But dost thou not always eat? And dost thou drive away thy children often begging of thee? O the shamelessness! Dost thou call a poor man shameless? And thou indeed art not shameless when plundering, but he is shameless when begging for bread! Considerest thou not how great are the necessities of the belly? Dost not thou do all things for this? Dost thou not for this neglect things spiritual? Is not heaven set before thee and the kingdom of heaven? And thou fearing the tyranny of that [appetite] endurest all things, and thinkest lightly of that [kingdom]. This is shamelessness. Seest thou not old men maimed? But O what trifling! ‘Such an one’ (you say) ‘lends out so many pieces of gold, and such an one so many, and yet begs. ’ You repeat the stories and trifles of children; for they too are always hearing such stories from their nurses. I am not persuaded of it. I do not believe this. Far from it. Does a man lend money, and beg when he has abundance? For what purpose, tell me? And what is more disgraceful than begging? It were better to die than to beg. Where does our inhumanity stop? What then? Do all lend money? Are all impostors? Is there no one really poor? “Yea” (you say) “and many. ” Why then dost thou not assist those persons, seeing thou art a strict enquirer into their lives? This is an excuse and a pretense. “Give to every one that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. ” ( Matt. v. 42 . ) Stretch out thy hand, let it not be closed up. We have not been constituted examiners into men’s lives, since so we should have compassion on no one. When thou callest upon God why dost thou say, Remember not my sins? So then, if that person even be a great sinner, make this allowance in his case also, and do not remember his sins. It is the season of kindness, not of strict enquiry; of mercy, not of account. He wishes to be maintained: if thou art willing, give; but if not willing, send him away without raising doubts. Why art thou wretched and miserable? Why dost thou not even thyself pity him, and also turnest away those who would? For when such an one hears from thee, This [fellow] is a cheat; that a hypocrite; and the other lends out money; he neither gives to the one nor to the other; for he suspects all to be such. For you know that we easily suspect evil, but good, not [so easily]. [10. ] Let us “be merciful,” not simply so, but “as our heavenly Father is. ” ( Luke vi. 36 . ) He feeds even adulterers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and what shall I say? Those having every kind of wickedness. For in so large a world there must needs be many such. But nevertheless He feeds all; He clothes all. No one ever perished of hunger, unless one did so of his own choice. So let us be merciful. If one be in want and in necessity, help him. But now we are come to such a degree of unreasonableness, as to act thus not only in regard to the poor who walk up and down the alleys, but even in the case of men that live in [religious] solitude. Such an one is an impostor, you say.
Did I not say this at first, that if we give to all indiscriminately, we shall always be compassionate; but if we begin to make over-curious enquiries, we shall never be compassionate? What dost thou mean? Is a man an impostor in order to get a loaf? If indeed he asks for talents of gold and silver, or costly clothes, or slaves, or anything else of this sort, one might with good reason call him a swindler. But if he ask none of these things, but only food and shelter, things which are suited to a philosophic life, tell me, is this the part of a swindler? Cease we from this unseasonable fondness for meddling, which is Satanic, which is destructive. For indeed, if a man say that he is on the list of the Clergy, or calls himself a priest, then busy thyself [to enquire], make much ado: since in that case the communicating without enquiry is not without danger. For the danger is about matters of importance, for thou dost not give but receivest. But if he want food, make no enquiry. Enquire, if thou wilt, how Abraham showed hospitality towards all who came to him. If he had been over-curious about those who fled to him for refuge, he would not have “entertained angels. ” ( c. xiii. 2 . ) For perhaps not thinking them to be angels, he would have thrust them too away with the rest. But since he used to receive all, he received even angels. What? Is it from the life of those that receive [thy bounty] that God grants thee thy reward? Nay [it is] from thine own purpose, from thy abundant liberality; from thy loving-kindness; from thy goodness. Let this be [found], and thou shalt attain all good things, which may we all attain, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, power, honor, now and for ever and world without end. Amen.
Homily XII. Hebrews vii. 1–3 “For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him: to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of Righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually. ” [1. ] Paul wishing to show the difference between the New and Old [Covenant], scatters it everywhere; and shoots from afar, and noises it abroad, and prepares beforehand. For at once even from the introduction, he laid down this saying, that “to them indeed He spake by prophets, but to us by the Son” ( c. i. 1, 2 ), and to them “at sundry times and in divers manners,” but to us through the Son. Afterwards, having discoursed concerning the Son, who He was and what He had wrought, and given an exhortation to obey Him, lest we should suffer the same things as the Jews; and having said that He is “High Priest after the order of Melchisedec” ( c. vi. 20 ), and having oftentimes wished to enter into [the subject of] this difference, and having used much preparatory management; and having rebuked them as weak, and again soothed and restored them to confidence; then at last he introduces the discussion on the difference [of the two dispensations] to ears in their full vigor. For he who is depressed in spirits would not be a ready hearer. And that you may understand this, hear the Scripture saying, “They hearkened not to Moses for anguish of spirit. ” ( Ex. vi. 9 . ) Therefore having first cleared away their despondency by many considerations, some fearful, some more gentle, he then from this point enters upon the discussion of the difference [of the dispensations]. [2. ] And what does he say? “For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God. ” And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the difference to be great by the Type itself. For as I said, he continually confirms the truth from the Type, from things past, on account of the weakness of the hearers. “For” (he says) “this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all. ” Having concisely set down the whole narrative, he looked at it mystically. And first from the name. “First” (he says) “being by interpretation King of righteousness”: for Sedec means “righteousness”; and Melchi, “King”: Melchisedec, “King of righteousness. ” Seest thou his exactness even in the names? But who is “King of righteousness,” save our Lord Jesus Christ? “King of righteousness. And after that also King of Salem,” from his city, “that is, King of Peace,” which again is [characteristic] of Christ. For He has made us righteous, and has “made peace” for “things in Heaven and things on earth. ” ( Col. i. 20 . ) What man is “King of Righteousness and of Peace”? None, save only our Lord Jesus Christ. [3. ] He then adds another distinction, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually.
” Since then there lay in his way [as an objection] the [words] “Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec,” whereas he [Melchisedec] was dead, and was not “Priest for ever,” see how he explained it mystically. ‘And who can say this concerning a man? ’ I do not assert this in fact (he says); the meaning is, we do not know when [or] what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, [or] had no parents? Thou sayest well: he both died and had parents. How then [was he] “without father, without mother”? How “having neither beginning of days nor end of life”? How? [Why] from its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is so, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality. See the “without beginning”; see the “without end. ” As in case of this man, we know not either “beginning of days,” or “end of life,” because they have not been written; so we know [them] not in the case of Jesus , not because they have not been written, but because they do not exist. For that indeed is a type, and therefore [we say] ‘because it is not written,’ but this is the reality, and therefore [we say] ‘because it does not exist. ’ For as in regard to the names also (for there “King of Righteousness” and “of Peace” are appellations, but here the reality) so these too are appellations in that case, in this the reality. How then hath He a beginning? Thou seest that the Son is “without beginning,” not in respect of His not having a cause; (for this is impossible: for He has a Father, otherwise how is He Son? ) but in respect of His “not having beginning or end of life. ” “But made like unto the Son of God. ” Where is the likeness? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. [Here] then just as in representations [by painting or drawing], there is somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike. By means of the lines indeed there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness. [4. ] Ver. 4 . “Now consider” (saith he) “how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. ” Up to this point he has been applying the type: henceforward he boldly shows him [Melchisedec] to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? Thou seest how super-abundantly he shows the superiority. “Now consider” (he says) “how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the choice portions. ” Spoils taken in battle are called “choice portions.
