem Ecclesiae primordiis praecipuus usus et auctoritas erat futura. Ut igitur concludam, non argumentatur Anostolus a pacto seu foedere ad testamentum; sed supponens (vehit rem concessam), novum foedus vere esse testamentum, ex hujus propria notione docet et colligit, Christum, ejus auctorem et mediatorem, mori debuisse. Quae quidem collectio firmissima est. Quod si dicas, pari ratione cojligi, necessarium fuisse, ut et auctor veteris pacti moreretur, quoniam et illud ab iisdem interpretibus vocatum est testamentum: respondeo, vetus pactum non eo consilio Spiritus sancti vocatum fuisse testamentum, quod morte sui auctoris osset confirmandum; sed quia pactum erat figurativum ejus pacti, quod auctoris sui morte confirmari debuit. Placuit tamen, etiam illud in san^uine dedicari, non auctoris aut mediatoris, sed brutorum animalium, ut haberet q^sndam similitudinem testamenti proprio dicti' in eo, quod non sine morte consummaretur; maxime quoniam ipsum etiam aliquando appellandum erat ^'.a^ijxTj Graecis, testamentum Latinis. Id vero est, quod jam sequitur:
9:18
18. Unde nec primum quidem sine sanguine dedicatum est. Pro: dedicatum est, Graece legitur: lyxexaiviOTai, quasi dicat: encaeniatum est, id est initiatum, sancitum, confirmatum, ut habet Syriaca versio. Repetit idem verbum capite sequenti, ubi sic legimus: guam initiavit nobis viam novam. Sensus est: Non mirum, quod dixi, novum testamentum sine sanguine et morte mediatoris Christi non potuisse confirmari; quandoquidem nec primum illud et vetus testamentum, quamvis non ita proprie testamentum esset, sine sanguine fuit confirmatum. Nam in eo sanciendo caesae sunt victimae, quarum sanguis praefiguraret sanguinem Christi. Sequitur probatio.
9:19
19. Lecto enim omni mandato legis a Mose universo populo. Graecum verbum non legere, sed loqui significat, ut suspicari quis possit, interpretem, verbo inhaerentem, tametsi parum Latine, vertisse: Locuto enim omni mandato legis etc., quod alii, barbariem refugientes, postea mutaverint in vevbum: lecto. Aut certe interpres hoc modo vertens, ad rem gostam aspexit, prout ab ipso Mose describitur Exod. 24.: Assumens, inquit, volumen foederis, legit audiente populo. Non ergo simpliciter locutus est aut pronuntiavit Moses, sed ex libro; quod non aliud est, quam legere. Notandum etiam, pro genitivo legis in Graeco haberi: «ecundum legem. Qucd Theophylactus bifariam exponit. Uno modo: Secundum legem seu praeceptum Mosi datum, hoc est, sicut Dominus jusserat Mosi, scilicet ut ipsius mand&ta recitaret ad aures populi. AHter, ut mandatum secundum legem non aliud sit, quam mandatum lege comprehensura. Quod probabilius est, et vulgatae versioni consentaneum, ut bit sensus: Postquam enim Moses e libro recitasset universo populo omnia mandata, quae lege continebantur; ea videlicet omnia, quae scri|jta sunt Exod. 20. ab initio legis, ubi dicitur: Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus etc, deinceps usque ad finem cap. 23.
Accipiens sanguinem vitulorum et Mrcorum, cum aqua et lana coccinea et hyssopo. Malim ex Graeco: accepto sanguine vitulorum etc. Non dubium, quin ad historiam Exod. 24. respiciat Apostolus. Quo tamen loco neque sanguinis hircorum mentio fit, nec de aqua, lana coccinea, hyssopo verbum ullum. Tantum de vitulis immolatis, eorumque sanguina effuso et in populum asperso Scriptura meminit. Quaeritur ergo, unde caetera haec omnia Paulus habeat. Sunt, qui putent, eum haec sumsisse ex variis locis Scripturarum, ut ex Levit. 14. et Num. 19., in quibus talia nominantur. Sed hoc dici non potest. Clarum est enitu, hic agi de caeremoniis, quibus dedicatum fuit vetus testamentum; quae res non alibi describitur, quam eo loco, quem diximus. Itaque melius alii respondent, Apostolum, in lege nutritum ac paternarum traditionr.m peritum, probe scivisse, quod in e]usmodi solennibus expiationibus ista, a se commemorata, partim offerri, partim assumi soleant. Verum plenior erit responsio, si cum Ribera et aliis quibusdam dicamus, haec omnia posse intelligi ex iis, quae tum eo loco, tum alibi, a Mose sacrificiorum ritus exponente, scripta sunt, sicuti Paulum arbitramur intellexisse, hominem in lege doctissimum. Et quidem non solum vitulos oblatos fuisse^ colligitur ex Scripturae verbis: Et obtulerunt holocausta, immolaveruntque victimas pacificas Do~ mino, vitulos. Ubi dicuntur quidem vituli oblati in hostias pacificas; sed quod genus animalis in holocausta fuerit oblatum, non exprimitur. Constat autem ex Levit. 1., Num. 7. et aliunde, potuisse hircos in holocaustum offerri. Qupre consentaneum videtur, etiam istam holocaustorum oblationem de hircis accipi. Quod si vitulos in verbis memoratis ad utramque partem praecedentem referas, scilicet ad holocausta et ad victimas pacificas, nihil tamen vetabit sub vitulis, id est bobus juvencis, tamquam victima principaliore, etiam hircos comprehendi, saltem ut oblatos pro peccato populi; sicut vituli offerebantur pro salute et graliarum actione. Nec enim rarum erat, victimis pacificis et Eucharisticis conjungi sacrificia pro peccatis, ut videre est Levit. 9. et 16. ct Num. 7. Idque etiam congruebat rei significatae. Sanguis enim novi testamenti, quem veterum hostiarum sanguis praefigurabat, tam pro peccatorum remissione, quam pro salute hominum effusus est. Porro aquam ad usum aspersionis non defuisse, satis res ipsa loquitur. Erat enim sanguis victimarum late spargendus in populum; quod factu perdifficile erat, nisi sanguini commisceretur aqua, ut et liquidior esset ad aspersionem, et copiosior. Unde 1'heodoretus sanguinem aqua commixtum interpretatur. Nam et simili fere ratione praeceptum fuit, ut ex cineribus vaccae rufae fieret uqua aspersionis in usum populi, Num. 19. Quamquam et alibi passim legimus ad purificationes legales aquam adhiberi solitam, utpote clementura aspersiouibus et abstergendis sordibus aptissiraura. Ex hyssopo autem et lana coccinea colligatis fiebat asj^ergillum, quo sanguis aquae mixtus in populum spargeretur. Nam lana humorem imbibit et aliquatenus retinet; hyssopus autem servit aspersioni; quod significatur illo Psalmi versiculo: Asperges me Domine hyssopo. Haec vero tacite intelliguntur in iis Scripturae verbis, quibus dicitur Moses sumptum sanguinem respcrsisse in populum. Non enim respergere potuit sine instrumento ad hunc usum accommod&to, quale juxta praescriptum legis erat fasciculus ex hyssopo et lana coccinea compositus, ut intelligi datar ex aliis locis, velut Exod. 12., Levit. 14. et Num. 19. Habebant autem haec omnia suam mjsticam significationem. Sanguis enim et aqua significabat sanguinem et aquam, quae non sine magnarum rerum mysterio de latere Domini profluxerunt, Joan. 19. S. Thomas ideo sanguinem cum aqua fluxisse dicit, quia baptismus a sanguine Christi efficaciam habet. Nec male cx hac sanguinis et aquae commixtione, quae facta narratur in auspicando veteri testamento, velut ex typo quodam sumitur argumentum aquae miscendae cum vino in sanguinem novi testamenti convertendo. Hyssopum, quae est herba humilis et vim habet purgandi pectoris, B. Thomas fidem typice interpretatur; fides enim mentem Deo subjicit et corda purificat, teste Petro Act. 15. Lanam vero coccineam, quae rubei est coloris, interpretatur flammantem caritatem. Alii per hyssopum significari volunt humanam Christi naturam, in qua et humilitas ostensa est, et virlus latet ad purganda cordis nostri vitia. Per lanam vero coccineam Christi carnem, quae per se candida, velut lana, sanguine passionis velut cocco rubricatur.
