Commentary on Hebrews (Super Epistolam ad Hebraeos Lectura)

Above, in chapter 5, the Apostle proved that Christ is a priest. But in chapter 6 he interposed certain things to prepare the minds of his hearers; here he returns to his proposed theme. For he intends to prove the excellence of the priesthood of Christ over the levitical priesthood. And concerning this he does two things: first he shows the excellence of the priesthood of Christ over the priesthood of the old testament; second he shows that the faithful ought to submit themselves reverently to Christ the priest. And this in the middle of the tenth chapter, where he says: having therefore, brethren, confidence.

Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the prerogative of the priesthood of Christ over the levitical on the part of the person of the priest himself; second on the part of the ministry, in chapter 8, where he says: now the sum. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the existence of the priesthood of Christ from the divine promise; second he shows the necessity of his priesthood, where he says: for such was fitting. But he shows the promise through that word of Ps. 109:5: The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent, etc. Hence he shows three things to prove his proposed point. First, that which is said: according to the order of Melchisedech; second, that which is said: he has sworn, where he says: and inasmuch as it is not without an oath; third, that which is said: thou art a priest, where he says: and others indeed more.

Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the likeness of Christ to Melchisedech; second, from this likeness, he prefers the priesthood of Christ to the levitical, where he says: now consider. Concerning the first he does two things: first he describes the conditions of Melchisedech; second he shows how they agree with Christ, where he says: first indeed.

Now he describes Melchisedech first from his name, when he says: but this Melchisedech. For thus Scripture names him, Gen. 14:18, where the history is found, which the Apostle here supposes. And according to the Gloss, the Hebrews say that he was Shem, the firstborn of Noah, and that at the time when Abraham had the victory he was 390 years old, or otherwise 309. And he met Abraham, his descendant.

Second, he describes him from his dignity. For he was king and priest. As to the first he is called king of Salem. And according to some, Salem is said to be Jerusalem. But against this is Jerome, in a certain letter, because, as he himself says, it could not be that he met him coming from Jerusalem, which he proves from the location. But others say that Salem is that place of which it is said in Jo. 3:23, that John was baptizing near it, and the walls of that place still remained in Jerome's time.

As to the second he says: priest of the most high God. For anciently, he who was the elder among the sons was the priest. But it is true that in the time of Abraham the worship of idols had grown very strong. And therefore, lest they should believe that he was a priest of idols, it is added: of the most high God — namely by essence, not by participation or by mere naming. For God is the creator of all those who are called gods, whether by participation or by error. Ps. 94:3: a great king above all gods. Is. 61:6: You shall be called the priests of the Lord, etc.

Third, he describes him from his office, where he says: who met, etc. For the priest is a mediator between God and the people. For he ought to confer something on the people, namely spiritual things, and receive something from them, namely temporal things. 1 Cor. 9:11: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, it is no great thing if we reap your carnal things.

First, then, he ought to bestow comfort through good counsels. Hence it is said in Gen. 14, that four kings conquered five kings, and led captive Lot, the nephew of Abraham. These four kings are the four principal vices, opposed to the four cardinal virtues, which hold captive the affection — the nephew of reason — once the five bodily senses have been conquered. For he who overcomes and frees the affection ought to be comforted by the priest. Is. 21:14: You that meet the thirsty, bring water; and Is. 35:3: Strengthen the feeble hands, etc.

Second, the priest ought to comfort by the administration of the sacraments, in blessing. Hence: he blessed him. Ps. 117:25: We have blessed you in the name of the Lord. Now this is done by bestowing the sacraments, through which a man is strengthened in grace. Num. 6:27: They shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them — for God blesses by authority, but the priest by ministry.

And tithes — that is, for sustenance — he divided, namely Abraham, that is, he divided, namely Abraham, that is, rightly distributed. But against this: because, as is clear from Num. 18, the giving of tithes is from the law; therefore they were not before the law. I answer. It must be said that the ceremonial precepts of the old testament are certain determinations of the precepts of natural law and of the moral precepts. And therefore, as to what they had from natural law, they were observed before the law only according to the will of those observing them, and without any precept. For that something be offered to God in acknowledgment of his creation and dominion, this is natural; but that a calf or a kid be offered, this is ceremonial. Likewise it is of natural law that ministers serving God should be sustained by the people; for, as is clear from Gen. 47:22, this was observed even among the gentiles. Hence the priests, because they were fed from the public granaries, were not compelled to sell their possessions; and therefore they were before the law. But the determination of this part is through the law. Lev. 27:30: All the tithes are the Lord's. And as a sign of this, Jacob, before the law, in the place where the temple was afterward built, vowed that he would give tithes. And this especially, because to this end the worship of God is properly rendered, that it may be signified that whatever man has, he has received from God, and awaits his whole perfection from him. For the number ten is perfect, because it arises from its own aliquot parts: for one, two, three, four make ten. Number also ascends only as far as it, and all others are nothing but a certain repetition and addition upon the ten. All, therefore, are imperfect until one arrives at it. And likewise all perfection is from God. Therefore, that he might signify that the completion of all perfection is from God, he gave tithes.

