Commentary on Hebrews (Super Epistolam ad Hebraeos Lectura)

“1 There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, and there is none according to your works. Ps. 85:8. In these words the excellence of Christ is expressed as to two things. And first as to a comparison to the other gods, when he says there is none like you among the gods, O Lord; second by a comparison as to his effects, when he says and there is none according to your works. Concerning the first it should be known that although there is only one God by nature, as is said in Deut. 6:4: the Lord your God is one God, nevertheless by participation there are many gods, both in heaven and on earth. 1 Cor. 8:5: for there are indeed many gods and many lords. For sometimes the angels themselves are called gods, as is clear in Job 1:6 and 2:1: when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord. And sometimes the prophets, as is said of Moses, Exod. 7:1: I have made you a god to Pharaoh. Likewise it is said of the priests, Exod. 22:28: the gods, that is, the priests, you shall not speak ill of. Likewise there: if the thief lies hidden, the master of the house shall be brought to the gods. But the angels are called gods on account of the most abundant refulgence of the divine brightness. Job 25:3: upon whom his light does not shine. But the angels are not like Christ among the gods, who is the splendor of the Father's glory, as is said below, 1:3. Eph. 1:20: setting him at the right hand in the heavenly places, above every principality, etc. But the prophets are called gods because the word of God came to them. Jn. 10:35: he called them gods, to whom the word of God came. Therefore Christ is God much more excellently, who is substantially the very Word of God. But priests are called gods because they are ministers of God. Is. 61:6: you, priests of the Lord, shall be called ministers of God. But Christ much more so, who is not a minister, but the lord of all, Esth. 13:11; likewise Apoc. 19:16: lord of lords; and below: as lord in his whole house. Christ therefore is God, great above all gods, because he is splendor, because he is the Word, because he is Lord. Second, this excellence is shown through the effects, when it is said and there is none according to your works, where it should be known that the excellent work of Christ is threefold. One that extends to the whole creature, namely the work of creation. Jn. 1:3: all things were made through him. Another indeed only to the rational creature, which is illuminated through Christ, which is the work of illumination. Jn. 1:9: he was the true light, etc. The third is of justification, which pertains only to the saints, who through him are quickened and justified by quickening grace. Jn. 1:4: and the life was the light of men. For in these three ways the aforesaid gods cannot work. For the angels are not creators, but creatures. Ps. 103:4: who make your angels spirits, etc. The prophets, too, are illumined, not illuminating. Jn. 1:8: he was not that light, etc. The priests, too, did not justify. Below, 10:4: for it is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of goats and bulls. Therefore the excellence of Christ is clearly shown in these words, and this is the subject matter of this epistle to the Hebrews, by which it is distinguished from the others. For in certain epistles the grace of the New Testament is treated as to the whole mystical body of the Church, and this in all the epistles which he sends to Churches, namely that which is to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, and up to the first to Timothy. But in certain others as to the principal members, as in those which he sends to individual persons, namely to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. But in this one he commends grace itself as to the head, namely Christ; for in the body of the Church these three things are found just as in a natural body, namely the mystical body itself, the principal members, namely the prelates and the greater ones, and the head, from which life flows into the whole body, namely Christ. But before we come to the division, it should be known that before the Council of Nicaea, some doubted whether this epistle was Paul's. And that it was not, they prove by two arguments. One is that it does not keep this manner which he keeps in the other epistles. For here he does not put a greeting first, nor his own name. The other is that it does not savor of the style of the others, rather it has a more elegant one, nor is there any Scripture that proceeds so in order, in the order of words, and in sentences, as this one. Hence they said that it was either Luke the Evangelist's, or Barnabas's, or Pope Clement's. For he himself wrote to the Athenians almost entirely according to this style. But the ancient doctors, especially Dionysius and certain others, take the words of this epistle as testimonies of Paul. And Jerome receives it among the epistles of Paul. To the first, therefore, it should be said that there was a threefold reason why he did not put his name. One is that he was not the apostle of the Jews, but of the Gentiles. Gal. 2:8: he who worked in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, worked also in me among the Gentiles, etc. And therefore he made no mention of his apostolate at the beginning of this epistle, because he did not want to make known the office of his apostolate, except to the Gentiles themselves. Second, because his name was hateful to the Jews, since he said that the legal observances were not to be kept, as is clear in Acts 15:2 and following. And he kept this silent, lest the most salutary teaching of this epistle be rejected. Third, because he was a Jew. Are they Hebrews? So am I. 2 Cor. 11:22. And those of one's own household do not easily bear the excellence of their own. A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, and in his own house. Matt. 13:57. To the second argument, it should be said that he is more elegant in style for this reason: that although he knew every tongue — 1 Cor. 14:18: I speak with the tongue of all of you — yet he knew Hebrew better, as more connatural to himself, in which he wrote this epistle. And therefore he was able to speak more ornately in his own idiom than in any other. Hence he says, 2 Cor. 11:6: even if unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge. But Luke, who was an excellent speaker, translated this ornateness from Hebrew into Greek.”

“Now he wrote this epistle against the errors of certain men who, converted from Judaism to the faith of Christ, wished to keep the observances of the Law together with the Gospel, as though the grace of Christ did not suffice for salvation. Hence it is also divided into two parts. For first he commends the excellence of Christ in many ways, so that through this he may set the New Testament above the Old; second he deals with those things by which the members are joined to the head, namely, concerning faith, below, chapter 11, where it says, "Now faith is." Now he intends to show the excellence of the New Testament over the Old through the excellence of Christ, with respect to three solemn persons contained in the Old Testament itself: namely, the angels, through whom the law was given. Gal. 3:19: "ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator," etc. With respect to Moses, from whom, or through whom, it was given. John 1:17: "the law was given through Moses," and Deut., last chapter: "there did not arise again a prophet," etc. With respect to the priesthood by which it was ministered, below: "into the first tabernacle the priests always entered, completing the offices of the sacrifices," etc. Hence first he sets Christ above the angels; second above Moses, chapter 3, where it says, "Whence, brothers"; but third, above the priesthood of the Old Testament, chapter 5, where it says, "For every high priest." Concerning the first he does two things: first he sets Christ above the angels in this chapter; second he concludes what sort of reverence is to be shown to the new law, chapter 2, where it says, "Therefore more abundantly." Further, concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the excellence of Christ; second he proves that this is true of Christ, and thus that the angels fall short of that excellence, where it says, "so much the better." Now this is singular in this epistle, that individual words have individual meanings, and keep their own order. Now he denotes the excellence of Christ with respect to four things. First with respect to the property of his origin, calling him the true, natural Son of God, when he says "has spoken to us in the Son"; second with respect to the greatness of his lordship, where it says "whom he appointed heir of all things"; third with respect to the power of his operation, where it says "through whom also he made the ages"; fourth with respect to the sublimity of his dignity, where it says "who, being the brightness of glory." But since he intends to commend Christ, so that this may redound to the New Testament, through this he sets the New Testament above the Old. Now concerning the Old Testament he sets down five things. First the manner of its handing down, because "in many ways and by many means," etc.; second the time, when he says "of old"; third the author, or giver, because God; fourth to whom it was handed down, because to our fathers; fifth by what ministers, because "in the prophets." He says therefore "in many ways," and this with respect to the division, which is considered with respect to three things. First with respect to different persons, because it was not to one person but to many, namely to Abraham, to Noah, and so of the others. Second with respect to different times, and all this for the sake of its certainty. Hence Matt. 20:1ff.: "he went out first in the morning (...) and about the third hour," etc. Likewise with respect to the things that were shown there, because they are divine. Ex. 3:14: "I am who am," etc. Likewise future events. Wis. 8:8: "she knows signs and wonders before they happen," etc. Likewise promises of future goods, at least in figure. Ecclus. 3:25: "many things beyond the understanding of men have been shown to you." Likewise "in many ways" with respect to different figures, because now in the figure of a lion, now in the figure of a stone, as Dan. 2:34: "a stone was cut from the mountain without hands." Job 11:6: "and that the law of his mouth is manifold." There follows "and by many means," which refers to three different kinds of visions: namely to bodily vision, as Dan. 5:5: "there appeared fingers as of a hand writing on the wall," etc. Sometimes to some by imaginary vision. Is. 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. But to some it appeared by intellectual vision, as to David. Ps. 118:100: "I have understood more than the aged." Hence of these it is said, Hosea 12:10: "I have multiplied visions to them." It also refers to different manners of speaking, because sometimes it spoke plainly, but sometimes obscurely, nor is there any manner of speaking in which the Scripture of the Old Testament does not speak. Prov. 22:20: "behold I have described it to you threefold, in thoughts and knowledge," etc. Third, because it speaks by reproving the wicked, by alluring the just, by instructing the ignorant. 2 Tim. 3:16: "all Scripture, divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproving," etc. Second he touches on the time of the handing-down of this teaching, which is past time, because "of old," that is, not suddenly, because the things that were said about Christ were so great that they could not be believed unless, with the increase of times, they had first learned them. Hence blessed Gregory says: "through the successions of times the increase of divine knowledge grew." Is. 48:3: "the former things I declared from that time, and they went out of my mouth, and I made them heard," etc. Third he touches on the author, because it is God who speaks. Ps. 84:9: "I will hear what the Lord speaks in me." Now this is one who does not lie. Num. 23:19: "God is not as a man, that he should lie." Now from these three he commends the Old Testament: namely from authority, because it is from God; from subtlety and from sublimity, because "in many ways and by many means"; from firmness, because "of old." Fourth he shows to whom it was handed down, because to the fathers. And therefore it is familiar and acceptable to us. Acts 13:32: "we declare to you the promise that was made to our fathers," etc. But fifth he shows by what ministers, because not by jesters, but "in the prophets," that is, through the prophets. Rom. 1:2: "which he had before promised through the prophets." Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets bear witness." Then when he says "lastly," he describes the teaching of the New Testament, and he sets down five things, four of which are different from the four premised, but one is the same in both. For what he had said, "in many ways and by many means," etc., shows that every ordered multitude must be referred to one. Therefore he says that although the manner is manifold, yet the whole is ordered to this last. Prov. 23:17f.: "be in the fear of the Lord all the day, and you shall have hope in the end." Is. 10:22f.: "a shortened completion shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts will make a completion and a shortening in the midst of all the earth." Likewise, that "of old" was in a time of expectation and of darkness, but this "in these days" is in the time of grace. Rom. 13:12: "the night has gone before, but the day has drawn near," etc. Here it must be noted that there it says "speaking," but here it says "has spoken," in order to designate the speech of the New Testament as more perfect than that which was in the Old. For the evidence of this it must be known that three things are required for our speech. First, the conception of the word, by which that which is to be spoken by the mouth is first conceived in the mind; second, the expression of the word itself once conceived, by which what is conceived is made known; third, the manifestation of the thing itself expressed, by which the thing expressed becomes evident. God therefore, in speaking, first conceived, and his conception was one, and from eternity. Job 33:14: "God speaks once" — and this was the eternal generation of the Son, of which it is said in Ps. 2:7: "the Lord said to me: you are my son, today I have begotten you." Second, he expressed this conception, and this in three ways. First in the production of creatures, since the conceived Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness according to which all creatures were made. Gen. 1:3: "God said: let there be light," etc. Second, through certain notions — namely in the minds of the angels, in whom he implanted the likenesses of all things that lay hidden in the Word, and in the minds of holy men — and this through sensible, or intellectual, or imaginary revelations. And therefore every such manifestation proceeding from the eternal Word is called a speaking. Jer. 1:2: "the word of the Lord came," etc. Third, through the assumption of flesh, of which it is said, John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh, and we saw his glory," etc. And therefore Augustine says that the incarnate word is related to the uncreated Word in the way that the word of the voice is related to the word of the heart. But the first expression, namely in creation, is ordered not to manifestation but to being — Wis. 1: "God created that all things might be." Since therefore expression does not have the character of speech except insofar as it is ordered to manifestation, it is clear that that expression cannot be called speech, and therefore it is never said that God speaks in creating creatures, but that he is known. Rom. 1:20: "the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But the second expression, which is the production of likenesses in the angelic or human mind, is ordered only to the knowledge of the divine wisdom, and therefore it can be called speech. But the third, which is through the assumption of flesh, is ordered to being, and to knowledge, and to express manifestation, because through the assumption of flesh both the Word was made man, and he brought us to perfect knowledge of God. (John 18:37: "for this I was born, that I might bear witness to the truth.") And he manifested himself to us expressly. Bar. 3:38: "after this he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." Thus therefore, although God speaks in the New and in the Old Testament, yet he speaks to us more perfectly in the New, because there through revelations in the minds of men, here through the incarnation of the Son. But the Old Testament was handed down to the fathers, who beheld from afar and gazed upon God at a distance; but this to us, namely to the apostles, who saw him in his own person. 1 John 1:1: "which we have heard, and have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the word of life." Deut. 5:3f.: "he did not make a covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are present here, and we have seen, and he has spoken to us face to face." Hence it is clear that that speaking was promissory. Gal. 3:16: "to Abraham were the promises made." This speaking is one of showing forth. John 1:17: "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Likewise, there he spoke "in the prophets," here "in the Son," who is the lord of the prophets. John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has told us." But are all those through whom God speaks, prophets? To this it must be said that five things are required for someone to be a true prophet. The first is the revelation of things that exceed human knowledge; otherwise he is not called a prophet but a wise man, as Solomon, whose mind was illumined regarding things that are according to human reason. Hence he is not called a prophet by the Jews, but a wise man. The second is understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, unless he understood the things revealed, he would not be a prophet. Understanding is needed in vision, Dan. 10:1, and hence it is that Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who understood it. The third is that the prophet, in the things seen, by which he is carried out of himself, is not held fast in the things themselves, but as in figures; otherwise he would not be a prophet, but a madman, who apprehends the things imagined as the things themselves. Jer. 23:28: "he who has a dream, let him tell a dream, and he who has my word, let him speak my word." The fourth is that he perceive the things revealed with certainty, as one knowing through demonstration, as it were; otherwise it would be a dream, and not prophecy. Is. 50:5: "the Lord has opened my ear, and I do not contradict, I have not gone back." The fifth is that there be present the will to announce the things that have been revealed; hence Daniel too is said by some not to be a prophet, because he did not receive the things revealed in a mode that could be declared; hence it is not said that "the word of the Lord came to Daniel," as is said of the other prophets. Jer. 20:8f.: "the word of the Lord has become to me a reproach, and a derision all the day, and I said: I will not remember him, nor speak any more in his name; and there came to be in my heart, as it were, a burning fire." But again the question is raised why he says "in the prophets," when he ought rather to have said "through the prophets." To this it must be said that he did this in order to exclude the error of certain men. First indeed the error of Porphyry, who said that the prophets spoke the things they said by feigning, and not from the Holy Spirit. And against this he says "in the prophets," as if to say that they did not speak of themselves, but God spoke in them. 2 Pet. 1:21: "for prophecy was not brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit." Second, to exclude the error of certain men, who said that prophecy is something natural and is had through a natural disposition, as when someone melancholic is of so strong an imagination that he apprehends the things imagined as certain, and as the things themselves. And therefore he says "has spoken in the prophets," as if to say: prophecy is not had by way of a natural disposition and passion, but through an inward speaking from God. John 3:8: "the Spirit breathes where he wills." Third, against the error of those who said that prophecy is had by way of a habit, like knowledge, namely so that a man may prophesy whenever he wills. This is not true, since the spirit of prophecy is not present to the prophets always, but when their mind is divinely illumined. Hence, 4 Kings 4:27, Elisha says: "her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord has hidden it from me." And therefore he says "in the prophets," as if to say: it is not had by all, and always, as a habit, but by those in whom it pleases God to speak. Fourth, to exclude the error of Priscilla and Montanus, who said that the prophets did not understand the things they said, which is not true. Hence it is said, Haggai 1:3: "the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet"; "by the hand," that is, in his power. And 1 Cor. 14:32: "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." And therefore he says "in the prophets," that is, in the understanding and power of the prophets. Thus therefore the property of Christ is clear, that he is a natural son. John 14:10: "the Father is in me, and I in the Father." But is he among those sons of whom it is said in Ps. 81:6: "I have said: you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High"? Far from it, because they are called sons along with all things, but he is appointed heir and lord of all things. Is he among those sons of whom it is said, John 1:12: "he gave them power to become sons of God," etc.? Indeed not, because they are called made sons, but he is the Son, through whom he also made the ages. Is he among those sons who glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God? Rom. 5:2. Indeed not, because they are sons through the hope of the glory of God which they have, but he is the very brightness of that glory. Others are called sons because they are made to the image of this Son. Rom. 8:29: "whom he foreknew to become conformed to the image of his Son"; but he is the very image, and the figure of his substance. Others are called sons as containing in themselves the word of God, according to that word of Phil. 2:15: "that they may be without blame, and simple sons of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding the word of life." But this Son carries all things by the word of his power. Therefore the excellence of Christ is clear with respect to the property of his origin, and at large with respect to the other sons of God; through which the eminence of the New Testament over the Old is shown. But nevertheless in both places it says "has spoken," or "speaking," and this denotes that the same one is the author of the Old and the New Testament, against the Manichean. Eph. 2:18: "through him we both have access in one Spirit," etc. Rom. 3:29: "is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?" Likewise that was handed down to our fathers, but this to us, that is, to the apostles, who saw Christ in his own person. Deut. 5:3: "he did not make a covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are present and living here." Likewise that was through the prophets, but this is in the Son, that is, through the Son, who is the lord of the prophets. John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared." And on this occasion the Apostle introduces that he is the Son. Consequently he shows the greatness of Christ's lordship, when he says "whom he appointed heir"; because, as it is said, Gal. 4:7: "if a son, then an heir also through God." But in Christ there are two natures, namely divine and human. According, therefore, as he is a natural son, he is not appointed heir, but is a natural heir; but insofar as he is man, he was made a son of God. Rom. 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." And according to this he is appointed heir of all things, as the true son of the Father. Matt., last chapter: "all power has been given to me." And this with respect to the whole creation, over which he received lordship. Likewise not only with respect to one race of men, but of all, namely both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. Ps. 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance," etc. "Whom he appointed heir of all things." Having shown the excellence of Christ with respect to the property of his origin, here he shows his excellence with respect to the majesty of his lordship; and indeed he fittingly joins together "has spoken in the Son" and "appointed heir," because "if sons, then heirs also," Rom. 8:17. Now it must be known that in Christ there are two natures, namely divine and human; but according to the divine nature, just as he is not appointed son, since he is a natural son from eternity, so neither is he appointed heir, but from eternity he is a natural heir. But according to the human nature, just as he was made a son of God — Rom. 1:3: "who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh" — so too he was made heir of all things. And with respect to this he says "whom he appointed heir," that is, lord, of all things. Matt. 21:38: "this is the heir, come, let us kill him." Micah 1:15: "yet will I bring an heir to you who dwell in Maresa; the glory of Israel shall come even to Odollam." And indeed according to the divine nature it belongs to Christ to be an heir begotten, and lord. And first indeed, because he himself is the power of God, and the wisdom of God, 1 Cor. 1:24, through whom the Father makes all things. And therefore if the Father is called lord of all by reason of creation, likewise also the Son, through whom all things are brought into being, is lord. Prov. 8:30: "I was with him, forming all things." Second, because the Son is the Father's wisdom, by which he governs all things. Wis. 8:1 it is said of wisdom: "she reaches from end to end," etc. If therefore the Father is called lord by reason of governance — Wis. 14:3: "but you, Father, govern all things," etc. — then lordship also belongs to the Son. Likewise the Father is lord, inasmuch as all things are ordered to him, as to the first principle, and the end of all things; likewise also the Son, who is the wisdom of God, preceding all things, is lord. Ecclus. 1:3: "the wisdom of God going before all things — who shall search it out?" Prov. 16:4: "the Lord has made all things for himself." But according to the human nature it also belongs to Christ to be appointed heir and lord of all things. First indeed by reason of the union, from this very fact, namely, that that man was assumed into the person of the Son of God. Acts 5:31: "this one God has appointed lord and savior." Eph. 1:21: "he set him above every principality and power," etc. Second by reason of power, because all things obey him, and serve him. Matt., last chapter: "all power in heaven has been given to me," etc. Third by reason of subjection. Phil. 2:10: "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow," etc. But he says "of all things," which refers to the whole universality of nature, over which he received lordship, according to that word of Ps. 8:8: "you have subjected all things under his feet." Likewise it refers to every race of men, so that the sense is: of all, that is, both of the Jews, and also of all other men, according to that word of Ps. 2:8: "ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance," etc. And of this it is said, Esther 13:11: "you are the Lord of all." Consequently, when he says "through whom he also made the ages," he shows the power of Christ's operation, why he was appointed heir of all things — not that he himself came to be in time and merited this by the merit of a good life, as Photinus says, but that all things were made through him equally, as also through the Father. For through him the Father made the ages. But it must be known that this preposition "through" denotes the cause of an act. But this is in two ways: in one way, because it is the cause of the making on the part of the one making, as when, namely, the causal term to which it is joined is the cause of the action according as it goes out from the agent. For the making is always a medium between the one making and the thing made. It can therefore denote, with respect to the agent, a final cause, as a craftsman works for profit; sometimes a formal cause, as fire heats through heat; but sometimes an efficient cause, as a bailiff acts through the king. In none of these ways is the Son the cause of the Father, that the Father should operate through him, just as neither that he should be from him. But sometimes the causal term is the cause of the action according as it terminates at the thing made, as a craftsman works by means of a hammer. For the hammer is not the cause of the craftsman, that he act, but it is the cause to the thing crafted, that it should proceed from the craftsman — as to the iron, that it receive the operation from the craftsman — and thus the Son is the cause of the thing made, and the Father operates through the Son. But is the Son less than the Father? It seems that he is, because that which is the cause of the thing made, that it be made, seems to have the character of an instrument. But to this it must be said that if there were not the same power numerically in the Son and the Father, and the same operation, the objection would hold. Now, therefore, the power and operation of the Father and the Son are the same, just as their nature and being are also the same, and the Father is said to make the ages through him, because he begot him as one operating the ages. John 5:19: "whatever the Father does, the Son also does." "Age" is said of the span of a temporal thing. The ages, therefore, are the successions of times; he did not, therefore, make only everlasting times, according as certain philosophers said that God made only what is everlasting, and that the angels created things temporal, but he also made temporal things, which he here calls ages. Below, 11:3: "by faith we understand that the ages were fitted together." John 1:3: "all things were made through him." In this, therefore, he removes the error of the Manichean in two ways. First in this, that he says he is the author of the Old Testament; second, that he says he made temporal things.”