Ipsum quoque librum et omnem populum. Graece: Ipsumque librum. Latine dicas: Et librum ipsum, et omnem populum. Librum hunc Moses vocat librum foederis. Unde satis intelligitur non alia fuisse in eo scripta, quam praecepta legis, quae supra diximus. Id ipsum liquet et narratione Scripturae. Cum enim populus, auditis praeceptis, quae Moses a Domino retulerat, respondisset: Omnia verba Domini, quae locutus est, faciemus, subjungit Scriptura, Mosen universos Domini sermones, scilicet ad populum relatos, scripsisse, hoc est, in librum redegisse; atque ex eo libro postea rursus eadem, audiente populo, recitasse, quando iterum acclamatum est a populo: Omnia, quae locutus est Dominus faciemus. Quod igitur Hebraei quidam tradunt, in eo libro scriptam a Mose fuisse totam historiam Genesis, itemque Exodi usque ad eum locum, ubi haec narrantur, merito a Lirano et aliis doctis exploditur. Quamvis autem de libro asperso nihil expresse legatur in Exodo, sed tantum depopulo, facilis tamen conjectura est ex eo, quod facta solemni stipulatione super iis observandis, quae libro continebantur, aspersus fuit populus, ipsum quoque librum eodem sanguine respersum fuisse. Significabat autem haec sanguinis super librum et populum aspersio, nec legem impleri posse, nec populum a peccatis expiari, nisi virtute sanguinis Christi.
9:20
20. Dicens: Hic sanguis testamenti, quod mandavit ad vos Deus. In Hebraeo quidem, ut patet ex iis, quae supra disseruimus, non est: testamenti, sed foederis. Unde Hieronymus ita vertit: Hic est sanguis foederis, quod pepigit Dominus vobiscum. Sed testamenti vocabulum, instituto suo accommodum, Apostolus accepit a LXX. Sensus autem horum Mosi verborum est: Hic est sanguis, quo dedicatur et confirmatur foedus, quod Deus, suo mandato et meo ministsrio, nunc vobiscum pepigit. Hoc autem erat foedus, quod vocatur vetus testamentum. Additur in Exodo: super cunctis sermonibus his. Quod non est accipiendum, ut quidam exponunt, de promissis divinis, quasi sensus sit: Ut sciatis, firma futura esse omnia, quae vobis in hoc libro Deus promisit, sed intelligi debet de praeceptis ex libro recitatis, a quorum observatione, velut conditione ex parte populi necessaria, foedus illud pendebat. Erat enim Uber praeceptorum, non promissionum. Atque ea in re difi^ert testamentum vetus a novo, quod observandae legis conditionem a nostra parte non exigit, sed eam, ut partem divinae promissicnis, includit ac praestat; quemadmodum ex iis perspicuum est, quae dicta sunt capite superiori. Porro quoniam sanguis ille veteris pacti, de quo testatur Apostolus, dictum esse a Mose: Hic sanguis testamenti etc, | figura fuit sanguinis Christi, per quem novum testamentum erat confirmandum: ideo Christus similibus cum Mose verbis nti voluit in instituonclo sacramento sanguinis sui; ut diceret: Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, Matth. 26. et Marc. 14. Ex quo consequitur, intellectum maeae etiam verborum similem esse debere. Quare sicut verborum Mosi non est sensus: Hoc est signum sanguinis, sed: Hic est vere et proprie sanguis testamenti etc, ita nec verborum Christi sensus est: Hoc est signum sanguinis mei, ut volunt Sacramentarii, sed: Hic vere ac proprie sanguis mons est, novi testamenti coniirmativus.
9:21
21. Etiam tabernaculum, et omnia vasa ministerii sanguine similiter aspersit. Ministeriiy intellige sacri, Graece XetToupytat;. Tabernaculum et vasa ministerii (quo nomine comprehenditur tota tabernaculi supellex) nondum erant fabricata, quando Moses vetus testamentum dedicavit. Non ergo tunc ea sanguine potuerunt aspergi, Verum sentit Apostolus, id factum a Mose, posteaquam illa fabricata fuerunt. Sed tamen;, quando factum fuerit, quaeritur. Nam Exodi ultimo, ubi tabernaculum erigendum et consecrandum praecipitur, nec sanguinis, nec aspersionis uUa fit mentio, sed unctionis tantum, quae fiebat oleo. Putant nonnuUi, respicere Apostolum ad locum Num. 19., ubi praecipitur Eleazaro sacerdoti, ut tincto digito in sanguine vaccae septies aspergat contra fores tabernaculi. Verum rejicit hoc B. Thomas; nec sine ratione, quamvis rationem ipse non adjunxerit. Una ratio est, quia Moses ibi non aspergit, sed pontifex; hic autem, quid Moses fecerit, narratur. Altera, quoniam illo loco, praeterquam quod de vasis ministerii nihil dicitur, sed tantum de tabernaculi foribus, ut quidem verba sonant, non tamen id significatur, quod prima facie apparet, fores tabernaculi sanguine respergendas esse. Fiebat enim immolatio vaccae rufae extra castra, procul a tabernaculo. Sed sensus est, quem alii interpretes clarius expresserunt, praecipi sacerdoti, ut sanguinem digito spargat € regione tabernaculi, hoc est, versus eum locum, ubi tabernaculum erat. Id enim significat Hebraea phrasis: Contra faciem tabernaculi, quemadmodum in Machabaeis: Contra faciem Idu- Judaeae, Ptolemaidis. Quo etiam sensu Daniel, in Babylone constitutus, fenestris apertis contra Jerusalem, adorasse legitur, Dan. 6. iisdem fere rationibus refelluntur, qui huc adducunt locum Levit. 16., ubi praecipitur expiatio sanctuarii, tabernaculi et altaris facienda sanguinis aspersione. Nam nec ibi factum Mosi narratur, sed pontificis munus describitur •, nec alia significari videtur aspersio, quam quae, modo jam dicto, fieret contra propitiatorium ac caetera, quae ibi commemorantur. Aliter ergo respondet S. Thomas, scilicet Apostolum loqui non de expiatione tabernaculi, quae quotannis fiebat; sed de prima ejus ac vasorum sanctificatione. Quae quidem Exodi ultimo fieri jubetur, sed Levit. 8., quomodo facta sit, plenius exponitur. Probat hanc suam sententiam B. Thomas. Nam ibi, inquit, de Mose dicitur, quod unxit tabernaculum oleo; et postea, quod aspersit. Oleum autem non est aspersivum. Unde intelligit, quod primo unxit iUud, et postea aspersit sanguine. Sic ille, quem Ribera sequitur. At nobis haec sententia vera quidem videtur, sed non solide probata. Quod enim dicitur: aspersit, si fontem Hebraicum consulamus, inveniemus de oleo dici, non de sanguine. Sic enim habetur: Et accepit Moses oleum unctionis, et unxit tabernaculum et omnia, quae in eo, et sanctificavit ea. Et aspersit ex eo super altare septem vicibus, et unxit altare et omnia vasa ejus etc. Ubi manifestum est, illud: ex eo, quod vulgatus interpres omisit, sed caeteri reddiderunt, etiam LXX., non alio posse referri, quam ad oleum; quandoquidem nec de immolatione quidquam praecesserat, ut de sanguine intelligi posset. Quod autem ajunt, oleum non esse aspersivum, non usquequaque verum est, licet aspersionibus minus forte serviat, quam alii liquores. Nam et infra, eodem capite Levitici, ad aspersionem assumitur oleum, nt mox audiemus. Tilud etiam nota, Mosen in verbis memoratis non agere de aspersione tabernaculi, sed solius altaris. Quocirca dicendum arbitramur, hoc, quod Paulus dicit, Mosen etiam tabernaculum et omnia vasa ministerii sanguine similiter aspersisse, non esse scripto proditum ab ipso Mose, nisi in parte, dum refert in eodem octavo capite Levitici, se, sumpto unguento et sanguine, qui erat in altari, aspersisse super Aaron et vestimenta ejus, et super filios illius ac i^estes eorum. Nam sacrae vestes pontificis et sacerdotum, merito in vasis, id est, instrumentis ministerii, computantur. Quod autem in parte expressum est a Mose, Paulus intellexit ad totum posse referri, scivitque referendum esse, videlicet edoctus, ut verisimile est, a majoribus. Quod ne leviter dixisse videar, fidem facit Josephus, qui lib. 3. antiq. Jud. cap. 9., cum ea, quae in Levitico scripta sunt de vestibus Aaronis ac filiorum ejus unguento sanguineque aepersis, commemorr.sset, idem continuo disertis verbis subjungit de tabernaculo ejusque vasis; scilicet ea unguento, juxta praescriptum legis confecto, et sanguine taurorum et arietum alternis diebas mactatorum, aspersa fuisse. Non dubium autem, quin ea Josephus, utpote sacerdos Leviticus, accepevlt ex progenitorum suorum traditione. Jam quod ad mysterium attinet, per tabernaculum Ecclesia, per vasa vel ministri, vel membra Ecclesiae, id est, singuli quique fideles, significantur. Hos enim Paulus, 2 Tim. 2., magnae domus vasa appellat. Nihil autem horum sanctificatur, nisi per aspersionem sanguinis Jesu Christi, ut loquitur Petrus Apostolus initio primae suae Epistolae.