Then, when he says: first indeed, he shows the likeness of Christ and Melchisedech. And concerning this he does two things: first he brings in the likeness as to the condition of the person; second as to the priesthood, where he says: but likened to the Son of God. The first is divided into two: first he sets down the likeness as to those things which are recorded in Scripture; second as to those things which are passed over in silence in it, where he says: without father.

Now two things are said of him in Scripture. The first indeed, his name, namely Melchisedech, which is interpreted king of justice, and signifies Christ, who was king. Jer. 23:5: And a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall do judgment and justice in the land. Nor is he called only just, but king of justice, because he was made unto us wisdom and justice, 1 Cor. 1:30. The other thing said of him is his condition. Hence he is called king of Salem, which is king of peace. Now this belongs to Christ. For he himself is our peace, Eph. 2:14; Ps. 71:7: In his days shall justice arise, and abundance of peace. And in this the Apostle teaches us to use the interpretation of names in preaching. And he well joins justice and peace, because no one makes peace who does not keep justice. Is. 32:17: the work of justice shall be peace. In this world they are governed in justice, but in the future in peace. Is. 32:18: My people shall sit in the beauty of peace.

Then, when he says: without father, he sets down the likeness as to those things which are passed over in silence concerning him, because in Scripture no mention is made of his father, or his mother, nor of his genealogy. Hence from this certain ancients took occasion for error, so that, because God alone is without beginning and without end, they said that this Melchisedech was the Son of God. But this has been condemned as heretical. Hence it must be known that in the old testament, whenever mention is made of some solemn person, the father and mother are recounted, and the time of birth and death, as in the case of Isaac and many others. But here Melchisedech is suddenly introduced, with absolutely no mention made of his generation, or of the things pertaining to it. And this indeed reasonably.

For inasmuch as he is called without father, the birth of Christ from the virgin is signified, which was without a father. Matt. 1:20: For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit. Now that which is proper to God ought not to be attributed to a creature. But it belongs to God the Father alone to be the father of Christ. Therefore in the birth of him who prefigured him, no mention ought to be made of a carnal father.

Likewise, as to the eternal generation, he says: without mother. And this, lest you should understand that generation to be material, as a mother gives matter to the one begotten, but it is spiritual, as brightness from the sun. Above, 1:3: who being the brightness, etc. Likewise, when generation comes from father and mother, not everything is from the father, but the matter is furnished by the mother. Therefore, to exclude imperfection from Christ, and to designate that all that he has is from the Father, no mention at all is made of a mother. Hence the verse: without a mother he is God, without a father he is flesh. Ps. 109:4: From the womb, before the day-star, I begot thee — namely, I alone.

Without genealogy. And for a twofold reason his genealogy is not set down in Scripture: one, to designate that the generation of Christ is ineffable. Is. 53:8: Who shall declare his generation? The other, to designate that Christ, who is introduced as priest, does not belong to the levitical stock, nor to the genealogy of the old law. And this is the intention of the Apostle.

Hence he adds: having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. Now he says this, not because Christ was not born in time nor did he die, but on account of his eternal generation, in which he was born without the beginning of any time whatever. Hence Jo. 1:1: In the beginning was the Word — that is, at whatever time be given, before it the Word already was, as Basil explains. For he is before all days, because through him the world was made, with which days began. Likewise, nor end of life: this is true as to his divinity, which is eternal. As to his humanity also, he now has no end of life, because Christ, rising from the dead, dies now no more, Rom. 6:9. And below, 13:8: Christ Jesus, yesterday and today, the same also forever.

Then, when he says: but likened to the Son of God, etc., he shows the likeness as to the priesthood. It must be known, however, that it is customary to say that later things are likened to earlier things, and not the reverse. And therefore, lest it be believed that the priesthood of Christ is later than the priesthood of Melchisedech, the Apostle removes this, because even if Christ, inasmuch as he is man, was born after him and in time, yet inasmuch as he is God and the Son of God, he is from eternity. And therefore Melchisedech, according to all these things, is likened to him who is the Son of God, and this inasmuch as he remains a priest forever, which can be explained in two ways. In one way, because no mention is made of the end of his priesthood, nor of his successor. Hos. 12:10: I have been likened in the hands of the prophets. Likewise, he is a priest forever, because that which is figured by him, namely the priesthood of Christ, is forever. Hence in Scripture too it is repeated many times: with a perpetual rite. Ex. 27:21: it shall be a perpetual worship. Lev. 24:3: with perpetual worship and rite — because that which was figured through this was perpetual. For by this the Apostle continues what follows with what precedes.