“Above, the Apostle showed the excellence of Christ as to the property of his origin, as to the majesty of his dominion, and as to the power of his operation; but here he shows his excellence as to the sublimity of glory and dignity. And this part is divided into two. For first he shows that Christ is fit for this dignity; second he sets down the dignity itself, where he says, he sits at the right hand. Now he shows the fitness from two things which render someone fit for something great: one is facility in administering, the other is industry and vigor in carrying out. First, therefore, he shows his facility; second, his vigor, where he says, making purgation of sins. Concerning the first, it must be known that three things are required which make for facility in administering some dignity. The first indeed is wisdom, lest he err in governing. Ecclesiastes 10:5: There is also an evil that I have seen under the sun, as it were an error proceeding from the face of the prince: a fool set in high dignity. Proverbs 8:15: By me kings reign. The second is nobility of lineage, lest he be despised in commanding. Proverbs, last chapter: Her husband is noble in the gates, when he sits with the senators of the land. The third is power of strength in carrying out. Ecclesiasticus 7:6: Seek not to be made a judge, unless thou have strength to break through iniquities. And as to these three things the Apostle shows in Christ the facility for the aforesaid dignity. First, because he is not only wise, but also is wisdom itself; hence he says, who being the splendor of glory. Second, because he is not only noble, but is nobility itself, because he is the figure of his substance. Third, because he is not only powerful, but is power itself, upholding all things by his word, etc. Now there are three things, as was said above, which make a man fit to attain a great dignity. The first is the brightness of wisdom. Proverbs 3:35: The wise shall possess glory. And therefore he shows the wisdom of Christ, saying, who being the splendor of glory. Here it must be considered that, according to Ambrose, glory is a bright knowledge together with praise, as it were a certain manifest knowledge which is had concerning someone's goodness. But, as is said in Matthew 19:17: None is good but God alone, and also Luke 18:19; hence he himself is goodness by antonomasia and by essence. But other good things are so by participation, and thus glory by antonomasia belongs to God alone. Isaiah 42:8: I will not give my glory to another. 1 Timothy 1:17: To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, to the only God, honor and glory. The knowledge, therefore, of the divine goodness is called glory in an excellent way and by antonomasia, that is, a bright knowledge together with praise of the divine goodness. This is had in some measure by man, because now I know in part, 1 Corinthians 13:12, but it is had more excellently by the angels, but perfectly by God alone. For no one has ever seen God, John 1:18 — this is true — nor do the angels see him comprehensively, but he alone comprehends himself. Therefore only the knowledge God has of himself is perfectly called glory, because he has a perfect and most clear knowledge of himself. Now since splendor is that which is first emitted from what shines, and wisdom is something that shines — Ecclesiasticus 8:1: the wisdom of a man shines in his countenance — hence it is that the first conception of wisdom is, as it were, a certain splendor. The Word of the Father, therefore, which is a certain concept of his intellect, is the splendor of the wisdom by which he knows himself. And therefore the Apostle calls the Son the splendor of glory, that is, of bright divine knowledge. In this he shows him to be not only wise, but wisdom begotten. Isaiah 62:1: until her just one go forth as splendor, etc. The second thing which makes a man fit for great dignity is nobility of lineage. And he shows this to be in Christ, because he says that he is the figure of his substance. For it is fitting that nobility be joined with wisdom in a prince. Deuteronomy 1:15: And I took out of your tribes wise and noble men, and appointed them princes, etc. Figure is here put for character, or image; as if he were to say: the image of the substance. It must be known, however, that although image implies likeness, not every likeness is an image. For whiteness on a wall is not the image of my whiteness, but an image and likeness in species. That, therefore, is properly said to be the image of something, which has the likeness of its species, or an expressed sign of the species. But among accidents, nothing is so much an expressed sign as figure is of species. Hence whoever describes the figure of an animal, describes its image. The Son, therefore, who is the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15, is properly called figure. But of what? Of his substance. For the image of something is manifold. Sometimes it is a sign representing the species while agreeing with it in nothing, as the image of a man on a wall, which in no way has the true species of a man. But sometimes it is assimilated to it in species, not only in representing, but also in being, as the son is the true image of the father. Genesis 5:3: Adam begot a son to his own image, that is, in the nature of the species. And therefore he adds of his substance, because, according to Augustine, the son is called the image of the father because he is of the same nature with him. He says, therefore, that he is the figure of the substance. But why does he not say that he is the figure of nature? Because it is possible that the nature of a species be multiplied to a multitude of individuals in things composed of matter and form. Hence the son of Socrates does not have the same nature numerically as his father. But substance is never multiplied. For the substance of the father is not one thing and that of the son another. Nor indeed is it divided according to diverse individuals. Because, therefore, the nature is one and the same in number in the Father and the Son of God, he therefore does not say of nature, which is divided, but of substance, which is indivisible. John 10:30: I and the Father are one. And chapter 14:10: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. The third thing which makes a man fit is strength and power. Hence Ecclesiasticus 7:6: Seek not to be a judge, unless thou have strength to break through iniquities. And therefore he shows the power, when he says, and upholding all things by the word of his power. Now it is proper to princes and to the powerful to carry. Job 9:13: under whom they stoop that bear up the world. He therefore upholds. But it must be seen what he upholds, and how, or by what. As to the first, it must be known that that which of itself can neither stand nor walk needs to be carried. But every creature of itself can neither subsist nor operate. The first is evident, because when the cause is removed, the effect is removed; but God is the cause of every substance, since he is no less the cause of the substance of a thing as to its coming to be, than the house-builder is the cause of the house's coming to be; hence, just as at the absence of the house-builder the house's coming to be ceases, and at the absence of the sun the coming to be and the being of light in the air ceases, so at the withdrawal of the divine power the being, and the coming to be, and the subsisting of every creature ceases. He upholds, therefore, all things as to their being. He upholds also all things as to their operating, because, his influence being withdrawn, all the motion of the second causes ceases, since he himself is the first cause, and the first cause has more influence than the second. Job 38:6: upon what were its bases made fast. Thus, therefore, it is clear that he upholds all things. But by what does he uphold them? By the word of his power. For since the Apostle, speaking of the creation of things, had said that God made all things through the Son — since indeed he had said, by whom also he made the worlds — he through whom someone operates does not seem to operate by his own power, but by the power of him who operates through him; just as the bailiff, through whom the king acts, does not act by his own power. Therefore by this it seems that the Son does not operate by his own power. Therefore the Apostle says that he upholds by the word of his power, because, since the cause of being and of preserving is the same, when he says that the Son by his own power is the cause of preservation, he shows that he is also the cause of being. But is it not also by the power of the Father? Indeed, by his power too, because the power of both is the same. He operates, therefore, both by his own power, and by the power of the Father, because he has his own power from the Father. Yet the Apostle does not say by his own power, but by the word of his power, to show that, just as the Father produced all things through the Word — Psalm 32:9: he spoke, and they were made, etc., in which the greatest power of the Father is shown — so the Son made all things by the same Word, which is himself. And in this the Apostle shows the power of his might, because he has the same power as the Father, since he operates the same things and by the same means as the Father. But then there is a doubt: because the Father, when he speaks, produces the Word. Therefore the Son, when he speaks, would produce a word, and thus the word of the Father would be the word of the Son. And to this the Greeks say that just as the Son is the image of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. And thus Basil expounds upholding by the word of his power, that is, by the Holy Spirit. For just as the Son is the word of the Father, so, as they say, the Holy Spirit is the word of the Son. And therefore the Son acts through him, just as the Father acts through the Son. Nevertheless, properly speaking, that alone is called a word which proceeds as a concept from the intellect, upon which it follows to proceed into a likeness of species. But the Holy Spirit, even if he is like, does not however have this from the mode of his procession, because he does not proceed as a concept from the intellect, but as love from the will. But the Gloss expounds by the word of his power otherwise, that is, by his command. But here there is still a doubt about what this word may be, because a man's command is either exterior, uttered by voice — and this cannot be said in divine matters, since nothing extrinsic to the divine nature, proceeding from the Son, exists by which all things might be upheld — or that command is interior, conceived in the heart; but this too cannot stand, because nothing is conceived in the mind of God except the eternal Word. Therefore this command, thus conceived in the mind of the Son, would be the eternal Word, and thus there would be two eternal words, which it is unlawful to say. Therefore to the argument it must be said, as Augustine expounds that text of John 12:48: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him, that is, I myself, who am the word of the Father, shall judge him. And likewise, in the matter proposed, by the word of his power, that is, by himself, who is the powerful word. By these three things, therefore, he shows three things about Christ. For by this, that he is the splendor, he shows his co-eternity with the Father. In creatures, splendor is coeval, but he is co-eternal. And this is against Arius. But when he says the image of the substance, he shows his consubstantiality. For since splendor is not of the same nature as that which shines, lest perhaps someone believe that he is not similar in nature, he says that he is the image, or figure, of the substance. But because the Son, even if he is of the same nature as the Father, yet if he were weak, would fall short of the power of the Father; therefore he adds, upholding all things by the word of his power. The Apostle, therefore, in these three things, commends Christ from three things, namely from co-eternity, from consubstantiality, and from equality of power. Then, when he says making purgation of sins, he shows the second thing which makes for the fitness of his dignity, namely the vigor and the industry which he had in acting. For it was a mark of great industry that what belonged to him from the nature by which he is God, he himself merited through the passion in the nature he assumed. Hence Philippians 2:8f.: he became obedient unto death; for which cause God also hath exalted him. To purge sins, therefore, although it belongs to him from the divine nature, yet it belongs to him also from the merit of the passion. Hence Ecclesiasticus 47:13: Christ purged away his sins, and exalted his horn for ever, etc. Matthew 1:21: For he shall save his people from their sins. It belongs also to Christ to purge, by reason of the divine nature, and by reason of the property of the Son. By reason of the divine nature, because guilt or sin is properly the evil of the rational creature. But this evil, or sin, cannot be repaired except through God. For sin consists in the will, but only God can move the will. Jeremiah 17:9f.: The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who shall know it? I am the Lord, etc. And the reason for this is that what is more immediate to the end is not reduced to that end except by the first agent cause. But the will is of the last end, namely for the enjoying of God; and therefore it is moved and reduced only by God. Since therefore Christ is true God, it is manifest that he can make purgation of sins. Isaiah 43:25: I am he who blot out your iniquities for my own sake, etc. Luke 2:7: Who can forgive sins, but God alone? But by reason of the property, it belongs also to Christ. For the evidence of this it must be known that in sin, first indeed there is a transgression of the eternal law and of the divine right, since every sin is iniquity, which is a transgression of the law. Isaiah 24:5: they have changed the right, they have broken the everlasting covenant. Since therefore the eternal law and the divine right are from the eternal Word, it is manifest that the purgation of sins belongs to Christ, insofar as he is the Word. Psalm 106:20: he sent his word, and healed them. Second, in sin there is the loss of the light of reason, and consequently of the wisdom of God in man, since this light is a certain participation of the divine wisdom. Baruch 3:28: and because they had not wisdom, therefore they perished. Proverbs 14:22: all they that work evil err. And according to the Philosopher, every evil man is ignorant. But the rectification unto the divine wisdom belongs to him who is the divine wisdom. But this is Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:23f.: we preach Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Wisdom 9:19: for by wisdom they were healed, whosoever have pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning. Third, in sin there is the deformation of the likeness of God in man. Proverbs 15:7: the heart of fools shall be unlike. Hence it is said, Luke 15:13, of the prodigal son, that he went into a far country. Of the prodigal son, that he went into a far country. And therefore it belongs to this deformation to be rectified through the Son, who is the image of the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:49: as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. Fourth, the loss of the eternal inheritance, in sign of which man after sin was excluded from Paradise, Genesis 3:23. But the reparation of this properly belongs to the Son, who is the heir. Romans 8:17: if sons, also heirs. Galatians 4:4f.: God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them who were under the law, and that we might receive the adoption of sons of God. Thus, therefore, it is clear that it belongs to Christ to purge sins, both by reason of the human nature, and by reason of the divine. But how did he make the purgation of sins? This is clear from the following. For in sin, first there is a perversity of the will, by which man withdraws from the unchangeable good, and to rectify this, Christ furnished justifying grace. Romans 3:24: justified freely by his grace. Second, there is a stain left in the soul from the perversity of the will, and to wash this away he furnished his own blood. Apocalypse 1:5: he loved us, and washed us from sins, etc. Third, there is the guilt of punishment to which man is bound because of the fault, and to satisfy for this he offered himself as a sacrifice to God on the altar of the cross. Ephesians 5:2: Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her. Fourth, the servitude of the Devil, to which man is made subject by sinning, because he who commits sin is the servant of sin, and to snatch us from this, he redeemed us. Psalm 30:6: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth. Consequently, when he says he sits at the right hand, he subjoins the dignity itself, as if he were to say: it does not seem unfitting if he sits, etc. Because he himself is the splendor and the figure, and upholds all things, etc. Now in the word sitting three things are usually implied. One is the authority of the one sitting. Job 29:25: and when I sat as a king, with his army standing about him, etc. But in the divine court many stand by, since Daniel 7:10: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him. But none is read to sit there, because all there are servants and ministers. Below, in the same: all are ministering spirits, sent to minister. But this one alone has royal dignity. Daniel 7:22: and he came even unto the ancient of days, and afterward it follows: and he gave him power, and honor, and a kingdom, etc. Matthew 25:31: when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all his angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty, and afterward it follows: then shall the king say to these, etc. The second is the stability of the one sitting. Luke, last chapter: sit ye in the city, etc. Daniel 7:14: his power is an everlasting power, etc.; and below, 13:8: Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same forever. Also, sometimes sitting implies humility, because one sitting is lower than those standing. Psalm 138:2: thou hast known my sitting down. And it is not taken in this way here, but in the first two ways. But against this, Acts 7:56: behold, I see the heavens opened, and Jesus standing, etc. And it must be said that sitting, and standing, and dispositions of this kind are said of God according to likeness. And therefore according to different aspects, he is said both to sit and to stand. Sitting indeed on account of immobility; but standing on account of usefulness for resisting strongly. Hence he stood as one ready to help Stephen, set in his agony. But the Apostle adds that he sits at the right hand. This, if it be referred to the divine nature, has the sense: at the right hand, that is, at the equality of the Father. But if to the human nature, the sense is: at the right hand, that is, in the more excellent goods of the Father. Mark, last chapter: he sits at the right hand of God. Psalm 109:1 and Matthew 22:44: the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand. But among those who have assessors, some are greater simply, as a king or emperor; but some are not greater simply, but in a certain respect, as provosts, or bailiffs. But Christ does not sit at the right hand of some inferior judge, as of some provost, like a bailiff, but of one greater simply, because at the right hand of majesty. Majesty is properly the highest power. Isaiah 6:3: the whole earth was full of his majesty. Proverbs 25:27: he that is a searcher of majesty, shall be overwhelmed by glory. But Christ, even though he thus sits at the right hand of majesty, nevertheless himself also has majesty, because he has the same majesty as the Father. Matthew 25:31: when the Son of man shall come in his majesty. Luke 9:26: him shall the Son of man be ashamed of, when he shall come in his own majesty, and that of the Father. He says also not only of majesty, but also on high, that is, above every creature. Ecclesiasticus 24:7: I dwell in the highest places. Thus, therefore, he sits on high, because he is raised above every creature. Psalm 8:2: for thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens. And according to what Chrysostom says, the Apostle in this passage keeps the manner of one wishing to instruct a little child, who does not at once set before him the highest things, but leads him on little by little, now speaking of lofty matters, now setting forth the lowest; thus also he now sets forth divine things, when he says in the Son, now human things, when he says whom he appointed heir, etc. And so of the others, as is clear in the Gloss.”

“As was said above, the Apostle throughout the whole chapter intends to set Christ before the Angels as to excellence, and so he has set down four things pertaining to the excellence of Christ: namely as to origin, because he is Son; as to lordship, because he is heir; as to operation, because he himself made the ages; as to honor, because he sits at the right hand of majesty. Now the Apostle in this part shows that Christ, as to these four things, surpasses the Angels; and first as to sonship; second as to lordship, where he says and again when he brings in; third as to the operation of creation, where he says and thou, Lord, in the beginning hast founded the earth; fourth as to the Father's confession, where he says but to which of the Angels. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets forth what he intends; second he proves what he has proposed, where he says for to which. He says therefore so much better than the Angels, that is, holier, and therefore closer, in which he sets forth the excellence of Christ over the Angels. Eph. 1:20: setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality and power. But then a question arises how the Apostle understands this, whether according to the divine nature or the human, since according to the divine it does not seem true, because according to that he was begotten, not made; but according to the human he is not better than the Angels, as below, chapter 2: but him who by a little than the Angels, and so on. But it must be said that Christ according to human nature had two things in this life, namely the infirmity of the flesh, and thus he was made lower than the Angels — below, chapter 2: him who by a little, and so on. Likewise he had the fullness of grace, and thus also in his humanity he was greater than the Angels in grace and glory. Jn. 1:14: we saw him as it were the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. But this is not the understanding meant here. For the Apostle does not understand that he was made better as to grace, but on account of the union of the human nature to the divine; and thus he is said to have been made, insofar as through the accomplishing of that union he came to this, that he should be better than the Angels, and should be called and should be the Son of God. And therefore he adds as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. And as to this name, he shows the difference as to three things: namely as to the signification of the name, because the proper name of the Angels is that they are called Angels, which is the name of a minister — for Angel is the same as messenger — but the proper name of Christ is that he is called the Son of God. And this name is very much more different from that one, because however much difference you posit, there is still a greater one to be given, since they differ infinitely. Prov. 30:4: what is his name, and what is the name of his son, if thou knowest? For the name of his son, like that of the Father, is incomprehensible. Phil. 2:9: and gave him a name which is above every name. But perhaps you will say that the Angels too are called sons of God. Job 1:6 and 2:1: when the sons of God stood before the Lord, and so on. It must be said that if they are called sons of God, this is not essentially and by nature, but by a certain participation. But he himself is essentially the Son of God, and therefore has a name more different than theirs; and this is the second point, for they differ as to the manner. Ps. 88:7: who among the sons of God is like to God? As if to say: none, by nature. As to the third he says that he inherited that name. For an inheritance follows upon origin. Hence Christ has it that he is Son from his origin, and by nature; but the Angels have it from the gift of grace. Matt. 21:38: this is the heir. Hence he inherited the name, but not the Angels, and this is the third difference. Then when he says for to which of the Angels said he at any time, he proves what he said; and first he treats of the name as it belongs to Christ according to divinity; second according to humanity, where he says and again, I will be, and so on. As to the first he brings in the authority of Ps. 2:7: the Lord hath said to me, and so on. And this is for to which of the Angels, etc., as if to say: to none of the Angels were these words spoken, but only to Christ. Where three things can be noted. First, the manner of origin, in the word said; second, the singularity of the sonship, where he says thou art my son; third, his authority, where he says I this day. This manner is not carnal but spiritual and intellectual. For God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, and therefore he does not beget carnally, but spiritually and intellectually. Now the intellect, in speaking, begets a word, which is its concept, and therefore he pointedly said that the Lord said to me, that is, the Father said to the Son. For the Father's intellect to speak, then, is nothing other than to conceive a word in the heart. Ps. 44:2: my heart hath uttered a good word. Job 33:14: he speaketh once, and repeateth not the same thing a second time. Ecclus. 24:5: I came out of the mouth of the most High. But as to the second, this generation is singular, for he says thou art my son, as if to say: although many others are called sons, yet to be a natural son belongs to him alone; the others are called sons of God because they are participants of the Word of God. Jn. 10:35: he called them gods to whom the word of God was made; but Christ is the very Word. Matt. 17:5: this is my beloved son. But as to the third, this generation is not temporal but eternal, for this day have I begotten thee. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as motion does, whose measure lies in variation and succession, and therefore it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of a thing immovable, and therefore there is no variation there by succession, but it is always present; and therefore it is denoted by the adverb of present time, namely today, that is, in eternity. But because that which is coming to be, since it is not yet, is on that account incomplete, whereas that which has been made is complete, and thus perfect; therefore he does not say I beget thee but I have begotten, because he is perfect. Yet lest his generation be thought to be entirely in the past, and consequently in defect, he adds today. And he joins the past to the present, namely today and I have begotten, that you may know that this generation always is, and is perfect, and thus in today its permanence, and in I have begotten its perfection, is designated. So that the sense is: thou art perfect, O Son, and yet thy generation is eternal, and thou art always begotten of me; just as light in the air is perfect, and yet always proceeds from the sun. Mic. 5:2: his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Ps. 109:3: from the womb before the day-star I begot thee. This could also be expounded of a temporal generation, so that he says today, that is, in time, I have begotten thee. Next, when he says and again: I will be to him a father, etc., he shows what he has proposed, according as it belongs to Christ according to his humanity, and this by another authority. According to the Gloss, this is said in Isaiah, I will be to him a father, yet nothing quite like this is found in Isaiah except this: and a son is given to us. But in 2 Kings 7:14 and 1 Chron. 22:10 these same words of the Lord are found, spoken to David concerning Solomon, by whom Christ was prefigured. Now it should be known that in the Old Testament certain things are said of one who is a figure, not insofar as he is a certain thing, but insofar as he is a figure, and then it is not to be expounded of him except insofar as it is referred to the thing figured. For example, in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David, or of Solomon, only insofar as they prefigured Christ. But certain things are said of them also according as they are certain men, and these sayings about them can be expounded also of Christ; as this: give to the king thy judgment, O God, since that can apply to Solomon. But those things that are said of them insofar as they are a figure can never be expounded of them, as this: and he shall rule from sea to sea, etc., because this can in no way be verified of Solomon. So too in the case before us, although these words were said of Solomon, yet they can be expounded of Christ, who was prefigured by him. He says therefore I will be, which is of future time, to denote that the incarnation of the Son was to be in time. Gal. 4:4: but when the fullness of time was come, and so on. Above, however, when he was speaking of the eternal generation, he said thou art, as it were without motion; but here, when he speaks of the temporal, he says into a son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies motion into sonship. And since every motion comes about through the operation of someone, terminated at some effect, therefore he first sets down the operation of the one acting, because the assumption was made not by the power of the humanity, but of the divinity, when he says I will be to him a father, that is, I will assume him to the union of the person of the Son. And he adds the effect that follows, namely that, because he has been received into the personal unity of the Son, he shall be to me a son. Of the first it is said, Lk. 1:35: the power of the Most High, namely that which makes the assumption, shall overshadow thee. Of the second, Rom. 1:3: who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh. Again, I will be to him, that is, unto his honor and benefit I will glorify him. Jn. 17:5: glorify me, Father. And he shall be to me, that is, unto my honor, by manifesting my name to men. Jn. 17:6: I have manifested thy name, and so on. Then when he says and again, etc., he treats of the lordship of Christ, by which he is heir of all things. Where he does three things: first he shows his lordship, and especially over the Angels; second he sets down the reason for that lordship on the part of the Angels, where he says and to the angels; third on the part of Christ, where he says but to the son. As to the first he brings in the authority of Ps. 96:7, when he says: adore him, all his angels; this is found in Ps. 96:1: the Lord hath reigned, let there be rejoicing, and so on. For adoration is not paid except to a lord; therefore if the Angels adore him, he is their lord. The Apostle, wishing to bring in this authority, first touches upon the intention of the Psalmist, when he says and when again he bringeth in, etc., that the Psalmist speaks of the coming of Christ into the world. And therefore he says: and when Scripture bringeth in, that is, is about to bring in, it saith firstborn, etc.; as if to say: it has already been said that Christ is Son above the Angels; therefore he is principally begotten from the Father. He is therefore to be called firstborn. Rom. 8:29: that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. Now this firstborn was to be brought into the world, and so on. And see how orderly the Apostle speaks. For first he says that he himself is from the Father, where he says I will be to him a father; second, that he was assumed into the unity of the person, where he says and he shall be to me a son; but now he sets him forth into the knowledge of men. Now he calls the incarnation a bringing in unto the world. But against this: Christ himself calls it a going out. Jn. 16:28: I came out from the Father, and am come into the world. And it must be said that a going out is also a bringing in. Just as, if someone is to be reconciled to a prince, first a mediator goes out to him and afterward brings him in. A similar thing is found in 1 Kings 20:5 and following, concerning David toward Jonathan. So Christ, the mediator of God and men, first went out to men, and afterward brought them back in reconciled. Below, 2:10: who had brought many sons into glory, and so on. Or he bringeth in, that is, leads him even into the hearts of men, because Scripture, speaking of the coming of Christ, says that he is to be received within the hearts of men. Now this reception comes about through faith. Eph. 3:17: Christ to dwell by faith in your hearts. Ps. 95:3: declare his glory among the nations. For when Scripture says that the nations ought to believe, it says that Christ is about to enter into their heart. Now this word again, which he uses, is expounded in many ways. For Chrysostom says that concerning the incarnation of the Word, which is called a bringing in, Scripture does not speak once, but again and again. Or otherwise, because he himself was first in the world through the power of his divinity invisibly, but again he is brought into the world according to the presence of his humanity, visibly. Or otherwise, because above he had said I will be to him a father, that is, I will assume him into personal unity with myself. And when again he bringeth in him, namely this firstborn one, assumed to the unity of the person: because it would not suffice to say that he is brought in, unless it were said how he is brought in, namely that it is not as one of the world, nor as the Angels, but above all. Therefore he says let all the angels adore him. Neh. 9:6: the host of heaven adoreth thee. Apoc. 7:11: all the angels stood round about the throne, and they fell down, and adored, and so on. Then when he says and to the angels, etc., the reason is set down on the part of the Angels why they adore him, as if to say: it is just that they should adore him, because they are ministers. Hence he says who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. For God sometimes operates by illuminating the intellect. Jn. 1:9: he enlighteneth every man, and so on. But sometimes he moves to a work. Is. 26:12: thou hast wrought all our works in us. And the first, God does in us by the mediation of the Angels. Ps. 75:5: thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills. The second also he does in us, they themselves being the intermediaries, as Dionysius says in chapter 4 of the Celestial Hierarchy. Insofar, therefore, as he enlightens through them, they are called messengers, for it belongs to messengers to announce those things that are in the heart of their lord. But insofar as they are the intermediaries of divine works, they are called ministers. Ps. 102:21: his ministers, that do his will. They are therefore both messengers and ministers. But of what sort they are, he describes them by two corporeal things most fitting for this. One is air, whose property greatly suits a messenger, while the property of fire suits a minister. For air is receptive of light and of impressions; likewise it renders very well what it has received; likewise it has swift motion. Now a good messenger ought to have these qualities, namely that he receive well what is said, report well what he has received, and do both swiftly. These things fit the Angels well. For they receive divine illuminations most excellently. For the Angels are clean mirrors, according to Dionysius. Matt. 18:10: and their angels in heaven, and so on. Likewise they render most excellently, which is signified in Apoc. 1:1: God signified the things which must shortly come to pass, speaking by his angel to his servant John, and so on. Likewise they are swift. Is. 18:2: go, ye swift angels, and so on. Now these are called spirits, because every invisible substance is called spirit; hence also air is called spirit. Likewise they are fire, insofar as ministers. Now fire, among all the elements, is most active and efficacious for acting. Hence in Ps. 103:4, concerning the Angels, where they are called his ministers, there it is added and thy ministers a burning fire. Likewise fire causes heat, by which charity is designated. Cant. 8:6: lamps of fire and flames. Hence they are described in fire, and are called Seraphim, Is. 6:2. Likewise fire always moves upward; so the Angels and good ministers, whatever they do, always refer it to the glory of God, as is clear of the Angel, Tob. 12:6: bless ye the God of heaven, and so on. He does not say: bless me, but the God of heaven. Not so of the evil angel, who says, Matt. 4:9: if falling down thou wilt adore me. But the good Angel, as a good minister, says, Apoc. last: see thou do it not, and there follows: adore God.”

“Above the Apostle proved by authority that the Angels are ministers; here he proves this by an argument taken from the side of Christ himself. Hence he intends here to prove the kingly dignity of Christ; and here he does two things. First he commends the kingly dignity of Christ himself; second he shows his fitness for that dignity, at the place: therefore God has anointed you. Concerning the first he does three things: first he commends the kingly authority of Christ; second, the equity of his rule, at: a rod of equity; third, the goodness of his rule, at: you have loved justice. He says therefore: but to the Son he says, your throne, etc. And these are the words of God the Father speaking through the tongue of the prophet, as through the pen of a scribe. He says therefore: O God, O son, your throne, etc. In this royal majesty is denoted. For a throne is the seat of a king, but a chair is that of a teacher, and a tribunal is the seat of a judge. All of which befit Christ, because he himself is our king: Luke 1:32: he will reign in the house of Jacob; and therefore a throne befits him. Ps. 88:30: his throne is like the sun. He himself is teacher, John 3:2: we know that you have come from God as teacher; therefore a chair befits him. He himself is our judge, Is. 33:22: the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver; and therefore a tribunal is fitting for him. 2 Cor. 5:10: we must all be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ, etc. Now a throne belongs to Christ according to the divine nature, inasmuch as he is God, Ps. 46:8: God is king of all the earth; but according as he is man, it belongs to him from the merit of his passion, victory, and resurrection. Apoc. 3:21: to him who conquers I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I have conquered and sat down on my Father's throne with him. This throne is everlasting. Luke 1:33: and of his kingdom there will be no end. Dan. 7:14: his power is an everlasting power, which will not be taken away. Now it is clear that that kingdom is eternal, both inasmuch as it belongs to him from nature, because he is God. Ps. 144:13: your kingdom is a kingdom of all ages. Likewise, inasmuch as it belongs to him as man, and this for a twofold reason. One, because that kingdom is not ordered to temporal things, but to eternal ones. John 18:36: my kingdom is not of this world. For he reigns to this end, that he may direct men to eternal life. But it is not so with the kingdom of men; hence their kingdom ends with the present life. The other reason is that the Church, which is his kingdom, endures until the end of the world, and then Christ will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father, to be consummated and perfected. Next he commends his kingdom from equity, when he says: a rod of equity, etc. Now the kingdom is fittingly described by a rod. For tyrannical rule differs from the rule of a king, because tyrannical rule is for its own advantage with the oppression of subjects; but the rule of a king is principally ordered to the advantage of subjects. And therefore a king is a father and a shepherd. For a shepherd does not correct with a sword, but with a rod. Ps. 88:33: I will visit their iniquities with a rod. Likewise a shepherd uses a rod in directing the flock. Micah 7:14: feed your people with your rod. A rod also sustains the weak. Ps. 22:4: your rod and your staff, they have comforted me. Likewise a rod troubles enemies. Num. 24:17: a rod will arise out of Israel, and will strike the leaders of Moab. But this is a rod of equity. Is. 11:4: he will reprove in equity for the meek of the earth. But it must be known that sometimes someone rules by the rigor of law, as when he keeps those things which are just in themselves. But it happens that something is just in itself, which nevertheless, when compared to something, brings about detriment if it is kept; and therefore it is necessary that the common law be applied to this, and if this is done, then it is a rule of equity. The kingdom of the Old Testament was according to the rigor of justice. Acts 15:10: a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. But the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of equity and justice, because in it nothing is imposed except a gentle observance. Matt. 11:30: for my yoke is sweet and my burden is light. And Ps. 95:13: he will judge the world in equity. Next, when he says you have loved, etc., he commends the goodness of the ruler. For some keep equity, yet not on account of love of justice, but rather on account of fear, or glory, or dread, and such rule does not last. But this one keeps equity on account of love of justice. He says therefore, you have loved justice, as if to say: that the rod is equitable and straight, this is because you have loved justice. Wisdom 1:1: love justice, you who judge the earth. But he is not just who does not love justice. Matt. 5:6: blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice. But some indeed love justice, but are remiss in the correction of iniquity; but Christ hates, that is, reproves iniquity. Ps. 118:113: I have hated the iniquitous. Wisdom 14:9: likewise the impious man and his impiety are hateful to God. Ecclus. 12:3: the Most High hates sinners, and has had mercy on those who repent. And therefore he says: and you have hated iniquity. Then, when he says therefore God has anointed you, he shows Christ's fitness for carrying out and governing, where there is a difficulty concerning what he says, "therefore," etc. In these words there is treated the spiritual anointing, because Christ is filled with the Holy Spirit. For was he filled for this reason, because he loved justice? Then he merited grace, which is against that saying of Rom. 11:6: if by works, then it is no longer of grace; and this is the common difficulty. But specifically to the point, because Christ in his very conception was full of the Holy Spirit, John 1:14: full of grace and truth; therefore he did not merit it. I respond. Here the error of Origen must be guarded against. For he held that all spiritual creatures, even the soul of Christ, were created from the beginning, and according as they adhered more or less to God, or turned away from him through the freedom of their will, a distinction was made between angels and even souls. Hence in the Periarchon he says that the soul of Christ, because it adhered more vehemently to God, by loving justice and hating iniquity, merited a greater fullness of grace before all spiritual substances. But this is heretical to say, namely that any soul whatsoever, or even the soul of Christ, was created before the body — which also has a special reason in the case of Christ, because in the first instant the soul was created together with the forming of the body, and the whole was assumed by the Son of God. What then does he mean by "therefore"? One Gloss seems to hold with Origen. But if we wish to save it, we shall say that in Scripture something is said to happen when it becomes known; as when it is said, Phil. 2:8: he became obedient, etc., for which reason God also exalted him, and gave him a name, etc. Did Christ, by the merit of his passion, merit to be God? By no means: for this is the error of Photinus. It must be said therefore that Christ's being God exceeds all merit, but through his passion he merited that it be made manifest everywhere that he is God, and that God had given him such a name, etc. Thus that which he says here, therefore God has anointed you, etc. — so that the sense is: from the fact that you loved justice, you merited that this become known. Or otherwise, and better, in such a way that the word "therefore" denotes not a meritorious cause, but a final one; as if he were to say: in order that you might have those things — namely the perpetual throne, the rod of equity, etc., which have been mentioned — therefore God has anointed you with oil, namely of sanctification, which the Lord commanded to be done, Ex. 30:24ff: with which the vessels and the priests were anointed, Lev. 8:2 and 9:1f, and the kings, as is clear of David, 1 Kings 16:13, and of Solomon, 3 Kings 1:39; likewise the prophets, as is clear of Elisha, 3 Kings 19:16. But why was this sanctification done by anointing? The reason is literal. For men of the East were anointed for festivity, so that they might not waste away, because they are in a region very hot. The poor also were anointed for festivity. 4 Kings 4:2: your handmaid has nothing except a little oil with which to anoint myself. But in the divine Scripture things are handed down to us according to the manner in which men are accustomed to make use of. Because therefore men were then anointed, either on account of the celebration of a feast, or on account of the eminence of the person, therefore to show the excellence of Christ, he says he was anointed with the oil of exultation. For he himself is king. Is. 32:1: behold, a king will reign in justice. And 35: for the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he himself will come and save us. He is also a priest. Ps. 109:4: you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. He was also a prophet. Deut. 18:15: the Lord will raise up for you a prophet of your own nation and of your brothers, like me. And it befits him to be anointed with the oil of sanctification and exultation. From him, moreover, are the sacraments, which are the vessels of grace. Is. 22:24: I will hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the diverse kinds of vessels, etc. This anointing also befits Christians. For they are kings and priests. 1 Peter 2:9: you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood. Apoc. 5:10: you have made us a kingdom and priests to our God. Likewise he has the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of prophecy. Joel 2:28: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, etc. And therefore all are anointed, with an invisible anointing. 2 Cor. 1:21: now he who confirms us with you in Christ, and who has anointed us, is God, and who has sealed us, and has given, etc. 1 John 2:20: you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. But what comparison is there between Christ anointed and Christians anointed? This, namely that he has it principally and first, but we and others have it poured out from him. Ps. 127: like the ointment upon the head, etc. And he says: above your fellows. John 1:16: of his fullness we have all received. Hence the others are called saints, but he himself is the saint of saints. For he himself is the root of all holiness. But he says with the oil of gladness, or exultation, because from this anointing spiritual gladness proceeds. Rom. 14:17: the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Gal. 5:22: but the fruit of the spirit is charity, peace, joy. Ps. 103:15: that he might gladden the face with oil. Is. 61:3: the oil of joy for mourning, etc. Now that he says "God" twice — God, God — is explained in two ways. In one way, that the nominative case is repeated, so that the sense is: God has anointed you, through himself as God, but us through you, the mediator of God and men, the man Christ. 2 Pet. 1:4: through whom he has granted to us great and precious promises. In another way, because, according to Augustine in the Gloss, one is of the nominative case, the other of the vocative, so that the sense is: O Christ, who are God the Son, God the Father has anointed you, etc. And that it ought to be explained in this way is more evident in the Greek. But since Christ is not anointed according as he is God, because thus it does not befit him to receive the Holy Spirit, but rather to give it to others, the second exposition does not seem to be true. I respond. It must be said that he is the same in person, both God and man, yet he is anointed inasmuch as he is man. And when it is said: O God, etc., both the one anointing is God and man, and the one anointed likewise is God and man, and one with him in person.”