9:22
22. Et omnia paene in sanguine secundum legem mundantur. In Graecis hic ordo est: Et fere in sanguine om-nia purificantur secundum legem. Quaeritur, cur non absolute dixerit: omnia, sed: fere om.nia. Haec quaestio apud Graecos expositores nulla est. Nam particulam oyj,bov, id est paene aut fercy non referunt ad omnia, sed ad verbum: mundantur; faciuntque hunc sensum: Omnia secundum legem fere, id est imperfecte, mundantar in sanguine, quia non erat illa perfecta mundatio, quod per eam peccata non tollerentur. At sane nimium coacta est ista constructio. Rectius itaque Latini, paene referentes ad omnia, respondent, Apostolum dixisse: paene omnia, quod essent quaedam, quae non sanguine, sedveligne, vel aqua expiationis mundarentur. Sic enim de spoliis hostium praecipitur Num. 31.: Omne, quod potest transire per flammas, igne purgabitur. Quidquid autem ignem non potest sustinere, aqua expiationis sanctificabitur. Caeterum de aqua expiationis ejusque multiplici ad sanctificandum usu, locus est ejusdem lib. cap. 19. Sed et aqua vulgari ad tollendam corporum ac vestimentorum immunditiam multae fiebant lotiones, ut patet ex variis locis Levitici. Unde e diverso nascitur quaestio, cur dixerit: paene omnia, cum tam multae fierent sine sanguine mundationes. Sed hujus responsionem indicat B. Thomas, quum dicit, ipsam quoque expiationis aquam fuisse confectam cum sangoine vitulae rufae. Respicit enim, ut opinor, ad id, quod praeceptum erat, ut iilius vitulae tam pelJis et carnes, quam sanguis et fimus flammae traderentur. Ex his enim in cinerem redactis fiebat aqua expiationis. His accedit, quod pleraeque purificationes, quae per aquam fiebant, vim habebant ex aliquo sacrificio praecedenti, in quo sanguis fuerat effusus.
Et sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio, scilicet peccatorum. Hoc absolute dicit. Quamvis enim nonnullae mundationes legales, ut dictum est, fierent sine saDguiue nulla tamen ad remissionem peccatorum instituta erat caeremonia, quae sanguinis effusionem non exigeret. Nam pro peccatis offerebantur sacrificia propitiatoria, in quibus animal mactaretur, quae proinde omnia cruenta erant, ut patet ex Lev. 4. et sequentibus. Porro sicut in superioribus sermo fuit de mimdatione et sanctificatione legali, quam appellavit emundationem carnis, et justitias carnis: ita et iiic legalem intelligit peccatorum remissionem, qua nimirum fiebat, ut legis comminationes homo evaderet, nec peccatum ei ad ejusmodi poenas imputaretur. Hic enim erat efiectus illorum sacrificiorum. Nam de legali remissione eum loqai, palam est, quoniam et proxime nominaverat munda~ tionem secundum legem; et alioqui secum ipse pugnaret, qui capite sequenti dicit, impossibile esse, ut hircorum et taurorum sanguine peccata tollantur, Qui vero eententiam hanc interpretantur de sanguine Christi, ut eam ad veram peccatorum remissionem accommodent, sensum adferunt huic loco alienum. Verum tamen juxta Apostoli institutum ex his verbis optime colligas: Si in veteri lege non fiebat remissio legalis sine efi^usione sanguinis animalium occisorum, ergo nec in nova lege fit vera peccatorum remissio sine efi^usione sanguinis Christi, quem sanguis ille victimarum veteris testamenti praefiguravit. Est enim haec coUectio plane similis ac paene eadem cum illa, quam Apostolus ipse superius fecit illis verbis: Si enim sanguis hircorum et taurorum etc. Dicet aliquis: Si vera peccatorum remissio non fit sine efi^usione sanguinis Christi (quod ex hoc loco recte colligi jam dictum est), ergo sacrificium missae, cum sit incruentum, sicque vocetur a Patribus, quod in eo nulla fiat sangainis eff"upio, non valet ad veram peccatorum remissionem. Respondeo, argumentum hoc nihilo magis facere contra sacrificium miesae, quam contra baptismum et alia sacramenta novae legis ad remissionem peccatorum instituta. Dicendum est enim, sicut baptismo non remittuntur peccata sine sanguine Christi, fuso in cruce, ita nec per sacrificium missae remitti sine cruento illo crucis sacrificio, cujus ipsum est commemorativum. Utrumque enim, tam baptismus, quam missae sacrificium, efficax est in sanguine Christi, et non aliter.
9:23
23. Necesse est ergo, exemplaria quidem coelestium his mundari. Infert ex iis, quae proxime dicta sunt, de mundatione tabernaculi et vasorum ministerii, et caeterorum, quae vocat exemplaria, Graece GTioSsty/jiaTa. Quo nomine usus est etiam cap.,8., ubi nos habemus: Qui exemplari et umbrae deserviunt coelestium. Significantur autem Graeco vocabulo, sicut ibidem diximus, obscurae quaedam ostensiones ac delineationes rerum. Sic appellat figuras veteris testamenti, quod obscure et umbratice res novi testamenti illius temporis hominibus ostenderint. Ea exemplaria mundabantur his, vel rebus, vel hostiis, de quibus paulo ante locutus est, id est, vitulorum et hircorum sanguine. Mundabantur autem ab immunditia corporali et externa, quam secundum legem tolli oportebat. Coelestia vero, quae dicantur, paulo post exponemus. Porro quod ait: Necesse est, indicat ordinationem divinam, quam necesse fuit impleri tam in figuris praecedentibus, quam in rebus ipsis sequentibus, de quibus subjungit:
Ipsa autem coelestia melioribus hostiis, quam istis. Quamvis in Graeco nonnulla sit diversitas inter coelestia hujus et praecedentis membri, (hic onim STtoupavta dicuntur, hoc est, coelestia, illic vero xa Iv toTc oapavolg, id est ea, quae in coelis sunt), rem tamen eandem significari, contextus sermonis aperte commonstrat. Quae sit autem res illa uoraine coelestium significata, dubitationem habet. Chrysostomus ac caeteri Graeci, quibus adstipulantur commentarii Primasio et Anselmo adscripti, item Haimo, Cajetanus et alii Latinorum nonnulli, coelestia intelligunt Ecclesiam Christi milituntem, ct quae in ea geruntur. Haec enim etsi in terra sint, merito tamen coe^ lestia dici vohmt, propter fidem et spem ad coelestia spectantem. Sed hanc expositionem coelestium minus probabilem esse, docebamus capite superiore, idque ex illius loci circumstantia. Plenius autem ostenditur ex eo, quod Apostolus hoc loco, velut id, quod dixerat, explicans statim subjungit: Jesum non in manufacta sancta introiissej sed in ipsum coelum. Quare S. Thomas, illa expositione rejecta, dicit, per coelestia melius intelligi coelestem patriam, id est, coelum seu habitationem coelestem. Quae eadem est Lirani sententia. Sed quomodo haec coelestia mundentur Christi sanguine, cum in iis nihil omnino sit, quod mundatione egeat, quaeritur, ac difficile explicatur. S. Thomas et Liranus eam mundationem dcciarant ex analogia mundationis tabernacuUMosaici. Sicut enim tabernaculom illud dicebatur emundari, non quod ipsum haberet in se aliquam immunditiam; sed quia tollebantur quaedam irregularitates seu legales immunditiae, quibus impediebantur homines, quo minus ad tabernaculum accederent: ita dicunt, juxta Apostolum mundari coelestia, quatenus homines mundantur a peccatis, quibus impediuntur ab ingressu regni coelestis. Hanc vero explicationem Ribera non probat, eo quod durius sonet, coelum seu coelestem patriam mundari. Itaque sentit, per coelestia quidem recte accipi coelum ipsum, id est, tabernaculum coeleste et domicilium beatorum, quod et rationibus probat; sed emundationem horum coelestium aliter interpretatur. Dicit enim, Paulum verbis subsequentibus: Non enim in manufacta sancta Jesus introivit etc, non alludere ad dedicationem tabernaculi, quando et ipsum, et omnia ejus vasa sanguine sanctificata fuerunt; sed ad introitum Pontificis in Sancta sanctorum, quando, sicut praecipitur Levit. 