Above the Apostle showed how Melchisedech was made like to the Son of God; here he shows the preeminence of the priesthood of Melchisedech over the levitical priesthood. And concerning this he does two things. For first he excites attention; second he shows his proposition, at the words and indeed of the sons. Now he excites them, because he was about to say great and momentous things. Prov. 8:6: Hear me, for I am about to speak of great things. And therefore he says consider, that is, diligently weigh, how great, that is, of how great a dignity, is this man to whom Abraham the patriarch paid tithes, and this concerning the foremost. Mal. 1:14: Cursed is the deceitful man who has a male in his flock, and making a vow, offers to the Lord a defective thing. Now Abraham is called patriarch, that is, prince of fathers, not because he did not have a father, but because to him was made the promise concerning the fatherhood of the nations. Gen. 17:4: You shall be the father of many nations. Ecclus. 44:20: Abraham, the great father of a multitude of nations. Rom. 4:17: I have made you the father of many nations before God, whom you believed.

Then, when he says and indeed of the sons, he shows the preeminence of the priesthood of Melchisedech over the levitical. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows his proposition; second from this he concludes his intent, namely that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the levitical priesthood, at the words if therefore consummation. Again the first is divided into two, because first he shows the proposition; second he removes a certain response, at the words and, so to say. The first again is divided into two. First he shows the preeminence as to that in which he himself exercised his priesthood; second as to the condition of the priesthood, at the words and here indeed tithes. Now to a priest two things pertain, as was said above, namely to receive, and to bless. He therefore does two things: first he shows the excellence as to the receiving of tithes; second as to the blessing, at the words and this one who had. Concerning the first he further does two things: first he shows from whom it belongs to receive tithes; second how Melchisedech did this more excellently, at the words but whose genealogy.

He says therefore and indeed those of the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood. In this he shows to whom it belongs to receive tithes, namely to the priests. Now it must be known that those of the tribe of Levi were deputed to the divine worship. But among them, only those of the stock of Aaron were priests. Ex. 28:1: Bring near Aaron, etc. And these, because through Aaron they were of the tribe of Levi, received the tithes. But on the contrary: therefore according to this, only the priests received the tithes, which is against that word of Num. 18:21: To the sons of Levi I have given all the tithes of Israel, etc. I answer. It must be said that the Levites did not receive them except because they ministered to the priests. And thus they were given to them not on their own account, but on account of the priests. Again, the Levites received tithed tithes, thus Num. 18:26. And thus only the priests received, and did not pay.

Second he shows by what right they received, namely from the command of the law. Hence he says they have a commandment to take tithes. On the contrary: if this is a commandment of the law, since to keep the commandments of the law is now a sin, it seems unlawful now to give, or to receive tithes. I answer. It must be said that in the law there were certain things purely ceremonial, such as circumcision, to sacrifice a lamb, and the like. And these, because they were only figurative, it is not lawful now to observe. For they were a figure of what was to come. Hence whoever now observed them would signify that Christ was still to come. But certain things were purely moral, and these are to be observed now, and the giving of tithes was of this kind, as was said above. Hence tithing was given both in the law, and in the New Testament. Matt. 10:10: The workman is worthy of his food. Lk. 10:7: The workman is worthy of his hire. But the determination of such a portion now is from the Church, just as in the Old Testament it was from the law. But other things were partly ceremonial and partly moral, such as the judicial precepts: and these, as to that in which they are ceremonial, it is not lawful to observe; but as to the moral, they ought to be observed, yet it is not necessary that they be observed in their proper form.

Another objection: because if it was a commandment, and still is, then he who does not receive sins, and they sin where they are not received. I answer. It must be said that some say that it is not lawful for anyone to renounce the right of receiving tithes, but it is indeed lawful to give up the use of receiving on account of scandal, and this by the example of the apostle, who did not receive expenses from some. And thus they say the commandment is, that they not renounce the right. It can, however, be better said, that it is not to be understood that it is commanded to them to take, but they have this commandment introduced in their favor, that they may be able to receive, and others are bound to render it.

Third he shows from whom they received, namely from the people, that is, from their brethren according to the law, although they themselves, the Levites, had come forth from the loins of Abraham. For because someone might say that just as Melchisedech received tithes from Abraham, so the Levites from his sons, therefore that priesthood is not preferred to this one. Therefore he excludes this, and says that the Levites themselves were of the seed of Abraham, and thus were inferior to him to whom they paid tithes, namely Abraham.

Then, when he says but whose, he shows how it was more excellent for Melchisedech to receive tithes, because he himself was not of the race of Abraham; hence his genealogy is not numbered with them, namely with the Levites. Again, from the command of the law it was lawful for them to take tithes, and thus their priesthood was subject to the observances of the law. But that one took tithes not from the command of any law, but of himself. Therefore his priesthood was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, which is not subject to the law. Again, they received from the lowest people, namely from their brethren, but that one from the highest, namely from Abraham.