“Above, the Apostle had set forth four things in which Christ excels the Angels, and he proved two of them, namely, that he excels them because he is the Son, and because he is the heir; now he proves the third, namely, that he excels them in the power of operation, because through him the Father made also the ages. The Apostle proves this from the authority of that same prophecy, and concerning this he does two things. First, he shows the power of operation insofar as he is creator; second, as to the difference between the creator and the creature, at the place "they shall perish." Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets down the creation of the earth; second, of the heavens, at the place "and the works of your hands." Now concerning the first it must be known that this can be read in two ways: in one way, that the speech of the prophet is directed to the Father, so that the sense is: "You, Lord" — namely, God the Father — "have founded the earth in the beginning," that is, in your Son, who is the beginning. Jn. 8:25: "I am the beginning, who also speak to you." And this is worth as much as if he had said: you founded the earth through the Son: Ps. 103:24: "You have made all things in wisdom." But the Son is begotten Wisdom, hence above he called him "the splendor of glory." And what he says here corresponds to what he said above, "through whom he made also the ages." In another way, that the speech is directed to the Son, thus: "And you, Lord" — namely, Son — "have founded the earth in the beginning," namely of time, so as to exclude the opinion of those positing the eternity of the world; or "in the beginning," namely of the production of things, so as to exclude the opinion of those saying that corporeal things were not created together with spiritual things, but afterward. Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Ecclus. 18:1: "He who lives forever created all things together." Now it must be known that earth can be distinguished from heaven in three ways. In one way, and according to the letter, that by "earth" is understood the element earth, and by "heaven" the higher bodies; so that just as Moses makes no mention of air, because it goes along with water, so here by "heaven" is understood heaven itself and the other two elements, namely air and fire, which come closer to the nature of heaven, as is evident from their place. Moses also takes it in this way. And he says "you have founded," to show that three things pertain to the earth: first indeed the rest of the earth; for all other things share in motion, but the earth alone, according to its totality, remains immobile, so that the sense is "you have founded," that is, "you have made firm." Ps. 103:5: "Who has founded the earth upon its own stability." Second, to show the perpetuity of the earth, for the foundation of a building is more stable than its other parts. But the earth stands forever, Eccles. 1:4. And according to this he says "you have founded the earth," that is, "you have made it solid forever." Third, to show the order of the earth, because just as the foundation, which is the first part of a building, is at the bottom, so the earth holds the lowest place among all the elements. Is. 48:13: "My hand has founded the earth." Ps.: "His hands founded the dry land." But he does not say "you have made the heavens," but "the heavens are the works of your hands," because what someone makes with his hands, he seems to make more carefully. And therefore he speaks in this way to designate their nobility and beauty. Is. 48:13: "My right hand has measured the heavens." But otherwise, that by "earth" he understands the whole corporeal nature. And thus "you have founded the earth," because matter is the place and foundation of forms; but by "heavens," the spiritual substances. Ps. 148:4: "Praise him, you heavens of heavens." And these are the works of his hands, because he made them to his image and likeness. Or by "earth," the imperfect in the Church, because they are the foundation of the others; for unless the active life existed in the Church, the contemplative would not subsist. By "heavens," the contemplatives. And these were made in the Church "in the beginning," that is, through the Son. Is. 51:16: "I have put my words in your mouth, that you might found the earth" — that is, the imperfect — "and plant the heavens" — that is, the perfect. But as to the heavens he says, "the heavens are the works of your hands." Now he says "the works of your hands," and not simply, "you made the heavens," for four reasons. First, to exclude the error of those saying that God is the soul of heaven, and consequently that the whole world and its parts ought to be worshiped as God, which the idolaters also did; and he excludes this when he says "the heavens are the works of your hands," as if to say: they are not proportioned to you as a body to a soul, but are subject and proportioned to your power and your will. Deut. 4:19: "Lest perhaps, having lifted up your eyes to heaven, you see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error, you adore them." Second, to designate the dignity and beauty of the heavens, because we say we make with our hands that which we make carefully; therefore, in order to show that the heavens were fashioned by divine wisdom in a more excellent way than the other corporeal creatures, he says "the heavens are the works of your hands." And this is evident, because the diversity in these lower things can be reduced to the disposition of matter, but the diversity of the heavenly bodies can in no way be reduced to anything but divine wisdom. And hence it is that whenever mention is made of the creation of heaven, there is added there "prudently," or "understanding," or something of this kind, according to Jer. 4: "He established the heavens prudently," and according to Ps. 135:5: "Who made the heavens in understanding." Third, to show that in the heavens the divine power of the creator shines forth more, according to the Gloss; for there is nothing among creatures in whose making so much of the power of God appears, and this on account of their magnitude and order. Wis. 13:5: "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the creator of these things may be known and seen." Fourth, to show that among all bodies, the heavenly body receives influence from God more immediately, and through it this influence is derived into these lower things. Job 38:33: "Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set forth its reason on the earth?" As if to say: if you consider well the disposition of heaven, you cannot attribute the cause of its disposition to any earthly thing, but to God. In another way it can be explained, so that by "earth" the whole corporeal matter is taken, and by "heavens" the spiritual substances. And thus the sense is: "in the beginning" of time you founded the earth, that is, corporeal matter, that is, you established it as the foundation of forms; and thus is understood that saying of Ps. 148:7: "Praise the Lord from the earth," etc. "But the heavens" — that is, the spiritual substances, Ps. 148:4: "let the heavens praise him," etc. — "are the works of your hands," namely because you made them to your image and likeness. In a third way it can be explained, so that by "earth" are understood the lowest in the Church, and by "heavens" the highest; and thus the sense is: "in the beginning," that is, through the Son, "you founded the earth," that is, the active and the lowest in the Church; and they are said to be founded because they are, as it were, the foundation of the others, for unless there were active persons in the Church, contemplative men would not be sustained. "But the heavens" — that is, the contemplatives and the more perfect — "are the works of your hands," that is, endowed with a more excellent pre-eminence. Ps. 18:2: "The heavens declare the glory of God"; and Is. 1:2: "Hear, O heavens" — that is, the greater — "give ear, O earth" — that is, the lesser. Consequently, when he says "they shall perish," he shows the difference between the creator and the creature, and this as to two things which are proper to the creator: the first is eternity; the second is immutability, concerning which there is the place "and they all shall grow old like a garment," etc. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets down the termination of the creature; second, the unending duration of God, at the place "but you shall remain." He says therefore first: "they" — namely the heavens — "shall perish." But against this, Eccles. 1:4: "The earth stands forever"; therefore it seems that much more so do the heavens. I respond. It must be said that, according to Augustine and the Philosopher, in every change there is generation and corruption. Hence whatever is changed perishes from the state in which it was. Therefore, what he says, that the heavens shall perish, is not understood as to their substance, concerning which Job 37:18: "which are most solid, as if cast of brass," but as to the state which they now have. Apoc. 21:1: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." 1 Cor. 7:31: "The fashion of this world passes away." But how will they change their state? In different ways, because the higher heavens are indeed moved according to place, but are not altered. But the lower ones, namely fire and air, are both moved and altered, and are subject to corruption. Thus therefore the state of all the heavens is changeable; but then motion will cease in the higher ones, and corruption in the lower ones, because the air will be purged by the fire of the conflagration. 2 Pet. 3:7: "The heavens that now are, and the earth, are by the same word kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment," etc. All shall perish from the state in which they now are, and thus in a certain manner they shall perish, but you, Lord, shall remain. Ps. 101:13: "But you, Lord, shall remain forever." Here he shows the permanence of the creator, as if to say: in you there is no change nor shadow of alteration, as is said in Jas. 1:17, and Lam. 5:19: "But you, Lord, shall remain forever, your throne from generation to generation," which can also be understood of Christ as man. Below, at the end: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same, and forever." Then, when he says "and they all," etc., he shows the difference of God from the creature as to immutability. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down the mutability of the creature; second, the immutability of God, at the place "but you are the same." And further, concerning the first he does two things, for first he describes the reason for the mutability of the creature; second he adds that mutability, at the place "and as a garment." Now concerning the first it must be known that old and new follow upon time. Hence nothing can grow old, except what is measured in some way by time. But the motion of the heavens is measured by time, and the moved thing itself is measured by the very "now" of time; therefore newness and oldness can be found in heaven. Hence the heavens will not grow old as though their substance were diminished, or corrupted in any respect, but only as to the length of time, by which they will no longer be measured. And therefore he says "as a garment," etc., because the cause of the change of the heavens will not be on account of any defect in their power, which might be diminished in some respect. For if their motion should cease on account of a defect of power, then the cessation would already have a natural cause, and could be discovered by natural reason, the contrary of which is said in Matt. 24:36: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the Angels in heaven," etc. Therefore it will be on account of the necessity of an end: because all corporeal creatures are ordered to spiritual ones, and the whole motion serving generation and corruption is ordered to the generation of man. Therefore, when the generation of man ceases, which will be when the number of the elect and the predestined is complete, that motion will cease. And therefore it is called a garment, because it is taken up for use, and when the use ceases it is laid aside, just as a man lays aside a warm garment when summer comes, and a cold one when winter comes. Thus therefore the state of the world, which is now suited to this end, when that number of the elect has been completed, will no longer be fitting or necessary, and therefore it will be laid aside like a garment. Lk. 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away." Consequently he sets down that mutability itself, when he says "and as a mantle you shall change them," namely the heavens. And he well says, "you, God, shall change them," because it will not be by their own power, nor of themselves, but by the power of God that they will be changed from motion, like a mantle, which is taken up for use, and after use is laid aside according to the fitness of time and end. And he says "mantle," because through a mantle the glory of man is both manifested and covered. So too God, through creatures, is both hidden from us and manifested. Rom. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Wis. 13:5: "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the creator of these things may be known and seen," etc. And he says "they shall be changed," because, once changed, they will remain so forever. Likewise as to the spiritual heavens, who perish from the present life through the death of the body. Rom. 14: "We all die, and like waters we slide away into the earth, which do not return." Is. 57:1: "The just man perishes, and there is no one," etc. Likewise they will grow old, because, as is said below, 8:13, "that which decays and grows old is near to destruction." And "you shall change," namely as to bodies, when this corporeal thing shall put on incorruption. 1 Cor. 15:54. And they will be changed as to mind, when from the enigmatic vision they are taken up to the vision of species. Job 14:14: "All the days in which I now war, I wait until my change comes." Then he adds the immutability of God, when he says "but you are the selfsame." Here he does two things. For first he sets down what is intended; second he shows this by a sign, at the place "and your years." He says therefore, "they shall perish, but you" — namely the Son of God, and this against the Arians — "are the selfsame," that is, you continue to be the same, and are never changed. Mal. 3:6: "I am God, and I do not change." Jas. 1:17: "With whom there is no change," etc. And he sets down the sign of this immutability, when he says "your years shall not fail." Here it must be known that the years of God are said to be his duration, just as the years of a man are the duration of a man; but the duration of a man fails in two ways, namely as to parts, and as to the whole; as to parts indeed, because, since it is temporal, one part succeeds another, and when one arrives, the other fails. It also fails as to the whole, because it ceases to be entirely. But in the duration of God neither of these is the case, for it does not fail as to the whole, because it always is. Ps. 91:9: "But you, Lord, are the most high forever." Likewise not as to parts, because eternity is all at once, and something standing still. Job 36:26: "The number of his years is inestimable," etc. But since it is one and immutable, why are "years" called in the plural, and not "year" in the singular? The reason for this is that our intellect receives the knowledge of intelligible things through sensible things, because all our knowledge begins from sense. Hence even God, who is altogether simple, is described under the likeness of corporeal things, Is. 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. So too his duration is described by us through certain things known to us, although it is uniform and simple. Hence sometimes it is called "year," sometimes "day" and "month," because it includes all the differences of time.”

“Above, the Apostle proved three things about Christ, in which he surpasses the Angels; here he proves a fourth, which he had stated beforehand about him, namely, that he sits at the right hand of majesty, which pertains to his dignity. And concerning this he does two things. For first he brings in the authority of David showing this; second he shows that the Angels fall short of this dignity, at the place, are they not all ministering spirits? Concerning the first he does two things: first he describes the dignity of Christ; second he shows it by a sign, at the place, until I make. He says therefore, but to which of the Angels did God ever say — as if he were saying: it is not found that God said this to an Angel, but he said it to Christ. And Christ himself, Matth. XXII, v. 43 ss., brings forward this as said of himself. Now this, that he says, sit at my right hand, can be referred to the divine nature, in which Christ is equal to the Father, because he has both judicial and royal power equal to the Father. Io. XVI, 15: all things that the Father has are mine. The Father indeed said this from eternity, because by saying it he begot the Son, and by begetting gave him the equality of the Father. It can also be referred to the human nature, according to which he sits in the greater goods of the Father. But the Father said this then, when he united his Word to human nature. But this was explained more above, where he had said, he sits at the right hand. Accordingly, when he says until, he shows the dignity of Christ by a sign; where a twofold doubt arises. One, because from eternity all things are subject to the Son inasmuch as he is God. Again, because at the resurrection Christ says: all power has been given to me. What then does he wait for, to be made subject to his footstool? And it must be known that something can be in someone's power in two ways. In one way as to authority, and thus all things from eternity, as to the preordination of things to be done, and in the time in which they existed, are subject to the Son of God inasmuch as he is God, but from the beginning of his conception inasmuch as he is man. In another way as to the exercise of power, and thus not all things are subject to him, but only at the end of the world, because he does not yet exercise power over all things, subjecting all things to himself. Phil. c. III, 21: according to the working by which he is able even to subject all things to himself. But what is this that he says, footstool? It can be said that by this nothing else is understood than full and perfect subjection. For that is said to be perfectly subject to someone which he himself can trample underfoot. Or again, otherwise, and putting a certain force upon the word: for as God is the head of Christ — I Cor. XI, 3: the head of Christ is God — so the feet of Christ are his humanity. Ps. CXXXI, v. 7: we will worship in the place where his feet stood. I will make, therefore, a footstool, that is, I will subject your enemies not only to your divinity, but also to your humanity. In this, however, Origen erred. For he wished and understood only one mode of subjection, saying: just as to be subject to light is nothing other than to be illumined, so, since Christ is truth, justice, and goodness, and whatever else of this kind can be said, to be subject to the Savior is nothing other than to be saved. And therefore he held that in the end all things, even the demons, would be saved, because otherwise not all things would be subject to Christ. But this is against what is said in Matth. c. XXV, 41: go, you cursed, into everlasting fire. Hence it must be known that there is a twofold mode of subjection. One by the will of the subjects, as good servants are subject to their lord, say a king, and thus only the good are subject to Christ in this way. The other by the will of the lord, and thus there is a certain violence on the part of the subjects. And thus the wicked will be subjected to Christ, not because they will his dominion, but because Christ will do his own will concerning them, punishing those who were unwilling here to do his will. And this is properly designated by the footstool, because what is trodden underfoot is crushed. Is. LXVI, 1: heaven is my seat, that is, the heavenly and the good; but the earth, that is, the earthly and the wicked, is the footstool of my feet. The other doubt concerns this, that he says until, etc., because if he will sit until he makes it, then once he has made it, he will not sit. I answer that expressions of this kind, until and up to, are sometimes put in a finite sense, namely when they mark the terminus of that to which they are joined, as when I say: sit here until I come. But sometimes they are held in an infinite sense, namely when no terminus is set, as when it is said: this man did not repent as long as he lived, because he did not repent after death either. For as Jerome says, that must be designated concerning which there could be doubt. But that which is not doubtful is left to the one who understands. Now it is doubtful of someone whether he repents in his life, but that he does not repent after his death is doubtful to no one. So too in the case at hand; for since many now assail and blaspheme Christ, it seems doubtful whether he sits now; but it is not doubtful whether he will sit when all things will be subject to him, and therefore that is not expressed. Accordingly he shows that this dignity does not belong to the Angels, when he says, are not all of them ministering spirits, et cetera. Where he does three things: first he shows their office; second, the execution of the office, at the place, into ministry; third, the fruit of the execution, at the place, that they might inherit. He says therefore, are not all, et cetera. Ps. CII, 21: his ministers who do his will. But against this, Dan. VII, 10: thousands of thousands ministered to him, etc., where Gregory says: some minister, others are those who stand by. Therefore not all minister. I answer. It must be said that, just as we see among craftsmen that there is a twofold kind of craftsmen — for some are, as it were, executing by hand, as hand-craftsmen; others, however, do not execute or work by hand, but are craftsmen who arrange, and as it were direct what is to be done — so too it is among the Angels, for some are, as it were, executing those things which proceed from the divine command to be done concerning us, while others are, as it were, directors, directing the things that are to be done. Taking, then, "ministers" in a broad way, both for those who execute and also for those who command, thus all are ministers or ministering, inasmuch as the higher execute God's will concerning the middle, the middle concerning the lowest, the lowest concerning us. But if those who execute are called ministering, while those who immediately receive from God are called those who stand by, then some minister, some stand by and hand on to others. Those who stand by, then, are those who immediately receive the divine illuminations from God himself; hence they are also named by names related to God, as Seraphim, that is, those loving God; Cherubim, those knowing; thrones, those bearing. Those ministering are not the ones who receive from these, and hand on to others. But against this seems to be what Gregory says, that those are said to stand by who enjoy the inmost contemplation of God. Since therefore all the Angels see God through his essence, according to that word, Matth. XVIII, 18: their Angels always see the face of my Father — therefore it seems that all are those who stand by. I answer. It must be said that a certain one among the first students of the books of Dionysius, wishing to save both the saying of the Apostle and the saying of Gregory, said that the lower Angels do not see God through his essence, since they are not those who stand by. And this was John Scotus, who first commented on the books of Dionysius. But this opinion is heretical, because since beatitude is perfected in the vision of God, it would follow that the lower Angels, not seeing God through his essence, would not be blessed. There is also the saying of the Lord, who says, Matth. XVIII, 10: their Angels, et cetera. And therefore it must be said that all see God through his essence, yet not all stand by. For the evidence of this it must be known that, just as God, by knowing his own essence, also knows himself, and all other things besides himself, so too the Angels, seeing the essence of God, both know him and know all things in him; in which vision indeed they are blessed only because they see God, not because they know things in him. Hence Augustine in the book of the Confessions: blessed is he who sees you, even if he does not see those other things. But he who knows both you and those things is not more blessed on account of those things, but is blessed on account of you alone. But the vision by which they see God through his essence is common to all the blessed. But in the vision by which they know things in God, one of the Angels excels the others; for the higher, as being of a higher nature and intellect, see more things in God than the middle ones do, and the middle more than the lowest. Hence these see all the things that pertain to their office, and the things that are to be carried out by others — which the lower do not see so perfectly, and therefore hand them on to others to be carried out — and on account of this these alone stand by, and yet all see God. And as a sign of this Dionysius says that to certain Angels who ask, God himself answers immediately, as in Is.: who is this that comes from Edom? And he himself answers: I who speak justice. But to certain others he answers through Angels, as that Ps. XXIII, 8: who is this king of glory? The Angels answer, and not God, and say: the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory. Thus, then, the office of the Angels is clear. But against this is the fact that here the execution of the office is touched upon when he says, sent into ministry; therefore it seems by this that all execute. Ps. XXXIII, 8: the Angel of the Lord encamps round about him, et cetera. Is. VI, 6: one of the Seraphim, who are in the highest order, flew to me. Therefore if those are sent, much more so are the others. But against this is Dionysius, who says that he received from the Apostle that only the lower are sent, and not the higher. I answer. Some say that the higher are sent and go out sometimes, for certain causes that arise, to external things. But it seems to me that the higher four, namely Seraphim, Cherubim, thrones, and dominations, are never sent, but the lower are sent, which is clear from their names. For the Virtues are sent to work miracles; the Powers, to ward off the powers of the air; the Principalities, to govern a community or kingdom; and so of the others. But they are called Dominations, because they order all these lower things; while the other three orders take their names from the operation which they exercise immediately concerning God, and dispense it to others. As to what he says, sent, it must be said that mission is twofold: one which implies local motion, and thus only the lower are sent. The other is a mission which occurs through the application and direction of a new effect in a creature, and thus the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent; and in this way the higher are sent, because their power is sent into the lower, to be sent by these to others. And as to what he says, flew, etc., it must be said that the lower use the names of those by whose power and authority they act, and attribute their own operations to them. And because that lower one carried out his office by the power of a Seraph, he was therefore called by the name of Seraph, not because he was a Seraph by nature. Then he adds the fruit of the office, when he says, who receive the inheritance of salvation. And although all are called, yet not all receive the inheritance. Those, therefore, who receive it, they obtain the fruit of the mission. Ier. LI, 9: we have healed Babylon, and she is not healed. Or again, when he says, for those who shall inherit, etc., the fruit of the execution is set down, which is, that men may receive the inheritance of salvation. For this reason the whole order of action concerning us exists, that the number of the elect may be completed. Ps. XC, 11: God has commanded his Angels concerning you, et cetera. And he says, for those, not for all, because although all are called, yet few are elect, as it is said Matth. cap. XXIV. And he says inheritance, because to it only sons attain; for if sons, then also heirs. But he says receive, because it is necessary that they acquire the kingdom of God by labor, and study, and solicitude. Matth. XI, 12: the kingdom of heaven suffers violence. Those, therefore, will receive it who are zealous to guard in themselves the Lord's illuminations and inspirations sent through the good Angels, and to commit them to effect; otherwise there will be said to them what is said in Ier. LI, 9: we have healed Babylon, and she is not healed.”

“Above, the Apostle showed in many ways the superiority of Christ over the Angels; here from this he concludes that the teaching of Christ, namely the New Testament, must be obeyed more than the Old Testament. And concerning this he does three things. For first he sets down the intended conclusion; second he brings forward a reason for the intended conclusion; third he confirms the consequence of the reason. The first, at the beginning; the second, where he says "For if that which through Angels"; the third, where he says "For not to Angels." Concerning the first it must be known that in Ex. 23:20, after the judicial and moral precepts of the law had been given, he adds: "Behold, I send my Angel," etc., and there follows: "Observe therefore and hear his voice," etc. If therefore the command of the Angel, through whom the law was given, were kept, entrance would be prepared to the homeland. Whence also in Matt. 19:17 it is said: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." It is necessary therefore to keep those commandments of the law; therefore it is necessary all the more to obey the commandments of him who is greater than the Angels, through whom the law was given. And this is what he says: "Therefore we ought more abundantly to observe the things which we have heard." Abd. 1:1: "We have heard a hearing from the Lord." Hab. 3:2: "Lord, I have heard thy hearing, and I feared." It is necessary therefore to observe more abundantly. And he says "more abundantly" on account of three things: first, on account of the authority of the one speaking, because this one is creator and Son of God, and that one a creature and minister of God. Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men," and also than Angels. Second, on account of the usefulness of the things said, because they are words of eternal life. John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of life," etc.; those others are of temporal goods. Is. 1:19: "If you be willing and hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land," etc. Third, on account of the sweetness of observance, because these things are sweet: 1 John 5:3: "His commandments are not heavy," and Matt. 11:30: "My yoke is sweet," etc.; those others are heavy: Acts 15:10: "This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." Second, he shows the same thing from the imminent danger, when he says "lest perhaps we should flow utterly away," that is, be eternally damned. Here it must be known that one flows away through bodily punishments — 2 Kings 19:14: "We slide away like waters upon the ground" — one flows out through fault, but one flows utterly away, bodily, through eternal damnation, because not even a shard remains. Is. 30:14: "It shall be broken as the potter's vessel is broken with a mighty destruction, and there shall not be found among the pieces thereof a sherd." Next he brings forward a reason for this, which contains a single conditional containing a comparison of the New and the Old Testament. In the antecedent is set down the condition of the Old Testament; in the consequent, the condition of the New Testament. Concerning the Old, however, he sets down three things: namely, the authority of the law; second, the firmness of its truth, where he says "which was made firm"; third, the necessity of observing it, where he says "and every transgression." First he sets down the authority, because the law was not given by human reason, but through Angels. Gal. 3:19: "ordained by Angels," etc. Acts 7:38: "This is that Moses who was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on mount Sinai," etc. Nor is this to be wondered at, because, as Dionysius proves, revelations of divine illuminations come to us by the mediation of Angels. The firmness of the truth, however, he shows when he says "which was made firm," because everything that was foretold in the old law was entirely fulfilled. Matt. 5:18: "One iota or one tittle shall not pass from the law till all things be done"; and Prov. 12:19: "The lip of truth shall be firm for ever"; and the Psalm: "The things that proceed from my lips I will not make void." It was made firm, therefore, because it was not made void. He shows the necessity by which transgressors are punished. Whence he says "and every transgression and disobedience," etc. Where he sets down one thing which corresponds to a twofold fault, namely the sin of omission and of transgression. The first corresponds to affirmative precepts, the other to negative ones. The first is signified by the name of disobedience. But is disobedience a general sin? And it seems that it is, from what is said here. To which it must be said that a sin is called special from the intention of a special end. Whence when someone does not keep a precept with this intention, that he may despise the precept, thus it is a special sin; but when it is from some other cause, for instance when it is from concupiscence, then it is a condition following upon sin, but not however a special sin. The other, however, is called transgression. Ps. 118:115: "I have accounted transgressors," etc. Likewise he sets down another thing on the part of the punishment, when he says "received a just recompense of reward." For recompense regards the quantity of the fault, so that he who has sinned more is punished more. Reward, however, regards the quality, so that he who has sinned by the fire of lust may be tormented by fire. He will receive, therefore, a good reward for good things, and a bad one for bad things. And thus "reward" is taken both in a good and in a bad sense, insofar as it implies the justice of distributing. He says "just" on account of the equality of the punishment, namely that the measure of the stripes should be according to the measure of the sin. Concerning the punishments, it is found in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28. The Gloss says: "just," lest it be thought that justice perishes on account of mercy. Next, when he says "how shall we escape," etc., he sets down the consequent of his conditional, in which he describes the condition of the New Testament, where he does three things. For first he shows the necessity of observing it; second, the origin of the New Testament; third, the firmness of its truth. The second, where he says "which having taken its beginning." The third, where he says "God also bearing witness." He says therefore: If the word given through Angels punishes transgressors and the disobedient, how shall we escape, etc. In which he denotes the danger that threatens those who do not observe it. Above, however, he called the Old Testament "salvation." The reason for this is that the word is ordered only to knowledge, for this is what the Old Testament does, because through it there is knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20: "Through the law, knowledge of sin." Likewise, knowledge of God. Ps. 147:9: "He hath not done in like manner to every nation." And elsewhere, 75:1: "In Judea God is known," etc. It did not, however, confer grace, but in the New Testament grace is conferred. John 1:17: "Grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ," which leads to eternal salvation. John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." Ps. 118:140: "Thy speech is exceedingly inflamed." Likewise, he commends it from its quantity. And he says "so great," that is, very great. And certainly it is very great, if you consider from what dangers it frees: because it frees not only from the dangers of bodily death, but also of spiritual death. Matt. 1:21: "For he shall save his people from their sins." Likewise it is great, because it is universal, that is, not of one people only, nor from one danger, but it is of all men and from all enemies. 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the savior of all, but especially of the faithful." Luke 1:74: "That being delivered from the hand of our enemies, without fear," etc. Likewise it is great, because it is eternal. Is. 45:17: "Israel is saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation." And therefore it is not to be neglected, but we ought to be solicitous to obtain it. Judges 18:9: "We have seen a land exceedingly rich and fruitful." And there follows: "Do not neglect, do not cease," etc. And truly we ought not to neglect it, because if we shall have been negligent, we will be punished, not only by the loss of the good, but we shall also incur an evil, namely of eternal damnation, which we shall not be able to escape. Therefore he says, "How shall we escape?" Matt. 3:7: "Who will show you to flee from the wrath to come?" Job 11:20: "Flight shall perish from them." Ps. 138:6: "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy face?" He shows the origin of the teaching of the New Testament, when he says "which having taken its beginning," etc. Where he sets down its twofold origin. The first was not through Angels, but through Christ himself. Above, 1:2: "He hath spoken to us by his Son." John 1:18: "The only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." And therefore he says "which, having taken its beginning of being declared through the Lord" — because it has a twofold beginning: one simply, and that is from eternity, and this is through the Word itself. Eph. 1:4: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world." The other is the beginning of the declaring, and this was in time, through the Word incarnate. The second origin was through the apostles who heard from Christ. Whence he says "by them that heard," that is, through their preaching. 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen and have heard," etc. Luke 1:2: "As they related to us, who from the beginning themselves saw." Then he sets down its firmness, which is greater than the firmness of the Old Testament, which he shows from the testimony of God, who cannot lie. Whence he says "it was confirmed, God bearing witness," etc. It must be known, however, that testimony is through speech: speech is a sensible sign. God, however, bore witness by a twofold sensible sign, namely by miracles and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. As to the first, he says that it was confirmed, God bearing witness, by "signs," with respect to lesser miracles, such as the healing of a lame man, or of a fever. Of the first, Acts 3:6 and 14:7; of the second, however, the last chapter of Acts. By "wonders," as to the greater things, such as the raising of the dead. Acts 9:40: "Tabitha, arise," etc. Now "portent" is so called as if "stretched forth" or "stretched afar," namely because it shows something at a distance. 2 Par. 32:31: "In the embassy of the princes of Babylon, who had been sent to him, to inquire concerning the wonder, namely that the sun had gone backward," etc. The chief wonder, however, is that God was made man. Is. 8:18: "I and my children, whom God hath given me for a wonder" — namely, that I am man, and that my children would believe this. For it was a wonder that the human heart could believe this. He says "by various powers" so that signs and wonders may be referred to those things which exceed the power of nature. So that a "sign" is called what is beyond and above nature, yet not contrary to it; but a "wonder" is what is contrary to nature, such as the childbirth of a virgin, the raising of the dead. But "power" is referred to those things which are according to nature as to the substance of the deed, but not as to the manner of its being done, as the healing of a fever, which indeed physicians can do, though not instantly. Or "powers" may be referred to the powers of the mind, which the Lord gave to his preachers, namely faith, hope, and charity. But as to the second, namely as to the gifts, he says "and by distributions of the Holy Spirit." But on the contrary, as it is said in Wisdom 7: "the Holy Spirit is one." How then is he distributed? It must be said that he is not distributed according to essence, but insofar as his gifts are distributed. 1 Cor. 12:4: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Now all graces are attributed to the Holy Spirit, because they are given out of love. Love, however, is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Gregory: "Surely the Holy Spirit is love." Or "by distributions," that is, through the distributions which are made by the Holy Spirit, because to one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, and so of the others. And all this not according to merits, nor from the necessity of nature, but through his own will. John 3:8: "The spirit breathes where he wills," etc., and 1 Cor. 12:11: "All these things one and the same spirit works," etc. Mark, last chapter: "The Lord cooperating, and confirming the word with signs that followed."”