16., Pontifex, illuc cum sanguine introgressus, aspergebat eum e regione oraculi, atque ea caeremonia expiabat sanctuarium ab immunditiis filiorum Israel, et a praevaricationibus eorum cunctisque peccatis. Quae verba utique declarant, ibi non agi de mundatione hominum ab inmiunditiis, quas vocant irregularitates, quibus ab ingressu tabernaculi impediebantur; sed de mundatione ipsius tabernaculi, quod quasi continuo polluebatur peccatis filiorum Israel, in quorum medio erat constitutum; non quod ex eorum peccatis veram contraheret immunditiam; sed quia propter irreverentiam hominum, circumcirca morantium atque peccantium, ipsi loco detrahebatur suus honos; quomodo nunc loca Deo dicata pollui dicuntur, quum enonnia quaedam peccata in iis committuntur. Eodem modo, inquit Ribera, coelum, quod Dei locus est multo praestantior et venerabilior, pollutum fuit peccato primorum parentum, ac deinceps aliorum hominum peccatis continuo polluitur, quatenus illa in coelum ascendentia (sicut Scriptura loquitur) teterrimo suo odore Deum coeli habitatorem graviter offendunt, ipsumque ejus habitaculum quodammodo inficiunt; emundari vero dicitur, cum per sanguinem Christi peccatorum foetor tollitur, ac Deo placita opera ab hominibus exercentur. Hac enim ratione coelo restitui censetur honor ablatus. Sed contra hanc speculationem, etsi subtilem, primum objici potest, quod Apostolus, Christum opponens Pontifici Aaronico, illiusque officia declarans ex antithesi eorum, quae fiebant in veteri Testamento, semper Christo ac sanguini ejus veram ac proprie dictam mundationem et sanctificationem tribuit, qua scilicet vere secundum conscientiam et coram Deo munda fiat ea res, quae mundari dicitur. Atqui mundatio jam exposita non vera, sed figurate dicta est, cum sit in confesso, coelum, si de mundatione proprie, et secundum Apostolum loquamur, mundarinonposse. Deindevideretur Apostolus ab instituto declinare, si a mundatione hominum, de qua perpetuo disseruit, transitum faceret ad mundationem coeli, qualis hic fingitur. Denique nec ista subtilitas evadit duritiem sermonis, qua dicitur coelum mundari; propter quam displicebat sententia B. Thomae. Quamquam illud rectissime, quod dicit Ribera, Apostolum in pericope sequenti non alludere ad dedicationem tabernaculi, sed ad introitum Pontificis in sanctuarium a peccatis filiorum Israel expiandum. Verum illa tabernaculi expiatio non tam significabat mundationem coeli peccalis hominam polluti, quam mundationem Ecclesiae peccatis hominum, ex quibus constat, commaculatae. His adde, quod Apostolus per coelestia non tam intelligi vult locum ipsum coelestem, quam Ecclesieim Sanctorum, qui sunt in coelis. Jam en\m diximus, pro vocabulo coelestium Graece haberi: eo~ rurrij quae in coelis sunt. Nemo autem dixerit, Ecclesiam, quae in coelis est, polhii peccatis hominum agentium in terris. Quare nobis videtur expositio S. Thomae recipienda, cum eo tamen moderamine, ut Apostolus intelligatur loqui de ipsius tabernaculi et vasorum ejus emundatione, cujusmodi superius declarata est. Aut certe melior aliquis sensus quaerendus. Quod si per coelestia totam Ecclesiam placeat intelligi, quae ab Apostolo Gal. 4. vocatur: Jerusalem, quae sur- 8um estj mater nostra; et Apoc. 21. dicitur: descendere de coelo, quia nimirum meditatione et studio semper in coelis versatur, etiam qua parte peregrinatur in terris; percomraode reddi poterit hujus loci iste sensus: Ipsa coelestia, id est tota Ecclesia, tam triumphantem, quam militantem complectens, mundatur, id est, munditiam ac sanctitatem suam omnem continuo accipit ah hostia meliore, quae est Christus in cruce oblatus. Non enim ita Christus Ecclesiam suo sanguine mundat, ut mundare aliquando desinat, si mundare est munditiam et sanctitatem impertiri; sed semper id facit ac facturus est. In eo, quod dicit Apostolus: melioribus hostiiSj cum de una Christi hostia loquatur, enallage numeri est, ad quam invitabat numerus pluralis praecedens. Additiuncula B. P. Nisi forte Apostolus, quoniam ad Hebraeos Christianos ista scribit, his verbis pluralibus usus est ad tacite ipsis significandum, hostiam cruentam semel oblatam, et incruentam quotidianae oblationis, ratione duas, re unicam. Credibile est, idem mysterium ipsis innui per illa verba cap. 13.: Hahcmus aUare, de quo edere etc.
9:24
24. Non enim in manufacta sancta Jesus introivit, exemplaria verorum; sed in ipsum coelum. Jesus, in Graeco et Syriaco: Christus. Declarat Apostolas, quod dixerat: coelestia. Nam pontifex quidem Aaronicus, inquit, introibat ia sanctuarium manufactum, id est, humana arte fabricatum; Christus autem non in manufacta sancta introivit, quae verorum sanctorum erant tantum exemplaria seu figurae; sed in ipsum coelum, a quo coelestia nominantur, id est in sancta vera, et tahernacuJum verum. Sic enim ea appellavit sub initium capitis octavi. Quo etiam loco admonuimus, verum non opponi falso, sed typico seu figurativo. Notandum, exemplaria Graece hoc loco non dici uiioSsiy/laTa^ quemadmodum in versu praecedenti, sed avTiTUTra; quam tamen vocem, perinde ut superiorem, omnes interpretes vertunt: exemplaria. Res quippe eadem utraque voce significatur, tametsi secundum aliam atque aliam rationem. Erant enim figurae veteris Testamenti UTioSsiYfxaTa, quatenus obscure significabant res figuratas. Erant autem avTiTUTia, quatenus ad similitudinem verorum, quae Mosi ostensa faerant, id est coelestium, efformata, ut oa deinde repraesentare possent. Dicitur enim avTi- TUTcov similitud.0 reddita ex prototypo, sive clare, sive obscure ipsum repraesentot.
Ut appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis. Non dicit: ut emundet coelum, sicut pontifex Leviticus introibat in Sanctum sanctorum, ut illud expiaret. Sed hoc interim differt, ut commodius de eo agat in sequentibus. Hic vero aliud quoddam munus pontificis Christo in coelum recepto assignat, quod tamen etiam ad emr.ndationem pertinet; fcimulquc alludit ad ritum veteris legis, ubi pontifex, ingressus in Sancta sanctorum, stabat coram propitiatorio, ut oraret pro populo. Ita Christum dicit introiisse in coelum, ut vultui Dei se pro nobis sistat, id est, ut apud Deum pro nobis interpellet. Quod quo sensu facere dicendus sit, expositum est cap. 7. ad illud: Semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis. Dicitur Christus: nunc apparere vultui Dei, cui tamen ab initio suae conceptionis semper praesens fuit, nec quomoducumque, sed visione perfecta: quia nunc id agit apud Deum, quod apud terrenum principem nemo solet agere, nisi prius in ejas conspectum admissus; id est pro populo interpellare ac verba facere. Beatus Thomas sermonis tropum ita exponit: Intravit locum, ubi Deus manifeste videtur.