Then, when he says and this one who had, etc., he shows his excellence on the part of the blessing, and his reasoning is this: in Gen. 14:19 it is said that Melchisedech blessed Abraham; but he who blesses is greater than the one who is blessed: therefore, etc. And therefore he says that Melchisedech himself blessed Abraham, who had the promise. On the contrary, below at 11:39: they did not receive the promise, etc. I answer. It must be said that Abraham did not receive the promise, that is, the thing promised, because he did not obtain it, yet he had it in faith and hope, and to him especially was the promise made.

Then, when he says but without any contradiction, the lesser is blessed by the better, he sets down the major of his argument. But here there are three objections.

The first is about this, that he says that the lesser is blessed by the greater. And from this passage the Poor Men of Lyons say that whoever is just is greater than a sinner, and thus a just layman is not blessed by a wicked priest, but the reverse. Hence they hold that every just man is a priest, and no sinner is a priest. I answer. It must be said that this error is exceedingly pernicious: because if the goodness of the minister were required for the conferring of the sacrament, in which is salvation itself, it follows that no one would be certain of his salvation, nor would he know that he was rightly baptized, because he cannot know whether the priest is just. No one, moreover, will be able to be a minister, because no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred, or of love, Eccles. 9:1. And therefore it must be said that someone can do something in two ways: either by his own authority, or by another's authority. Now when it is by his own authority, then it is required that he be just. But a priest is only a minister. Hence he acts only in the power of Christ. 1 Cor. 4:1: Let a man so account us, as ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the ministries of God. And therefore it does no harm whether he be good, or bad; because it is Christ who blesses in him, and thus without any contradiction, he who blesses is greater.

The second objection is that, since Christ is greater than every priest, how can the body of Christ be consecrated by a priest? I answer. It must be said that the priest blesses the matter, but not the body of Christ. Again, he does not act by his own authority, but by the authority of Christ, who, inasmuch as he is God, is greater than his own body.

Again the third objection is that it does not seem true that the greater always blesses the lesser, because the Pope is consecrated by a bishop, and the archbishop by a suffragan, who are nevertheless lesser. I answer. It must be said: neither does the bishop consecrate the Pope, nor the suffragans the archbishop, but this man, that he may be Pope, or archbishop. Again, he does this as a minister of God, who is greater than the Pope.

Then, when he says and here indeed, etc., he shows the preeminence of the priesthood on the part of the priest, from his condition. And he makes this argument: that is more excellent which is not corrupted; but in the levitical priesthood men who are dying, that is, succeeding by death, receive tithes, but there, that is, in the priesthood of Melchisedech, Scripture testifies that he lives, that is, it makes no mention of his death: not because he did not die, but because it signifies a priesthood which remains forever. For Christ, rising from the dead, dies no more, Rom. 6:9, and Apoc. 1:18: I was dead, and behold I am alive, etc.

Consequently, when he says and, so to say, etc., he answers a certain objection. For it could be said: it is true that Melchisedech is greater than Abraham, who gave him tithes, but Levi is greater than Melchisedech. And therefore the Apostle says that this does not hold, because, so to say, through Abraham, that is, by the mediation of Abraham, Levi also was tithed, by him, understand, who received the tithes, that is, by Melchisedech. And thus he is still greater than Levi. But on the contrary: if the father of some bishop gives tithes, it is not, however, on this account necessary that the bishop be lesser than him who receives the tithes. Therefore neither is it likewise in the matter proposed. I answer. It must be said that it is not similar, because the whole dignity of that race, even of the priests, was from Abraham; but it is not so with the bishop, because his whole dignity is from Christ, not from his father.

Then, when he says for he was yet in the loins, etc., he makes clear what he had said, and says that Levi was still in the loins of his father Abraham when he gave tithes to Melchisedech, who met him, and thus, Abraham having been tithed, Levi also was tithed. But on the contrary: because thus Christ also was in his loins, just as Levi was. Matt. 1:1: the son of David, the son of Abraham. And therefore if on this account Melchisedech is greater than Levi, because Levi was tithed, no reason appears why Christ was not tithed: and thus Melchisedech would still be greater than Christ. And the same difficulty is about original sin: because, as it is said, Rom. 5:12: in whom all have sinned, that is, in Adam, and therefore it seems that Christ, who was in him in the same way as we were, would have contracted original sin itself. I answer. It must be said that all this is understood of those who were in Abraham or in Adam according to seminal reason and bodily substance, in which way Christ was not there, but only according to bodily substance: for Christ was conceived, as to his body, from the most pure and most holy matter of the blessed Virgin: as is declared in the third book of the Sentences, third distinction.