” And it cannot be said that he gave them to him as having a part in the war, because (he said) he met him “returning from the slaughter of the kings,” for he had staid at home (he means), yet [Abraham] gave him the first-fruits of his labors. Ver. 5 . “And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the office of Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham. ” So great (he would say) is the superiority of the priesthood, that they who from their ancestors are of the same dignity, and have the same forefather, are yet far better than the rest. At all events they “receive tithes” from them. When then one is found, who receives tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, and he among the Priests? And not only this; but neither was he of the same dignity with them, but of another race: so that he would not have given tithes to a stranger unless his dignity had been great. Astonishing! What has he accomplished? He has made quite clear a greater point than those relating to faith which he treated in the Epistle to the Romans. For there indeed he declares Abraham to be the forefather both of our polity and also of the Jewish. But here he is exceeding bold against him, and shows that the uncircumcised person is far superior. How then did he show that Levi paid tithes? Abraham (he says) paid them. ‘And how does this concern us? ’ It especially concerns you: for you will not contend that the Levites are superior to Abraham. ( Ver. 6 ) “But he whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham. ” And after that he did not simply pass on, but added, “and blessed him that had the promises. ” Inasmuch as throughout, this was regarded with reverence, he shows that [Melchisedec] was to be reverenced more than Abraham, from the common judgment of all men. ( Ver. 7 ) “And without all contradiction,” he says, “the less is blessed of the better,” i. e. in the opinion of all men it is the inferior that is blessed by the superior. So then the type of Christ is superior even to “him that had the promises. ” ( Ver. 8 ) “And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it is testified that he liveth. ” But lest we should say, Tell us, why goest thou so far back? He says, ( ver. 9 ) “And as I may so say” (and he did well in softening it) “Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham. ” How? ( Ver. 10 ) “For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him,” i. e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi. Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants. In a marvelous and triumphant way he cast out the Jewish [system].
On this account he said, “Ye are become dull,” ( c. v. 12 ), because he wished to lay these foundations, that they might not start away. Such is the wisdom of Paul, first preparing them well, he so leads them into what he wishes. For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, even more than plants. Since in that case there is [only] the nature of material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: but in this there is will, which is liable to many alterations, and now prefers this, now that. For it quickly turns to evil. [5. ] Wherefore we ought always to “guard” ourselves, lest at any time we should fall asleep. For “Lo” (it is said) “he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” ( Ps. cxxi. 4 ), and “Do not suffer thy foot to be moved. ” ( Ps. cxxi. 3 . ) He did not say, ‘be not moved’ but “do not thou suffer,” &c. The suffering depends then on ourselves, and not on any other. For if we will stand “steadfast and unmoveable” ( 1 Cor. xv. 58 ), we shall not be shaken. What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered. ‘If then it depend on God,’ (one says), ‘why does He blame us? ’ On this account I said, ‘so that our free-will is not hindered. ’ It depends then on us, and on Him. For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us. How is it then that Paul says, “not of him that willeth,” if it depend on ourselves also “nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. ” ( Rom. ix. 16 . ) In the first place, he did not introduce it as his own opinion, but inferred it from what was before him and from what had been put forward [in the discussion]. For after saying, “It is written, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” ( Rom. ix. 15 ), he says, “It follows then that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. ” “Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth He yet find fault? ” ( Rom. ix. 16, 19 . ) And secondly the other explanation may be given, that he speaks of all as His, whose the greater part is. For it is ours to choose and to wish; but God’s to complete and to bring to an end. Since therefore the greater part is of Him, he says all is of Him, speaking according to the custom of men. For so we ourselves also do. I mean for instance: we see a house well built, and we say the whole is the Architect’s [doing], and yet certainly it is not all his, but the workmen’s also, and the owner’s, who supplies the materials, and many others’, but nevertheless since he contributed the greatest share, we call the whole his. So then [it is] in this case also. Again, with respect to a number of people, where the many are, we say All are: where few, nobody.
So also Paul says, “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. ” And herein he establishes two great truths: one, that we should not be lifted up: even shouldst thou run (he would say), even shouldst thou be very earnest, do not consider that the well doing is thine own. For if thou obtain not the impulse that is from above, all is to no purpose. Nevertheless that thou wilt attain that which thou earnestly strivest after is very evident; so long as thou runnest, so long as thou willest. He did not then assert this, that we run in vain, but that, if we think the whole to be our own, if we do not assign the greater part to God, we run in vain. For neither hath God willed that the whole should be His, lest He should appear to be crowning us without cause: nor again our’s, lest we should fall away to pride. For if when we have the smaller [share], we think much of ourselves, what should we do if the whole depended on us? [6. ] Indeed God hath done away many things for the purpose of cutting away our boastfulness, and still there is the high hand. With how many afflictions hath He encompassed us, so as to cut away our proud spirit! With how many wild beasts hath He encircled us! For indeed when some say, ‘why is this? ’ ‘Of what use is this? ’ They utter these things against the will of God. He hath placed thee in the midst of so great fear, and yet not even so art thou lowly-minded; but if thou ever attain a little success, thou reachest to Heaven itself in pride. For this cause [come] rapid changes and reverses; and yet not even so are we instructed. For this cause are there continual and untimely deaths, but are minded as if we were immortal, as if we should never die. We plunder, we over-reach, as though we were never to give account. We build as if we were to abide here always. And not even the word of God daily sounded into our ears, nor the events themselves instruct us. Not a day, not an hour can be mentioned, in which we may not see continual funerals. But all in vain: and nothing reaches our hardness [of heart]: nor are we even able to become better by the calamities of others; or rather, we are not willing. When we ourselves only are afflicted, then we are subdued, and yet if God take off His hand, we again lift up our hand: no one considers what is proper for man, no one despises the things on earth; no one looks to Heaven. But as swine turn their heads downwards, stooping towards their belly, wallowing in the mire; so too the great body of mankind defile themselves with the most intolerable filth, without being conscious of it. [7. ] For better were it to be defiled with unclean mud than with sins; for he who is defiled with the one, washes it off in a little time, and becomes like one who had never from the first fallen into that slough; but he who has fallen into the deep pit of sin has contracted a defilement that is not cleansed by water, but needs long time, and strict repentance, and tears and lamentations, and more wailing, and that more fervent, than we show over the dearest friends.