9:25
25. Neque ut saepe offerat semet ipsum. Quoniam praecipuum Pontificis munu3 est offerre sacrifi^,iura, dubitari poterat, num Christus, ingressus coeleste sanctuarium, adhuc munus illud exerceat offerendo semet ipsum, quomodo eemel obtulit. Docet ergo, non ideo Christum introiisse in coelum, ut iterum ac saepius offerat semet ipsum; nihil enim opus esse, cum, sicut antea dixit, et in consequentibus amplius declarat, Christus semel oblatus aeternam redemptionem invenerit. Quaeres: Si desiit offerre, quomodo adhuc sacerdos est? Respondent, in officio vel persona sacerdotis non requiri continuum sacrificandi actum; siquidem et Levitici sacerdotes non continuo, sed statis vicibus, diebus ac horis offerebant sacrificia; Christi vero sacrificium, quod semel obtulit in cruce, semper vigere, adeoque perpetuum esse quoad efficaciam, ut vel hac ratione sacerdotium ejus aeternum esse, semperque subsistere merito dicatur. Bona responsio; sed eadem plenior erit, si dicamus, Christum, postquam introivit in sancta coelestia, nequaquam prorsus cessare ab actu sacerdotali. Nam et hostiam semel oblatam, id est, se ipsum semel passum, continuo pro salute hominum sistit et offert Patri, quod significatum est verbis praecedentibus: Ut appareat nunc vuUui Dei pro nobis; et adhuc quotidie, manibus suorum ministrorum per ^iniversam Ecclesiam offert incruentum et commemoratiYum sacrificium corporis et sanguinis sui. Quae res pluribus a nobis explicata est supra, cap. 7., quum tractaremus illud Psalmi: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Quod autem negat Apostolus, Christum saepius offerre se ipsum, de ea dicit oblatione, quae per se valeat ad propitiandum Deum; qualis sola e&t illa, qua se ipsum obtulit in cruce. Ab hac enim, sicuti sacramenta, sic et missae sacrificium vim suam omnem recipit.
Quemadmodum pontifex intrat in sancta per sinyulos annos in sanguine alieno. Pontifex Aaronicus intrabat in Sancta sanctorum cum sanguine alieno, scilicet hircorum et vitulorum, quos immolaverat, ut eorum sanguinem sanctis inferret; idque faciebat non semel, sed singulis annis. Sed non ita Christus, inquit, oblatus in cruce, sanguinem suum intulit coelo, ut hujusmodi oblatio sit ei subinde repetenda.
9:26
26. Alioquin oportebat eum frequen^ ter pati ah origine muhdi. Graece: A constitutione mundi, id est a mundo condito. De hac phrasi vide, quae diximus ad illud Ephes. 1.: Ante mundi co7istitutionem. Quod dixerat, Christum non ideo introiisse in coelum, ut saepe se ipsum offerat, id probat deductione ad absurdum. Cum enim oblatio illa non fiat sine sanguine et morte, oporteret, eum saepe pati ac mori; quod ordinationi Dei et gloriae Christi plane repugnat, ut, qui semel mortem morte sua superavit et ad vitam immortalem resurrexit, iterum atque saepius reposcatur ad mortem. Scimus, inquit Apostolus Rom. 6., quod Christus, resurgens ex mortuis, jam non moritur; mors illi ultra non domina^ hitur. Quod enim mortuus est, peccato mortuus est semel. Addit autem: ab origine mundi, tum quia peccatum coepit jam inde ab initio, in primis parentibus; tum quia, si saepe passurus erat, non minus id oportebat primis saeculis, quam sequentibus; cum sit omnium temporum eadem ratio, supposita necessitate iterandi sacrificii.
Nunc autem semel in consummatione saeculorum, ad destitutionem peccati, per hostiam suam apparuit. Male in quibusdam codicibus legitur accusandi casu: in consummationem saeculorum, quasi sensus sit: Christum apparuisjre ad consummandum saecula, hoc est, ad perficiendum et sanctificandum homines omnium saeculorum. Hunc enim sensum Graeca non admittunt. Sic enim habent: S7tl ouvTsXeta^ id est, in vel sub consummatione, quo modo superius dictum est: IttI t^ TcptoTTjy ^ta^TJx^, sub priore testamento, id est, tempore veteris Testamenti. Quare et hic sensus erit: In consummatione saeculorum, id est, tempore consummationis saeculorum, quando jam saecula consummantur. Nec vertendum: sub consummationem^ hoc est, instante consummationcj quomodo vertit et exponit Erasmus, quandoquidem nec illic sensus esse potest: instante priori testamento. Deinde sciendum, in multis ac vetustis exemplaribas, non destitutionem legi, sed destructionem. Quamquam major codicum pars habet destitutionenij Clementinis etiam suflPragantibus. Quin et Graeca vox «{^^STTjatv melius exprimitur Latino vocabulo destitutionis, quam destructionis. Verbum enim dO^STsTv significat: abjicercj repellere, reprobare, ut 1 Cor. 1.: Prudentium prudentiam reprobabo. Unde Theophjlacti interpres vertit: Ad reprobationem peccati; sicut et vuJgatus eandem vocem reddidit supra cap. 7.: Reprobatio fit praecedentis mandati. Haec autem destitutio seu reprobatio peccati, quamvis proprie non sit destructio, tamen eam necessario secum trahit, Illud porro, quod sequitur: per hostiam suam, Erasmus vertendum patavit: per immolationem sui ipsius; ut opponatur ei, quod de legali pontifice dictum est: in sanguine alieno. Hanc enim antithesim urget Apostolus in superioribus. At nobis ea versio plausibilis ac pia magis, quam docta videtur, quia ^nota in sacris literis ubique accipitur pro hostia seu victima, quae immolatur, nusquam vero, quod sciam, pro ipsa immolatione. Neque enim est verbale nomen, quod actum significet, sed rem, circa quam actus versatur; sicut et nomen victimae, licet interdum fortassis apud auctores Graecos pro actu usurpetur; quod puto esse rarissimum. Deinde non est in Graeco lauTOUy ut verti possit: sui ipsius, sed auTOO, quod nullam reciprocationem significnt. Unde Hentenius, Oecumenii interpres, solitus alioqui in vertendo textu plerumque Erasmum imitari, hoc loco vertit: per victimam suam. Haec quidem hostia seu victima non alia erat, quam Chriptus ipse, seu corpus ejus immolatum in cruce, sicut amplius in sequenti capite docetur; sed id hac parte in Graeco non videtur expressum. De eadem parte dubitari potest, utrum construi debeat cum sequenti verbo apparuit, hoc sensu: Christus per hostiam suam apparuit; an vero connectenda (quod Oecumenius facit) cum proxime praecedentibus, ut ordo ac sensus sit, Christum apparuisse ad destitutiontm peccati per hostiam suam, id est, ut peccatum per hostiam, qua se ipsum pro nobis obtulit, aboleret. Utraque constructio probabilis; sed prior magis obvia, magisque serviens intentioni Paulinae. Ex quo praeterea potest intelligi, verbum apparuit, quod hic absolute ponitur, non ad Deum esse referendum, hoc modo: Apparuit Deo Patri coelum ingressus; sicut dictum est paulo ante: Ut appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis; sed ad homines, ut apparuit sit idem, quod manifestum est; quomodo vertit Theophylacti interpres. Est enim Graece TiscpavlptoTai, diversum ab eo, quod supra dixit: Ut appareat. Eodemque verbo Paulus usus est Col. 3., ubi nos legimus: Cum Christus apparuerit vita vestra, tunc et vos apparebitis cum ipso in gloria. Restat diflicultas de intellectu illius partis: in consummatione saeculorum. Nam qaomodo Christus per hostiam suam apparuit in saeculorum consummatione, cura ab illo tempore, quo passus est, saecula jam paene sedecim fluxerint, si saeculum aestimemus vulgari more tempus centum annorum. Neque enim dici potest, hujus Epistolae scriptorem, quisquis is fuerit, opinatum fuisse, cum haec scriberet, finem saeculi instare; tametsi illo tempore eam fuisse multorum opinionem, colligi potest ex iis, quae Paulus scribit 2 Thess. 2. et Petrus 2 Epist. 3.; non enim falsae opinionis verba dictere potuit per hunc auctorem veritatis magister Spiritus sanctus, ut nec per quemquam alium. Potestque eadem prorsus difficultas moveri ex verbis Joannis 1 Epist. 