1 Above, the Apostle proved the pre-eminence of the priesthood of Melchisedech over the levitical; here, from the same, he concludes the excellence of the priesthood of Christ with respect to the levitical priesthood. As was also said above, from the beginning of this seventh chapter, the Apostle proves his proposition by three things from the authority of the Psalmist. First, by the text "according to the order of Melchisedech," he thereby proved the pre-eminence of Melchisedech over Levi. And therefore, according to the order of the priesthood of Melchisedech, he proves the pre-eminence of Christ over the levitical priesthood. Hence here he lays great weight on this word, "according to the order." And he forms two arguments, one of which concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the levitical priesthood; the second, that it also does away with it, and this he sets down at the place, "and it is yet more evident," etc. In the first argument, which is conditional, he sets down two antecedents, and consequently two consequents, at the place, "what further," etc. And his argument is this: if the levitical priesthood had been perfect, by whose ministry the administration of the law was carried out, it would not have been necessary that another priest should arise according to another order, by whom also another law should be ministered, just as the old law was ministered through the levitical. But another priest does arise according to another order, namely according to the order of Melchisedech. Therefore that priesthood was imperfect. Just as, then, another priesthood arises, so it is necessary that another law arise.
2
3 In this argument it is clear that there are two antecedents, one pertaining to the priesthood, the other to the law. He says, therefore, as to the first antecedent, that if there were consummation through the levitical priesthood. But as to the second, he says that if the law were administered through the priesthood — which he proves, because under it, that is, through its administration, the people received the law, not that the priesthood preceded the law, but rather the reverse. Hence he sets down this second antecedent at the place where he says, "for under it," etc. Mal. 2:7: "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Now he makes mention specifically of the priesthood, in order to transfer himself to the law, which was administered through the priestly office; for, as the Gloss says, there cannot be a priest without a testament and a law and precepts. But the priesthood did not consummate, that is, did not perfect; for the whole of its perfection was through the law which it administered. But, as will presently be said, the law brought nothing to perfection, because not even to the perfection of justice. Matt. 5:20: "unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes," etc. Likewise, it did not give the consummation of the homeland, because it did not introduce into life. And as a sign of this, the lawgiver himself could not enter the land of promise. Deut., last chapter. But we have these two perfections through Christ. Is. 10:22: "the consummation, abridged, shall overflow with justice." Rom. 9:28: "a word consummating and abridging in equity." These, then, are the antecedents.
4
5 But he sets down the consequents when he says, "what further," etc. And this as to the first, as if he were to say: if that had been consummated and perfect, what further need was there that another should arise, etc. That is, he would not have said "according to the order of Melchisedech," but "according to the order of Aaron" — which, because he did not do, therefore it was imperfect. This is the whole of the first argument, by which it is clear that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the levitical.
6
7 The second argument proves that it also does away with it, because the perfect does away with the imperfect. 1 Cor. 13:10: "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Therefore the priesthood of Christ does away with the levitical priesthood. This, then, is the first consequent, that the priesthood of Christ does away with the levitical priesthood. The second consequent is that the law also is done away with, which was administered through it. And this he sets down when he says that, the priesthood being transferred, it is necessary that a transfer of the law be made. For the law was under the administration of the priesthood; therefore, the priesthood being changed, it is necessary that the law be changed. And the reason for this is that, the end being changed, it is necessary that the things which are for the end be changed, just as one who changes his purpose of going by water changes his purpose of seeking a ship. Now every law is ordered to human conduct according to some rule. Hence, according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when conduct is changed, it is necessary that the law be changed. But just as human law is ordered to human rule, so spiritual and divine law is ordered to divine rule. Now this rule is designated through the priesthood. The priesthood, therefore, being transferred, it is necessary that the law be transferred. He speaks pointedly, however, since he does not say, "the priest being transferred." For the law does not regard the person of the priest. Hence, the priest having died, the law is not changed, unless perhaps it had been introduced on account of his person; but when the priesthood is changed, the whole manner and order of the rule is changed. And of this change we have it in Jer. 3: "I will make with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant: not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers," etc. Rom. 8:2: "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath delivered me from the law of sin and death." For the old law is called the law of sin and death, by reason of the occasion taken, namely because it did not confer grace from the work performed, as the sacraments of the new law do.
8
9 But here the Manichean objects: if the old law was given through divine providence, since that providence is immutable, the law itself also would be immutable, and consequently it ought not to have been changed. Since, then, it has been changed, therefore it was not given through divine providence.
10
11 I answer. It must be said, according to what Augustine says against Faustus, that just as a wise steward, by one and the same disposition and providence, gives different precepts according to the diversity of times and persons — as other things in winter, other things in summer, other things to children, other things to the old, other things to the perfect, other things to the imperfect, and yet it is the same providence — so, the divine providence remaining immovable, the law was changed on account of the change of times; because before the coming, precepts had to be given which would prefigure the one who was to come, but after the coming, precepts which would signify that he had come. Likewise, precepts were given to them as to children; but in the new law, as to the perfect. Hence the law is called a pedagogue, which properly belongs to children. Hence if anything is said in the law that sounds of perpetuity, this is by reason of the thing prefigured.
12
13 Likewise, the Gloss says here that this transfer of the priesthood was prefigured in 1 Kings 2, when the priesthood was transferred to Samuel, who was not of the tribe of Levi. Against this: Samuel was not a priest; rather, this was prefigured more in the transfer of the priesthood from Abiathar to Sadoch, who also was a Levite. And it must be said that, although Samuel was not a priest, yet he did something priestly; for he both offered sacrifice, and anointed kings, namely Saul and David. And as to this, the priesthood was transferred to him. And so it is said in Ps. 98:6: "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name."
14
15 Again, against what the Gloss says, that he was not of the levitical tribe: because Elcana, who was his father, is himself numbered among the sons of Levi. I answer. It must be said that Samuel, as to one part, was of the tribe of Judah, and this as to his mother; but as to his father, of the tribe of Levi, though not of Aaron; but as to place, he was of Mount Ephraim. For although the eleven tribes had certain provinces of their own, yet the tribe of Levi did not; but it received its possession among them, and so it dwelt in Mount Ephraim.
16
17 Then, when he says "for he of whom," etc., he makes clear what he had said: first, that the priesthood has been transferred; second, he explains this, at the place, "for it is evident." He says therefore: it has been said that the priesthood was transferred, because he to whom the prophet said, "Thou art a priest," is of another tribe, namely of Judah, not of Levi, as is clear from Matt. 1. Of which tribe no man attended at the altar, that is, at the ministry of the altar — namely, of Judah.
18
19 But against this: king Ozias entered the temple, to place incense, 2 Par. 26:16. I answer. It must be said that no man attended at the altar lawfully, or even none with impunity. For Ozias himself was gravely punished, since he was a leper even unto death.
20
21 And if you should say, against what is said, "no man," that the Blessed Virgin was of the tribe and stock of Aaron, because she was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, Luke 1:5, I answer: it must be said that among the stocks, the priestly and the royal were the more illustrious, and hence they were frequently joined by marriage, as is clear of the first high priest, who took to wife the daughter of Aminadab, sister of Naasson, who was leader in the tribe of Judah, Ex. 6:23. And also, 4 Kings 11:2 and 2 Par. 22:11, Joiada the priest took to wife Josabeth, the daughter of king Joram. Hence it could be that, on some side, Elizabeth was of the tribe of Judah.
22
23 Then, when he says "it is evident," he explains what he had said, saying that it is evident that the Lord arose from the tribe of Judah, Apoc. 5:5: "the lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed," etc. "In which, nothing," etc. For the law commanded that no one be taken up for the ministry of the tabernacle, except only from the tribe of Levi; hence, concerning the tribe of Judah, Moses said nothing about priests.
24
25 Then, when he says "and yet more," etc. — because above he had set down one argument to prove that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the levitical, and does away with it, therefore here he sets down another, in which he shows the reason for that doing-away and transformation; and he uses a certain conditional, in which first he sets down two antecedents, second two consequents, at the place, "a disannulling." Concerning the first he does two things: for first he sets down those antecedents; second he makes clear what he said, at the place, "for he testifieth." His argument is this: if a new priest arises, this will not be according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the law of a life eternal and indissoluble. And the reason for this is that the first was according to that law; it is necessary, then, that the new one be according to another law, if indeed some new one arises. But it must be said that another, new one, does arise. In the major premise, then, there are two things, one of which pertains to the old testament, namely, that it is a carnal commandment, and this because it had certain carnal observances, such as circumcision, and carnal purifications. Likewise, because it promised carnal punishments and rewards. Is. 1:19: "if you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land." Below, 9:10: "justices of the flesh, imposed until the time of correction." And this antecedent he sets down when he says, "it is more evident," etc. And it is clear that what pertains to the new testament is not dispensed through carnal things, but consists in spiritual things. For it is according to spiritual power, through which perpetual life is generated in us. And this because in it are promised perpetual goods and punishments. Below, 9:11: "Christ, being present as high priest," etc. Matt. 25:46: "then these shall go into everlasting punishment, but the just into life everlasting." Likewise, it does not consist in carnal observances, but in spiritual ones. John 6:64: "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." And he says that it is according to the power of an indissoluble life.
26
27 Consequently, when he says "for he testifieth," etc., he makes clear what he had said, and lays weight on this, that he says "for ever"; for if the priesthood is eternal, it is evident that he speaks of perpetuity.
28
29 Then, when he says "there is indeed a disannulling," etc., he sets down the two consequents. And first concerning the doing-away of the old testament; second concerning the institution of the new, at the place, "but a bringing in." The first is that the old testament existed through the law of a carnal commandment, and another is brought in: therefore the first is changed. And this is what he says, that there is a disannulling of the former commandment.
30
31 But against this: nothing is disapproved except evil. Is. 7:15: "that he may know to refuse the evil." But that commandment is not evil. Rom. 7:13: "the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." I answer. It must be said that it was not evil in itself, but as unsuited to the time. For those things are not to be kept in the new priesthood which were in the old. Ps. 39:6f.: "holocaust and sin-offering thou didst not require; then said I: behold, I come." And therefore it is said that it is disannulled; and this on account of weakness and unprofitableness.
32
33 Now that is called weak which cannot carry out its own effect; and the proper effect of the law and the priesthood is to justify. But the law could not do this. Rom. 8:3: "for what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak according to the flesh." Gal. 4:9: "how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you wish to serve again?"
34
35 Likewise, that is called unprofitable which avails not for attaining the end. But the law cannot do this, because it did not lead to beatitude, which is the end of man. Yet in its own time it was profitable, inasmuch as it disposed toward faith. Below, 11:13: "according to faith, all died, not having received the promises."
36
37 But why it is weak and unprofitable, he shows when he says, "for it brought nothing to perfection" — namely, neither of justice nor of the homeland. Hence it was imperfect, but it was made perfect through Christ.
38
39 Consequently, when he says "but a bringing in," he sets down the second consequent from the second antecedent, saying "but a bringing in of a better hope" — supply: it comes about through the new priest — "by which we draw near to God." For if a new one arises, it is according to the power of an indissoluble life: this is the antecedent; and "a bringing in of a better," etc.: this is the consequent. 1 Pet. 1:3: "he hath regenerated us unto a living hope, by the resurrection of Jesus." Likewise, through him we draw near to God. For through sin we are disjoined from him. Is. 59:2: "your iniquities have divided between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you." This, then, is he who removes this, and who makes us draw near to God; and this is that new priest, namely Christ, who taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29. Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom we have access into this grace, Rom. 5:1f.