For this defilement attaches to us from without, wherefore we also speedily put it away; but the other is generated from within, wherefore also we wash it off with difficulty, and cleanse ourselves from it. “For from the heart” (it is said) “proceed evil thoughts, fornications, adulteries, thefts, false witnesses. ” ( Matt. xv. 19 . ) Wherefore also the Prophet said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God. ” ( Ps. li. 10 . ) And another, “Wash thine heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem. ” ( Jer. iv. 14 . ) (Thou seest that it is both our [work] and God’s. ) And again, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. ” ( Matt. v. 8 . ) Let us become clean to the utmost of our power. Let us wipe away our sins. And how to wipe them away, the prophet teaches, saying, “Wash you, make you clean, put away your wickedness from your souls, before Mine eyes. ” ( Isa. i. 16 . ) What is “before Mine eyes”? Because some seem to be free from wickedness, but only to men, while to God they are manifest as being “whited sepulchers. ” Therefore He says, so put them away as I see. “Learn to do well, seek judgment, do justice for the poor and lowly. ” “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: and though your sins be as scarlet, I will make you white as snow, and if they be as crimson, I will make you white as wool. ” ( Isa. i. 17, 18 . ) Thou seest that we must first cleanse ourselves, and then God cleanses us. For having said first, “Wash you, make you clean,” He then added “I will make you white. ” Let no one then, [even] of those who are come to the extremest wickedness, despair of himself. For (He says) even if thou hast passed into the habit, yea and almost into the nature of wickedness itself, be not afraid. Therefore taking [the instance of] colors that are not superficial but almost of the substance of the materials, He said that He would bring them into the opposite state. For He did not simply say that He would “wash” us, but that He would “make” us “white, as snow and as wool,” in order to hold out good hopes before us. Great then is the power of repentance, at least if it makes us as snow, and whitens us as wool, even if sin have first got possession and dyed our souls. Let us labor earnestly then to become clean; He has enjoined nothing burdensome. “Judge the fatherless, and do justice for the widow. ” ( Isa. i. 17 . ) Thou seest everywhere how great account God makes of mercy, and of standing forward in behalf of those that are wronged. These good deeds let us pursue after, and we shall be able also, by the grace of God, to attain to the blessings to come: which may we all be counted worthy of, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, power, honor, now and for ever and world without end. Amen.
Homily XIII. Hebrews vii. 11–14 “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood; (for under it the people have received the law’ ) what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken, pertained to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests. ” [1. ] “ If therefore” (he says) “perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. ” Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and believed. He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, “after the order of Aaron”? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority [of his argument]. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He was not “after the order of Aaron,” from that he establishes Him, and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I say (he declares); why has He “not been made after the order of Aaron”? And the [saying] “what further need” has much emphasis. For if Christ had been “after the order of Melchisedec” according to the flesh, and then afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that pertained to Aaron, one might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that it is because those were imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for argument’s sake, that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing imperfect in the priesthood. “What need” was there in that case that He should be called “after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron”? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different priesthood, that of Melchisedec? “If then perfection,” that is the perfection of the things themselves, of the doctrines, of life, “had been by the Levitical priesthood. ” And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that [He was] “after the order of Melchisedec,” implying that the [priesthood] “after the order of Melchisedec” is superior: for [he was] far superior. Afterwards he shows this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better. [2. ] And what is the meaning of what follows? “For” (he says) “under [or “upon”] it the people have received the Law [or “have been legislated for”]. ” What is “under it” [&c. ]? Ordereth itself by it; through it does all things.
You cannot say that it was given to others, “the people under it have received the law,” that is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; “they have been legislated for upon it,” that is, they used it. What need was there then of another priesthood? “For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law also. ” But if there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, there must needs be also another law. This is for those who say, What need was there of a new Covenant? For he could indeed have alleged a testimony from prophecy also. “This is the covenant which I made with your fathers” [&c. ]. ( c. viii. 10 . ) But for the present he contends on the ground of the priesthood. And observe, how he says this from the first. He said, “According to the order of Melchisedec. ” By this he excluded the order of Aaron. For he would not have said “After the order of Melchisedec,” if the other had been better. If therefore another priesthood has been brought in, there must be also [another] Covenant; for neither is it possible that there should be a priest, without a covenant and laws and ordinances, nor that having received a different priesthood He should use the former [covenant]. In the next place, as to the ground of objection: “How could He be a priest if He were not a Levite? ” Having overthrown this by what had been said above, he does not even think it worth answering, but introduces it in passing. I said (he means) that the priesthood was changed, therefore also the Covenant is. And it was changed not only in its character, or in its ordinances, but also in its tribe. For of necessity [it must be changed] in its tribe also. How? “For the priesthood being changed [or “transferred”],” from tribe to tribe, from the sacerdotal to the regal [tribe], that the same might be both regal and sacerdotal. And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it is become sacerdotal: so therefore also in regard to Christ: for King indeed He always was, but has become Priest from the time that He assumed the Flesh, that He offered the sacrifice. Thou seest the change, and the very things which were ground of objection these he introduces, as though the natural order of things required them. “For” (he says) “He of whom these things are spoken pertained to another tribe. ” I myself also say it, I know that this tribe [of Judah] had nothing of priesthood. For there is a transferring. [3. ] Yea and I am showing another difference also (he would say): not only from the tribe, nor yet only from the Person, nor from the character [of the Priesthood], nor from the covenant, but also from the type itself. ( Ver. 16 ) “Who was made [“became” so], not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. He became” (he says) “a priest not according to the law of a carnal commandment”: for that law was in many respects unlawful. What is, “of a carnal commandment”? Circumcise the flesh, it says; anoint the flesh; wash the flesh; purify the flesh; shave the flesh; bind upon the flesh; cherish the flesh; rest as to the flesh. And again its blessings, what are they?
Long life for the flesh; milk and honey for the flesh; peace for the flesh; luxury for the flesh. From this law Aaron received the priesthood; Melchisedec however not so. Ver. 15 . “And it is yet far more evident, if after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest. ” What is evident? The interval between the two priesthoods, the difference; how much superior He is “who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment. ” (Who? Melchisedec? Nay; but Christ. ) “But according to the power of an endless life. For He testifieth, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”; that is, not for a time, nor having any limit, “but according to the power of an endless life,” that is, by means of power, by means of “endless life. ” 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. ” ( c. ix. 10 . ) “According to the power of life,” that is, because He lives by His own power. [4. ] He had said, that there is also a change of law, and up to this point he has shown it; henceforward he enquires into the cause, that which above all gives full assurance to men’s minds, [I mean] the knowing the cause thoroughly; and it leads us more to faith when we have learned also the cause, and the principle according to which [the thing] comes to pass. Ver. 18 . “For there is verily” (he says) “a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. ” Here the Heretics press on. But listen attentively. He did not say “for the evil,” nor, “for the viciousness,” but “for the weakness and unprofitableness [thereof],” yea and in other places also he shows the weakness; as when he says “In that it was weak through the flesh. ” ( Rom. viii. 3 . ) [The law] itself then is not weak, but we. Ver. 19 . “For the Law made nothing perfect. ” What is, “make nothing perfect”? Made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And besides, even if it had been listened to, it would not have made one perfect and virtuous. But as yet he does not say this here, but that it had no strength: and with good reason. For written precepts were there set down, Do this and Do not that, being enjoined only, and not giving power within. But “the Hope” is not such. What is “a disannulling”? A casting out. A “disannulling” is a disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that it [once] was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use; and of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, “The Law made nothing perfect. ” All were figures, all shadows; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. There fore they could not reach through the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. “But the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh unto God. ” [5. ] ( Ver. 20 ) “And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath.