2.: Filioli, novissima hora est-, nec non ex aliisquibusdam Scripturae locis similibus. Quidam solvi posse putant hunc nodum ex Erasmiana versione: Sub consummationem saeculorum, id est instante consummatione. Sed ea responsio superius exclusa est, dum ostendimus, non bene Erasmum ita vertisse. Quamquam nec ea satisfaceret. Nam proprie nec instabat consummatio, quando haec scribebantur, cum ipse etiam Apostolus id aperte neget, ubi suos Thessalonicenses admonet, ne terreantur, quasi instet dies Domini. Igitur ab aliis aliae responsiones adferuutur. Ea multorum est, qua dicunt tempus adventus Christi vocari novissimum tempus et finem saeculorum, quoniam, etsi, quoad nos, longe distet a mundi consummatione, tamen totum hoc tempus Deo ejusque aeternitali brevissimum est, anfe cujus cculos mille anni tamquam dies hesterna, quae praeteriit, Psalm. 89. Quae responsio videri potest esse ipsius B. Petri loco jam citato, ubi, quibusdam dicentibus: Ubi est promissio aut adventus Domini? respondet: Quia unus dies cpud Dominum sicut mille anni, et mille anni sicut dies unus. Sed eo loco Petrus tantum respondet iis, qui existimabant, Dominum tardare ac justo longius differre suas promissiones; non autem intendit explicare, quo sensu vere tunc dici potuerit, novissimam horam aut saeculi consummationem esse praesentem. Et, si ista expositio recipiatur, omnia, quaecumque facta sunt, dici poterunt facta in consummalione saeculi, quia totum tempus durationis saeculi, comparatum aeternitati, brevissimum est. Alii putant, Christum in consummatione saeculorum passum dici, quia post eam legem, quam Christus attulit, non alia sit exspectanda. Verum nec hoc satisfacit, cum aliud longe sit, legem non mutari usque in finem, et ipsum finem mundi adesse. Posset enim lex immutata permanere decem millibus annorum. Oecumenius, exponens illud Joannis: Novissima hora est, dicit, novissimum et extremum cujusque rei recte appellari id, quod est post medium. At quomodo? Nam duodecim sunt horae diei. Nemo autem septimam aut octavam horam dixerit esse dici novissimam. Deinde nec illud extra quaestionem est, quod Oecumenius supponit, Christum venisse post medium totius temporis. Valde quippe incertum est, tempus, quod sequitur adventum Domini, brevius sit, an longius eo, quod praecessit. Sunt alii, qui consummationem saeculi interpretentur ultimam aetatem mundi. Ita B. Thomas, qui rem explicat hujusmodi inter alia verbis: Ultima aetas est status praesens, post quem non est alius status, sicut nec post senium alia aetas. Sicut autem in aliis aetatibus est numerus annorum determinatus, non autem in senio: ita non est determinatum, quantum iste status mundi debeat durare; tamen est consummatio, quia non restot alius status. Sic ille, citans etiam illud Apostoli 1 Cor. 10.: Nos sumus, in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt. Eadem est sententia Glos.sac ordinariae, et Lirani, et aliorum fere communis. Porro Cajetanus sic exponit: In consummatione saeculorum, id est non in principio mundi, sed in perfectione saeculorum definitorum a divina providentia. Qaam expositionem Ribera, post recitatas aliorum opiniones, suo calculo comprobat, dicitque, hunc sensum esse: Cum saecula ac tempora consummata sunt, quae Deus praefinierat ejus passioni; vult enim, quod hic dicitur, idem esse cum eo, quod habetur Gal. 4.: JJhi venit plenitudo temporis, et Ephes. 1.: In dispensatione plenitudinis temporum, id est postquam impletum fuit tempus praeordinatum a Deo. At vero, si quis bene consideret, phrases sunt diversae in sacris literis: plenitudo temporis seu temporum, et conmmmatio saeculi seu saeculorum. Illud enim significat, tempus quoddam impletum esse, etiamsi aliud tempus sequatur; hoc vero, tempus finitum esse aut finiri sic, ut aliud postea non sit exspectandum. Quod patet ex aliis locis, ubi consummatio saeculi nominatur, ut Matth. 13. semel et iterum, et apud eundem 24. et 28. Unde et Syrus interpres hoc loco transtulit: In novissimo mundi. Nec refert de numero, sive saeculum dicatur, sive saecula; nam in locis jam citatis utrumque habes, saeculum et saecula, tempus et tempora. Quocirca S. Thomae sententia caeteris anteponenda nobis videtur, utpote aliis Scripturis admodum consentanea, non obstante eo, quod haec ultima aetas in tempus valde longum protendatur, quam objectionem satis ipse refellit, ab aetatis humanae similitudine. Quod ergo dicit Apostolus: in consummatione saeculorum f tale est, ac si diceret: Hoc nostro tempore, quandojam agitur ultima mundi aetas, post quam non exspectatur alia. Jam ut sensum praesentis loci plenius assequamur, notandum est, hanc pericopen: nunc autem semel etc, respondere illi parti superioii: Neque ut saepe offerat semet ipsum; continet enim rationem illius ostensivara, qua docet, cur non opus fuerit Christo, ut saepius se offerret, eandem videlicet rationem, quam attulit cap. 7., dicens: Hoc enim fecit semel se offerendo, et rursus hoc capite: Introivit semel in Sancta, aeterna redemptione inventa. Caeterum vocula nunCj ut id obiter adjiciam, vel tempus denotat, ut referatur ad ilhid: in consummatione saeculorum; vel potius expletiva est, sicut alibi interdum. Est igitur hic seasus Apostoli: Christus non est ingressus in coelum, ut saepius offerat se ipsum; nihil enim opus erat, ut qui semel, idque tempore consummationis saeculorum, apparuit ac manifestatus est mundo per hostiam suam. Tunc scilicet, quando palam obtulit semet ipsum in cruce, sic, inquam, apparuit, ut illa sua oblatione peccatum semel ac prorsus aboleverit atque contriverit. Quaeri hic posset, cur demum in consummatione saeculorum passus sit Christus, ac non potius statim post hominis lapsum, ut morbo confestim adhiberetur remedium. Sed huic quaestioni proprius est locus apud Magistrum lib. 3. sent. dist. 1., ubi nos eam tractavimus; et apud Thomam p. 3. q. 1. art. 5. Hic autem breviter respondeo, quamvis post tam multa saecula passus sit Christus, remedium tamen salutis homini lapso numquam defuisse, ex quo facta est ei promissio de Christo venturo. Nam vir-.tus passionis ejus, quod ad meritum attinet, extenditur ad omnia saecula, tam praeterita, quam futura. Cur autem incarnationem ejus et passionem tamdiu differri oportuerit, duae potissimum sunt rationes. Una, ut primum intelligeretur, quid natura, deinde, quid lex posset, atque harum imbecillitate ad sanandum hominem comperta, tandem veniret ille, qui soUis per suam passionem poterat homini perdito salutem adferre. Altera, ut idoneis testificationibus, cujusmodi fuerunt oracula Prophetarum, et omnes figurae legis antiquae, multo ante prafcnuntiatus adventus et passio Christi credibilior hominibus redderetur, ac paratioribus animis susciperetur.
9:27
27, Et quemadmodum statutum est hominibus semelmori. AliudargumQntum, quo docet, Christum non debere saepius immolari, sumptum a communi lege seu conditione hominum, quibus semel moriendum est, et non saepius. Nam et simili argumento supra cap. 2. docuit, Christum mori debuisse, illis verbis: Quia pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguiniy et ipse participavit eisdem. Graeca sic sonant: Et quatenus repositum est hominibus semel mori. Attamen similitudinem significari, probat alterum membrum: Sic et Christus etc. Syra quoque versio sic habet: Et sicut constitutum est filiis hom.mum, ut semel moriantur. Significatur autem lex ordinaria. Nam extraordinarium est, quod quidam bis mortui fuerunt, utpote resuscitati ad vitam mortalem; sicut et illud, quod, juxta quorundam opinionem ab Ecclesia non improbatam, qui in adventu Domini reperientur vivi, sine morte mortalitatem exuent. Porro sive legas: statutum eU hominibus, sive: repositum, quomodo noster interpres alibi vertit, ut Lucae 19., Coloss. 1. 2., Tim. 4., sive, quod alii malunt: m.anet homines, ut semel moriantur: intelligendum est, hanc legem ac necessitatem emanare ex justo Dei decreto, quod hominem transgressorem cum tota posteritate morti subjecit, Genes. 3.