Above, the Apostle proved from one part of the authority of the Psalmist that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the levitical, and does away with it; here he proves the same thing from two other parts, and first from this, that he says the Lord has sworn; second from this, that he says thou art a priest, at the place and others indeed several, et cetera. Now he first makes this argument: that which is instituted without an oath is less valid than that which is instituted with an oath; but the priesthood of Christ was instituted with an oath, as is clear, because he says the Lord has sworn. But the priesthood of Aaron was not, as is clear from Exodus 28:1: bring near to thee Aaron, et cetera. Therefore, et cetera. As to the major premise he says, and inasmuch as it is — supply that — not without an oath: others indeed were made priests without an oath, but this one, et cetera. All these things are set down to prove that the priesthood of Christ is more firm, because it was said above that every promise made in the Old Testament by an oath is a sign of the immovable divine counsel. And therefore, because this promise concerning Christ was made to David and to Abraham with an oath, Christ is specially called their son. Now this oath designates the eternity of the power of Christ. Daniel 7:14: his power is an everlasting power. Luke 1:33: and of his kingdom there shall be no end. By so much of a better, et cetera, because the priesthood is more firm, which is clear because it was ordained by an oath, therefore something better and firmer must be had through it. Hence the preceding text can be read suspensively up to this point: that, inasmuch as it is not without an oath, by so much of a better, et cetera.