” Thou seest that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here. Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much [hereon], how that God swore; and swore for the sake of [our] fuller assurance. “But the bringing in of a better hope. ” For that system also had a hope, but not such as this. For they hoped that, if they were well pleasing [to God], they should possess the land, that they should suffer nothing fearful. But in this [dispensation] we hope that, if we are well pleasing [to God], we shall possess not earth, but heaven; or rather (which is far better than this) we hope to stand near to God, to come unto the very throne of the Father, to minister unto Him with the Angels. And see how he introduces these things by little and little. For above he says “which entereth into that within the veil”, ( c. vi. 19 ), but here, “by which we draw nigh unto God. ” “And inasmuch as not without an oath. ” What is “And inasmuch as not without an oath”? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). “For those priests were made without an oath,” ( ver. 21, 22 ) “but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant. ” He lays down two points of difference, that it hath no end as the [covenant] of the Law had; and this he proves from [its being] Christ who exercises [the priesthood]; for he says “according to the power of an endless life. ” And he proves it also from the oath, because “He swore,” &c. , and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because He is One [only]; and there would not have been One [only], unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, because they were mortal, so [here is] The One, because He is immortal. “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant,” inasmuch as He sware to Him that He should always be [Priest]; which He would not have done, if He were not living. [6. ] ( Ver. 25 ) “Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. ” Thou seest that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He [appears] as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, “who also maketh intercession for us” ( Rom. viii. 34 ), he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He “that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them,” ( John v. 21 ), and that “even as the Father” [doth], how [is it that] when there is need to save, He “maketh intercession”? ( John v. 22 . ) He that hath “all judgment,” how [is it that] He “maketh intercession”? He that “sendeth His angels” ( Matt. xiii. 41, 42 ), that they may “cast” some into “the furnace,” and save others, how [is it that] He “maketh intercession”? Wherefore (he says) “He is able also to save. ” For this cause then He saves, because He dies not.
Inasmuch as “He ever liveth,” He hath (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there [under the Law] indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was [High Priest] (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but “He” saves “to the uttermost. ” What is “to the uttermost”? He hints at some mystery. Not here only (he says) but there also He saves them that “come unto God by Him. ” How does He save? “In that He ever liveth” (he says) “to make intercession for them. ” Thou seest the humiliation? Thou seest the manhood? For he says not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but continually, and whensoever it may be needful to intercede for them. “To the uttermost. ” What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life. ‘Does He then always need to pray? Yet how can [this] be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with [the Father]? ’ Thou seest that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, He loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He cannot live always. For He doth live alway. [7. ] ( Ver. 26 ) “For such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless, unde filed, separate from the sinners. ” Thou seest that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say ‘the manhood,’ I mean [the manhood] having Godhead; not dividing [one from the other], but leaving [you] to suppose what is suitable. ) Didst thou mark the difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, “in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. ” ( c. iv. 15 . ) “For” (he says) “such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless. ” “Harmless”: what is it? Without wickedness: that which another Prophet says: “guile was not found in His mouth” ( Isa. liii. 9 ), that is, [He is] not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable [to say it]. “Holy, undefiled. ” This too would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement? “Separate from sinners. ” [8. ] Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? ( Ver. 27 ) “He needeth not” (he says) “daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself. ” “This,” what? Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval [between them]. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest’s office. For He executed it once, and thenceforward “sat down. ” ( c. x. 12 .
) Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the matter is [part] of a dispensation [or economy]. For as He became a servant, so also [He became] a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand. This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice, if being [but] one, and having been offered up once only, it affected that which all [the rest] were unable to do. But he does not yet [treat] of these points. “For this He did,” he says. “This”; what? “For” (he says) “it is of necessity that this [Man] have somewhat also to offer” ( c. viii. 3 ); not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). “For the Law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity. ” ( c. vii. 28 . ) And doth He not need to offer for Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the [words, “this”] “He did once for all,” are said respecting Himself also, hear what he says: “For the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity. ” On this account they both offer continually, and for themselves. He however who is mighty, He that hath no sin, why should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for others? “But the word of the oath which was since the Law [maketh] the Son who has been consecrated for evermore. ” “Consecrated”: what is that? Paul does not set down the common terms of contradistinction; for after saying “having Infirmity,” he did not say “the Son” who is mighty, but “consecrated”: i. e. mighty, as one might say. Thou seest that the name Son is used in contradistinction to that of servant. And by “infirmity” he means either sin or death. What is, “for evermore”? Not now only without sin but always. If then He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on His own behalf. [9. ] Since then we have such an High Priest, let us imitate Him: let us walk in His footsteps. There is no other sacrifice: one alone has cleansed us, and after this, fire and hell. For indeed on this account he repeats it over and over, saying, “one Priest,” “one Sacrifice,” lest any one supposing that there are many [sacrifices] should sin without fear. Let us then, as many as have been counted worthy of The Seal, as many as have enjoyed The Sacrifice, as many as have partaken of the immortal Table, continue to guard our noble birth and our dignity for falling away is not without danger. And as many as have not yet been counted worthy these [privileges], let not these either be confident on that account. For when a person goes on in sin, with the view of receiving holy baptism at the last gasp, oftentimes he will not obtain it. And, believe me, it is not to terrify you that I say what I am going to say.
I have myself known many persons, to whom this has happened, who in expectation indeed of the enlightening sinned much, and on the day of their death went away empty. For God gave us baptism for this cause, that He might do away our sins, not that He might increase our sins. Whereas if any man have employed it as a security for sinning more, it becomes a cause of negligence. For if there had been no Washing, they would have lived more warily, as not having [the means of] forgiveness. Thou seest that we are the ones who cause it to be said “Let us do evil, that good may come. ” ( Rom. iii. 8 . ) Wherefore, I exhort you also who are uninitiated, be sober. Let no man follow after virtue as an hireling, no man as a senseless person, no man as after a heavy and burdensome thing. Let us pursue it then with a ready mind, and with joy. For if there were no reward laid up, ought we not to be good? But however, at least with a reward, let us become good. And how is this anything else than a disgrace and a very great condemnation? Unless thou give me a reward (says one), I do not become self-controlled. Then am I bold to say something: thou wilt never be self-controlled, no not even when thou livest with self-control, if thou dost it for a reward. Thou esteemest not virtue at all, if thou dost not love it. But on account of our great weakness, God was willing that for a time it should be practiced even for reward, yet not even so do we pursue it. But let us suppose, if you will, that a man dies, after having done innumerable evil things, having also been counted worthy of baptism (which however I think does not readily happen), tell me, how will he depart thither? Not indeed called to account for the deeds he had done, but yet without confidence; as is reasonable. For when after living a hundred years, he has no good work to show, but only that he has not sinned, or rather not even this, but that he was saved by grace only, and when he sees others crowned, in splendor, and highly approved: even if he fall not into hell, tell me, will he endure his despondency? [10. ] But to make the matter clear by an example, Suppose there are two soldiers, and that one of them steals, injures, overreaches, and that the other does none of these things, but acts the part of a brave man, does important things well, sets up trophies in war, stains his right hand with blood; then when the time arrives, suppose that (from the same rank in which the thief also was) he is at once conducted to the imperial throne and the purple; but suppose that the other remains there where he was, and merely of the royal kindness does not pay the penalty of his deeds, let him however be in the last place, and let him be stationed under the King. Tell me, will he be able to endure his despair when he sees him who was [ranked] with himself ascended even to the very highest dignities, and made thus glorious, and master of the world, while he himself still remains below, and has not even been freed from punishment with honor, but through the grace and kindness of the King?