Post hoc autem judicium. Subaudi ex parte praecedente: statutum seu repositum est hominibus; tametsi potest etiam absolute haec pars accipi: Post hoc autem judicium erit, id est omnibus post mortem exspectandum est judicium, quo judicentur a Deo secundum merita. Sermo est de judicio universali, futuro post omnium resurrectionem, quasi dicat: Fosteaquam semel mortui resurrexerint, non iterum morientur; sed judicium tunc in eos exercebitur de factis vitae prioris.
9:28
28. Sic et Christus semel oblatus est. Verbum est in Graeco non additur: imo nec patitur Graeca consuetudo, ut addatur, et sine eo optime constat hujus periodi sententia, ut dubium non sit, quin ab imperito quopiam, qui putaverit ad sensum deesse, fuerit adjectum. Argumentatio Pauli talis est; Christus, factus homo, subiit conditionem humanam; atqui homines mori necesse est, sed non nisi semel; igitur et Christus semel tantuffi mori debuit, et consequenter semel tantum offerri; quia oblatio haec non fit sine morte. Loquitur enim Apostolus de oblatione craenta, sicut superius admonui.
Ad multorum exhaurienda peccata. Alii quidem homines moriuntur propter peccatum; Qhristus autem mortuus est ad exhaurienda, vel, ut alii vertunt, ad tollenda peccata. Nam Graecus infinitivus avcVSYXsTv, cujus verbum est avacpepo), varie exponilur ab interpretibus. Significat enim: referre, sursum ferre, offerre, item auferre seu tollere, quomodo vertit Erasmus. Quod consonat cum vulgata versione. Nam qui exhaurit, penitus tollit. Verum Chrysostomus ac caeteri Graeci de oblatione interpretantur, hoc sensu: Obtulit ea Patri remittenda, quomodo nos peccata nostra Deo offerimus, dicentes: Dimitte nobis debita nostra. Constat enim, Graecum verbum, etiam in Scripturis, interdum accipi pro eo, quod est offerre, ut Jacob 2.: Offerens Isaac filium suum; 1 Pet. 2: Offerre spiritaales hostias. Et in hac ipsa Epistola cap. 7. semel et iterum, dum ait: Qui non habet necessitatem quotidie prius pro suis delictis hostias offerre, deinde pro populi; hoc enim fecit semel se offerendo; et infra cap. 13.: Per ipsum offeramus hostiam laudis. Favet etiam huic intellectui versio Syriaca, quae sic habet: Et in se ipso immolavit peccata multorum. Sed^tamen haec interpretatio non parum habet incommodi. Primum quia a lingua Scripturae sacrae alienum esl dicere, quod peccata Deo offerantur. Semper enim oblatio de bonis intelligitur. Deinde quia sermo Apostoli erit inconcinnus: Christus oblatus est, ut offerret peccata. Multo quippe convenientius dicitur oblatus, ut auferret, destitueret ac destrueret peccata; sicut paulo ante dictum est. Denique si oblationem significare voluit Apostolus; quorsum attinebat verbum mutari in eadem sententia? Jam enim alio verbo dixerat, Christam oblatum esse. Quare dicendum potius arbitror, Graecam vocem hic positam pro eo, quod est: sursum ferre, sustollere, supra se lc' vare, hoc autem est: portare; ut sensus sit, Christum oblatum fuisse, ut peccata multorum portaret, id est poenam peccatis eorum debitam in se reciperet, et per hoc ea tolleret atque deleret. Unde cum hoc sensu satis convenit, quod noster interpres veitit: exhaurienda, Erasmus: tollenda', praeterqtiam quod tollenda potest etiam intelligi: portanda; sicut Erasmum intellexisse paraphrasis ejus docet. Ad hunc autem modum Scriptura loqui solet de Christo, ut Jes. 53.: Yere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavit. Et iterum: Posuit Dominus in eo iniquitatem omnium no~ strum. Denique in fine ejusdem capitis: Ipse peccata multorum tulit; ubi secundum LXX. legitur idem verbum, quod hoc loco, ut paene certum sit, Paulum, haec scribentem, ad illum Jesaiae locum respexisse, quemadmodum et Petrum verisimile, quando dixit 1 Epist. 2.: Qui peccata nostra ipse pertulit in corpore suo super lignum. Nam et eo loco idem est in Graeco verbum. Pertinet eodem, quod Joannes Baptista de Christo dixit: Ecce, agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi. Tollit, id est portat. Jam illud quaeritur, cur Apostolus dixerit: multorum, et non: omnium. Brevis et bona responsio est, Chtistum, quant'im ad sufficientiam passionis attinet, omnium hominum peccata tulisse, quia valebat ad omnium redemptionem; quantum vero ad efficientiam, non omnium, sed multorum. Non enim omnes.per eam redempti sunt et salvati, sed solum electi. Quod ergo dicit Apostolus, imo Propheta: multorum, electos intellige, id est oves Christi, pro quibus animam suam ponere se dicit, Joan. 10., quos ipse etiam multorum nomine designat interdum, ut, quum dicit, se venisse, ut daret animam suam redemptionem pro multis, Matth. 20. et Marc. 10., et quum de sanguine suo dicit: Qui pro muJtis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, Matth. 26., Marc. 14. et in canone missae. Quin ex hoc Apostoli loco concilium Valentinum, in Galliis habitum anno Domini 855., docet cap. 4., Christum non fudisse sanguinem pro omnibus omnino hominibus, sed tautnm pro iis, qui credunt; damnatque erroris eos, qui secus sentiunt. De quo errore locus ipse Concih"i consulendus est. Quod autem nonnuUi multos interpretantur: omnes, non satisfacit; nam iraproprietas illa sermonis, ut alicubi recipiatur, non est tam multis locis adscribenda.
Secundo sine peccato apparebit exspectantibus se in salutem. Istud membrum respondet illi: Post hoc autem judicium. Hoc enim ct Christo accommodatur, non ut judicando, sed ut judicaturo, et praemia redemptis atque electis suis reddituro. Apparebit, Graece ocp^YJasxat, videbitur, conspicietur, scilicet palam ac manifeste. Quod ait: sine peccato, non est sensus: Non habens peccatum; nam et in primo adventu peccatum non habuit; sed: Non portans peccatum. Primo enim adventu, quando se obtulit in cruce, portavit ac sustulit in se multorum peccata, sicut jam dictum est; at in secundo adventu nihil tale. Quoniam autem sine peccato apparebit, ideo et sine morte, nimirum immortalis jam et gloriosus. Sensura hunc illustrat antithesis hujus locutionis cum ea, qua paulo p.nte dixit, Christum per hostiam suam apparuisse. Opponit enim haec doo: apparere per hostiam suam, et apparere sine peccato. Porro, quod addit: in salutem, quamvis ad id, quod proxime praecedit, referri possit, hoc sensu: Apparebit iis, qui ab ipso salutem exspectant, commodior tamen sensus erit, si construatur cum verbo apparebit, hoc modo: Quum iterum veniet, apparebit in salutem, id est palam conspicietur adferens salutem iis, qui patienter ac perseveranter inter hujus vitae persecutiones et adversitates eum exspectaverint. Nam incredulis, et proinde non exspectantibus, apparebit ad damnationem et poenam aeternam. Loquitur autem Apostolus non de iis tantum, qui vivi reperientur in adventu Domini, sed generatim de electis. Omnibus enim electis communis est ista Christi Salvatoris exspectatio, etiam iis, quorum animae jam ciim Christo regnant. Nam quidquam beatitudinis desit, nec corpori. saliis intelligitur non animarum, sed ho- Quae salus ordinaria lege nemini contingit ante secundum Christi adventum. minum, eaque perfecta, ut nec animae
9:1
Propitiatory (Heb. Happōreth, Septuagint Ἐναστήρων)
… The Epistle to the Hebrews (v.) too, in describing the Tabernacle (Hebr. 9:1-5), makes everything converge toward the propitiatory, foreshadowed by the cherubim (9:5).
9:2
… προσώπων), ἄρτοι ἐνώπων (Ex. 25:30), οἱ ἄρτοι οἱ προσεύμενοι (ibid. 39:18 [36]), more often ἄρτοι τῆς προσθέσεως (ibid. 40:21; I Sam. 21:6; I Par. 9:32; 23:29 etc.; cf. Mt. 12:4 etc.; panes propositionis of the Vulgate, with inversion of the terms in Hebr. 9:2).