Now it must be known that a priest is a mediator between God and the people. Deuteronomy 5:5: I was the mediator and the go-between. And therefore, since the go-between is a mediator, the priest ought to bring God and the people back to concord. And this happens, as it were, through a covenant concerning temporal goods, in which the affection of none but carnal men found rest, according to that word of Psalm 15: for what is there for me in heaven, et cetera. And therefore it was necessary that another priest should come, who would be a sponsor, that is, a guarantor of a better testament and a better covenant, because it concerns spiritual and stable goods. And this is Jesus. Jeremiah 31:31: I will make a new covenant with the house of Juda, not according to the covenant which I made, et cetera. Matthew 4:17: do penance, for the kingdom of heaven will draw near.

Then when he says and others indeed several, et cetera, he uses another clause set down in the authority thou art a priest for ever. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows why this clause for ever is added; second he shows from this that the priesthood of Christ is of greater efficacy than the priesthood of the Old Testament, at the place whence also to save. Now he shows that this one is the true priest, because the others were prevented by death from remaining, since all had the necessity of dying. Hence, Aaron having died, Eleazar succeeded, as is clear from Numbers 20:26, and so on thereafter. Now just as we see in natural things, which are signs of spiritual things, that incorruptible things are not multiplied under the same species — hence there is only one sun — so in spiritual things, in the Old Testament, which was imperfect, priests were multiplied. And this was a sign that that priesthood was corruptible, since incorruptible things are not multiplied within the same species, as has been said; but this priest, namely Christ, is immortal. For he remains for ever, as the eternal Word of the Father, from whose eternity there also flows over an eternity into his body, since Christ, rising from the dead, dies now no more, Romans 6:9. And therefore, from the fact that he remains for ever, he has an everlasting priesthood. And therefore Christ alone is the true priest, but the others are his ministers. 1 Corinthians 4:1: let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ.