For even should the King forgive him, and release him from the charges against him, still he will live in shame; for surely not even will others admire him: since in such forgiveness, we admire not those who receive the gifts, but those who bestow them. And as much as the gifts are greater, so much the more are they ashamed who receive them, when their transgressions are great. With what eyes then will such an one be able to look on those who are in the King’s courts, when they exhibit their sweatings out of number and their wounds, whilst he has nothing to show, but has his salvation itself of the mere loving-kindness of God? For as if one were to beg off a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, when he was going to be arrested, and were to command him to stay at the porch of the King’s palace, he will not afterwards be able to look any man in the face, although he has been set free from punishment: so too surely is this man’s case. For do not, I beseech you, suppose that because it is called a palace, therefore all attain the same things. For if here in Kings’ courts there is the Prefect, and all who are about the King, and also those who are in very inferior stations, and occupy the place of what are called Decani (though the interval be so great between the Prefect and the Decanus) much more shall this be so in the royal court above. And this I say not of myself. For Paul layeth down another difference greater even than these. For (he says) as many differences as there are between the sun and the moon and the stars and the very smallest star, so many also between those in the kingdom [of Heaven]. And that the difference between the sun and the smallest star is far greater than that between the Decanus (as he is called) and the Prefect, is evident to all. For while the sun shines upon all the world at once, and makes it bright, and hides the moon and the stars, the other often does not appear, not even in the dark. For there are many of the stars which we do not see. When then we see others become suns, and we have the rank of the very smallest stars, which are not even visible, what comfort shall we have? Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be so slothful, not so inert, let us not barter away the salvation of God for an easy life, but let us make merchandise of it, and increase it. For even if one be a Catechumen, still he knows Christ, still he understands the Faith, still he is a hearer of the divine oracles, still he is not far from the knowledge; he knows the will of his Lord. Wherefore does he procrastinate? wherefore does he delay and postpone? Nothing is better than a good life whether here or there, whether in case of the Enlightened or of the Catechumens, [11. ] For tell me what burdensome command have we enjoined? Have a wife (it is said) and be chaste. Is this difficult? How? when many, not Christians only but heathens also, live chastely without a wife. That which the heathen surpasses for vainglory, thou dost not even keep for the fear of God. Give (He says) to the poor out of what thou hast. Is this burdensome?
But in this case also heathen condemn us who for vainglory only have emptied out their whole possessions. Use not filthy communication. Is this difficult? For if it had not been enjoined, ought we not to have done right in this, to avoid appearing degraded? For that the contrary conduct is troublesome, I mean the using filthy communication, is manifest from the fact that the soul is ashamed and blushes if it have been led to say any such thing and would not unless perhaps it were drunk. For when sitting in a public place, even if thou doest it at home, why dost thou not do it there? Because of those that are present. Why dost thou not readily do the same thing before thy wife? That thou mayest not insult her. So then thou dost it not, lest thou shouldest insult thy wife; and dost thou not blush at insulting God? For He is everywhere present, and heareth all things. Be not drunken, He says. For this very thing of itself, is it not a chastisement? He did not say, Put thy body on the rack, but what? Do not give it free rein so as to take away the authority of the mind: on the contrary “make not provision for the lusts thereof. ” ( Rom. xiii. 14 . ) Do not (He says) seize by violence what is not thine own; do not overreach; do not forswear thyself. What labors do these things require! what sweatings! Speak evil of no man (He says) nor accuse falsely. The contrary indeed is a labor. For when thou hast spoken ill of another, immediately thou art in danger, in suspicion, [saying] Did he of whom I spake, hear? whether he be great or small. For should he be a great man, immediately thou wilt be indeed in danger; but if small, he will requite thee with as much, or rather with what is far more grievous; for he will say evil of thee in a greater degree. We are enjoined nothing difficult, nothing burdensome, if we have the will. And if we have not the will, even the easiest things will appear burdensome to us. What is easier than eating? but from great effeminacy many feel disgust even at this, and I hear many say, that it is weariness even to eat. None of these things is wearisome if thou hast but the will. For everything depends on the will after the grace from above. Let us will good things that we may attain also to the good things eternal, in Christ Jesus our Lord, whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost be glory, might, honor, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.
Homily XIV. Hebrews viii. 1, 2 “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest; who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens: a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. ” [1. ] Paul mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his Master, so that the lowly become the path to the lofty, and through the former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we learn that these [lowly ones] were a condescension. This accordingly he does here also. After declaring that “He offered up Himself,” and showing Him to be a “High Priest,” what does he say? “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty. ” And yet this is not [the office] of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve. “A minister of the sanctuary,” not simply a minister, but “a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. ” Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: “Are they not all ministering spirits? ” ( supra, i. 14 ) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, “Sit thou on my right hand,” ( supra, i. 13 ) for He that sitteth is not a minister. How is it then that it is here said, “a minister,” and “a minister of the Sanctuary”? for he means here the Tabernacle. See how he raised up the minds of the believing Jews. For as they would be apt to imagine that we have no such tabernacle [as they had], see here (he says) is the Priest, Great, yea, much greater than the other, and who has offered a more wonderful sacrifice. But is not all this mere talk? is it not a boast, and merely said to win over our minds? on this account he established it first from the oath, and afterwards also from “the tabernacle. ” For this difference too was manifest: but the Apostle thinks of another also, “which” (he says) “the Lord pitched [or “made firm”] and not man. ” Where are they who say that the heaven whirls around? where are they who declare that it is spherical? for both of these notions are overthrown here. “Now” (he says) “of the things which we have spoken this is the sum. ” By “the sum” is always meant what is most important. Again he brings down his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks fearlessly. [2. ] In the next place that thou mayest understand that he used the word “minister” of the manhood, observe how he again indicates it: “For” ( ver. 3 ) (he says) “every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. ” Do not now, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose that His being called High Priest is mere idle talk. For the former, viz. His sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this to His great lovingkindness, and His tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly urges this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest the other [truth] should overthrow it.
Therefore he again brings down his discourse to this: since some were enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He also should have a sacrifice. And in another way; Having said that He is on high, he affirms and proves that He is a Priest from every consideration, from Melchisedec, from the oath, from offering sacrifice. From this he also frames another and necessary syllogism. “For if” (he says) “He had been on earth, He would not be a Priest, seeing that there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law. ” If then He is a Priest (as He really is), we must seek some other place for Him. “For if He were” indeed “on earth, He should not be a priest. ” For how [could He be]? He offered no sacrifice, He ministered not in the Priest’s office. And with good reason, for there were the priests. Moreover he shows, that it was impossible that [He] should be a priest upon earth. For how [could He be]? There was no rising up against [the appointed Priests], he means. [3. ] Here we must apply our minds attentively, and consider the Apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the Priesthood. “Who” (he says) “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. ” What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the Heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain [as a sacrifice], when the Spirit is with us, when He who sitteth on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the Washing, when they are fellow-citizens of those in Heaven, when we have a country, and a city, and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than “heavenly things”? But what! Are not our Hymns heavenly? Do not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things which the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? It hath nothing carnal, all spiritual things become the offerings. The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes, or into smoke, or into steamy savor, it makes the things placed there bright and splendid. How again can the rites which we celebrate be other than heavenly? For when He says, “Whose soever sins ye retain they are retained, whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted” ( John xx. 23 ) when they have the keys of heaven, how can all be other than heavenly? “Who” (he says) “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle, for see, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. ” Inasmuch as our hearing is less ready of apprehension than our sight (for the things which we hear we do not in such wise lay up in our soul, as those which we see with our very eyes), He showed him all. Either then he means this by “the example and shadow,” or else he [speaks] of the Temple. For, he went on to say, “See” (His words are), that “thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.