“Above the Apostle made a certain comparison, showing that there is a greater necessity of observing the precepts of Christ than of the law given through Angels; here he confirms the consequence, where he does two things. First he confirms the said consequence, showing that the power of Christ is greater than that of the Angels; second he proves the same through authority, where it says, but a certain one has testified. He says, therefore, that those who act against the commandments of Christ will bear greater punishments than those who act against the commandments of Angels, because Christ himself is Lord, and one who sins against the lord is punished more than one who sins against servants. And that Christ is Lord he shows from this, that God did not subject the world to come — subject to Christ — to the Angels. And he does two things. First he shows that the world is not subject to Angels; second he shows of which world he means, where it says of which we speak. For the world is not subject to Angels. Job 34:13: Whom else has he set over the earth, or whom has he appointed over the world which he made? But against this, Daniel 10:20 speaks of an Angel prince of the kingdom of the Greeks and Persians. And Deuteronomy 32:8: He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God, according to another reading. And it must be said that it is not subject to them by way of dominion, but by way of a certain ministry. For the whole corporeal creation is administered through Angels. Ps. 102:21: His ministers, who do, etc. Above, 1:14, they are all called ministers. Or else, he did not subject the world to come to the Angels — the world to come, I say, namely this world, which is called "to come," because in Scripture something is sometimes called "to come" not with respect to us, but with respect to that to which it is compared, just as the same Apostle says, Rom. 5:14, concerning Adam with respect to Christ, who is the form of the one to come; for Christ is not future with respect to himself, but with respect to Adam. Thus here the world is called "to come," not with respect to us, but with respect to Christ, who is from eternity, whereas the world is in time. And because the Manichees say that the world is subject to an evil God, and not to the good one, therefore he adds of which we speak, because he means not another world, but this one. Or above, 1:11 and following, he had said they themselves will perish, namely the heavens, and will be changed, which, as was said there, is understood with respect to their state, not with respect to their substance, so that there is a twofold state of the world. One, which is now present. 2 Pet. 3:7: The heavens which now are, etc., by the same word stored up, are reserved unto fire, etc. And the other is to come. But in this world which now is, not all things are subject to him, as was said above — this with respect to the execution of power, although they are subject with respect to authority; but then, in that future state, the world will be subject to him. And therefore he adds of which we speak. Next he proves it through authority, when he says but a certain one has testified. Where he does three things. First he commends the authority of the testimony he is bringing in; second he brings in the truth of the testimony, where it says, What is man, that you are mindful of him? Third he explains the sense of the testimony, where it says, for in that to him all things. Concerning the testimony, he first sets down that the words of the Old Testament are certain testimonies of Christ. John 5:39: Search the Scriptures, etc. And a little after: and they are the ones that bear witness of me. And therefore he says but he has testified. Second, because among the Jews there were certain Scriptures less known, and certain ones more known, and therefore the Scriptures of the Psalms are of greater dignity, which they themselves used in all their sacrifices. And therefore he says in a certain place, namely one known and manifest. Third he sets down the authority of the one speaking, namely David, who was of the greatest authority. 2 Kings 23:1: The man said, to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob, the excellent psalmist of Israel. Then he brings in the testimony, when he says what is man, etc. Where he does three things. First he sets down the mystery of the incarnation; second, of the passion, where it says you made him a little lower than the Angels; third, the mystery of the exaltation, where it says with glory and honor. Concerning the first he touches on two things: first the cause of the incarnation, second the incarnation itself, where it says or the son of man. Now the cause of the incarnation is God's remembrance of man, and therefore he says what is man, to be read disparagingly; as if he were saying: man is a very small thing with respect to God. Is. 40:17: All nations are before him as though they were not, and are reputed to him as nothing and vanity. For if someone loves another, and leaves him a long time in miseries, and does not come to his aid, he seems to have forgotten him. But God loved the human race, both because he made it in his own image, and because he placed it in the midst of Paradise. But after sin, because he did not immediately come to its aid, he seems to have forgotten it. But then he seems to have been mindful of it, when he sent the restorer. Ps.: Remember us, O Lord, in your good pleasure, etc. And therefore he says what is man, etc., as if he were saying: if we consider the lowliness of man, it is a marvel that you are mindful of him, who is so lowly and small; lowly, I say, and small in nature, especially as regards his lowly substance. Gen. 2:8: God formed man from the slime of the earth. Is. 64:8: And now, O Lord, you are our father; but we are the clay, etc. Lowly in guilt. Whence Augustine, on John: Men become nothing when they sin. Obadiah: Behold, I have made you small among the nations; you are exceedingly contemptible, etc. Lowly and weak in punishment. Job 14:1: Man born of woman, living a short time. Amos 7:5: Who shall raise up Jacob? — namely, prostrate, because he is small. Second he sets down the incarnation itself, when he says son of man. Where it must be known that in sacred Scripture Christ is called son of man, as is clear from Dan. 7:13, and in the Gospel in many places; and the reason for this is that others are sons of men — Ps.: Sons of men, how long will you be heavy of heart? But Christ is son of only one human being, namely of the blessed virgin. And he himself is visited by God. Sometimes visitation in Scripture refers to a benefit, as is said in Gen. 21:1: The Lord visited Sarah, etc. But sometimes to punishment. Ps.: I will visit their iniquities with a rod. But here it refers to a benefit. You visit, that is, you confer upon him a most excellent benefit, because you make him the Son of God, from this namely, that the humanity was assumed by the Word into the unity of the supposit. Or he says this on account of the fullness of Christ. John 1:14: Full of grace and truth, etc. Or both are to be referred to Christ, so that the sense is: you are mindful of him in the incarnation, in which the humanity was assumed by Christ, but you visit in the resurrection. Or both are to be referred to the human race. Now every son of man is a man, but not every man is a son of man, for Adam was not a son of man. He is therefore called man who bears the image of the earthly man, namely of Adam. And this man is called a sinner. But he is called son of man who bears the image of the heavenly man, namely of Christ, who is called son of man. 1 Cor. 15:49: As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly. Man, therefore, simply speaking is called a sinner. And because he is far from God — for salvation is far from sinners — God is said to be mindful of him, just as a man is mindful of that which is far from him. But when from a sinner he becomes just, thus the son of man is visited through grace. Job 10:12: Your visitation has preserved my spirit. Next he sets down the mystery of the passion, when he says you made him a little lower than the Angels. Where it must be known that, in the order of nature, corruptible and passible things are lesser than incorruptible and impassible things. But Angels according to nature are impassible and immortal. Hence when Christ deigned to sustain the passion and death, he was made lower than they, not because he lost his fullness, or was diminished in anything, but because he assumed our smallness to himself. And this was signified in Luke 22:43, where it is said that an Angel of the Lord appeared to him, comforting him — not because he needed him, but that he might show himself made lower than they through the passion. Now he says a little lower on account of two things. First, because every corporeal creature is a small thing, by comparison with the rational, because the corporeal is comprehended within certain limits of quantity, but the rational is not, but is always able to reach further into the more intelligible; but Christ was made lower than the Angels, not as to his divinity, nor as to his soul, but by his body alone. And thus he said a little lower on account of quantity. Second, he is said to be a little lower as to duration, because it lasted but a little. Is. 54:7: For a small moment I have forsaken you, etc. Nor is it a marvel that in the passibility of his body he was made lower than the Angels, since in this he was made lower even than man, according to that of Ps. 21:6: But I am a worm, and no man — and this on account of the shamefulness of death, concerning which Wisdom 2:20: Let us condemn him to a most shameful death. But if both things that were said, what is man, etc., are referred to man, then man is said to be made lower than the Angels in three ways: first as to knowledge, but a little lower, because not as to the genus of knowledge — for both man and Angel share in one genus of knowledge — but as to the mode, because Angels know in a more excellent mode than men. Second, as to the body, because although the Angel and the soul are of one nature, namely the intellectual, yet the soul is united to the body — but even in this only a little, because the dignity of the soul is not taken away through this kind of union, though it is in some way weighed down and impeded from a higher contemplation. Wisdom 9:15: The body which is corrupted weighs down the soul. Third, as to gifts, and this a little, not as to the gratuitous gifts — Matt. 22:30: they shall be as the Angels of God in heaven — but as to the natural gifts. Then when he says with glory and honor, etc., he shows the mystery of the exaltation, where he does three things. First he shows his glory; second, his honor, where it says and with honor, etc.; third, his power, where it says you have set him, etc. Rev. 5:12f.: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing, in every creature, etc. He says therefore first, you have crowned him with glory, that is, with brightness. For glory implies brightness. But Christ was crowned with a twofold glory, namely with the brightness of the body. Phil. 3:21: Who will refashion the body of our lowliness, conformed to the body of his brightness. This brightness is promised to him, John 12:28: And I have glorified the soul, namely by filling it with the splendors of grace, and I will glorify again, namely the body, with the glory of immortality. The other brightness is in the confession of all peoples. Phil. 2:11: And every tongue confess. Ps. 20:5: You will bestow glory and great splendor upon him. Next he shows his honor, when he says and with honor, etc. Now honor differs from glory, as effect from cause. For honor is reverence shown in testimony of excellence, whence it is a testifying of his goodness. That honor is, that every creature should revere him just as the Father. John 5:23: That all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. And he says you have crowned, namely as a sign of victory, because a crown is given to the victor. 1 Cor. 9:25: They indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, etc. 2 Tim. 2:5: He shall not be crowned, except he strive lawfully. But Christ, through the struggle of the passion, merited this glory and honor. Phil. 2:8: He became obedient unto death, and it follows: For which cause God also exalted him, etc. But these things, as they belong to Christ insofar as he is God, are not a reward, but rather natural to him; but insofar as he is man, they are the reward of the victory of his passion. But he shows his power, first as to his authority; second as to the effect, where it says you have subjected all things, etc. As to the first, he says you have set, which can be understood in three ways. In one way, that he was set over all places, and this in the ascension. Eph. 4:10: He ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. Second, in dignity. Eph. 1:20f.: Setting him at his right hand, above all principality and power, etc. Third, in power, because over every creature. Matt., last chapter: All power is given to me in heaven, etc. But Christ, insofar as he is God, was not set, but born; but he was set insofar as he is man. Above, 1:2: Whom he has appointed heir of all things, etc. The effect of his power is, that you have subjected all things under his feet. Now the prophet uses the past tense for the future, on account of greater certainty. For it has already been done in the eternal predestination of God. And he says under his feet, that is, his humanity, or with total subjection. Ps. 109:2: Until I make your enemies, etc. Or under his feet, that is, under his humanity; for just as by the head of Christ is understood God, 1 Cor. 11:3, so also by the feet of Christ is understood his humanity. Ps.: We will adore in the place where his feet stood. But if this is expounded thus, man is said to be crowned with glory as to intellectual knowledge, by which he is preeminent over the other animals. 1 Cor. 11:7: The man indeed is the glory and image of God, etc. Job 35:11: Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth. Likewise with honor, inasmuch as he alone, above all the animals, is lord of his own acts, and is not subjected to the necessity of mutable things as to his soul, since he has free will. Likewise with power, because you have set him over all the works — in one way, so that by the word "all" are understood all the creatures which are beneath man. Gen. 1:26: Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, etc. In another way, so that the word "all" stands for the whole universe of creation, because even the heavenly bodies and the Angels are of service to man. Ps. 90:11: God has given his Angels charge over you, to keep you, etc. Next when he says for in that, etc., he expounds the sense of the testimony. Where the Apostle does two things. First he expounds as to his sublimity; second as to the lowering, where it says but him who by a little. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows how the saying of the prophet is to be understood; second he shows that it is not yet fulfilled, where it says but now. When therefore he says for in that he subjected to him, he shows how it is to be understood; for since Scripture says that all things are subjected to Christ, it has left nothing not subjected to him. Hence the word "all" is not a distribution accommodated to certain classes, but absolutely to all things, because all things are generally and universally subjected to him. This is true, apart from him who subjected all things to himself, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:28; just as it is said heaven covers all things — true, of things other than itself. But then Arius argues thus: the Father subjected all things to the Son, therefore the Son is lesser than the Father himself. I respond. It must be said that it is true that the Father subjected all things to the Son according to the human nature, in which he is lesser than the Father — John 14:28: The Father is greater than I — but according to the divine nature, Christ himself subjected all things to himself. Next when he says but now we do not yet see all things subjected to him, he shows that this is not yet fulfilled, because unbelieving sinners and Demons are not yet subject to him. Rom. 10:16: But not all obey the Gospel. Ex. 10:3: How long will you refuse to be subject to me, etc. And thus sinners are not subject to Christ through the rebellion of their will, but through his power all are subjected to him now as to authority, but in the future all will be subject as to execution. Whence this is the exposition of what he said above, the world to come.”

“Above, the Apostle, wishing to prove the excellence of Christ over the Angels, adduced the authority of the prophet, in which there was something that pertains to the dignity of Christ, such as that saying, "thou hast subjected all things," etc. And this he himself expounded. But there was also something that pertains to his passion, namely, "thou hast lessened him," etc. Now this seems to conflict with his principal intention, namely, that he intends to set Christ above the Angels. And therefore in this part he expounds this at length. Here he does two things: first he shows in what respect this lessening is to be understood, namely, according to the passion; second he treats of the fittingness of the passion, where it says "for it became him." Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows what has been said; second he describes the passion itself, where it says "that by the grace of God." He says therefore, "but him," etc. Let it be continued thus: thus it has been said, "what is man," etc., "with glory and honor," etc., "thou hast subjected all things," etc., "thou hast lessened him," etc.; and these things the prophet foretold of Christ, but already we see many of them fulfilled. For certain, therefore, we hold that what remains is yet to be fulfilled, namely, that all things will be subjected to him, etc. Gregory: "the showing forth of things past is the certainty of things to come." And it can be construed thus: "we see him who was made a little lower than the Angels" to be Jesus; and not only this, but "crowned with glory and honor," on account of the passion of death, which was the cause of that exaltation. Phil. 2:9: "for which cause God also hath exalted him," etc. And he says "of death," because he did not endure just any passion, but the harshest and most shameful. Wisd. 2:20: "let us condemn him to a most shameful death." Or otherwise: "we see Jesus," and as if it were asked of him whom he meant, therefore answering he says: namely, him who through the passion of death was made a little lower than the Angels, crowned with glory and honor; as if to say: this lessening is not to be understood in Christ except on account of the passion of death. Nor is it surprising, because as regards this he is inferior not only to the Angels, but even to men. Is. 53:2f.: "we have desired him, the last of men," etc. But the Gloss says — and it is from Augustine's Against Maximinus — that Christ was not made lower than the Angels on account of the condition of human nature, but on account of the passion. For the nature of the human mind, which Christ assumed without sin, has nothing greater than the Trinity alone. He is therefore lower than the Angels in body, because the passion is according to the body. This seems to be against Dionysius, who says that the Angels are greater than men by natural participation of light. And it must be said that we can speak of the nature of the human and angelic mind in two ways. In one way, according to natural endowments alone, and thus the nature of the Angels is more excellent and nobler than the nature of the human mind, because the Angel receives the knowledge of divine truth in a certain excellence and fullness of intellectual light, but man from creatures. In another way we can take the nature of each without sin, in order to the obtaining of beatitude, and thus they are equal. Lk. 20: "they shall be as the Angels in heaven." Christ, however, as to the excellence of grace, according to the human mind, is greater than the Angels. This lessening, therefore, is not according to the nature of the divinity, nor absolutely according to human nature, except insofar as he suffered according to it. We can, however, say that Christ was crowned with a threefold glory: namely, the glory of sanctification, which he had in the first instant of his conception; likewise the glory of divine fruition, because from that very instant of his conception he was a comprehensor; likewise the glory of impassibility, which he merited after the passion. Then, when he says "that by the grace of God," he describes the passion itself, and he describes it in three ways: first from its cause, when he says "that by the grace of God"; second from its usefulness, when he says "for all"; third from its manner, when he says "he might taste." For the cause was the grace of God alone. Hence it continues thus: "we see Jesus, who was made lower," for this, "that by the grace of God," etc. For it was by that very grace that it came about that he gave his only-begotten Son. John 3:16: "for God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." Rom. 5:8: "but God commendeth his charity towards us, because when as yet we were sinners," etc. Or, according to what the Gloss of Augustine says, "that grace," that is, Christ himself, who is the grace of God; and thus "grace" is in the nominative case. But Christ is called "grace" because he is the author of grace. John 1:17: "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Or because he was given freely. Is. 9:6: "a son is given to us." So that the sense would be that he himself was made lower, that he himself who is the grace of God, etc. Both positions are according to the Gloss. "For all" — behold the usefulness. But "for all" can be understood in two ways: either so that it is a fitting distribution, namely for all the predestined — for these alone it has efficacy; or absolutely for all, as to sufficiency, for as far as it is in itself, it is sufficient for all. 1 Tim. 4:10: "who is the savior of all, but especially of the faithful." Chrysostom: he died for all men generally, because the price suffices for all; and if not all believe, he nevertheless fulfilled what was his part. "He might taste" — behold the manner. For he tastes who does not eat much, nor drink much. Because, therefore, Christ did not remain in death, but rose again at once, he therefore "tasted." Ps. 109:7: "he shall drink of the torrent in the way," etc. The traveler hastens. Likewise, taste is discerning of flavor, hence one who tastes discerns more than one who drinks. Therefore, that he might signify that he felt death and sorrow, and thus that death was not illusory, as the Manichean and Apollinaris say, he therefore says "he tasted." Lam. 1:12: "O all ye that pass by the way," etc. The manner, indeed, is set down when it is said "he might taste." A like thing is found Matt. 26:39: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me"; and this for three reasons. First, in order to express the bitterness of death, the experience of which is through taste. Lam. 1:12: "O all ye that pass by the way." Is. 24:9: "the drink shall be bitter to them that drink it." Second, because just as to taste or not to taste is in the power of the one tasting, so too the passion of Christ was voluntary. John 10:18: "I have power to lay down my life." Third, because to taste is to take a little, and Christ remained but a little in death, according to that: Ps. 15:10: "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," etc. Then, when he says "for it became him," etc., he shows the fittingness from usefulness. For God the Father is he who was the cause of death. For he is the one through whom are all things, as through an efficient cause, and on account of whom are all things, as through a final cause. For all things are on account of him, because on account of his goodness to be communicated. And this was the moving cause for producing things, and thus finally all things are on account of God. Prov. 16:4: "the Lord hath made all things for himself." They also exist effectively through him. Ps. 145:4: "who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them." He is, therefore, the beginning and end of all things. Apoc. 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." Rom. 11:36: "of him, and by him, and in him, are all things." It became him, therefore, since he is the author of all things, to provide for all. Wisd. 6:8: "he hath equal care of all." Second, it was fitting on the part of the cause, which, as has been said, was the grace of God; but grace is ordered to glory. Rom. 6:23: "the grace of God, life everlasting"; and God from eternity predestined those whom he was to bring into glory. And these are all those who are partakers of the sonship of his Son, because "if sons, also heirs," Rom. 8:17. And therefore he says "who had brought many sons into glory," as if to say: he himself has one Son, perfect by nature. Mark 12:6: "therefore, having yet one son, most dear," etc. Who is by nature "the brightness of glory," above, 1:3. But the others are adopted, and therefore are to be brought into glory. Hence he says "who had brought," that is, he had preordained them to be brought. And what was fitting for him? This, namely, that he himself is the author of their salvation, etc. This salvation consists in two things: namely, that they become sons, and that they be brought into the inheritance. But that they are sons, they have through the natural Son. "Whom he foreknew and predestined, to be made conformable to the image of his Son," Rom. 8:29. But they do not obtain glory and inheritance except through him whose the inheritance naturally is, who is the brightness of glory. Because, therefore, we obtain these two things through the Son, therefore he is fittingly called the author of salvation. Matt. 1:21: "he shall save his people from their sins." Below, 12:2: "looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." It became, therefore, that the Father should send the author of salvation, namely the Son, as has been explained, who had brought many sons through him into glory. And thus the fittingness on the part of the cause is clear. To be perfected through the passion, that is, through faith. For he himself, insofar as he is the natural Son, is totally perfect; but because in the passion he was made lower, he had to be perfected through the merit of the passion. From this consummation, therefore, the fittingness of the manner is clear, concerning which he had said that he "tasted." For he only tasted death, because he did not accept it except that through merit he might be perfected by the passion. For his very consummation is his glorification. Lk., last chapter: "it behooved Christ to suffer, and so to enter into his glory." He also "tasted," because, since he himself had brought sons into glory, just as a physician tastes the medicine so that the sick person may not shrink from it but may drink it more confidently, so he himself tasted death, so that, since without death entering by necessity there is no salvation, no one might flee from death. Consequently, when he says "for he that sanctifieth," he proves what he had said. Here he does two things: first he proves his proposition on the part of the Father who perfects; second on the part of Christ who is perfected, where it says "for as much then as the children." Further, concerning the first he does two things: first he sets forth what he intends; second he proves it by authority, where it says "for which cause." He says, therefore: "for he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one." Now it must be known that above the Apostle had said three things: first, that Christ is the cause of salvation, in which he shows that we depend on him as on a savior; second, he shows that the Father is the one who perfects Christ himself through the merit of the passion, and in this Christ depends on the Father; third, that the Father brings us into glory, in which he also shows that we depend on God. And according to this, the Apostle here does three things. For first he shows that we depend on Christ: the one sanctified depends on the one sanctified, but Christ is the one who sanctifies. Below, 13:12: "Jesus, that he might sanctify by his own blood," etc. Well, therefore, it has been said that, because he is the author and sanctifier, we depend on him; but he himself depends on the Father, from whom he has that he sanctifies, which is the second point. But all — namely he who sanctifies and we who are sanctified — are of one, namely of the Father, which is the third point. Rom. 8:17: "heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Consequently he proves these three things by three authorities. And first, that Christ, as mediator and author of salvation, refers to us the things that are God's. Hence he says: "for which cause," because, namely, we and he depend from the Father and are of one God the Father, "he is not ashamed to call them brethren," namely because they are of the same Father. Mal. 2:10: "is there not one father of us all?" Rom. 8:29: "that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren." Therefore it is said in Ps. 21:22: "I will declare thy name to my brethren." And John 20:17: "go to my brethren." But note that he says "he is not ashamed," etc.; because some who are born of lowly stock, if they are promoted, are ashamed to acknowledge their kinsmen. Prov. 19:7: "the brethren of the poor man hate him." But not so Christ; rather he says "I will declare thy name to my brethren." John 17:5f.: "Father, I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me." John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father," etc. He shows the fruit of this announcement, when he says "in the midst of the church will I praise thee," as if to say: by this a great church is gathered for thee, in the midst of which I will praise thee. And he says "in the midst," because just as a column in the midst of a house sustains it, a lamp in the midst of a house illumines it, the heart in the midst of the body gives it life, so Christ is in the midst of the Church. Likewise "in the midst," because he was not sent to one people only, as Moses was — Ps. 75:1: "God is known in Judea" — but for the salvation of the whole world — Ps. 73:12: "thou hast wrought salvation in the midst of the earth" — and therefore it is said, Luke, last chapter: "Jesus stood in the midst of the disciples." It must be known concerning this, that before the law it was the custom that all firstborn were priests, and this pertained to the right of the firstborn. But Christ is a brother as the firstborn, and therefore he is a priest. But a priest, sanctifying the people, is in the middle between God and the people. Deut. 5:5: "I was the mediator at that time." And therefore it pertains to him, first, to announce to the people the things that are God's; second, to refer to God the things that are the people's. He does the first by saying — and therefore he says "I will declare thy name to my brethren," that is, I will lead them into knowledge of thee, and this is to sanctify them. John 17:17: "sanctify them in the truth," etc. He does the second while he makes men, out of affection towards God, break forth into the praise of God, and therefore he says "in the midst of the church." Then, when he says "and again," etc., he shows that Christ himself depends on the Father, by this that he says "I will put my trust in him." This, according to Jerome, is found Is. 8:17, where we have: "I will wait for the Lord, who hath hid his face from the house of Jacob," etc. But Is. 12:2 has expressly: "I will deal confidently, and will not fear." "I will be trusting in him" for the glory of the head and the members, which above he called consummation. Ps. 30:1: "in thee, O Lord, have I hoped." He shows, however, what hope he has, because not just any hope, but a firm one, which is called trust. For hope, even if it is not of the impossible, nevertheless sometimes has fear joined to it, and then it is properly called hope. Sometimes hope is firm and without fear, and then it is properly called trust. And this Christ had. He says, therefore, "I will be trusting in him," that is, I will have trust in his help, namely the Father's, for the glory of the body, which he will raise up, and of the members and of the soul. Ps. 31:1: "in thee, O Lord, have I hoped," etc. Jer. 17: "blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord." But on the contrary, the saints say that in Christ there is neither faith nor hope, but only charity. I answer. It must be said that hope is one thing, trust another; for hope is the expectation of future beatitude, and this was not in Christ, because from the instant of his conception he was blessed; but trust is the expectation of any kind of help; and according to this, trust was in Christ, insofar as, according to his human nature, he expected help from the Father in the passion. Hence, when it is found there that Christ is said to have hope, it is not to be understood by reason of the principal object, which is beatitude, but by reason of the glory of the resurrection, and of the glory conferred on the body. Then, when he says "and again," etc., he shows the third point, namely that he refers us to God, saying "behold I." And it is found Is. 8:18. As if to say: I have been referred to God — I, I say, who am trusting — and likewise "my children," whom I lead back to God, namely my disciples. John, last chapter: "children, have you any meat?" "Whom God hath given me." John 17:6: "they were thine, and thou hast given them to me." These are called "children" on account of purity. 1 Kings 21:4: "if the young men are clean, especially from women"; and a little after, in the same place, 5: "the vessels of the young men were holy." Likewise on account of simplicity. 1 Cor. 14:20: "do not become children in sense, but in malice be children." Likewise on account of humility. Matt. 18:3: "unless you be converted, and become as little children," etc. Likewise on account of readiness towards the good: "suffer the little children to come to me." And he shows that not only he himself is from God, but also the children; hence he adds "whom the Lord hath given me," and thus it is verified what he had said: "he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one," because John 6:44: "no man can come to me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him."”