9:3
… besides the "semi-popular" one (P. Kahle) that underlies the Septuagint (v.), a third type close to the Samaritan one was in use. This is confirmed by citations of Philo of Alexandria and by references in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 7, 4; 7, 32; 7, 35; Heb. 9, 3), which find their counterpart only in the S. P.
9:4
Aaron (Heb. 'Ahărān, of uncertain etymology)
making his rod (almond) blossom and bear fruit among those of the heads of the 12 tribes laid up in the Tabernacle; Aaron's rod was by divine command preserved there in perpetual remembrance (Num. 17:1-11 [Heb. 16:16 ff.]; cf. Heb. 9:4).
Ark (of the Covenant), Ark of the Testimony
… Inside was placed "the testimony," that is, the two tablets of the Law (I Kings 8:9; cf. Ex. 25:16); according to Hebr. 9:4, also a golden jar with some manna and Aaron's rod (but cf. Ex. 16:33-34); beside it was placed the book of the Law of Moses (Deut. 31:26).
9:7
… style these two expressions, even taken separately (for the traditio corporis cf. Is. 53:12; Mt. 20:28; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:25; I Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; Hebr. 10:10; for the effusio sanguinis cf. Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; I Cor. 14:20; Hebr. 9:7; I Pt. 1:19; I Io. 1:7) always indicate a sacrificial immolation. …
9:8
… According to Paul the Holy Spirit spoke to the Fathers through Isaiah (Acts 28:26-27 = Is. 6:9-10). In other texts the Old Testament is cited with only the name of the Holy Spirit, so that the human author passes into second place (for example, Hebr. 2:4; 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). Besides this series of texts, the New Testament presents two that can be called classic, namely: II Tim. 3:16 and II Pt. 1:20.
9:9
… While "typical sense" is the technical and classical expression, there are also similar terms, which however are to be used with great caution, because they can give rise to misunderstandings: "parable" (Heb. 9:9), "allegory" (Gal. 4:24), "spiritual" (1 Cor. 10:3 f.).
9:11
as high priest between God and men (Hebr. 4:14-15, 10), exercised during his earthly life the intercession of impetration (Lc. 22:31 ff.; 23:34; Io. 17:6-26) and of perfect satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race through the sacrifice of his blood (Hebr. 9:11-28; Rom. 3:25 ff.; Eph. 1:7), thus becoming the universal Redeemer. …
… With the sacrifice of Christ there ceased juridically, as foretold by the prophets (cf. Dan. 9:27; Mal. 1:11), the ancient sacrifices and the whole ritual economy, imperfect and transitory, of the Old Testament (cf. Heb. 9:11-10:14).
9:12
In the legislative texts, cultic-legal expiations prevail (ablutions, fasts, confession of sins, mourning garments, in sackcloth and ashes; recall the great day of atonement "per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum" Heb. 9:12). In such rites the soul, the penance of the heart, could be missing; hence the criticism of the Prophets who (like the Psalms) exalt the importance of internal penance, of the living …
9:13
… The first, which might almost be called sacramental, because it was inherent in the rite as such, consisted in the power of eliminating the contaminations brought about by some transgression or defect, and of restoring ritual or Levitical righteousness (emundatio curvis: Heb. 9:13), enabling the person to participate legitimately in the acts of worship. …
… There is no record of the rite's continuity, but the reference made to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews in a most beautiful application to the Blood of Christ (Heb. 9:13-14), as to a practice rather than to a text, argues for the affirmative.
9:14
… and, made perfect, he became for all those who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, God having proclaimed him high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (ibid. 5, 7-10). He offered himself (spontaneously) to God as a victim without blemish (ibid. 9, 14).
9:15
… And since such redemption is the effect of the death of Jesus Christ, the new "pact" is at the same time his "testament" (cf. Hebr. 9, 15-17).
The liberation and acquisition of the new people of God, which J. accomplishes, had its culmination in the shedding of blood, already necessary in the Old Testament to establish the covenant between God and man (cf. Ex. 9, 8; Hebr. 9, 15-22). But already in his public life J. began to form the new people, with new laws and a new spirit (the Sermon on the Mount) and established in his teaching the conditions for participating …
9:16
… fulfilled the entry of the Pontiff into the heavens, a single oblation, by which "he has procured for ever the perfection of those who are sanctified" (Hebr. 10, 14), and with the death of the testator the New Testament came into force in his blood (ibid. 9, 16-17).
… Aquila and Symmachus preferred συνθήκη, and already St. Jerome (In Mal., 2:4; PL 25, 1555) warned that the word T. "in many places of Scripture does not mean the will of the dead, but a pact between the living." The ordinary meaning can be found, however, in Gal. 3:15 and in Heb. 9:16. That sense applies well to the writings of the New T., inasmuch as their content can be considered as an "inheritance," a good (the Redemption) in close connection with the death of Jesus Christ. …
9:24
In the New Testament itself, the apostles Paul, Peter and John presuppose or attest the reality of the Ascension or of the presence of the glorified humanity of Christ in heaven (I Thess. 1:10; Eph. 1:20-22; 4:10; 6:9; especially Hebr. 9:24 [and 7:27; 8:1; 10:12; etc.]; I Pt. 3:22; I Io. 2:1). The testimonies are more than sufficient to compensate for the silence of Matthew, who preferred to close his Gospel with …
… of sin) and made the first triumph (indeed, by rising, his flesh became πνεύμα, as St. Paul says [I Cor. 15:45], that is, so spiritualized as to be capable of the perfect union with God, which followed in the Ascension, when « apparuit vultui Dei » [Hebr. 9:24]).
… To designate this activity of salvation, the liturgy employs the verb gubernare, which brings out the royal character, that is, the impulse it gives to souls so that they may reach the supernatural end (cf. Hebr. 9, 24; 7, 25; 4, 9). In her dignity as a new Eve, beside Christ, Mary reigns from on high over the redeemed. …
9:26
Luke 1:32 f.). This is the conception of the entire New Testament: the messianic time is called: καιρός ἔσχατος (1 Pet. 1:5, 20; Jude 18; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 2:18); πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (Gal. 4:4); τῶν καιρῶν (Eph. 1:10); τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. 10:11); συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων (Heb. 9:26; cf. F. Spadafora, Ezechiele, Turin 1948, pp. 280 f., 291 f.; E. B. Allo, Apocalypse, p. cxxix; J. Bonsirven, p. 307 f.).
9:27
… Death was threatened to the first parents as the penalty for the transgression of a divine precept, and since the transgression occurred, the threat had its effect (Gen. 2:17; 3:3). Thus death entered the world because of sin (Wis. 2:23-24; Jn. 8:44; Rom. 5:12; I Cor. 15:21-22; Heb. 9:27). Not that death is not natural to man, a creature complex in his bodily organism, naturally subject to corruption; but he would have been preserved from it by means of a preternatural …
… ad Dominum: ἐνδημῶς πρὸς τὸν Κύριον [II Cor. 5:8]), as when he affirms that Christ died for us, so that whether in life or in death simul cum illo vivamus (I Thess. 5:9-10). The same idea underlies other texts: Mt. 26:24, II Cor. 5:10, Philip. 1:23, Hebr. 9:27, Apoc. 14:13.
St. Paul always taught the universality of death (Rom. 5:12-21; I Cor. 15:22; Hebr. 9:27; cf. Gen. 3:19; Eccle. 12:7; Ps. 88:49). The whole redemptive economy he illustrates is summed up in the antithesis death-life, in the succession of two aeons: the tribulation of this …
9:28
… earth only the precariousness (I Cor. 7:29-31; I Pet. 4:7; I John 2:15-18) of men and of events (B. Allo [v. bibl.], pp. 180-83). And Christians are united from now on, living with Christ, to his p. which will also be the p. of his faithful (Col. 5:4; Heb. 9:28; I Pet. 5:4; I John 2:28; 3:2). The "nearness of the Lord" is a cause of fear, like the irruption of a thief (I Thess. 5:2-4; II Pet. 3:10; Rev. 1:3; 16:15), of austerity (Rom. 13:11 …
… Old Testament, that is, a prefigurative value in relation to the perfect sacrifice reserved for the New Testament, which is the sacrifice consummated by the God-Man on the Cross for the sins of all times, for the faults of the entire human race (cf. Heb. 9:28; 10:12). In view of and by virtue of this future sacrifice, God in his mercy accepted the ancient imperfect sacrifices, working through them in man, where the necessary dispositions …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.