” Was it then only what concerned the furniture of the temple that he saw, or was it also what related to the sacrifices, and all the rest? Nay, one would not be wrong in saying even this; for The Church is heavenly, and is nothing else than Heaven. [4. ] ( Ver. 6 ) “But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant. ” Thou seest (he means) how much better is the one ministration than the other, if one be an example and type, and the other truth [reality]. But this did not profit the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered them: “Which was established upon better promises. ” Having raised them up by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before that it was “weak and unprofitable. ” (See Heb. vii. 18 . ) And observe what safeguards he lays down, when intending to find fault with it. For in the former place after saying, “according to the power of an endless life” ( Heb. vii. 16 ), he then said that “there is a disannulling of the commandment going before” ( Heb. vii. 18 ); and then after that, he set forth something great, saying, “by which we draw nigh unto God. ” ( Heb. vii. 19 . ) And in this place, after leading us up into Heaven, and showing that instead of the temple, we have Heaven, and that those things were types of ours, and having by these means exalted the Ministration [of the New Covenant], he then proceeds suitably to exalt the priesthood. But (as I said) he sets down that which especially cheers them, in the words, “Which was established upon better promises. ” Whence does appear? In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, “If perfection were by” it, “what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec? ” ( Heb. vii. 11 ); so also here he used the same syllogism, saying ( ver. 7 ) “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second”; that is, if it made men “faultless. ” For it is because he is speaking of this that he did not say, “But finding fault with” it, but ( ver. 8, 9 ) “But finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. ” Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that [the first Covenant] came to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more clearly by express words that it has been cast out. But how is it “upon better promises”? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there [in that other covenant] also, that thou mayest not bring this charge against it.
For there also, he says “a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God” ( Heb. vii. 19 ), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place “better promises,” hinting that there also He had made promises. But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, “Behold! the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. ” He is not speaking of any old Covenant: for, that they might not assert this, he determined the time also. Thus he did not say simply, “according to the covenant which I made with their fathers,” lest thou shouldest say [it was] the one made with Abraham, or that with Noah: but he declares what [covenant it was], “not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers” in the Exodus. Wherefore he added also, “in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. ” Thou seest that the evils begin first from ourselves (“they” themselves first, saith he, “continued not in [the “covenant”]”) and the negligence is from ourselves, but the good things from Him; I mean the [acts] of bounty. He here introduces, as it were, an apology showing the cause why He forsakes them. [5. ] ( Ver. 10 ) “For this,” he says, “is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people. ” Thus He says this concerning the New [covenant] because His words are “not according to the covenant which I covenanted. ” But what other difference is there beside this? Now if any person should say that “the difference is not in this respect, but in respect to its being put into their hearts; He makes no mention of any difference of ordinances, but points out the mode of its being given: for no longer” (he says) “shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts;” let the Jew in that case show that this was ever carried into effect; but he could not, for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. But I show that the Apostles received nothing in writing, but received [it] in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Wherefore also Christ said, “When He cometh, He will bring all things to your remembrance, and He shall teach you. ” ( John xiv. 26 . ) [6. ] ( Ver. 11, 12 ) “And they shall not teach” (he says) “every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. ” Behold also another sign. “From the least even to the greatest of them” (he says) “they shall know Me, and they shall not say, Know the Lord. ” When hath this been fulfilled save now? For our [religion] is manifest: but theirs [i. e. the Jews’] was not manifest, but had been shut up in a corner. [A covenant] is then said to be “new,” when it is different and shows some advantage over the old.
“Nay surely,” says one, “it is new also when part of it has been taken away, and part not. For instance, when an old house is ready to fall down, if a person leaving the whole, has patched up the foundation, straightway we say, he has made it new, when he has taken some parts away, and brought others into their place. For even the heaven also is thus called ‘new,’ when it is no longer ‘of brass,’ but gives rain; and the earth likewise is new when it is not un fruitful, not when it has been changed; and the house is likewise new, when portions of it have been taken away, and portions remain. And thus, he says, he hath well termed it ‘a New Covenant. ’” If then I show that that covenant had become “Old” in this respect, that it yielded no fruit? And that thou mayest know this exactly, read what Haggai says, what Zechariah, what the Messenger, when the return from the Captivity had not yet fully taken place; and what Esdras charges. How then did [the people] receive him? And how no man enquired of the Lord, inasmuch as they [the priests] themselves also transgressed, and knew it not even themselves? Dost thou see how thy [interpretation] is broken down, whilst I maintain my own: that this [covenant] must be called “New” in the proper sense of the word? And besides, I do not concede that the words “the heaven shall be new” ( Isa. lxv. 17 ), were spoken concerning this. For why, when saying in Deuteronomy “the heaven shall be of brass,” did he not set down this in the contrasted passage, “but if ye hearken, it shall be new. ” And further on this account He says that He will give “another Covenant, because they did not continue in the first. ” This I show by what he says (“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,” Rom. viii. 3 ; and again, “Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? ” Acts xv. 10 . ) But “they did not continue therein,” he says. Here he shows that [God] counts us worthy of greater and of spiritual [privileges]: for it is said “their sound went out into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world. ” ( Ps. xix. 5; Rom. x. 18 . ) That is [the meaning of] “they shall not say each man to his neighbor, Know the Lord. ” And again, “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as much water to cover the seas. ” ( Isa. xi. 9 . ) [7. ] “In calling it new” (he says), “He hath made the first old: but that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. ” See what was hidden, how he hath laid open the very mind of the prophet! He honored the law, and was not willing to call it “old” in express terms: but nevertheless, this he did call it. For if the former had been new, he would not have called this which came afterwards “new” also. So that by granting something more and different, he declares that “it was waxen old. ” Therefore it is done away and is perishing, and no longer exists. Having taken boldness from the prophet, he attacks it more suitably, showing that our [dispensation] is now flourishing.
That is, he showed that [the other] was old: then taking up the word “old,” and adding of himself another [circumstance], the [characteristic] of old age, he took up what was omitted by the others, and says “ready to vanish away. ” The New then has not simply caused the old to cease, but because it had become aged, as it was not [any longer] useful. On this account he said, “for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof” ( Heb. vii. 18 ), and, “the law made nothing perfect” ( Heb. vii. 19 ); and that “if the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ” ( Heb. viii. 7 . ) And “faultless”; that is, useful; not as though it [the old Covenant] was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency. [8. ] So then we also are new, or rather we were made new, but now are become old; therefore we are “near to vanishing away,” and to destruction. Let us scrape off this old age. It is indeed no longer possible to do it by Washing, but by repentance it is possible here [in this life]. If there be in us anything old, let us cast it off; if any “wrinkle,” if any stain, if any “spot,” let us wash it away and become fair ( Eph. v. 27 ): that “the King may desire our beauty. ” ( Ps. xlv. 11 . ) It is possible even for him who has fallen into the extremest deformity to recover that beauty of which David says that the King shall desire thy beauty. “Hearken, O daughter, and consider; forget also thine own people and thy father’s house: so shall the King greatly desire thy beauty. ” ( Ps. xlv. 10, 11 . ) And yet forgetting doth not produce beauty. Yea, beauty is of the soul. What sort of forgetting? That of sins. For he is speaking about the Church from among the Gentiles, exhorting her not to remember the things of her fathers, that is [of] those that sacrificed to idols; for from such was it gathered. And he said not, “Go not after them,” but what is more, Do not admit them into thy mind; which he says also in another place, “I will not mention their names through my lips. ” ( Ps. xvi. 4 . ) And again, “That my mouth may not talk of the deeds of men. ” ( Ps. xvii. 3, 4 . ) As yet is this no great virtue; nay, rather, it is indeed great, but not such as this [which is here spoken of]. For what does he say there? He says not; “Talk not of the things of men, neither speak of the things of thy fathers”; but, neither remember them, nor admit them into thy mind. Thou seest to how great a distance he would have us keep away from wickedness. For he that remembers not [a matter] will not think of it, and he that does not think, will not speak of it: and he that does not speak of it, will not do it. Seest thou from how many paths he hath walled us off?