“Above the Apostle showed the fittingness of the death of Christ on the part of the Father imposing death; here he shows the same on the part of Christ himself undergoing death. Now he said of Christ that he was the author of the salvation of the faithful; therefore here he intends to show how through his passion he was made the author of their salvation. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows the condition of the nature by which he was able to die and suffer; second he shows the usefulness which he brought about through death, at the place "that through death"; third he proves what he had proposed, at the place "for nowhere the angels." He says therefore first: I said that he and the children are all from one, and that he called them brothers; therefore it was fitting that he should be like them, not only because he imparts to them a participation in the divine nature, which is from the gift of grace, but also because he himself assumed their nature. Hence he says that since the children shared in flesh and blood, he likewise partook of the same. Here it should be noted that by the name of flesh and blood, sometimes the very nature of flesh and blood is understood, Gen. 2:23: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," so that by flesh you understand the body, according to Job 10:11: "with skin and flesh you have clothed me"; but by blood you understand the soul, not that the soul is itself blood, but because it is not preserved in the body without blood. Sometimes, however, by flesh and blood are understood the vices of flesh and blood. Matt. 16:17: "flesh and blood has not revealed it to you." Sometimes, however, the very corruptibility of flesh and blood. 1 Cor. 15:50: "flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption possess incorruption." But here it is not understood of the vices: for Christ assumed a nature without sin, but with passibility, because he assumed flesh like unto sinful flesh. Rom. 8:3: "in the likeness of the flesh of sin." He himself, therefore, shared either with the children, or also with flesh and blood, and entirely in like manner, namely, not with flesh in a phantom way, as Manichaeus said, nor accidentally, as Nestorius said, but with true flesh and blood, just as the children, and in unity of person. What is said here, that Christ shared in flesh and blood, is not to be understood according to what these terms designate as the vices of flesh and blood, for he did not assume guilt, nor commit it; but according to what they designate as the very substance of ensouled flesh, because he assumed flesh and soul. Likewise it is to be understood of the passibility of the flesh, because he assumed our passible nature. So that the sense is that the children, that is, the faithful, had a passible nature, and he, namely Christ, partook of the same — either "the children," namely in the nature of flesh and blood, or "the same," that is, flesh and blood — not indeed in a phantom way, as Manichaeus raves, nor accidentally, as Nestorius feigns, but "likewise," namely as we do, that is, in the way that we partake, that is, according to the truth of the thing, namely personally and substantially. For we partake of them in person, and Christ likewise assumed them into unity of person. John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh." Flesh and blood can also be understood as the flesh and blood of Christ, according to John 6:55: "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood"; in which the children, namely the apostles, shared at the supper, and Christ likewise partook of the same, namely of flesh and blood, because he himself likewise partook, as Chrysostom expressly says on Matthew 26: Christ himself (he says) drank his own blood. Hence Luke 22:15: "With desire I have desired," etc. Next he shows the usefulness which he brought about through death, when he says "that through death he might destroy," etc. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows this usefulness on the part of the Devil, who held; second on our part, who were held, at the place "that he might deliver them." He says therefore: he partook of flesh and blood for this reason, that is, he assumed a nature in which he could suffer and die, which he could not in the divine nature, in order that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is, the Devil. But how does the Devil have dominion over death? For this belongs to God alone. 1 Kings 2:6: "the Lord makes alive, and kills," and Deut. 32:39: "I will kill, and I will make to live." I respond. It must be said that a judge has dominion of death in one way, namely as it were inflicting death, when he punishes through death; a thief has it in another way, namely as it were acquiring death for himself through demerit. In the first way God has the empire of death. Gen. 2:17: "in whatever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death." In the second way, the Devil, who by persuading man to sin, condemned him to death. Wisdom 2:24: "by the envy of the Devil, death entered into the world." But he says "destroy" not as to the substance, which he has incorruptible, not as to malice, as though the Devil might at some time become good (as Origen says), but as to the dominion of power. John 12:31: "now is the judgment of the world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Col. 2:15: "despoiling the principalities and powers, he led them confidently, openly triumphing over them in himself." And this was brought about through the death of Christ for a threefold reason. One is on the part of Christ. For it is the true principle of justice that the victor subject the vanquished to himself. 2 Pet. 2:19: "for by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave." For Christ conquered the Devil. Apoc. 5:5: "the lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered." And therefore it is just that the Devil be subject to him. Luke 11:21: "when a strong man armed keeps his court," etc. Another reason is on the part of the Devil. For justice demands that whoever misuses a power granted to him should lose it. But to the Devil it was given permissively over sinners whom he seduced, but not over the good. Because, therefore, he presumed to extend this even to Christ himself, who did no sin — John 14:30: "the prince of this world comes, and in me he has nothing" — therefore he deserved to lose it. The third reason is on our part, because it is just that the vanquished be the servant of the victor, as has been said. But man through sin was a servant of the Devil — John 8:34f: "whoever commits sin is the servant of sin" — and thus subject to the Devil, and liable to sin. But Christ paid the price for our sin. Ps.: "the things I did not steal, then I paid." The cause of servitude, namely sin, having been removed, therefore, man was freed through Christ. But it must be known that no other satisfaction was fitting. For man was the debtor, but one can indeed satisfy for another out of charity. But no one could satisfy for the whole human nature, because he does not have power over it. Nor also could the human race itself sufficiently satisfy, because the whole was liable to sin. Nor also an angel, because this satisfaction is for glory, which exceeds the capacity of the nature of an angel. It was necessary, therefore, that there be a man, who ought to satisfy, and God, who alone has power over the whole human race, who could satisfy for the whole human race. Through the death, therefore, of God and man, he destroyed him who has the empire of death. Next, when he says "that he might deliver them," etc., another usefulness is set forth on our part. Concerning which it must be known that man is a servant of sin insofar as he is led to sin. But among all things there are two which lead most effectively to sin, namely the love of present goods, inflaming badly, and also the fear of present punishments, humbling badly. Of these, Ps. 79:17: "burnt with fire," as to the first, "and dug under," as to the second. But these two are reduced to the same thing, because the more one loves some good, the more he fears the evil contrary to it. These are the things by which man is bound and held fast in sin; yet he is moved more through fear than through love. Hence we see that fierce beasts are held back from the greatest pleasures by fear of punishment, and thus fear binds men the most. But among all fears, the fear of death is the greatest. For it is the end of terrible things. Hence if a man overcomes this fear, he overcomes all; and this being overcome, every inordinate love of the world is overcome. And therefore Christ through his death broke this bond, because he took away the fear of death, and consequently the love of the present life. For when a man considers that the Son of God, the lord of death, willed to die, he does not fear to die. And hence it is that before the death of Christ that one said, in Ecclus. 41:1: "O death, how bitter is the remembrance of you." But after the death of Christ the Apostle cries out, Phil. 1:23: "having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ." Hence Matt. 10:28: "do not fear those who kill the body," etc. He says therefore "that he might deliver them," who through fear of death were liable to servitude, namely of sin, through their whole life, which they too much desired. Or otherwise: for man was liable to a twofold servitude, namely of the law and of sin. Hence Acts 15:10, the law is called a yoke, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. For the hands of Moses were heavy, Exod. 17:12; Gal. 4:5: "that he might redeem them who were under the law." For they were liable to the servitude of sin. From this twofold servitude Christ freed us. But the difference between the New and the Old Testament is fear and love. In the New there is love. John 14:15: "if you love me, keep my commandments." But the Old was a law of fear. Rom. 8:15: "for you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear." And therefore he says "that he might deliver them" who, through fear of bodily death, which the law inflicted, were through their whole life liable to the servitude of the law. But it is asked why he did not immediately free from death, but from the fear of death? I respond. It must be said that he immediately freed us from death as to its cause, but not yet from death itself, although he freed us from the fear of death. The reason for this is that if he had freed us from bodily death, men would serve Christ only for the sake of a bodily good, and thus the merit of faith and hope would perish; likewise also the very punishments are meritorious for us unto eternal life. Acts 14:21: "through many tribulations," etc. And it should be noted that he freed us from the fear of death, first by showing the future immortality, and from this man esteems temporal death lightly. 1 Cor. 15:20: "Christ rising, the firstfruits of them that sleep," etc. Second, by voluntarily foretasting death, from which we are made more ready to undergo death for Christ. 1 Pet. 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example," etc. Third, by opening the approach to glory, which before his death did not lie open, and from this we not only do not fear death, but we desire it. Phil. 1:23: "having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ," etc. Next, when he says "for nowhere did he take hold of the angels," the Apostle proves the usefulness which the death of Christ brought. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows that Christ freed us through death, which he proves from the condition of the passible nature which he assumed; second he concludes the likeness, at the place "whence he ought"; third he shows the usefulness of the likeness, at the place "that he might become merciful." He says therefore: I said that Christ through his death freed us from sins and death. Nor is there doubt that, as to the condition of nature, an angel is greater than man; but because an angel was not liable to servitude, nor worthy of death, therefore he did not assume an angel. But if he had assumed an angel, this indeed would have been on account of the dignity of the nature; but nowhere do we read that he assumed him, but only the seed of Abraham, that is, human nature, not however the ideal nature, but in an individual and an atom, and from the seed of Abraham. Matt. 1:1: "son of Abraham," etc. And he adds this so that the Jews, who glory in being of the race of Abraham, might the more venerate Christ. But he significantly says "took hold of," because that is properly said to be taken hold of which flees. But not only did human nature itself flee from God, but also the very sons of Abraham. Zech. 7:11: "they turned away the shoulder," etc. But this taking hold of human nature into the unity of the person of the Son of God exalts our nature beyond measure; hence Chrysostom says: it is truly great and wonderful and full of astonishment, that our flesh sits on high, and is adored by Angels and Archangels. Turning this over often in my mind I suffer a rapture, imagining great things of the human race. But it seems that he ought rather to have taken hold of the angelic nature than the human nature: for likeness is a reason contributing to the congruity of the incarnation of the divine person. But in the angelic nature is found a more express likeness of God than in the human, because it itself is the seal of likeness, Ezek. 28:12. It seems, therefore, more fitting that he ought to have taken hold of an angel, than the seed of Abraham. Moreover: in the angelic nature sin is found just as in the human. Job 4:18: "in his angels he found wickedness." If, therefore, he took hold of human nature in order to free it from sin, it seems that he ought much more to have taken hold of the angelic. I respond. It must be said that some nature is called assumable by the Son of God according to its congruence to unity of person. But this congruence is regarded as to two things: namely as to dignity, that that nature is assumable which is born to attain the Word itself through its own operation, by loving and knowing him; and as to necessity, namely that it be subject to a remediable sin. The first and second are found in human nature, which is fit and born to love and know God, and its sin was remediable, and therefore it is assumable. But to the angelic nature, although the first is present, the second is nevertheless lacking; for its sin is irremediable, not indeed from the gravity of the fault, but from the condition of its nature or state. What is death to men, is a fall to angels, as Damascene says. But it is manifest that all the sins of man, whether they be small or great, before death are remissible, but after death they are irremissible and remain perpetually; and therefore the angelic nature is unassumable. And through this the solution to the objections is clear, because although in the angelic nature there is the congruence of dignity, the congruence of necessity is nevertheless lacking. Then, when he says "whence he ought in all things to be made like unto his brethren," from the foregoing he concludes the likeness, as if he were to say: since, therefore, he did not take hold of the angels, but the seed of Abraham, therefore he ought in all things to be made like his brethren. In all things, I say, in which they are brethren — not in fault, but in punishment — and therefore he ought to have a passible nature. Hence below, 4:15: "but tempted in all things according to likeness, without sin" — namely as to punishment, not the temptation of fault. Likewise they are brethren as to grace. 1 John 3:1: "behold what charity God the Father has given us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God." Rom. 8:29: "whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable," etc. Next he sets forth the usefulness of this likeness, when he says "that he might become merciful," where he does two things: for first he sets it forth; second he expounds it, at the place "for in that," etc. For Christ, insofar as he is mediator, has a twofold office. One by which he is set over the whole human race as judge. John 5:27: "he gave him power to do judgment," etc. The other, by comparison to God, before whom he intercedes for us as it were an advocate, because he stands before his face for us — below, 7:25, and 1 John 2:1: "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ," etc. But in a judge mercy is most desired, and especially by the accused; in an advocate fidelity is desired. But in Christ the Apostle intimates that these two things exist through his passion. For the human race desired mercy in Christ insofar as he is judge; fidelity, insofar as he is advocate. And Christ exhibited these two things through his passion. Hence as to the first he says that through the passion he was made like his brethren, that he might become merciful. But was he not merciful from eternity? It seems that he was, because "his mercies are over all his works," Ps. 144:9. Likewise, from the beginning he had mercy. Job 31:18: "from my infancy mercy grew up with me." I respond. It must be said that mercy is called, as it were, a wretched heart over another's misery, and this is in two ways. In one way through mere apprehension, and thus God, without passion, apprehends our misery. For he knew our frame, as it is said in Ps. 102:14. In another way through experience, and thus Christ, especially in his passion, experienced our misery. And thus it is said, that he who was merciful through apprehension of our misery, might become merciful through experience. Is. 58:9: "I will cry, and say: behold I am here, for I am merciful, the Lord your God." And hence it is that he showed mercy, as is clear concerning the woman caught in adultery. He taught mercy, Matt. 5:7: "be merciful," etc. He commanded mercy, Matt. 12:7: "learn what this is: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," etc. Likewise he himself is a faithful advocate. And therefore he is called a faithful high priest. Below, 9:11: "Christ, being present, a high priest of the good things to come." And it is required that he be faithful. 1 Cor. 14:2: "here now it is required among stewards, that a man be found faithful." And all this, that he might make propitiation for the sins of the people, namely for whom he willed to undergo death. For the passion itself is a pleading, and an intercession of the faithful. Then, when he says "for in that," etc., he expounds this usefulness, and it continues thus, as if he were to say: I do not speak of Christ insofar as he is God, but insofar as he is man. And therefore "in that," that is, in that nature which he assumed, so that he might experience in himself that our cause is his own. Hence he says "he was both tempted and suffered"; therefore he is able to help also those who are tempted. Or otherwise: therefore he was made merciful and faithful, because in that he suffered and was tempted, he has a certain fittingness for this, that he should show mercy. And he says "tempted," not by the flesh, but by the enemy. Matt. 4:1: "Jesus was led into the desert by the spirit, to be tempted by the Devil." For in him there was no rebellion of the lower part against the higher, but he suffered in the flesh for us. 1 Pet. 2:21: "Christ suffered for us," etc. And 4:1: "Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same thought."”

“As was said above, the old law had its authority from three sources, namely from the Angel, from Moses, and from Aaron the high priest. Now the Apostle above preferred Christ, the author of the new testament, to the Angels through whom the law was given; here he intends to prefer him to Moses, who was the promulgator and, as it were, the lawgiver of the old testament. And concerning this he does two things. First he prefers Christ to Moses; second he concludes from this that Christ must be obeyed most effectively, at the words, Wherefore, as. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the dignity of Christ; second he shows what is common to Christ and Moses, at the word, of more. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets down the condition of those to whom he speaks; second he sets down the condition of him of whom he speaks, at the word, consider. Now those to whom he speaks he describes in three ways. First from charity. Hence he says brothers, as if to say: because you are brothers by the seed of Abraham, and of Christ, and among yourselves to one another. Matt. 23:8: You are all brothers, etc. Likewise brothers of Christ. Above 2:11: he is not ashamed to call them brothers. Now charity makes this brotherhood. Ps. 132:1: Behold how good and how pleasant, etc. Second, he also describes them from holiness, when he says holy. And this on account of the receiving of the sacraments, by which we are sanctified by Christ. 1 Cor. 6:11: but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified, etc. Third, he describes them from their calling, when he says partakers of the heavenly calling. Now this calling can be understood to be heavenly in two ways: either by reason of the end, or by reason of the principle. By reason of the end indeed, because they were called not to earthly things, as in the old testament, but they were called to the heavenly kingdoms. 1 Thess. 2:12: he called us to his kingdom and glory. 1 Pet. 2:9: who called out of darkness into his marvelous light. By reason of the principle indeed, because it is not from our merits, nor from human invention, but from heavenly grace alone. Gal. 1:6: he called through his grace. Rom. 8:30: and those whom he predestined, these he also called. Is. 41:2: who raised up the just one from the east, called him to follow him. Now he says partakers, because not only the Jews were called to the grace of faith and of the new testament, but also the gentiles. Col. 1:12: he has made us worthy to share in the lot of the saints in light. Because therefore you are in charity, and holy, and called to heavenly things, you ought to hear gladly one speaking of him, through whom these things come to you. Consequently he describes him of whom he speaks, when he says consider. Below ch. 12:2: looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, etc. But whom? The apostle, he says, and high priest of our confession, Jesus. For the Apostle in what follows prefers Christ to Moses and Aaron, and therefore ascribes to him the dignity of both: of Moses, namely because he was sent by God. Ps.: he sent Moses his servant. And of Aaron, who was high priest. Ex. 28:1: bring also to yourself Aaron, etc. But Christ was sent as apostle more excellently than Moses. Ex. 4:13: I beseech you, Lord, send whom you will send, as if to say: you are going to send another more worthy one. Likewise he himself is high priest and priest. Ps. 109:5: you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. As it were, then, he here sets forth first his principal condition, saying wherefore, that is, therefore, brothers, consider the apostle, as if to say: pass over considering that apostle, that is, Moses who was sent, and the high priest Aaron, and consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, that is, him whom we confess. For this is necessary for salvation, that we confess him. Rom. 10:10: with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Or of confession, that is, of spiritual sacrifice. For every priest is ordained for offering sacrifices. Now sacrifice is twofold, namely bodily or temporal. And Aaron was instituted for this. But there is another sacrifice, spiritual, which consists in the confession of faith. Ps. 49:23: the sacrifice of praise shall honor me. And Christ was instituted for this sacrifice, not for bulls. Is. 1:11: I have not wanted the holocausts of rams, and the fat of fatlings, and the blood of calves, and lambs, and he-goats. And a little after, there follows: do not offer sacrifice any more in vain. Then when he says who is faithful, etc., he compares Christ to Moses. Concerning Aaron he makes special mention below. And he first sets down here, as has been said, that in which they agree; second, that in which Christ surpasses Moses, at the words for of more glory. Common to Christ and Moses is faithfulness toward God; and therefore he says who is faithful. Here it should be known that all this which is said here about Moses is founded upon that which is found in Num. 12:7, where the Lord shows the excellence of Moses, after Aaron and Miriam had quarreled against him, where these words are set down which the Apostle here alleges. For there it is said thus: but not so my servant Moses, who is most faithful in all my house. Where, if we attend well, Moses is commended more than in any other place of the Bible. And therefore the Apostle takes this as the most excellent statement for the commendation of Moses. But this can apply both to Christ and to Moses. For concerning Moses it is clear from the history itself alleged. It is also understood of Christ, because he, according as he is man, is faithful to him who made him, namely to God the Father, who made him, namely apostle and high priest — not according to the divine nature, because in that respect he was not made, nor created, but begotten — but according to the human nature. Rom. 1:3: who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh. Now he was faithful to God the Father: first, by not attributing to himself what he had, but to the Father. John ch. 7:16: my teaching is not mine. Second, because he sought his glory, not his own. John 8:50: I do not seek my own glory. And at 7:18 it is said: he who seeks the glory of him who sent him, this one is true, and there is no injustice in him. Third, because he perfectly obeyed the Father. Phil. 2:8: made obedient unto death. Christ, therefore, is faithful to him who made him, as also Moses was, and this in all his house, which house is the whole company of the faithful, concerning which Ps. 92:7: holiness becomes your house, O Lord. Or in all his house, that is, in the whole world, not only in Judea, as Moses was. Is.: I have given you as a light of the gentiles, that you may be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Then when he says for of more glory, he prefers Christ to Moses, and this as to two things. First as to power; second as to condition, at the words and Moses. Now in commending Christ, he commends him as having had honor in all the house, as Moses did; but he shows that Christ excels him. Here he first sets down his reason; second he makes it clear, at the words for every. Now the Apostle's reason is that greater glory is owed to him who made the house than to him who inhabits it; but Christ built the house. Ps. 73:16: you have made the dawn and the sun. Prov. 9:1: wisdom has built herself a house, that is, the Church. For Christ himself, through whom grace and truth came to be, built the Church as a lawgiver. But Moses as the announcer of the law; and therefore glory is owed to Moses only as to an announcer. Hence also his face shone, concerning which Ex. 34:29 and 2 Cor. 3:7: so that the children of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance. The text, therefore, continues thus: you say that Christ is faithful as Moses was; why then should we neglect to consider? Surely because he has been held worthy of more glory than Moses, by as much as the lord of the house, who built it, has more glory. As if to say: although Moses is greatly honorable, yet Christ is more honorable, as the builder of the house, and as the principal lawgiver. Job 36:22: behold, God is exalted in his strength, and none is like him among lawgivers. If, then, glory is owed to Moses, Christ is worthy of a greater one. 2 Cor. 3:9: if the ministration of condemnation is in glory, much more will the ministry of justice be in glory. Consequently he proves the minor of his reasoning, when he says for every house is built by someone. Now the minor is that Christ built this house; and he proves this, first, because every house needs a builder; second, because this house of which he speaks was built by Christ, at the words but he who all things. First, therefore, he proves that this house, like any other, needs a builder, because diverse things are not joined together except by some one thing, as is clear in the case of a man-made house, in which the wood and stones of which it is composed are united by someone. Now the aggregate of the faithful, which is the Church and the house of God, is gathered from diverse peoples, namely Jews and gentiles, slaves and free. And therefore the Church, like every house, is built by someone uniting it. Of this reasoning he sets down only the conclusion, supposing the truth of the premises from the evidence of the fact. 1 Pet. 2:5: yourselves, as living stones, are built up spiritual houses, etc. Eph. 2:20: built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, etc. Then when he says but he who created all things is God, he proves that Christ is the builder of this house, for he himself is the God who made all things. And if this is understood of the whole world, it is plain. Ps. 32:9: he spoke, and they were made, etc. But there is another, spiritual creation, which is effected through the Spirit. Ps. 103:30: send forth your spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face, etc. And this is done by God through Christ. Jas. 1:18: of his own will he begot us by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of beginning of his creature. Eph. 2:10: we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. God, therefore, created this house, namely the Church, out of nothing, that is, from the state of sin, into the state of grace. Therefore Christ, through whom he made all things — above 1:2: through whom he also made the ages. John 1:3: all things were made through him, and without him, etc. — is more excellent, inasmuch as he has the power of a maker, than Moses, who was only an announcer. Then when he says and Moses indeed, he prefers Christ to Moses as to condition, and concerning this he does two things. First he sets down his reason; second he makes it clear, at the words which house. Now his reason is this: it is agreed that a lord, and in his own house, is of greater esteem than a servant, and in the house of his lord. But Moses is faithful as a servant, and in the house of his lord; Christ, however, as lord, and in his own house; therefore, etc. Concerning this it should be known that the Apostle very diligently notes those words written of Moses, in which two things are said of him: for he is called a servant, and he is also called faithful, not in his own house, but in the house of our God. And as to these two things, he prefers Christ to Moses. First he shows what applies to Moses; second what applies to Christ, at the words but Christ as a son. He says, therefore, that Moses was faithful as a servant, that is, as a faithful steward. Matt. 25:21: well done, good and faithful servant, because you have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Now Christ is in a certain way a servant, namely according to the flesh — Phil. 2:7: taking the form of a servant — but Moses was the servant of God in setting forth the words of God to the children of Israel. From this it is clear that, because he was a faithful servant, the things which he said were ordered to another, namely to Christ. And this was for a testimony of the things which were to be said. John 5:46: if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also, for he wrote of me. Acts 10:43: to him all the prophets bear witness. Because, therefore, he was a servant, he was accordingly not in his own house, but in another's; and because the things he said were a testimony of the things that were to be said of Christ, Moses was therefore in every way less than Christ. Then when he says but Christ, he shows what applies to Christ, namely that Christ is not as a servant, but as a son in the house of the Father, and consequently his own, because he is the natural heir. Above 1:2: whom he appointed heir of all things, etc. For the Church is the house of Christ. Prov. 14:1: a wise woman builds her house. Ps. 2:7: the Lord said to me: you are my son, etc. Matt. 3:17: my beloved son, etc. He is, therefore, not a servant, but a son, and in his own house; but Moses is a servant, and in another's house. John 8:35: the son remains forever. Then when he says which house we are, he shows what this house is. This house is the faithful, and they are the house of Christ, who believe in Christ. 1 Tim. 3:15: in the house of God, which is the Church. And also because Christ dwells in them. Eph. 3:17: that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts. This house, therefore, we the faithful are. Now for this, that we may be the house of God, four things are necessary, which are required concerning a house, which are not in a tent. And the Apostle touches on these. First, that our hope and faith be certain and permanent; but a tent, even if it is firm, can nevertheless quickly be moved. And it signifies those who believe for a time, and in the time of temptation fall away; but those are the house who retain the word of God. And therefore he says if we hold fast our confidence. It was said above that confidence is hope with firm expectation and without fear. 2 Cor. 3:4: such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Second, that it be ordinately disposed. And therefore he says the glory of hope, that is, ordered to the glory of God, so that, other things being held in contempt, we may glory in the hope of glory. Jer. 9:24: let him who glories, glory in this, to know and understand me. Third, that it be persevering. Hence he says unto the end. Matt. 10:22: he who perseveres unto the end, he shall be saved. Fourth, that it be firm, namely so that it may not be moved by any adversity. Hence he says firm. Below ch. 6:18f.: we have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm.”

“Above the Apostle proved that Christ is of greater excellence than Moses; here he concludes that Christ is to be obeyed all the more. And he does this through the authority of the prophet David in Psalm 94. In this he does three things: first he sets forth the authority, which contains a certain exhortation; second he expounds it, at the place, "see, brothers"; third from the authority and the exposition he argues, in chapter 4, at the place, "let us fear therefore." Concerning the first he does three things. For first he suggests the authority of the words that follow; second he sets down the exhortation, which is contained in the authority, at the place, "today if the voice"; third he sets down a certain comparison, at the place, "as in the provocation," etc. The authority of the words is from this, that they were not uttered by human invention, but by the Holy Spirit. Hence he says, "wherefore, as the Holy Spirit says." As if to say: Christ is of more abundant grace than Moses; therefore if we have listened to Moses, we ought not to harden our hearts against listening to Christ. He himself alleges the words of the Old Testament on behalf of the New, lest it be believed that they are to be referred only to the Old Testament; rather they are also to be referred to the New, and to another time. And they are the words of the Holy Spirit, because, as it is said in 2 Peter 1:21: prophecy was not at any time brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit. For David himself says of himself, in 2 Kings 23:2: the Spirit of the Lord has spoken through me. In this, therefore, he shows the authority to be true, namely because it is from the Holy Spirit, against the Manichean. Then when he says, today if the voice, etc., he sets down the admonition, where he does three things. For first he describes the time when he says "today"; second he adds the benefit, at the place "if the voice"; third he subjoins his own admonition, at the place "harden not." The time is "today," namely the time of day. For the time of the old law was called night, because it was the time of shadow. Below, 10:1: for the law, having a shadow of the good things to come. But the time of the New Testament, because it drives away the shadow of the night of the law, is called day. Romans 13:12: the night is past, and the day is at hand. This time is also called day, on account of the rising of the sun of justice. Malachi 4: unto you that fear my name the sun shall rise, et cetera. This day is not followed by night, but by a clearer day, namely when we shall see the sun of justice itself with unveiled face in its wheel, when we shall see him through his essence. And in this day a benefit is shown to us. For there follows, if you shall hear his voice, because we hear his voice, which was not the case in the Old Testament, in which only the words of the prophets were heard. Above, 1:1: God, formerly speaking to the fathers in the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us in the Son. Isaiah 52:6: therefore my people shall know my name in that day, for I myself who spoke, behold, I am here. Canticle 2:14: let your voice sound in my ears. For in this a benefit so greatly desired is shown to us. Luke 19:42: in this your day, the things that are to your peace, et cetera. If therefore the benefit is so great, behold the admonition: harden not your hearts. A hard heart tends toward evil. That is hard which does not yield, but resists what impels it, and does not receive an impression. And thus a man's heart is called hard, when it does not yield to the divine command, nor easily receives divine impressions. Ecclesiasticus 3:27: a hard heart shall fare ill at the last. Romans 2:5: according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you treasure up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath. Now this hardening is caused from two things. From one as it were negatively, namely from God not bestowing grace. Romans 9:18: God has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens. From the other, positively, and in this way the sinner hardens himself, by not obeying God, and by not opening his heart to grace. Zechariah 7:12: they made their heart as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts sent in his spirit by the hand of the former prophets. Harden not your hearts, therefore, that is, do not close your hearts to the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51: you always resist the Holy Spirit. Consequently he sets down the comparison when he says: as in the provocation. And this is a comparison from a past deed; for the faithful are instructed about the things that are to be done in the New Testament from the things that were done in the past, according to that saying of Romans 15:4: whatever things were written, were written for our instruction. Now he does two things concerning this: first he proposes the example in general, setting down the fault; second in particular, at the place, where they tempted me, et cetera. But in order that we may follow the exposition of the Apostle, it is necessary to set forth in this text the senses that agree with the exposition. Now we read that, among other faults of the sons of Israel, two were most gravely punished. One was the disobedience which they showed in the affair of the spies, concerning which see Numbers 13 and 14. On account of this deed the Lord, being indignant, willed to destroy the whole people. Hence he swore that none should enter the land of promise, except two, namely Caleb and Joshua. Now this he specially calls a provocation, because, although by other sins they had offended God, yet by this one they provoked him; for just as an unripe fruit, which is opposed to a ripe one, is not fit for eating, so then the wrath of God was inflexible. Psalm 77:40: they provoked him in the desert, and tempted him in the place without water. Baruch 4:7: you provoked him who made you. The other sin was the sin of temptation. For they frequently tempted God, because at one time over water, at another over meat, and at another over bread: so that they tempted him ten times. Numbers 14:22: they have tempted me now ten times. Job 19:3: behold, you confound me ten times. And therefore he says "according to the day of temptation." Now someone might think that the provocation and the temptation were the same sin, so that the Apostle meant to say: harden not your hearts as in the provocation, which was in the day of the temptation. But this is against the exposition of the Apostle. It must therefore be said thus: harden not your hearts as in the provocation, and again as in the day of temptation, so that there are two sins. Hence Psalm 77:41: they turned back, and tempted God, and provoked the Holy One of Israel. Consequently he pursues the faults in particular, when he says, where your fathers tempted me, et cetera. And concerning this he does two things: first he sets down the sin of temptation; second the sin of provocation, at the place, and I said always. Concerning the first he does three things. For first he sets down the sin of temptation; second he shows its gravity, at the place, they proved; third he sets down the penalty, at the place, wherefore I was offended. He says, then, that in them was the sin of temptation in the desert, because there your fathers tempted me; and he speaks in the person of the Lord. Here it must be known that to tempt is to take a trial of a thing which one does not know. Hence the fact that someone tempts God proceeds from unbelief. But it must be known that sometimes someone tempts God, not with the intention of tempting and making trial, yet he behaves in the manner of one tempting. For he who uses his own thing for its usefulness does not properly tempt: for instance, if someone fleeing runs upon his horse, even if he puts it to the test, yet not with the intention of tempting. But when what he does is of no use, then he tempts. Likewise, if someone exposes himself to some danger, compelled by necessity, under hope of divine help, he does not tempt God. But if without any necessity, then he tempts God. And thus he himself says, Matthew 4:7: you shall not tempt the Lord your God, because there was no necessity that he should cast himself down. Thus these people tempted the Lord, because they doubted the power of God, crying out against Moses, as though God could not give them food, though they had experienced his power in greater things; and therefore it was the sin of unbelief, which is the greatest. Then the gravity of the fault is set down, when he says, they proved me, et cetera. For the greater the benefits of God someone receives, and the greater certainty of divine power he has, and afterward doubts, the more gravely he sins. But these people saw signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, the opening of the sea and other miracles, and yet they did not believe. Hence Numbers 14:22: the men who saw my majesty, and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now ten times, et cetera. And therefore he says "they proved," that is, they wished to make trial, and "they saw," that is, they experienced, "my works," that is, the effects which could not exist unless he who wrought the works were of infinite power. And all this not in one day, but for forty years, during which they remained in the desert, because they always had manna and the pillar of fire and of cloud; or, they proved that they saw me, namely because in nothing did I fail them. Yet what he says, "forty years," according to the intention of the Apostle is referred to what precedes, but according to the intention of the Psalmist it is referred to what follows, so that it is said he was offended or hostile toward them in the fortieth year. And thus reads the text of Jerome. Then when he says, wherefore I was offended, the penalty of the sin is set down; and there is a double reading, namely "offended," or "near," and it comes to the same thing. Wherefore, that is, on account of the sin, I was offended, that is, indignant — not that wrath is in God, except by way of likeness, because he punishes as one who is angry; concerning which penalty it is frequently found in Exodus 22: let me alone, that my wrath may be kindled, etc., and in the book of Numbers. For often they were laid low. Hence 1 Corinthians 10:5 treats of the penalty of this sin. Or, "I was near," namely by punishing them. For when the Lord comes to the aid of the good, and punishes the wicked, then he is near to them; but when he overlooks the sins of men for the sake of repentance, and overlooks the affliction of the just, so that their merit may increase, then he also seems far off. Job 22:14: the clouds are his covert, and he does not consider our things, and he walks about the poles of heaven. Or "near," as regards divine mercy, because this very fact, that he punishes them temporally, is a great sign of mercy. Augustine: burn here, cut here, that thou mayest spare forever. Then when he says, and I said, etc., he sets down the sin of provocation in particular. And this is clear from what is said below, to whom I swore that they should not enter, et cetera. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down the fault; second he adds the penalty, at the place, to whom I swore in my wrath, et cetera. Now he sets down a twofold fault. One is in obstinacy in evil; the other is in withdrawal from good. And this latter he sets down, at the place, but they have not known my ways. He says, then: I was thus near to them, namely by punishing them. And I said, namely by eternal foreknowledge, these always err in heart. Deuteronomy 31:27: you have always acted contentiously against the Lord. Jeremiah 13:23: if the Ethiopian can change his skin, et cetera. Thus, then, in one way someone provokes God when he obstinately clings to evil; in another way, when he despises the good. Hence he says, but they have not known my ways, that is, not with respect to simple ignorance, but to affected ignorance, so that the sense is: they have not known, that is, they were unwilling to know. Job 21:14: we do not want the knowledge of your ways. Psalm 35:3: he would not understand, that he might do well. Or, "they have not known," that is, they have not approved, as the Apostle says, 2 Timothy 2:19: the Lord knows who are his. Consequently he shows the penalty when he says, to whom I swore. In this word he sets down immutability, in that he wills oaths to be firm. For when God or an angel is found to swear, it is a sign of the immutability of that concerning which he swore. Psalm 109:5: the Lord has sworn, and he will not repent, et cetera. Yet sometimes he swears only under a condition, namely that if they do not repent, these evils will befall them. He also indicates that this penalty is not for a threat, but rather for extermination, because he says "in wrath." Psalm 6:1: Lord, rebuke me not in your wrath. He swore, therefore, in wrath, if they shall enter into my rest. The construction is defective, after the manner of one who is angry, who cuts short his words. And the word "if" is taken for "not," that is, they shall not enter into my rest. Now there is a threefold rest. One is temporal, concerning which Luke 12:19: you have many goods laid up for many years, take your rest, et cetera. The second is the rest of conscience. Ecclesiasticus 51:35: I labored a little, and found much rest. The third is the rest of eternal glory. Psalm 4:8: in peace, in the very same, I will sleep and take my rest. It can, therefore, be explained that what is said here refers to each of these, so that it is said: but they entered neither into the rest of the land of promise, nor into the rest of conscience, nor into the rest of eternal enjoyment.”

“Above, the Apostle showed, by the authority of the Psalmist, that Christ must be firmly obeyed. But in that authority he set down three things: admonition, fault, and punishment; here he expounds these three in order. He does the first here, "see"; the second there, "but some"; the third there, "but to whom did he swear." In the admonition, however, there are two things, namely, the admonition itself, and the condition of that admonition. Hence he expounds these two. First the first, here; second the second, there, "for partakers of Christ." But in the first admonition he exhorts to two things: namely, to careful consideration; second, to mutual admonition, there, "but exhort." He says therefore, "see." For each one ought to consider in himself in what state he is. Gal. 6:4: "let each one prove his own work." Jer. 2:23: "see your ways in the valley." "See," therefore, brethren, as regards each one in himself, because each one is a part of the society, and God has commanded each one concerning his neighbor, Ecclus. 17:12. "See," that is, test one another, "lest perhaps there be in any of you," etc., as if to say: many among you are in a state of perfection, yet on account of frailty and the freedom of the will there could be evil in some of you. Job 4:18f.: "behold, they that serve him are not steadfast, and in his angels he found perverseness: how much more they that dwell in houses of clay, and have an earthly foundation?" Jn. 6:71: "did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Therefore let no one be solicitous only for himself, but also for each one of his society. But what? "Lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." Behold the evil of which the Apostle speaks, namely, an unbelieving heart, that is, not firm in faith, in which the malice of the soul consists: for as the good of the soul is in cleaving to God — Ps. 72:27: "but it is good for me to adhere to God," which, namely, is through faith — so to withdraw from God through unbelief is the evil of man. Jer. 2:19: "know and see, O Israel, that it is an evil and bitter thing that thou hast left the Lord," etc. And therefore he says "of departing," because through unbelief one withdraws from the living God. Jer. 2:13: "they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." But he says "from the living God," because he is both life in himself and the life of the soul. Jn. 1:4: "in him was life." He says this in order to show that through withdrawal from God, man incurs spiritual death. But if this evil is found in someone, is one therefore to despair? No, but rather he ought to be exhorted, that is, admonished: therefore he says, "but exhort one another every day," that is, continually, namely by examining one's own conscience, and leading it to the good, "while it is called today," that is, as long as the present time of grace lasts, which is all as it were one day. Jn. 9:4: "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day." And this is so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For as was said above, the heart is hardened through obstinacy in evil. But by this someone clings firmly to sin, because he is deceived. For it is natural to the appetite to cling to the good; but it withdraws from the good because it is deceived. Prov. 14:22: "they err that work evil"; and Prov. 13:13, according to another text: "deceitful souls err in sins." Wis. 5:6: "therefore we have erred from the way of truth." Consequently, when he says "partakers," etc., he expounds the condition of the admonition, as if to say: this condition is more effective than that one, because they only heard, but we have been made partakers of Christ. And he speaks properly, because in the Old Testament there was only hearing, nor was grace conferred from the work performed; but in the New Testament there is both the hearing of faith and grace is given to the one performing it. Hence we have been made partakers of Christ. Jn. 1:16: "of his fullness we have all received." But we are partakers of grace, first through the reception of faith. Eph. 3:17: "that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts." Second, through the sacraments of faith. Gal. 3:27: "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Third, through participation in the body of Christ. 1 Cor. 10:16: "the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?" But it must be known that participation in Christ is twofold. One imperfect, which is through faith and the sacraments; the other perfect, which is through the presence and vision of the reality; the first we already have in fact, but the second in hope. Yet along with this, hope has this condition, namely, if we persevere. Hence he says, "if however the beginning," etc. For whoever is baptized in Christ receives a certain new nature, and Christ is in a certain way formed in him. Gal. 4:19: "my little children, whom I bring forth again, until Christ be formed in you." This indeed will be truly perfected in us in our homeland, but here only the beginning, and this through formed faith, because unformed faith is dead. James 2:20: "faith without works is dead." Hence this is not for us the beginning of participation in Christ, but formed faith is. Below, 11:1: "but faith is the substance of things to be hoped for," that is, the foundation, and as it were the beginning. He says therefore: we are partakers of Christ, if however we hold firm unto the end the beginning of his substance, namely formed faith. But on the contrary: it seems that fear is rather the beginning, because it says, Ps. 110:9: "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I respond. It must be said that faith is formed through charity. But charity is not without chaste fear. And therefore formed faith always has this fear attached to it. Hence both faith and fear are the beginning. But that which is added when it is said, "today," etc., has been entirely expounded. Then, when he says "for some who, having heard," he expounds what he had said concerning their fault, as if to say: you have been made partakers of Christ, if you do not harden your hearts as those who heard, but provoked — "but not all," that is, yet not all. For two, namely Caleb and Joshua, remained steadfast, as is found in Num. 14:6, and they also strengthened the others. And through this it is given to understand that, when not the whole Church falls, but only some, even if many, nevertheless the evil will be punished, but not the good, as in those two. 3 Kings 19:18: "I have left me seven thousand men, who have not bowed their knees to Baal." Rom. 11:5: "a remnant have been saved according to the election of God." Then, when he says "but to whom," etc., he expounds what he had said concerning the punishment. And first, that which he had said, "I was offended"; second, that which he had said, "I swore in my wrath," etc., there, "but to whom did he swear," etc. He says therefore, "but with whom was he offended forty years? Was it not," etc. From which it is clear that that which he said above, "forty years," refers to that, "I was offended." Hence he says that he was offended with them for those forty years. Hence it must be known that all who went out of Egypt died in the desert, as is said in Jos. 5:4. Yet not all were struck down; but some indeed by God, as when the earth was opened, and swallowed up Dathan and Abiron, as is said in Ps. 105:17, and concerning this it is found in Num. 16:31ff. Others indeed were struck down by Moses, as is evident in the casting of the calf, as is evident in Ex. 32:16. Others indeed by enemies, as is evident in many places. And these things are sufficiently found in 1 Cor. 10:1ff. Others indeed died their own death. Therefore not all were struck down. Hence it was not a general punishment, but it was a special punishment. And none except those two who have been mentioned entered the land of promise. And concerning this land he says, "but to whom did he swear," that is, firmly decreed, that they should not enter into his rest, except to those who were unbelieving, namely at the words of the spies? Hence it is clear that on account of unbelief they were not able to enter into his rest; and for this reason he says, "we see," because they experienced that on account of their unbelief they were not able to enter. Or, "we see," that is, ourselves, namely through that punishment which has been mentioned, that they were not able, etc.”

“Above, the Apostle set forth the authority of David and expounded it; now, however, he argues from it. And concerning this he does two things. First, he induces a solicitude for entering; second, he admonishes that we should hasten to enter, at the place, let us therefore hasten. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he instills a solicitude of fear; second, he shows that this solicitude ought to press upon us, at the place, for indeed to us also. He says therefore: it has been said that he was angered against those who did not believe, so that he swore that they would not enter into his rest; therefore let us also fear, namely with a chaste and solicitous fear. Prov. XXVIII, 14: blessed is the man who is always fearful. I Cor. X, 12: let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. For fear of this kind is a useful admonition unto good, and is a companion of the three spiritual virtues, namely hope, faith, and charity. Eccli. XXIV, 24: I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. But what ought we to fear? Lest perhaps, the promise being left, et cetera. For beatitude, or happiness, consists in this, that man should enter into it. Tob. XIII, 20: I shall be blessed, if the remnant of my seed shall be left to see the glory of Jerusalem. Below, XII, 15: watching, lest perhaps anyone be lacking in the grace of God. For, as Chrysostom says, greater is the punishment for the damned in this, that they are excluded from the vision of God, than the other punishments which they have. And he says be thought, namely by divine judgment. Matth. XXV, 41: depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. Or be thought according to human opinion. Eph. V, 5: know ye this and understand, that every fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous person, which is a servitude of idols, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. It is to be feared, therefore, lest any of you be thought to be wanting, because the promise of entering has been made to you. Is. XXXII, 18: my people shall sit in the beauty of peace, in the tabernacles of confidence, in wealthy rest. Apoc. XIV, 13: from henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors. It is to be feared, therefore, lest on account of our fault we do not enter, the promise being left — that is, the promise which we abandon by forsaking hope, faith, and charity, by which we are able to enter. And this happens through mortal sin. Next, when he says for indeed to us, he shows that this solicitude presses upon us. And concerning this he does two things. First, he sets forth his intention; second, he proves it, at the place, we shall enter. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows that this promise was made to us; second, that this promise does not suffice, at the place, but it did not profit. He says therefore for indeed to us it has been announced, that is, it has been promised to us. Hence it must be known that those things which were promised temporally in the Old Testament are to be understood spiritually. For all things happened to them in figure, I Cor. X, 11; and Rom. XV, 4: whatsoever things are written, are written for our doctrine. Then, when he says but it did not profit, et cetera, he shows that the promise does not suffice, so that nonetheless we ought to be solicitous. Hence he says that the word heard and not believed profited them in nothing. For not the hearers of the law shall be justified, but the doers, Rom. II, 13. And he says not mixed with faith, because just as from the intellect and the thing understood one thing is made, so from the heart of the believer and formed faith itself one thing is made. I Cor. c. VI, 17: he who adheres to God is one spirit. But that which he says, from the things which they heard, can be the reason why the word was not mixed with faith. For this was from the things which they heard from the spies, to whom they were incredulous. Or it can be a determination of faith, which ought to be from the things which they heard. For faith is from hearing, Rom. X, 17. For the words of God are so efficacious, that as soon as heard they ought to be believed. Ps. XCII, 7: thy testimonies are become exceedingly credible. Then, when he says for we shall enter, et cetera, he proves the proposition, and concerning this he does three things. First, he shows that it is necessary for us to believe just as for them; second, he adduces two authorities to prove his intent, at the place, and indeed by the works; third, from these he argues, at the place, since therefore it remains. He says therefore: the word was made to us just as to them, for we shall enter into rest. Ps. IV, 8: in peace, in the very self-same, I will sleep and I will rest. Job XI, 19: he shall rest, and there will be no one to rouse thee. But there is a twofold rest. One in external goods, and unto this man goes forth from the rest of the mind; the other is in spiritual goods, which is intimate, and unto this he enters. Matth. XXV, 21: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Cant. I, 3: the king has brought me into his storerooms. Then he sets down the authority as I have sworn, et cetera, and this has been expounded. Then, when he says and indeed by the works, et cetera, he sets down two authorities. One of the Law, which is found in Gen. II, 2; the other, which has frequently been set down, which is found in Ps. XCIV, 8. He says therefore as to the first: and indeed, the works being finished from the foundation of the world; he said, et cetera. This can be read in two ways: in one way, that there is not there for, but he said, in a certain place, et cetera. And this is the plainer reading, so that the sense is: I say that we shall enter into the rest which was prefigured from the foundation of the world, concerning which rest, prefigured through the seventh day, he said — namely the Holy Spirit who speaks in Scripture, because holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, II Pet. I, 21 — in a certain place, a famous one, namely Gen. II, 2, concerning the seventh day: and so God rested from his works. The works, I say, being finished from the foundation of the world. Or: the Holy Spirit said in a certain place concerning the seventh day; and he said this after he had narrated the works of the six days, these being finished from the foundation of the world. But if there is there for he says, then the construction is defective, and the sense is: it has been announced to us that we shall enter, and this the works being finished from the foundation of the world; but when and how it was announced, is because he said, in a certain place, et cetera. But he says the works being finished to denote the works of the six days, which were finished. But he says from the foundation of the world because first the world was established, and after six days it was perfected distinctly in its individual parts. But concerning the distinction of these days, the saints speak in various ways. For Augustine understood it otherwise than the other saints, as is clear in the First Part of the Summa, question LXXIV, articles 2 and 3. Yet however it be said, it is manifest that those works were finished. For in them there is a twofold perfection. One according to the parts of the world, which are the heaven and the four elements. And this is considered according to their essences, as is held in the First Part of the Summa, as it were where above. And this was through the work of creation, which was on the first day; and through the work of distinction, which was on the second and third day. And in this Augustine agrees with the others. The other perfection is according to the individual parts. And this perfection pertains to the work of adornment. And this adornment, as to the higher things, was on the fourth day; as to the middle, namely the air and the water, on the fifth day; but as to the earth, which is the lowest element, was on the sixth day. But this perfection agrees with the senary number, which arises from its aliquot parts taken together, which are one, two, and three; for six times one are six, likewise three times two, and two times three, and one, two, three, are six; for this reason the senary is the first perfect number, because although the ternary agrees in some way with the things that have been said, since three times one are three, and one and two are three, nevertheless twice one do not make three, likewise once two do not make three, but only two. Therefore by the senary itself the perfection of things is designated. But after the perfection, rest is promised, which is given to none except to one who has worked. And thus on the seventh day, on which the state of the world was changed, there was, just as on each of the others, a certain variation. Hence in it began the state of propagation, on account of which it is also numbered along with the others; therefore in the seventh age of the world is the state of those who rest. According to Augustine, however, this seventh day is nothing other than the angelic knowledge referred to the rest of God from his works. But on the contrary: if he rested on the seventh day, who then made it, if it is not a work of God? Moreover, John V, 17: my Father worketh until now, and I work. I answer. It must be said that rest is taken there not as it is opposed to labor, but as it is opposed to motion. For although God, in producing, is not moved, nevertheless because we do not speak of him except through sensible things, in which there is no operation without motion, therefore every operation, speaking broadly, is called motion; and thus he is said to have rested, because he ceased to produce new species: for those things which were made afterward were in those things then produced — either according to active power, as in perfect animals, or according to seminal reasons, or according to matter, as minerals. Therefore then no dead man was raised up, but a body was made which could be raised up. But certain things then existed according to likeness, as rational souls, which are made by God alone. So then God rested from producing works, because all things in some way preceded, as has been said; yet he works until now, conserving and governing the things he founded. And thus God made the seventh day just as any other, because then something was added, because then the state of propagation began. But each addition varied the state of the world, as has been said, and made one day. Or, according to Augustine, it does not say simply he rested, but he rested from his works. For from eternity he rested in himself, but then he also rested, not in his works, but from his works. For God works otherwise than any other craftsman. For a craftsman acts on account of his own need, just as a house-builder makes a house, that he may rest in it. Likewise a smith makes a knife for profit. Hence the desire of any craftsman is set at rest in his work. But it is not so with God, because he does not act on account of his own need, but on account of his goodness to be communicated. Hence he does not rest in the work, but from the work of producing, and he rests only in his own goodness. Next, he sets down the authority of David, which has already been expounded. Next, when he says since therefore it remains, et cetera, he argues from the premises. And concerning this he does two things. First, he takes up the sense of that second authority, if you shall hear his voice, et cetera; second, he argues from the first, at the place, there remains therefore, et cetera. Concerning the first he does two things: first he draws two things from the second authority; second he shows that these two are understood in it, at the place, for if Jesus had. He takes therefore two things which are understood in it: at for it is just, namely, that the ancient fathers did not enter. The other is, that in the time of David there still remained another rest to be granted. For although rest to be granted in the land of promise had been promised to them, nevertheless by this, that after a long time he says: today, if you shall hear the voice, et cetera, he shows that another rest remains. For otherwise he would not make mention of rest, saying today, et cetera. There is therefore a certain rest into which we must enter, into which they did not enter on account of unbelief. And therefore, since they did not enter, it remains therefore that some enter, to whom the promise was made, because those to whom it was announced before did not enter, that is, the Jews to whom the promise was made. It remains therefore that some enter, the reason for which is, that if God created man unto eternal beatitude — since he created him unto his image and likeness — therefore he prepared rest for him. Although, therefore, someone may be excluded on account of the merit of his own fault, yet God does not will that this preparation be in vain. And therefore it remains that some enter, as is clear concerning those called to the wedding. Matth. XXII, 8: the wedding indeed is ready, but they that were invited were not worthy, et cetera. And therefore he limits, that is, determines for us, a seventh day, that is, the day of grace, saying in David: today, if you shall hear the voice, et cetera. And he repeats the authority, which has been expounded. But it must be known that God prepared beatitude for man in place of rest, nor does he will this preparation to be in vain; but if one does not enter, another will enter, as is shown in that parable of the wedding. Matth. XXII, v. 2 ss.: hold fast what thou hast, that no one take thy crown; as if to say: if thou dost not receive it, another will have it. Job XXXIV, 24: he shall break in pieces many, and those without number, and shall make others stand in their place. Then, when he says for if Jesus, et cetera, he proves that it remains for others to enter, because if Jesus of Nun, that is, Joshua, had granted the final rest to the children of Israel, never of another, et cetera — that is, another rest would not press upon us, nor would the prophet David speak of any other after that day. Hence it is manifest that that rest was a sign of the spiritual rest.”