by what great intervals he hath removed us, even to a very great [distance]? [9. ] Let us then also “hearken and forget” our own evils. I do not say our sins, for (He says) “Remember thou first, and I will not remember. ” ( Isa. xliii. 26, 25 , LXX. ) I mean for instance, Let us no longer remember rapacity, but even restore the former [plunder]. This is to forget wickedness, and to cast out the thought of rapacity, and never at any time to admit it, but to wipe away also the things already done amiss. Whence may the forgetfulness of wickedness come to us? From the remembrance of good things, from the remembrance of God. If we continually remember God, we cannot remember those things also. For (he says) “When I remembered Thee upon my bed, I thought upon Thee in the morning dawn. ” ( Ps. lxiii. 6 . ) We ought then to have God always in remembrance, but then especially, when thought is undisturbed, when by means of that remembrance [a man] is able to condemn himself, when he can retain [things] in memory. For in the daytime indeed, if we do remember, other cares and troubles entering in, drive the thought out again: but in the night it is possible to remember continually, when the soul is calm and at rest; when it is in the haven, and under a serene sky. “The things which you say in your hearts be ye grieved for on your beds,” he says. ( Ps. iv. 4 , LXX. ) For it were indeed right to retain this remembrance through the day also. But inasmuch as you are always full of cares, and distracted amidst the things of this life, at least then remember God on your bed; at the morning dawn meditate upon Him. If at the morning dawn we meditate on these things, we shall go forth to our business with much security. If we have first made God propitious by prayer and supplication, going forth thus we shall have no enemy. Or if thou shouldest, thou wilt laugh him to scorn, having God propitious. There is war in the market place; the affairs of every day are a fight, they are a tempest and a storm. We therefore need arms: and prayer is a great weapon. We need favorable winds; we need to learn everything, so as to go through the length of the day without shipwrecks and without wounds. For every single day the rocks are many, and oftentimes the boat strikes and is sunk. Therefore have we especially need of prayer early and by night. [10. ] Many of you have often beheld the Olympic games: and not only have beheld but have been zealous partisans and admirers of the combatants, one of this [combatant], one of that. You know then that both during the days of the contests, and during those nights, all night long the herald thinks of nothing else, has no other anxiety, than that the combatant should not disgrace himself when he goes forth. For those who sit by the trumpeter admonish him not to speak to any one, that he may not spend his breath and get laughed at. If therefore he who is about to strive before men, uses such forethought, much more will it befit us to be continually thoughtful, and careful, since our whole life is a contest.
Let every night then be a vigil, and let us be careful that when we go out in the day we do not make ourselves ridiculous. And would it were only making ourselves ridiculous. But now the Judge of the contest is seated on the right hand of the Father, hearkening diligently that we utter not any false note, anything out of tune. For He is not the Judge of actions only, but of words also. Let us keep our vigil, beloved; we also have those that are eager for our success, if we will. Near each one of us Angels are sitting; and yet we snore through the whole night. And would it were only this. But many do even many licentious things, some indeed going to the very brothels, and others making their own houses places of whoredom by taking courtesans thither. Yes most certainly. For is it not so? They care well for their contest. Others are drunken and speak amiss; others make an uproar. Others keep evil vigil through the night weaving, and worse than those who sleep, schemes of deceit; others by calculating usury; others by bruising themselves with cares, and doing anything rather than what is suited to the contest. Wherefore, I exhort you, let us lay aside all [other] things, and look to one only, how we may obtain the prize, [how we may] be crowned with the Chaplet; let us do all by which we shall be able to attain to the promised blessings. Which may we all attain in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father and also to the Holy Ghost be glory, might, honor, now and for ever and world without end. Amen.
Homily XV. Hebrews ix. 1–5 “Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly Sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the Candlestick, and the Table, and the Shew-bread, which is called the Sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer and the Ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold: wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant: and over it the Cherubim of glory, shadowing the Mercy-seat: of which we cannot now speak particularly. ” [1. ] He has shown from the Priest, from the Priesthood, from the Covenant, that that [dispensation] was to have an end. From this point he shows it from the fashion of the tabernacle itself. How? This, he says, [was] the “Holy” and the “Holy of Holies. ” The holy place then is a symbol of the former period (for there all things are done by means of sacrifices); but the Holy of Holies of this that is now present. And by the Holy of Holies he means Heaven; and by the veil, Heaven, and the Flesh “entereth into that within the veil”: that is to say, “through the veil of His flesh. ” ( Supra , vi. 19; Heb. x. 20 . ) And it were well to speak of this passage, taking it up from the beginning. What then does he say? “Then verily the first had also” (the first what? “The Covenant”). “Ordinances of Divine service. ” What are “ordinances”? symbols or rights. Then; as (he means) it has not now. He shows that it had already given place, for (he says) it had at that time; so that now, although it stood, it is not. “And the worldly Sanctuary. ” He calls it “worldly,” inasmuch as it was permitted to all to tread it, and in the same house the place was manifest where the priests stood, where the Jews, the Proselytes, the Grecians, the Nazarites. Since, therefore even Gentiles were permitted to tread it, he calls it “worldly. ” For surely the Jews were not “the world. ” “For” (he says) “there was a tabernacle made; the first, which is called holy, wherein was the Candlestick, and the Table, and the Shew-bread. ” These things are symbols of the world. “And after the second veil” (There was then not one veil [only], but there was a veil without also) “the tabernacle, which is called holy of holies. ” Observe how everywhere he calls it a tabernacle in regard of [God’s] encamping there. “Which had” (he says) “a golden Censer, and the ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold: wherein was the golden pot that held the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. ” All these things were venerable and conspicuous memorials of the Jewish obstinacy; “and the tables of the covenant” (for they brake them) “And the manna” (for they murmured; and therefore handing on the memory thereof to posterity, He commanded it to be laid up in a golden pot). “And Aaron’s rod that budded. And over it, the Cherubim of glory. ” What is “the Cherubim of glory”? He either means “the glorious,” or those which are under God. “Shadowing the mercy-seat. ” But in another point of view also he extols these things in his discourse, in order to show that those which come after them are greater.
“Of which” (he says) “we cannot now speak particularly. ” In these words he hints that these were not merely what was seen, but were a sort of enigmas. “Of which” (he says) “we cannot now speak particularly,” perhaps because they needed a long discourse. [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. ( Ver. 7 ) “But into the second the High Priest went alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people. ” Thou seest that the types were already laid down beforehand? 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. ” And well said he, “not without blood. ” (Not indeed without blood, yet not this blood, for the business was not so great. ) He signifies that there shall be a sacrifice, not consumed by fire, but rather distinguished by blood. For inasmuch as he called the Cross a sacrifice, though it had neither fire, nor logs, nor was offered many times, but had been offered in blood once for all; he shows that the ancient sacrifice also was of this kind, was offered “once for all” in blood. “Which he offers for himself;” again, “for himself; and for the errors of the people. ” He said not “sins”; but “errors,” that they might not be high-minded. For even if thou hast not sinned intentionally, yet unintentionally thou hast erred, and from this no man is pure. And everywhere [he adds] the “for himself,” showing that Christ is much greater. For if He be separated from our sins, how did He “offer for Himself”? Why then saidst thou these things (one says)? Because this is [a mark] of One that is superior. [3. ] Thus far there is no speculation. But from this point he philosophizes and says, ( ver. 8 ) “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. ” For this cause (he says) have these things been thus “ordained,” that we might learn that “the Holy of Holies,” that is, Heaven, is as yet inaccessible. Let us not then think (he says) that because we do not enter them, they have no existence: inasmuch as neither did we enter the Most Holy [place]. 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? There is too something else which he indicates, when he says this, “which [was] a figure for the time then present,” that is, became the Type. “In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.
” Thou seest now what is [the meaning of] “The Law made nothing perfect,” ( Heb. vii. 19 ,) and “If that first [covenant] had been faultless. ” ( Heb. viii. 7 . ) How? “As pertaining to the conscience. ” For the sacrifices did not put away the defilement from the soul, but still were concerned with the body: “after the law of a carnal commandment. ” ( Heb. vii. 16 . ) For certainly they could not put away adultery, nor murder, nor sacrilege. Seest thou? Thou hast eaten this, Thou hast not eaten that, which are matters of indifference. [“Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings. ” “Thou hast drunk this,” he says: and yet nothing has been ordained concerning drink, but he said this, treating them as trifles. 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. [4. ] Ver. 11 . “But Christ being come an High Priest of good things that are come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands. ” Here he means the flesh. 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. “That is, not of this creation. ” See how [it was] “greater. ” For it would not have been “of the Spirit” ( Matt. i. 20 ), if man had constructed it. Nor yet is it “of this creation”; that is, not of these created things, but spiritual, of the Holy Ghost. 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. ” ( Heb. ix. 24 . ) Why then doth he this? According as one thing or a different one is signified. I mean for instance, the Heaven is a veil, for as a veil it walls off the Holy of Holies; the flesh [is a veil] hiding the Godhead; and the tabernacle likewise holding the Godhead. Again, Heaven [is] a tabernacle: for the Priest is there within. “But Christ” (he says) “being come an High Priest”: he did not say, “become,” but “being come,” that is, having come for this very purpose, not having been successor to another. He did not come first and then become [High Priest], but came and became at the same time. And he did not say “being come an High Priest” of things which are sacrificed, but “of good things that are come,” as if his discourse had not power to put the whole before us. Ver. 12 . “Neither by the blood,” he says, “of goats and calves” (All things are changed) “but by His own Blood” (he says) “He entered in once for all into the Holy Place. ” See thus he called Heaven. “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. ” [5. ] Next [comes] that which is calculated to persuade. 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. ” For (he says) if “the blood of bulls” is able to purify the flesh, much rather shall the Blood of Christ wipe away the defilement of the soul. For that thou mayest not suppose when thou hearest [the word] “sanctifieth,” that it is some great thing, he marks out and shows the difference between each of these purifyings, and how the one of them is high and the other low. And says it is [so] with good reason, since that is “the blood of bulls,” and this “the Blood of Christ. ” Nor was he content with the name, but he sets forth also the manner of the offering. “Who” (he says) “through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without spot to God,” that is, the victim was without blemish, pure from sins. For this is [the meaning of] “through the Holy Spirit,” not through fire, nor through any other things. “Shall purge your conscience” (he says) “from dead works. ” And well said he “from dead works”; if any man touched a dead body, he was polluted; and here, if any man touch a “dead work,” he is defiled through his conscience. “To serve” (he says) “the Living and true God. ” Here he declares that it is not [possible] while one has “dead works to serve the Living and true God,” for they are both dead and false; and with good reason [he says this]. [6. ] Let no man then enter in here with “dead works. ” For if it was not fit that one should enter in who had touched a dead body, much more one that hath “dead works”: for this is the most grievous pollution. And “dead works” are, all which have not life, which breathe forth an ill odor. For as a dead body is useful to none of the senses, but is even annoying to those who come near it, so sin also at once strikes the reasoning faculty, and does not allow the understanding itself to be calm, but disturbs and troubles it. And it is said too that a plague at its very commencement corrupts the living bodies; such also is sin. It differs in nothing from a plague, not [indeed] corrupting the air first, and then the bodies, but darting at once into the soul. Seest thou not how persons affected with the plague, are inflamed: how they writhe about, how they are full of an ill scent, how disfigured are their countenances: how wholly unclean they are? Such are they also that sin, though they see it not. For, tell me, is not he who is possessed by the desire of riches or carnal lust, worse than any one that is in a fever? Is he not more unclean than all these, when he does and submits to all shameless things? [7. ] For what is baser than a man who is in love with money?
Whatever things women that are harlots or on the stage refuse not to do neither does he [refuse]. Rather it is likely that they would refuse [to do] a thing, rather than he. He even submits to do things fit for slaves, flattering those whom he ought not; again he is overbearing where he ought not to be, being inconsistent in every respect. He will sit by flattering wicked people, and oftentimes depraved old men, that are of much poorer and meaner condition than himself; and will be insolent and overbearing to others that are good and in all respects virtuous. Thou seest in both respects the baseness, the shamelessness: he is both humble beyond measure, and boastful. Harlots however stand in front of their house, and the charge against them is that they sell their body for money: yet, one may say, poverty and hunger compel them (although at the most this is no sufficient excuse: for they might gain a livelihood by work). But the covetous man stands, not before his house, but before the midst of the city, making over to the devil not his body but his soul; so that he [the devil] is in his company, and goes in unto him, as verily to a harlot: and having satisfied all his lusts departs; and all the city sees it, not two or three persons only. And this again is the peculiarity of harlots, that they are his who gives the gold. Even if he be a slave or a gladiator, or any person whatever, yet if he offers their hire, they receive him. But the free, even should they be more noble than all, they do not accept without the money. These men also do the same. They turn away right thoughts when they bring no money; but they associate with the abominable, and actually with those that fight with wild beasts, for the sake of the gold, and associate with them shamelessly and destroy the beauty of the soul. For as those women are naturally of odious appearance and black, and awkward and gross, and formless and ill-shaped, and in all respects disgusting, such do the souls of these men become, not able to conceal their deformity by their outward paintings. For when the ill look is extreme, whatever they may devise, they cannot succeed in their feigning. For that shamelessness makes harlots, hear the prophet saying, “Thou wert shameless towards all; thou hadst a harlot’s countenance. ” ( Jer. iii. 3 . ) This may be said to the covetous also: “Thou wert shameless towards all,” not towards these or those, but “towards all. ” How? Such an one respects neither father, nor son, nor wife, nor friend, nor brother, nor benefactor, nor absolutely any one. And why do I say friend, and brother, and father? He respects not God Himself, but all [we believe] seems to him a fable; and he laughs, intoxicated by his great lust, and not even admitting into his ears any of the things which might profit him. But O! their absurdity! and then what things they say! “Woe to thee, O Mammon, and to him that has thee not. ” At this I am torn to pieces with indignation: for woe to those who say these things, though they say them in jest. For tell me, has not God uttered such a threat as this, saying, “Ye cannot serve two masters”? ( Matt. vi. 24 . ) And dost thou set at nought the threat?