“Above, the Apostle took up two authorities, one from Genesis 2:2, the other from Psalm 94:8, and he concluded his intention from the second authority, namely the Psalm. Here he concludes the same thing from the first. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down the conclusion; second he sets down the reason for the consequence, at the place, "For he who has entered." Concerning the first, it must be known that the Apostle, in the whole series of these words, makes mention of a threefold rest. The first is the rest of God from his works; the second is the temporal rest, which the children of Israel had in the land of promise; the third is the eternal rest, which is designated through these two. But the Apostle here, before he makes mention of the eternal rest, says that after the earthly rest there is still left, that is, there remains, a sabbatism for the people of God, which in the old law was represented by the sabbath, namely the eternal rest. Isaiah 58:13: "You shall be called the delicate sabbath, and holy of the Lord." Isaiah 66:23: "There shall be month from month, and sabbath from sabbath," that is, perpetual rest. And he says "sabbatism," because just as in the old law the sabbath represented the rest of God from his works, of which it is said in Genesis 2:2, so that rest will be of the saints from their works. Apocalypse 14:13: "From now on, even now, the Spirit says, that they may rest from their labors." Hence he adds, "For he who has entered into his rest," because just as God worked for six days and rested on the seventh, so through the six days the present time is signified, on account of the perfect number. He, therefore, who works perfectly, rests on the seventh from his works, just as God also rested from his; not, however, from just any works whatsoever, for there are certain perpetual works there, namely to see, to love, and to praise: Apocalypse 4:8: "They had no rest night and day, saying: Holy, holy, holy," etc. — but rest from laborious works. Isaiah 40:31: "They who hope in the Lord shall have strength, they shall take up wings as eagles, they shall run and not labor, they shall walk and not faint." Then, when he says "let us hasten," he induces to haste. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down the admonition; second he adds the reason concerning the entrance into that rest, at the place, "is living." Likewise concerning the first he does two things. For first he admonishes to make haste; second he shows the danger of one who delays, at the place, "lest into the same." He says therefore: since, then, a sabbatism remains, etc., let us hasten therefore to enter into that rest. And he significantly says "to enter," because it is not among the exterior goods, to which there is a going-out, but it is among the interior goods. Exodus 15:17: "You shall bring them in, and you shall plant," etc. Matthew 25:21: "Enter into the joy of your lord." There is, then, a manifold reason why one must hasten to enter. One is, because the way is far off. Proverbs 7:19: "He has gone on a very long journey." Luke 19:12: "A certain nobleman went into a far country." It is called far off on account of the distance of the state, because there is the fullness of every good, and immunity from every evil; there is also, for the one who desires, perfect vision and possession, but here all things are contrary to these. Likewise one must hasten, because time is very short. Job 14:5: "The days of man are short." Likewise, because this time, besides being short and little, is also uncertain. Ecclesiastes 9:12: "Man does not know his end." Likewise, on account of the urgent calling. For the interior calling urges us through the goad of charity. Isaiah 59:19: "When he shall come as a violent river, which the spirit of the Lord drives," etc. 2 Corinthians 5:14: "The charity of Christ urges us." Psalm 118:32: "I have run the way of your commandments." Likewise, on account of the danger of the one who delays, as is evident concerning the foolish virgins, Matthew 25:1 and following, who, coming late, could not enter. And therefore he says, "lest anyone fall into the same example of unbelief." As if to say: the ancients were not able to enter on account of unbelief. Hence let us take care, by the example of another's fault, not to be unbelieving, and by the example of the punishment, namely that we not be excluded as they were. Luke 1:39: "She went into the hill country with haste." For to this end the past punishments of others are shown to us, that we may take care. Proverbs 19:25: "When the pestilent man is scourged, the fool will become wiser." The Gloss: "It is worse, unless you take care." From this it seems that he who is not corrected by the punishment of another will be punished more gravely. But against this: for then the sin of Adam, because he did not sin by the example of another, would be less grave. I respond. It must be said that these expressions are always to be understood with other things being equal. For it happens that two sins, considered in themselves, are not one graver than the other, yet on account of some accompanying circumstance, one is aggravated and not the other: just as two acts of adultery are in themselves equal, yet that which is from deliberate malice is graver than that which is from passion or weakness. And likewise an idle word is graver, when it is done from deliberate malice. But how one must hasten, the Apostle teaches in 1 Corinthians 9:25, because he who runs, and he who competes, abstains from all things. One must hasten, therefore, by laying aside impediments, not only that we abstain from sins, but also that we avoid the occasions of sins. Proverbs 4:11: "I will lead you through the paths," etc. But against this, Proverbs 19:2: "He who is hasty of foot shall stumble." I respond. Haste is twofold: namely, of precipitation, and this is reprehensible; the other, of slightness and speed, and this is praiseworthy. For, as the Philosopher says, all men ought to deliberate long, but to carry out the things deliberated swiftly; therefore when haste takes away deliberation, then it precipitates, and it is vicious, and according to this the objection is verified; but the haste which is in the execution of things deliberated is virtuous, and is praised, and to this the Apostle here exhorts. Then, when he says, "For the word of God is living," etc., he sets down the reason for the aforesaid admonition, and especially as regards the danger. But this reason is taken from the side of Christ. In him, however, there is a twofold nature: one, namely divine, according to which he is the Word of the Father; the other is human, according to which he is the priest offering himself on the cross. First, therefore, he sets down the reason taken from the side of the divinity; second, the reason taken from the side of the humanity, at the place, "having, therefore." Concerning the Son of God, he says three things. For first he assigns his power, because the word of God is living; second his knowledge, at the place, "and a discerner"; third his authority, at the place, "to whom is our account." He shows his power in three ways. First as regards nature; second as regards power, at the place, "and effectual"; third as regards operation, at the place, "and more penetrating." He says, therefore, "The word of God is living." This text in itself seems to have a difficulty, yet considering another translation, it is plainer. For where we have "sermo," in the Greek there is "logos," which is the same as "verbum." Hence "sermo," that is, "Word." And thus Augustine also expounds that saying of John 12: "The word which I have spoken," that is, I myself who am the Word. Wisdom 18:15: "Your almighty word, O Lord, leaping down from heaven, from the royal thrones, came." And likewise here "the word of God is living," that is, the living Word of God. For the Word of God, conceived from eternity, is in the paternal intellect the primordial word, of which it is said in Ecclesiasticus 1:5: "The word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." And because it is primordial, therefore from it all other words are derived, which are nothing other than certain conceptions expressed in the mind of an angel, or our own. Hence that word is the expression of all words, as it were a certain fountain. And those things which are said of that word are in a certain way fitted to other words, according to their own manner. Of that word, however, it is said that it is living. But a thing is called living, so long as it has its own motion and operation. For just as a spring welling up is called living, so also is that word which has perpetual vigor. Psalm 118:89: "Forever, O Lord, your word remains in heaven." John 5:26: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself." Or it can be referred to the human nature. For he is living, although he is reckoned dead by others, because since he has risen, he now dies no more. Apocalypse 1:18: "I was dead, and behold I am living forever and ever." Likewise also the word of Scripture is living and unfailing. Romans 9:6: "But not as though the word of God has fallen away." Consequently, when he says "and effectual," he shows his power. But the word is called effectual on account of the greatest power and the infinite effective force which it has. For through him all things were made, John 1:3, and Psalm 32:6: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established." Likewise it is effectual because from it all words uttered by God, through the mediation of an angel or a man, have their efficacy. Ecclesiastes 8:4: "His word is full of power." Isaiah 55:11: "The word which shall go forth from my mouth shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatever I have willed," etc. Then, when he says "and more penetrating," he shows his operation. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down his operation; second he explains it, at the place, "and reaching." He says, therefore, "and more penetrating." That is properly said to penetrate which enters into the depths of a thing. But this can happen in two ways. In one way, because it operates in the inmost parts of the thing. Isaiah 26:12: "For you have wrought all our works in us." In another way, because it knows the inmost parts of the thing. John 2:25: "He did not need that anyone should bear witness concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man." Ecclesiasticus 24:45: "I will penetrate the lower parts of the earth." For the operation of God and his knowledge reach and penetrate the inmost parts of a thing. Hence he says, "more than every two-edged sword." For among all things a sword is more penetrating on account of its sharpness, and especially a two-edged sword, which namely is sharp on both its sides. And therefore, because the word of God is sharp, both for operating and for knowing, it is therefore compared to a two-edged sword. Ephesians 6:17: "And the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord will visit with his hard, and great, and strong sword," etc. Or it is called two-edged as regards operation, because it has an edge for promoting goods and destroying evils. Apocalypse 1:16: "Out of his mouth went a sword sharp on both sides." Or as regards knowledge; and it is said to be more penetrating than every two-edged sword, that is, than every human intellect, which is called two-edged, because it has a way to either side of the conclusion, until it comes to the end of its inquiry, and there it fixes its point, namely in the truth. For in the order of causes we see that the prior cause always operates more inwardly than the posterior cause. Hence that which nature produces is more inward than that which is produced through art. Since, therefore, God is the first cause absolutely, therefore by his operation is produced that which is most inward to the thing itself, namely its being. Consequently, when he says "and reaching," etc., he makes manifest what he had said about the operation. And concerning this he does two things, for first he shows this as regards spiritual things, second as regards bodily things, at the place, "of the joints also and of the marrow." For according to the Apostle there are three things in man, namely body, soul, and spirit. 1 Thessalonians 5:23: "Your whole spirit, and soul, and body," etc. What the body is, indeed, is known. The soul, however, is that which gives life to the body; but "spirit," in bodily things, is said of something subtle, and therefore it signifies immaterial substances. Isaiah 31:3: "Egypt is man, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit." Spirit, therefore, in us is called that by which we communicate with spiritual substances. But soul is that by which we communicate with brute animals. And thus spirit is the human mind, namely intellect and will. From this, however, some say that there are different souls in us. One, namely, which perfects and gives life to the body, and this is called soul properly; but the other is the spirit, having the intellect by which we understand, and the will by which we will. And therefore these two are called substances rather than souls. But this has been condemned in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas. And therefore it must be said that the essence of the soul is one and the same, which by its essence gives life to the body, and by its power, which is called intellect, is the principle of understanding. And by this it understands eternal things. How this is, is evident as follows. For we see that the more perfect a form is, the less its operation is subjected to matter; as is evident that the forms of the elements, because they are most imperfect, do not extend beyond matter. Since, then, the soul is the noblest among all forms, it must have some operation, and especially the rational soul, which entirely exceeds the power of matter. And this operation we call understanding, upon which follows its inclination, namely willing. But there is a threefold difference among the operations of the soul, such that it is called "soul" as regards those powers by which the soul operates with the body; but "spirit" as regards those by which it operates without the body. The first difference, however, between these powers and the operations proceeding from them, is that of reason itself as against sensuality, which is the power by which the soul operates with the body, because reason apprehends immaterial things, but sensuality material and sensible things. The second difference is of the parts of sensuality, because sensuality has one state and order according as it tends to its proper object from its own nature, and another according as it is regulated by reason. For the concupiscible power itself is considered in one way as it is a certain force ordered to its own object, and in another way as it participates in reason. The third difference is of the parts of reason itself, according to its diverse objects, because it either tends toward God, and this is the highest thing in it; or toward spiritual effects, or toward temporal effects. But the word of God works and discerns all these divisions and differences, namely how sensuality is distinguished from reason, and also the difference of sensuality in itself, and also the difference of the parts of reason, and what arises in the soul from the consideration of spiritual and earthly things. In another way it can be expounded according to the Gloss, in two ways: that by "soul" are understood carnal sins, which occur by act and delight of the body, such as lust, gluttony, and the like; but by "spirit," spiritual sins, which occur by act of the mind, such as pride, vainglory, and the like. Or by "soul" are understood evil thoughts, but by "spirit," good ones. And thus the sense is: "reaching," that is, discerning, unto the division of soul and spirit, that is, between carnal and spiritual sins, or between good and evil thoughts. Consequently, when he says "of the joints also and of the marrow," he declares what he had said about the operation of God, as regards temporal things. It must be known, however, that something cannot, by penetrating, reach something else, on account of two things: one is on account of a binding-together, the other is on account of an enclosure. Neither of these can impede the word of God. In us, indeed, there are certain bindings-together, namely of sinews and arteries. Certain things also are deeply enclosed and hidden, such as the marrow which is enclosed in the bones; but all these things are manifest and subject to the divine gaze. And therefore nothing is difficult for it to penetrate. Or by "joints" can be understood the conjunction which exists between the parts of the soul with one another, as between soul and spirit; as if to say: it not only reaches to knowing the difference and division of soul and spirit, but also to knowing how they are joined. For it knows how sensuality is ruled by reason. But "marrow" can be understood as that which lies hidden in reason and sensuality. Matthew 10:28: "Fear him who can send both soul and body into Gehenna." Then, when he says "and a discerner of thoughts," he treats of the knowledge of the word. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows that all things are subject to his knowledge; second he shows how he knows, at the place, "but all things are naked." From two things, however, it happens that something is not known: namely, either because it is hidden within something. And thus especially hidden are those things which lie hidden in the heart, because it is very deep and unsearchable. Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart of man is depraved and unsearchable"; but according to the Septuagint interpreters it is thus: "The heart of man is deep," etc. But thoughts lie hidden in the heart. These, however, the word of God knows. Isaiah 1:16: "Take away the evil of your thoughts from my eyes"; and therefore as regards this he says "discerner of thoughts." In another way something is not known, because it is entirely unknown and invisible, and thus the things that are in the will are unknown. But in the will is the very intention of the end, which by its own nature is invisible. For what a man does or thinks is made manifest through the deed, but with what intention he does it is utterly uncertain. These things, however, are not hidden from God. Therefore he adds "and of the intentions of the heart." Psalm 7:9: "Searching hearts and reins," that is, thoughts and intentions. It must be known, however, that what he says, "penetrating," can be referred to operation, as has been said. And thus "penetrating" and "discerner" differ. But if it be referred to thought, then what he says here, "and a discerner," is an explanation of that former statement, as if to say: you say that it is more penetrating, etc.; it is true, because it is also a discerner of the joints and the marrow, that is, of thoughts and intentions. For "joints" are called certain bindings-together; and thus a thought, in which there is, as it were, a certain binding-together of terms, can be called a "joint," while it tends from one thing to another. Isaiah 58:6: "Loose the bonds of wickedness." Likewise Isaiah 5:18: "Woe to you who draw iniquities with the cords of vanity." Likewise marrow is the innermost thing lying hidden in the bones. Job 21:24: "His bones are watered with marrow." Then, when he says, "and there is no creature invisible in his sight," he shows that that which by nature is invisible is not hidden from God. For the reason something is not seen by us is that it is simpler and more subtle than our eye, whether bodily or intellectual: such as are the separated substances, which we cannot see in this life. But nothing is simpler or more subtle than the divine intellect; therefore no creature is invisible in his sight. But does he know only in the universal, as some have held? No, but all things are naked and open to his eyes. But by "eye" is understood the cognitive power. For spiritual things are understood through sensible things. But he significantly says "eyes" in the plural, on account of the diversity of things understood, because he does not know only one thing, but also a multitude of things. He also says "naked and open." For something is known in two ways. In one way, on the surface; in another way, in depth, just as a naked man is seen on the surface, but not one who is clothed; but all things are manifest to God, which are seen on the surface. For there is nothing external that impedes the knowledge of God, as a garment impedes a man from being seen. And therefore he says "naked." Job 26:6: "Hell is naked before him." He also says "open," because nothing is so hidden in a thing that it escapes the knowledge of God. But against this, Habakkuk 1:13: "Your eyes are clean, that you should not see evil, and you will not be able to look upon iniquity"; therefore not all things are naked. I respond. It must be said that in God there is the knowledge of simple understanding, and the knowledge of approval. In the first way he knows all things, even evil things, and those things which are not; in the second way he knows good things, as regards those things which are. Consequently he shows the perfection of his authority, when he says, "to whom is our account." This authority, however, is the authority of judging. Acts 10:42: "He it is who was appointed by God judge of the living and the dead." To him, therefore, is our account, namely that we render a reckoning of our works. 2 Corinthians 5:10: "We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether good or evil." And therefore, because he is thus powerful, thus knowing, and thus great, let us hasten therefore to enter, etc. For to render judgment three things are required: first, indeed, the power of coercing subjects. Ecclesiastes 7:6: "Do not become a judge, unless you are able by strength to break through iniquities." And this belongs to Christ, according to that saying of Matthew, last chapter: "All power is given to me," etc. Second, zeal for righteousness is required, namely that someone pronounce judgment not out of hatred or envy, but out of love of justice. Proverbs 3:12: "Whom the Lord loves, he chastises, and as to a father," etc. And this love of justice is present most of all in Christ. Isaiah 11:5: "And justice shall be the girdle of his loins," etc. Third, wisdom is required, according to which judgment is formed. Ecclesiasticus 10:1: "A wise judge shall judge his people," etc. But Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God, 1 Corinthians 1:24. But this judiciary power belongs to Christ according as he is man, John 5:27: "He gave him power to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man," not, indeed, on account of the condition of nature, according to Augustine, because then all men would have this kind of power, but on account of the grace of headship, which Christ received in his human nature. But judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to his human nature, on account of three things: first, on account of his fittingness and affinity to men. For just as God operates through intermediate causes, as being nearer to the effects, so he judges men through the man Christ, that the judgment may be sweeter. For we do not have a high priest who cannot have compassion, etc., as has been said. Second, because in the final judgment, as Augustine says on John, there will be a resurrection of the bodies of the dead, which God raises up through the Son of Man, just as through that same Christ he raises up souls, inasmuch as he is the Son of God. Third, because, as Augustine says in the book On the Words of the Lord, it was right that those to be judged should see the judge. But those to be judged are the good and the wicked; it remains, therefore, that in the judgment the form of man should be shown to the good and the wicked, and the form of God should be reserved for the good alone. But this power belongs primarily to the man, both on account of the divine person, and on account of the dignity of headship, and on account of the fullness of habitual grace; and he also acquired these things by his merits. This indeed was fittingly done, that he who fought for the justice of God and conquered should be judge according to the justice of God, and that he who was unjustly judged should condemn the guilty with justice. Apocalypse 3:21: "I have overcome, and have sat down on the Father's throne"; by which is understood the judiciary power. Psalm 9:4: "Sitting on the throne, you who judge justice." Augustine, On the Words of the Lord: "He will sit as judge, who stood under a judge; and he will condemn the guilty, who was falsely made guilty."”

“Above, the Apostle urged us to hasten to enter into the rest of God, and to bring this about he set forth the greatness of Christ as to the divine nature; here he shows the same as to the human nature, and concerning this he does three things. For first he sets forth his dignity; second he shows his compassion, at "for we have not"; third he leads us to have confidence about him, at "let us go therefore." He says then: it has thus been said that we have a word regarding him, who is a living word, a true judge and priest, therefore "having a great high priest." Ps. 109:5: "You are a priest forever," and so on. Not only a priest, but also great. Zach. 3:1: "And the Lord showed me Jesus the great priest, standing before the Angel," and so on. Here, however, he is called great because he is priest not only of temporal goods, but also of goods to come. Below, 9:11: "Christ, standing as high priest of the good things to come," and so on. Two things, however, belonged to the great high priest: one as to office, namely, to enter once a year with blood into the holy of holies, as is found below at 9:7, and Lev. 16:2ff. This, however, belongs especially to Christ. For that priest enters with blood into the figural holy places; but Christ, through his own blood, entered into the holy places, that is, the heavenly sanctuaries. And therefore he says "who has passed through the heavens," that is, entered thoroughly by his own power. The second is that he had to be from a certain tribe, namely from the stock of Aaron, as is said in Ex. 29, and Num. 16 and 17. This, however, applies to Christ, who is of a nobler origin: hence he is called the Son of God. Matt. 3:17: "This is my beloved Son." Ps. 2:7: "You are my son," and so on. Since, therefore, we have this high priest, let us hold fast our confession, that is, let us cling to it with the heart, because, as is said in Rom. 10:10: "With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This confession, moreover, Christ the greatest high priest requires of us. Matt. 10:32: "Whoever shall confess me before men," and so on. But he says "of our hope," which can be understood in two ways: in one way, that the confession, as it is taken here, is a confession of faith. Faith, however, is the principle of hope, as is found from the Gloss. Matt. 1:2: "Abraham begot Isaac," that is, faith begot hope — not indeed as to habit, but as to the order of act. For no one can, nor ought to, hope for anything except what he can attain. That we can attain eternal things, we have through faith. Or, a confession of hope, that is, of that which we hope for, namely, to see the first truth. Then, when he says "for we have not a high priest," lest perhaps it be believed that he cannot do anything beyond what his justice requires, he shows that in him there is also mercy and compassion, and these regard misery, and this belongs especially to Christ. Hence he says "who cannot have compassion on our infirmities." It must be known, however, that the term posse ("to be able") sometimes imports not bare power, but the readiness and aptitude of Christ to come to our aid, and this because he knows, through experience, our misery, which, as God, he knew from eternity through simple knowledge. Ps. 102:14: "God is merciful to those who fear him, for he himself has known our frame." Hence he adds "in likeness" — namely, ours — "tempted." There is, moreover, a threefold temptation. One is that which is from the flesh, namely when the flesh lusts against the spirit, as is said in Gal. 5:17. And this is not without sin, because, as Augustine says, it is indeed some sin when the flesh lusts against the spirit, because this is what it is for the flesh to lust. But this was not in Christ. And therefore he says "without sin," that is, without the least movement of sin. 1 Pet. 2:22: "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." And therefore he is called the Lamb of God, John 1:29. Another is the temptation from the enemy and from the world, and this in two ways: either by alluring through prosperous things, or by terrifying through adverse things. And in these two ways Christ was tempted. By prosperous things. For whatever pertains to the prosperity of this life pertains either to the lust of the flesh, or to the lust of the eyes, or to the pride of life. For concerning the first, the Devil tempted him when he tempted him about gluttony, which is the mother of lust. Matt. ch. 4:3: "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." Likewise concerning vainglory, when he says: "Cast yourself down." Likewise concerning the lust of the eyes, saying: "All these things I will give you," and so on. Lk. 4:13: "And when every temptation was finished, the Devil departed from him for a time." Likewise he was tempted through adverse things and snares by the Pharisees, because they wanted to catch him in speech, Matt. 22:15; likewise through insults, Matt. 27:40: "Ah, you who destroy the temple of God," etc.; likewise through scourges and torments. Except, therefore, for the temptation that is with sin, he was tempted in every respect like us. He says, however, "according to the likeness," which can be explained in two ways. In one way, that the word "according to" denotes the final cause, as if he were to say: he was tempted for this reason, that he might give us an example, so that, according to his likeness, we might endure temptation and strive to overcome all things. 1 Pet. 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example," and so on. Or it can denote consequence, as if he were to say: he was tempted for this reason, that in all things, both in temporal matters and in all others, except in sin alone, he might be like us. For if he had been without temptations, he would not have experienced them, and thus would not have compassion. But if he had had sin, he could not have helped us, but would rather have needed help himself. Then, when he says "let us go therefore with confidence," etc., he leads us to have confidence about him, as if he were to say: since he can thus have compassion, let us go with confidence. Is. 12:2: "Behold, God is my savior, I will act with confidence," and so on. Let us go, I say, to the throne. The throne is called the seat of a king; Christ, however, is king. Jer. ch. 23:5: "A king shall reign and shall be wise," and so on. This throne, however, has a twofold state. One of justice, in the future. Ps. 9:4: "You have sat upon the throne, you who judge justice." This will be in the future. Ps. 74:2: "When I shall take a time, I will judge justices." There is another throne, of grace, of which he speaks here. Therefore is added "of his grace," namely in the present, when it is the time of showing mercy. Zach. 4:7: "He shall make grace equal to grace." Through the grace of Christ, however, we are freed from all misery, because we are freed from sin, which makes peoples miserable, Prov. 14:34; and therefore he says "that we may obtain mercy." Likewise, through the grace of Christ we are helped to do good works. And therefore he says "and find grace." Lk. 1:30: "You have found grace with the Lord." And this "in seasonable help," by which we may be helped to work well. Ps. 120:2: "My help is from the Lord"; this help, however, is through grace. 1 Cor. 15:10: "I have labored more abundantly than they; yet not I, but the grace of God with me." This, however, must be at a fitting time; therefore he says "seasonable help." For every business has its time and opportunity. Eccles. ch. 8:6. This is the present time, which is the time of showing mercy.”

“As was said from the beginning of this epistle, the intention of the Apostle is to show that Christ is more excellent than all those from whom the law has its authority, namely, than the Angels, by whose ministry it was given, Gal. III, 19: ordained by Angels; and than Moses, who was the lawgiver, Jn. I, 17: the law was given through Moses; and than the priesthood and pontificate of Aaron, through whom the law is administered. Having therefore finished the first two, here he pursues the third, namely, the eminence of the priesthood of Christ over the priesthood of Aaron. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows that Christ is a pontiff; second he shows him to be more excellent than the pontiff of the old law, in chapter VII, there: for this Melchisedech. Likewise in the first part he does two things. First he shows that Christ is a pontiff; second he prepares the ears of his hearers for what follows, there: of whom we have great things. Further, concerning the first he does two things. First he shows what is required for a pontiff; second he shows that these things belong to Christ, and so concludes that he is a pontiff, there: so also Christ did not [glorify] himself, et cetera. Likewise in the first part he does three things. First he describes the pontifical office; second he shows the compassion which is necessary to a pontiff, there: who can have compassion; third he shows the manner of arriving at the pontificate, there: neither doth any man take. Concerning the office he sets down four things. First the height of the rank, there: taken from among men; second the usefulness of the pontificate, there: for men; third the matter, there: in the things that pertain to God; fourth the act, there: that he may offer gifts. Now this office belongs to a man, not to an Angel. And therefore he says that it is thus said, that we have a great pontiff, and such is Christ. For (namque, in place of quia), every pontiff taken from among men, and thus he too ought to be of the number of men. Now God willed that man should have one like himself, to whom he might run. Whence also the Church has ordained that when someone useful is found from the college, an outsider is not to be chosen. Hos. II, 15: I will give them vinedressers out of the same place. Deut. XVII, 15: him shalt thou set up whom the Lord thy God shall choose out of the number of thy brethren. Thou mayst not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother. And he says taken, because he ought to excel the others, as is clear of Saul, I Kings X, 23. And therefore Christ, Jn. last, asks Peter whom he wished to be set over the others, if he loved him more than the rest. The end and usefulness is that he is appointed for men, that is, for their own benefit. For he is not appointed for glory, nor for the heaping up of riches, nor for the enriching of his kinsmen. II Cor. IV, 5: but ourselves your servants through Jesus; and at the end: according to the power which God hath given me unto edification, and not unto destruction. But if anyone seeks what is his own, he is not a shepherd, but a hireling. The matter of the dignity is that the pontiff holds first place. For just as a duke or ruler holds first place in a city, so this pontiff in the things that pertain to God, supply: are ordained. Ex. IV, 16: thou shalt be to him in those things that pertain to God, et cetera. II Cor. X, 4: the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, et cetera. Therefore, just as the things that pertain to the worship of God exceed temporal things, so the pontifical dignity exceeds all other dignities. Pontiffs therefore ought not to entangle themselves in secular business, setting aside the things that are toward God. II Tim. II, 4: no man being a soldier to God, et cetera. The act of the pontiff is that he may offer gifts, that is, things offered voluntarily, not extorted. Ex. XXV, 2: of every man that offereth of his own accord, you shall take. And sacrifices for sins, that is, which are offered to him for the satisfaction of sins. Lev. IV, 26: and the priest shall pray for them, and for his sins, and it shall be forgiven him. In which it is signified that everything that is offered, whether voluntary and votive, or for satisfaction, ought to be offered according to the disposition of the prelate. Consequently, when he says who can have compassion, he shows what is required for the exercise of the office, namely, compassion. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows that mercy and compassion are required for the exercise of the pontiff's office; second he shows the motive of mercy that is required, there: for that he himself also; third he shows the sign of mercy, there: and therefore. He says then: I say, that he ought to be in the things that pertain to God, yet he ought to be a mediator between man and God. Deut. V, 5: I was the mediator and the go-between, between the Lord and you. Therefore, just as through the devotion of prayer he ought to touch God as one extreme, so through mercy and compassion he ought to touch the other extreme, namely man. And therefore he says who can have compassion. II Cor. XI, 29: who is weak, and I am not weak? On the contrary, Amos VI, 6: they were not concerned for the affliction of Joseph. Now there is a twofold failing. For some fail out of ignorance. And therefore he says on them that are ignorant. Now to be ignorant, properly, is to lack the knowledge of those things which one ought to know. But some fail out of certain knowledge. And as to this he says and that err. He sets down the motive of compassion, when he says for that he himself also, et cetera. This motive is weakness. And those who are set over others are themselves sometimes weak. II Cor. IV, 7: we have this treasure in earthen vessels. And the reason for this is that they may, from themselves, have compassion on the weaknesses of others; and therefore the Lord permitted Peter to fall. Ecclus. XXXI, 18: understand the things of thy neighbor by thyself. And therefore he says for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity, namely, as to penalties and as to fault. Ps. VI, 2: have mercy on me, O God, for I am weak. Wis. IX, 5: man that is weak, and of short time, et cetera. And note that he says compassed. For carnal men have the weakness of sin within themselves. For in them reason and will are themselves subjected to sin. But the saints have it in the outward things, because they are not subject to sin, yet they are compassed about with the fragility of the flesh. Rom. VII, 25: with the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin. Now the sign of this is that both in the old law, as is clear Lev. IX, 7 and XVI, 6, and also now, as is clear in the canon of the Mass, when it is said for us sinners also, it has been established that the priest should offer also for himself, which would not be done unless there were the weakness of sins by which he is compassed, not oppressed. For if he be in mortal sin, he ought not to celebrate. And therefore he says and therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins. Consequently he sets down the manner of arriving at the pontificate, when he says neither doth any man. For this is contrary to nature, that anything should bring itself to a state higher than its own nature, just as air does not make itself fire, but is made fire by something higher. Whence it is not the discipline of God that anyone should take to himself honor by favor, by money, by power. Amos VI, 14: for in our strength we have taken to ourselves horns. Hos. VIII, 4: they have reigned, but not by me. But he ought to be called by God, as Aaron was. Ex. XXVIII, 1: take to thee Aaron. And therefore the Lord confirmed his priesthood, as is clear Num. XVII, 5 and following, through the rod that flourished. Such, then, ought to be taken, who do not thrust themselves forward. Whence in antiquity they used to be shown by a visible sign, as is clear of the blessed Nicholas, and many others. Consequently, when he says so also Christ, etc., he shows how Christ is a pontiff. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows how what has been said belongs to Christ; second from this he draws the conclusion intended, there: called by God, et cetera. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows that Christ was made a pontiff not by himself, but by God; second he treats of his office, there: who in the days; third of his mercy, there: and indeed whereas he was. Concerning the first he does two things, because first he shows that Christ did not promote himself; second he shows by whom he was promoted, there: but he that said. He says then Christ did not glorify himself. Concerning which it should be known that he does not say: he did not make himself a pontiff, but he says he did not glorify himself, et cetera. For there are some who glorify themselves in order to become something, as hypocrites, who display certain things in themselves, so that they may be chosen, or obtain benefices; yet no one makes himself a pontiff: but Christ not only did not make himself a pontiff, but neither did he glorify himself so as to become a pontiff. Jn. VIII, 50: I seek not my own glory, and a little after it follows: there is my Father that glorifieth me. And this is true insofar as he is man, because insofar as he is God he has the same glory as the Father. Then when he says but he that said, he shows by whom he was promoted. And first he shows by whom he was glorified; second how he was designated a pontiff, there: and in another place. Now he was glorified by divine judgment, because, namely, the Lord spoke to him, in Ps. II, 7, thou art my son, et cetera. And this has been expounded above. Likewise Matt. IX, 17: this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased, et cetera. Since therefore it shows him begotten from eternity, it shows his glory. Above, I, 3: who being the brightness of glory, et cetera. The pontificate too is received from God insofar as he is man, as he says in another place, namely, in Ps. CIX, 5: thou art a priest, et cetera. Now the Apostle makes use of the authority of the Psalms as being more well-known and of greater authority, inasmuch as it was more frequently used. And he says priest, because he offered himself to God the Father. Eph. V, 2: he loved us, and delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God. And lest the priesthood of Christ be thought to be such as it was in the old law, he distinguishes it as to two things. First as to dignity, because forever. For that priesthood was temporal, for it was figural, and therefore it is not perpetual, but passes away when the thing figured comes. But the priesthood of Christ is eternal, because it is of the truth, which is eternal. Likewise his victim has the power of bringing into eternal life. Likewise it endures forever. Second as to the rite, because animals were offered; but here, bread and wine. And therefore he says according to the order of Melchisedech. This shall be expounded further on. Then when he says who in the days, etc., he shows that what pertains to the pontifical office belongs to Christ. And first he shows his condition; second his act, there: prayers; third the efficacy, there: with a strong cry. His condition is that he was one of the men, because, as has been said, a pontiff is taken from among men. And therefore he says who in the days of his flesh. Now flesh is here put for the whole of human nature, as that of Jn. I, 14: the Word was made flesh. But are there not now days of his flesh? And it seems that there are, by that of Lk. last: a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have. Why then is the time before his passion and resurrection called rather the time or days of the flesh, than now? It must be said that flesh is sometimes taken for the fragility of the flesh, as I Cor. XV, 50: flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God. Now Christ then had flesh that was fragile and corruptible. And therefore he says in the days of his flesh, that is, in which he bore flesh like unto that of a sinner, not sinful flesh. Now his act was that he offered prayers and supplications. This is the spiritual sacrifice which Christ offered. Now they are called prayers, that is, petitions. Jas. last: for the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. But they are called supplications as to the humility of the one praying, such as genuflections. Matt. XXVI, 39: he fell upon his face, praying. To whom? To God, namely to God the Father, who was able to save him from death. Now this he could do in two ways. In one way, that he should not die. Whence it is said Matt. XXVI, 39: Father, if it be possible, et cetera. Likewise, that he should raise him up from death. Ps. XV, 10: thou wilt not leave my soul in hell. Likewise XL, 10: but thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again. To this spiritual sacrifice the priesthood of Christ is ordered. Whence it corresponds to what was said above, that he may offer gifts, et cetera. Ps. XLIX, 23: the sacrifice of praise shall glorify me. Hos. XIV, 3: we will render the calves of our lips. The efficacy is shown from the manner of praying. Now two things are necessary to one who prays, namely fervent affection; likewise sorrow and groaning. Concerning these two, Ps. XXXVII, 9: Lord, all my desire is before thee, as to the first: and my groaning is not hidden from thee, as to the second. Now Christ had these two things; therefore, on account of the first, he says with a strong cry, that is, with the most efficacious intention. Lk. XXII, 43: being in an agony, he prayed the longer, et cetera. And chapter XXIII, 46, crying out, he said: Father, et cetera. The second, when he says and tears. For by tears the Apostle expresses the interior groaning of the one praying. Now this is not read in the Gospel; but it is probable that just as he wept at the raising of Lazarus, so also in his passion. For he did many things which are not written. Yet he did not weep for himself, but for us, whom his passion profited. Now it profited him himself, inasmuch as through it he merited to be exalted. Phil. II, 9: for which cause God also hath exalted him, et cetera. And therefore he was heard for his reverence, namely, which he had toward God above all others. Is. XI, 3: and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. But on the contrary, it seems that he was not heard, first for himself, because the cup did not pass from him, which nevertheless he was asking. Likewise not for others, because it was not granted to the Jews, to whom he was asking that it be granted. Lk. XXIII, 34: Father, forgive them, et cetera. It must be said that Christ was heard in all the things that he willed to come to pass. Now he himself, according to the appetite of sensuality and according to the will, insofar as it is a certain natural appetite, shrank from death. And as to this he prayed, in order to show himself a true man. But by the will that follows deliberate reason, he willed to die. Whence he says, Lk. XXII, 42: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. Likewise he did not will that it should be forgiven to all, but only to those who believed. And many were afterward converted.”

“Above he set down three things pertaining to a high priest, and showed that two of them belong to Christ, namely the office, and the manner of arriving at it; here he pursues the third, namely the devotion and mercy which a high priest ought to have. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that which he suffered; second, what benefit followed even for others, at the words "and being made perfect." He says then: I have said that a high priest must be such that he can suffer with others. And Christ is such. For since he is the Son of God from eternity, and according to this he could neither suffer nor suffer with others, he assumed a nature in which he could suffer, and thus could also suffer with others. And this is what he says: that though he was the Son of God, namely from eternity, he learned obedience in time. On the contrary. To learn belongs to one who is ignorant; but Christ, from eternity as God, and from the instant of his conception as man, had the fullness of knowledge; therefore he was ignorant of nothing, and consequently did not learn. I answer. It must be said that knowledge is twofold: namely, of simple awareness, and it is with respect to this that the argument proceeds, namely, that he was ignorant of nothing. There is also knowledge of experience, and it is according to this that he learned obedience. Hence he says he learned from the things he suffered, that is, he experienced them. And the Apostle speaks in this way: because one who has learned something has come to know it voluntarily. But Christ voluntarily took on our weakness. And therefore he says that he learned obedience, that is, how heavy a thing it is to obey: because he himself obeyed in the heaviest and most difficult things, since even unto the death of the cross, Phil. II, 8. And here he shows how difficult the good of obedience is. For those who have not experienced obedience, and have not learned it in difficult matters, believe that to obey is very easy. But in order that you may know what obedience is, it is necessary that you learn to obey in difficult matters, and one who has not learned, by obeying, to be subject, never knows how, by commanding, to be well set over others. Christ, therefore, although from eternity he knew by simple awareness what obedience is, nevertheless learned obedience by experience from the things he suffered, that is, difficult things, namely through his passion and death. Rom. V, 19: through the obedience of one, many were made just. Then, when he says "and being made perfect," etc., he shows the fruit of the passion, which was twofold. One in Christ, the other in his members. In Christ the fruit was glorification, and therefore he says "and being made perfect." For from the instant of his conception he was made perfectly complete as to the beatitude of his soul, insofar as it was borne toward God; yet nevertheless he had the passibility of nature. But after the passion he had impassibility. And therefore, because according to this he is wholly perfect, it belongs to him to perfect others. For this is the nature of what is perfect, that it can generate something like itself. And therefore he says that he is made perfect. For it was through the merit of obedience that he arrived at this consummation. Prov. XXI, 28: "the obedient man speaks of victories" — he was made, for all who obey him, the cause of salvation, not temporal, but eternal. Is. XLV, 17: "Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation." And therefore he says, "called by God high priest according to the order of Melchisedech," and this has been explained above. Then when he says "concerning whom we have great things to say," etc., he prepares the minds of his hearers for what follows, which is to be said about the priesthood of Christ. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows their slowness; second, his own intention, when he says, in chapter VI, "Wherefore leaving." Again the first part is divided into two, because first he shows their slowness; second he shows that it is culpable, at the place, "for whereas you ought." Likewise concerning the first part he does two things: first he shows the greatness of what is to be said; second, their slowness in grasping it, at the place, "since you have become weak." He says then: I have said that he was called high priest, concerning whom, namely concerning his priesthood, we have a great discourse, because it concerns great things. Prov. VIII, 6: "I shall speak of great things." Again, it is great because it concerns something useful, namely the salvation of souls. I Tim. I, 15: "A faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." This discourse is "interpretable" for teaching, which can be expounded in two ways. Either the force there is negative: "interpretable," that is, not expoundable, because it cannot be expounded perfectly. For no discourse can express the things that pertain to Christ. Eccli. XLIII, 32ff: "Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, his magnificence will still surpass and be wonderful: blessing the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for he is greater than all praise." In another way, affirmatively: "interpretable," that is, needing interpretation on account of its height and greatness and depth. Prov. I, 6: "he will attend to the parable and the interpretation," et cetera. For the interpretation of Scripture is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I Cor. XII, 10. It also needs to have its interpretation given on account of our slowness. And therefore he adds their very slowness, when he says, "since you have become weak in hearing." Those who are of weak understanding cannot grasp lofty things unless they are explained to them point by point. Jn. XVI, 12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." I Cor. III, 1: "I could not speak to you as unto spiritual men," et cetera. Then when he says "for whereas you ought," he shows that this slowness is culpable. And concerning this he does three things: first he shows the fault of their slowness; second he applies a comparison, at the place, "and you have become"; third he explains it, at the place, "for everyone who is a partaker of milk." For it is someone's fault when, having heard for a long time, he is still slow; but it is otherwise if he is a new hearer. For negligence is not without fault. Therefore he says, "whereas you ought to be teachers," namely of others, on account of the time during which they had heard the law and the prophets. Jn. V, 39: "Search the Scriptures," et cetera. Likewise, Christ himself. Likewise, the apostles, and many converted by them. Jn. XIV, 9: "So long a time am I with you, and you have not known me." "Again you need" — as if he were to say: you ought rather to teach than to be taught, yet you need to be taught what the elements of the beginning of the words of God are. For "elements" are called those things which are first handed on in grammar, when they are set down as to letters; for these are the letters themselves. The beginnings, therefore, of the words of God, and the first principles and elements, are the articles of faith and the precepts of the Decalogue. Whoever, then, had studied theology for a long time and did not know these things, time would run against him. Therefore he says, "you need to be taught what the elements of the beginning of the words of God are," that is, the first principles. II Tim. III, 7: "always learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth." Is. LXV, 20: "the child of a hundred years shall die, the sinner of a hundred years shall be accursed." Then when he says "and you have become," he sets down a comparison for this. It must be known, then, that sacred doctrine is like food for the soul. Eccli. XV, 3: "he fed him with the bread of life and understanding." And XXIV, 29: "they that eat me shall yet hunger: and they that drink me shall yet thirst." Sacred doctrine, then, is food and drink, because it gives the soul drink and satisfies it. For other sciences only illumine the intellect, but this illumines the soul. Ps. XVIII, 8: "the commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes." And it also nourishes and strengthens the soul. But in bodily food there is a difference. For children use one food, and the mature another. For children use milk, as being more delicate and connatural, and easily converted, but adults use more solid food. So in sacred Scripture, those who are newly beginning ought to hear light things, which are as it were milk; but the learned ought to hear stronger things. And therefore he says, "you have become such as have need of milk," namely like children. I Pet. II, 2: "as newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile," et cetera. I Cor. III, 1f: "as unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat," and this is what follows, "not with solid food," that is, lofty doctrine, which is about the hidden and secret things of God, which confirm and strengthen. Then when he says "for everyone who is a partaker of milk," he explains the comparison, and first he explains what he said about milk; second, what he said about solid food, at the place, "but solid food is for the perfect." Concerning the first he does two things; first he sets down the explanation; second, the reason for the explanation, at the place, "for he is a little one." He says then: I say this, that you need milk like children, for everyone who is a partaker of milk is unskillful in the word of justice, that is, everyone who needs to be nourished with milk is unskillful, that is, cannot have a part in perfectly understanding the words of justice. Matt. V, 20: "unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes." Prov. XV, 5: "in abundant justice there is the greatest strength." But children are not partakers of things of this kind. Is. XXVIII, 9: "whom shall he teach knowledge, or whom shall he make to understand the hearing? Them that are weaned from the milk, that are drawn away from the breasts." But on the contrary: because the Apostle above handed on to them many very difficult things, namely concerning the mystery of the Trinity and the sacrament of the Incarnation, and many other arduous things; therefore either they were not little ones, or such things are to be handed on to little ones. I answer. It must be said, according to Augustine, that it is not to be understood that in the doctrine of faith some things are to be handed on to the greater and perfect, and other things to the imperfect. For this difference does not exist between them. For the same things are to be handed on to both, but to little ones they are to be proposed, but not expounded nor treated at length, because their understanding would rather fail than be raised up. Milk, according to the Gloss, is like: "the Word was made flesh." On the contrary. To understand this is of no less difficulty than how the Word was with God. Hence Augustine says that this is found in the books of Plato, but not that. But Augustine himself could not even suspect what mystery was contained in: "the Word was made flesh." I answer. It must be said that to know "the Word was made flesh" by simple faith is easy enough, because it can fall under the imagination and in some way under sense; but "the Word was with God" altogether exceeds every sense, and can be comprehended only by reason, and with much and the greatest difficulty. Consequently he assigns the reason, when he says, "for he is a little one" — not indeed in age, but in sense. Now someone is called a little one in three ways. For someone is a little one through humility, Matt. XI, 25: "you have revealed these things to little ones"; in age, Gal. IV, 1: "as long as the heir is a little one," et cetera; in sense, I Cor. XIV, 20: "do not become children in sense, but in malice be children, and in sense be perfect." And it is in this way that "little one" is taken here. Then when he says "but solid food is for the perfect," he explains what he had said about solid food. For this is evident in bodily things, that when a man arrives at a mature age, he uses stronger and nobler and more solid food. So the spiritual man, when he arrives at spiritual perfection, ought to have a more solid doctrine proposed to him. But this perfection is twofold: one is perfection according to the intellect, when someone has judgment of intellect to rightly discern and judge concerning the things proposed to him. The other is perfection according to affection, which charity produces, which is when someone wholly clings to God. Hence Matt. V, 48, after the precepts of charity, it is said, "be you therefore perfect," et cetera. But the perfection of charity, as Augustine says, is where there is no covetousness. For the more someone ascends into God, the more he despises temporal things. Ps. LXXII, 24: "for what have I in heaven," et cetera. For the doctrine of sacred Scripture has this, that in it are handed on not only things to be contemplated, as in geometry, but also things to be approved through affection. Hence Matt. V, 19: "but he that shall do and teach," et cetera. In other sciences, then, it suffices that a man be perfect according to intellect; but in this one it is required that he be perfect according to both intellect and affection. Lofty mysteries, then, are to be spoken to the perfect. I Cor. II, 6: "we speak wisdom among the perfect." For each one judges according to how he is disposed; just as an angry man judges one way while the passion lasts, and another way once it ceases. And likewise the incontinent man judges something to be good in one way during the time of passion, and in another way afterward. And therefore the Philosopher says that as each one is, such does the end appear to him. And because the things handed on in sacred Scripture pertain to affection, and not only to intellect, therefore it is necessary to be perfect in both. And therefore the Apostle, wishing to show who are the perfect, to whom this solid food is to be handed on, says that they are those who, by their custom, have senses exercised. Hence in this perfection four things are to be attended to: namely, the perfection itself, in what it consists — and as to this he says, "who have senses exercised." And he speaks fittingly. For in this he expresses both perfections, because (as the Philosopher says) the intellect, insofar as it judges concerning things to be desired and done, is called sense, because it is referred to something particular; hence "sense" is not taken here for exterior sense. He, then, who has a sense for the things that are of God, is perfect. Phil. III, 15: "as many as are perfect, let us be of this sense." I Cor. II, 16: "but we have the sense of Christ." But those who have a sense only for carnal things cannot please God, as is evident from Rom. VIII, 8. Second, the disposition of the one in whom it is, is to be attended to, because he ought to be exercised. I Tim. IV, 7: "exercise thyself unto godliness." For he who is not exercised cannot have the right judgment which is required for this. Eccli. XXXIV, 9: "a man that has had experience in many things will think of many things." Likewise, he who has not had experience recognizes few things. Third, the cause of this exercise is custom — not, namely, idleness, but frequency of act. And therefore he says, "by custom," namely of acting rightly. Prov. XXII, 6: "a young man according to his way, even when he is old he will not depart from it." If, then, you wish to be perfect, do not give yourself to idleness, but accustom yourself to good things from your youth. Fourth, the end of this exercise, namely because it is for the discernment of good and evil. For he is then perfect, when he discerns between good and evil. Is. VII, 15: "that he may know to choose the good, and refuse the evil." But these are three: namely, discernment between good and evil, between good and better, between evil and worse. For there are many things which seem good, and yet are evil. Prov. XIV, 12: "there is a way which seems right to a man, but its ends lead to Hell." In these things, then, rightness of judgment is required.”

“Above, the Apostle made mention of the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech, and showed the slowness of those to whom he was writing; here he returns to his proposal. And concerning this he does three things: first he opens his intention; second he shows its difficulty, at the place and this we will do; third he declares his intention, at the place we are confident. Concerning the first he does two things: first he makes clear his proposal; second he explains what he says, at the place not again. His proposal is that, having passed over those things which pertain to the beginning of Christian doctrine, he wishes to pursue other higher things. Hence he says: it has already been said that the perfect have need of solid food; wherefore, leaving aside the discourse of the beginning of the doctrine of Christ, by which Christ begins to be in us, which is through the doctrine of faith — Eph. c. III, 17: that Christ may dwell through faith in our hearts — let us be carried to perfection, that is, to those things which pertain to the perfection of the doctrine of Christ. I Cor. XIII, 11: when I became a man, I put away the things that were of a child. Now this, according to the Gloss, can be referred to two things: namely either to the intellect, so that when a man has advanced, he ought to leave aside childish things and devote himself to the things of the perfect. I Cor. c. II, 6: we speak wisdom among the perfect. Or to the effect. And the sense is that one must not always stand in the sense of beginners, but must tend toward the state of the perfect. Gen. c. XVII, 1: walk before me, and be perfect. Here there is a twofold objection. And first, concerning what he says about leaving aside the beginning, because the beginning ought never to be left aside. Ps. LXXVI, 10: and I said: now I have begun. Job c. XXVII, 6: the justification which I have begun to hold, I will not forsake. I answer. It must be said that the beginning can be left aside in two ways. Either as to estimation, and in this way a man must always be as one advancing and tending toward greater things. Phil. III, 12: not that I have already begun, or that I am already perfect. Or as to progress toward perfection, and in this way a man must always strive to pass over into the state of the perfect. Phil. III, 13: forgetting the things that are behind, stretching myself toward those that are before. For in the way of God, says Bernard, not to advance is to go back. Another objection concerns what he says, let us be carried to perfection. For perfection consists in the counsels. Matth. XIX, 21: if you wish to be perfect, go, and sell all, and so on. But not all are bound to the counsels; therefore. I answer. It must be said that perfection is twofold. One, namely exterior, which consists in exterior acts, which are signs of interior things, such as virginity, voluntary poverty. And to this not all are bound. The other is interior, which consists in the love of God and neighbor. Col. III, 14: have charity, which is the bond of perfection. And to this kind of perfection not all are bound, but all are bound to tend toward it, because if anyone were unwilling to love God more, he would not do what charity requires. Now he says let us be carried, and this according to an impulse from the Holy Spirit. Rom. VIII, 14: they who are led by the Spirit, these are the sons of God. Or as carried by God, who carries our weakness. Is. XLVI, 3: hear me, house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, who are carried by me from the womb. Or as carried by one another. Gal. VI, 2: bear one another's burdens. Then, when he says not again, he explains what he said, and intends to show what those things are which pertain to the beginning of the doctrine of Christ. And he uses a comparison. For through faith the soul is built up into a spiritual building. Therefore, just as in a bodily building the foundation is laid first, so here the first rudiments of the doctrine of Christ are, as it were, foundations. But on the contrary: because below, at XI, 1, faith is set down as being the foundation; but faith is one. Eph. c. IV, 5: one Lord, one faith, one Baptism. But here he sets down six foundations; therefore it seems that this is wrong. I answer. It must be said that faith is the foundation of the virtues. But these things which he sets down here are the foundations of the doctrine of Christ. And he says not again laying the foundation, etc., as if we should lay it so firmly that it need not be laid a second time. Or because you laid it long ago, and it need not be repeated. Now the Apostle orders these things very meaningfully. For just as in the way of generation and of any motion whatsoever, there is first a departure from the term from which, and afterward an approach to the term to which, so he says here — because penance is a departure from sin, and thus it is, as it were, a certain foundation in this life. For no one, according to Augustine, master of his own will, can begin a new life, unless he repents of the past one. Hence the Lord at the beginning of his preaching says: do penance, Matth. IV, 17. And therefore he says of penance from dead works. For works are called dead, either those which are dead in themselves, or those which are mortified. A thing is called living when it has the function of its proper power; and when it fails in this, it is called dead. For our works are ordered to beatitude, which is the end of man. And therefore when they do not lead to beatitude, nor can be ordered to it, they are called dead: and these are works done in mortal sin. Infra IX, 14: the blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered himself unspotted to God, shall cleanse our consciences from dead works. But works done in charity are mortified by sin; hence they do not have the power to merit eternal life. Ez. XVIII, 24: all his justices which he had done shall not be remembered. But penance causes these to revive: hence then they are again reckoned toward eternal life. But in the approach to the term, first there is faith, and therefore he says the foundation of faith toward God. Now it is proper to faith that a man believes and assents not to things seen by himself, but to the testimony of another. Now this testimony is either of man alone: and this does not make the power of faith, because a man can both deceive and be deceived. Or this testimony is from divine judgment: and this is most true and most firm, because it is from the very Truth, which can neither deceive nor be deceived. And therefore he says, toward God, that is, so that one assents to those things which God says. Io. c. XIV, 1: you believe in God, believe also in me. Secondly, in this process there are the sacraments of faith. Now these are two sacraments of those entering; for the Apostle here treats only of these. And these are: Baptism, first, by which we are regenerated, and second is confirmation, by which we are confirmed. As to the first he says of Baptisms. But on the contrary, Eph. IV, 5: one faith, one Baptism. Therefore there are not several Baptisms. I answer. It must be said that Baptism is threefold, namely of the river, of the breath, and of blood; but the last two do not have force unless they are referred to the first, because these must be had in intention, if the opportunity is not present, in those having the use of free will. And therefore they are not three sacraments, but one sacrament, by which we are regenerated unto salvation. Io. III, 5: unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, and so on. Now among these, the Baptism of blood has more of the effect of Baptism, provided the first was in intention, or the contrary was not held in mind, as is clear in the case of the innocents, who were not in an opposite disposition. For Baptism has its power from the merit of the Passion of Christ. Rom. VI, 3: whoever of us were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in his death. Therefore, just as he who is baptized is conformed to the death of Christ sacramentally, so the martyr is conformed really. And therefore this Baptism has the whole effect of Baptism, as to purging all guilt and penalty of sin, yet it does not imprint any character. And therefore if one receiving martyrdom without the Baptism of water were to rise again, he would have to be baptized. But penance does not have as much of the effect of Baptism, because it does not take away every penalty, although it takes away the guilt. But just as the martyr conforms himself to the death of Christ through exterior suffering, so the penitent through interior suffering. Gal. c. V, 24: they who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and desires. Therefore it can be so great that it takes away all guilt and penalty, as is clear in the case of the thief and the Magdalene. Hence penance is called Baptism, inasmuch as it supplies the place of Baptism. And because it is not lawful to repeat that, therefore penance was instituted. These, therefore, are called Baptisms, because they have the effect of Baptism; but there is only one Baptism, because they do not operate unless that is held in intention. The second sacrament of those entering consists in the very laying on of hands. Therefore he says also of the laying on of hands. But this is twofold. One is that which works miracles, as when Christ through the laying on of hands healed the sick, Lc. IV, 40: laying his hands on each of them he healed them; and this is not sacramental. The other is sacramental, and this is twofold. One in the sacrament of order. I Tim. V, 22: lay hands hastily on no one. The other is in the sacrament of confirmation for renewal. Tit. III, 5: through the laver of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, and so on. For in confirmation the Spirit is given for strength, that is, so that a man may boldly confess the name of Christ before men. For just as in the being of nature, a man is first generated, and afterward grows and is strengthened, so it is in the being of grace. Thirdly there follows the term of the motion, to which the motion is terminated, and this is twofold. For we await two things: the first is the resurrection of bodies, and this is a foundation of faith, because without this our faith is vain, I Cor. c. XV, 14. Therefore he says of the resurrection of the dead. Likewise we await recompense, which will be made through the judge. Eccle. XII, 14: God will bring all things that are done into judgment. And therefore he says of eternal judgment, not that this judgment will last a thousand years, as Lactantius held, but the whole will be in a moment. But it is called eternal, because the sentence which will be given there will last forever. Matth. XXV, 46: these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just into eternal life. And it must be known that all these things, which he says he wishes to treat here, are, as it were, certain rudiments of the faith. Hence he preaches these to novices, Act. XVII, 18 ss., and in many other places. Then, when he says and this we will do, he shows the difficulty of carrying out his proposal: for it is difficult, both in itself, and with respect to his hearers. Hence he does three things. First he indicates that in this he especially needs divine help; second he adds the weakness of certain persons, at the place for it is impossible; third he brings forward a certain comparison, at the place for the earth. He says therefore: let us be carried toward the perfect, and this we will do, if indeed God permits. Now he says less, and signifies more. For it is not only necessary that the Lord permit, but it is required that he do all things. Sap. VII, 16: in the hand of God are we and our words. And therefore one must place everything under confidence in divine help. Io. XV, 15: without me you can do nothing. Iac. IV, 15: instead you should say, if God wills, and if we live, we will do. Then, when he says it is impossible, he shows their weakness: for they were weak in hearing. Just as in bodily matters no condition is so dangerous as that of relapsing persons, so in spiritual matters, he who after grace falls into sin rises to good again with more difficulty. And concerning this he does three things: first he sets forth the goods which they had received; second the difficulty caused in them from relapse, at the place and are fallen away; third he assigns the reason, at the place crucifying again. Now some goods are present, but others are future. Now they in the present had spiritual regeneration, and as to this he says enlightened, namely through Baptism. And Baptism is fittingly called illumination, because Baptism is the beginning of spiritual regeneration, in which the intellect is illumined through faith. Eph. V, v. 8: you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord. They also have a participation in the goods of God, and as to this he says and have tasted the heavenly gift. This gift is grace, and it is called heavenly, because God gives it from the heavens. Ps. LXVII, 19: he gave gifts to men, and Iac. c. I, 17: every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights. There is also in them a participation in the divine goodness. II Pet. I, 4: through whom, namely Christ, he has given us the greatest and precious promises. Therefore he says made partakers of the Holy Spirit. For all gifts are given out of love: and therefore he attributes this participation to the Holy Spirit. Now to participate is to take a part. But only Christ had the Holy Spirit unto fullness. Io. III, 34: for God does not give the Spirit by measure. For the other saints received of his fullness, and were made partakers, not indeed of his substance, but of his distributions. Supra II, 4: and various distributions of the Holy Spirit. I Cor. XII, 4: there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit, and so on. Likewise in the present they had the instruction of doctrine. And as to this he says they have tasted nonetheless the good word of God. This word is called good, because it is the word of eternal life. Io. VI, 69: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Ps. CXVIII, v. 103: how sweet are your words to my throat. Now he says they have tasted, because it not only illumines the intellect, but also refreshes the affection, in which there is a certain savoring. Ps. XXXIII, 8: taste and see that the Lord is sweet. But future goods they had in hope. Rom. VIII, 24: we are saved by hope. And therefore he says and the powers of the age to come. Now of these, some are had not only in hope, but also in a certain inchoation, and these are the endowments of the soul, namely vision, possession, and enjoyment, and these are had in a certain inchoation, inasmuch as faith, hope, and charity, which correspond to them, are had in the present. But other goods there are, which are had only in hope, such as the endowments of the body, namely subtlety, agility, impassibility, clarity. Consequently, when he says and are fallen away, he shows the difficulty of rising again, caused by the fall. Where it must be noted that he does not say fallen simply, but fallen away, that is, totally fallen: because if they had only fallen, it would not be so difficult to rise again. Prov. XXIV, 16: the just man falls seven times a day, and rises again. But if the Apostle were saying that it is impossible for those who have fallen away to rise again, then it could be said that in this he notes the greatest difficulty of rising, namely both on account of sin, and on account of pride, as is clear in the case of the demons. But because he says that those who have once fallen away cannot again be renewed unto penance, and there is no sin in this world from which a man cannot repent, therefore it must be understood otherwise. Hence it must be known that from this passage a certain Novatus, who was a priest of the Roman Church, took an occasion of erring. For he held that no one after Baptism could rise again to penance. But this position is false, as Athanasius says in his epistle to Serapion, because Paul himself received back the incestuous Corinthian, as is clear from II Cor. II, 5 ss., and likewise Gal. IV, 19, because he says: my little children, whom I bring forth again, and so on. It must therefore be understood, as Augustine says, that he does not say that it is impossible to repent, but that it is impossible to be renewed again, that is, to be baptized. Tit. III, 5: through the laver of regeneration and renewal, and so on. For a man could never so repent that he could be baptized again. And the Apostle says this, because according to the law the Jews are baptized many times, as is clear from Mc. VII, 3 s. And therefore, to remove this error, the Apostle says this. Then, when he says crucifying again, and so on, he assigns the reason why Baptism is not repeated, namely because Baptism is a certain configuration to the death of Christ, as is clear from Rom. VI, 3: as many of us as were baptized in Christ. But this is not repeated, because Christ, rising from the dead, dies now no more, Rom. VI, 9. Therefore they who are baptized a second time crucify Christ again. Or otherwise, that the opposition to the grace of Christ is denoted, namely that they wish to sin frequently and afterward be baptized again — so that it is referred not to a repetition of Baptism, but to the fall of those who sin. Who, namely, as far as it is in them, crucify Christ again, because Christ died once for our sins, I Pet. III, 18. Therefore when you sin after being baptized, as far as it is in you, you give occasion for Christ to be crucified again, and thus an insult is done to Christ, in whose blood you, having been washed, stain yourself. Apoc. I, 5: he loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”