Then when he says whence also to save, et cetera, he shows his efficacy. And concerning this he does two things, for first he shows his efficacy; second, the manner of that efficacy itself, at the place coming near, et cetera. His efficacy is this: that a cause is always more powerful than its effect, and therefore a temporal cause cannot produce an eternal effect. But the priesthood of Christ is eternal, whereas the levitical is not, as has been proved. Therefore Christ can save for ever. But this could not come about unless he had divine power. Isaiah 45:17: Israel is saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation. Now the manner is this: coming near, et cetera. And he describes this manner from three things, namely from the excellence of power, of nature, and of piety. Of power indeed, because he comes near through himself. But on the contrary: one who comes near to someone is distant from him; but Christ is not distant from God. I answer that it must be said that the Apostle in these words shows a twofold nature, namely the human, according to which it belongs to him to come near, because in it he is distant from God — yet he does not come near from a state of guilt to a state of grace, but through the contemplation of intellect and affection, and the attainment of glory. And the divine nature, by this that he says that he comes near to God through himself. For if he were a mere man, he could not come near of himself. John 6:44: no man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him. And therefore, when the Apostle says that he comes near through himself, he shows his power. Isaiah 63:1: marching in the greatness of his strength. Therefore he comes near inasmuch as he is man, but through himself inasmuch as he is God. He shows the excellence of his nature inasmuch as he says always living. For otherwise his priesthood would come to an end. Apocalypse 1:18: I was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever. He shows the excellence of his piety, because he says to intercede for us; for although he is so powerful, so exalted, nevertheless along with this he is dutiful, because he intercedes for us. 1 John 2:1: we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, et cetera. Now he intercedes for us, first by presenting his humanity, which he assumed for us. Likewise by expressing the desire of his most holy soul, which he had concerning our salvation, with which he intercedes for us. Another text has: those who come near through him, and then those whom he saves are designated, namely those who come near to God through faith in him. Romans 5:1f: being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have access.

Then when he says for such a one it was fitting, et cetera, he shows the excellence of his priesthood from the excellence of Christ. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows that the perfections of the conditions which were required for the priesthood of the old law belong to him; second he shows that the imperfections of it are lacking in him, at the place who has no need. Now he sets down four conditions concerning him, which must be present in the legal priest. First, that he be holy — Leviticus 21:6: for they offer the incense of the Lord, and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy. Now Christ possessed this perfectly. For holiness implies a purity consecrated to God. But Christ was consecrated to God from the beginning of his conception. Luke 1:35: for that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy. Matthew 1:20: for that which is born in her, is of the Holy Ghost; and Daniel 9:24: that the saint of saints may be anointed. Second, that he be innocent. Leviticus 22:9: let them keep my precepts, that they may not be subject to sin. Now innocence, properly speaking, is called a purity toward one's neighbor. Psalm 23:4: innocent in hands, et cetera. But Christ was innocent in the highest degree, inasmuch as he did no sin. Psalm 25:1: I have walked in my innocence. Third, that he be undefiled, and this with respect to himself. Leviticus 21:17: a man of thy seed, who hath a blemish, shall not offer the bread of his God. But of Christ it is said in a figure. Exodus 12:5: and it shall be a lamb without blemish, et cetera. Fourth, that he not be mixed with the defiled. Leviticus 21:15: he shall not mingle the stock of his kindred with the common people of his nation. But Christ was most perfectly separated from sinners. Psalm 1:1: blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, et cetera. And this indeed is true as regards likeness of life. Wisdom 2:15: his life is unlike to others. Yet not as regards his manner of life among men, for he conversed with men, Baruch 3:38. And this on account of their manner of life. Matthew 9:11: why doth your master eat with sinners? And he was separated to such an extent that he was even made higher than the heavens, that is, above every heavenly creature — human nature was exalted in him. Above, 1:3: he sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high, et cetera. Therefore this one is a priest of the greatest sufficiency.

Consequently, when he says who has no need, et cetera, he removes from him what belonged to imperfection in the legal priest. Now this was, that that priest needed a sacrifice of expiation, as is clear from Leviticus 16:5: he shall offer a calf for himself, and a buck goat for the people. Therefore he pleaded for himself. Likewise, he did not plead for himself only once, but frequently. And the reason for this is, that the law appointed men as priests, men having weakness. Wisdom 9:5: a weak man, and of short time, et cetera. But the divine word, which is after the law, an oath having been interposed, appointed the Son, who has none of these imperfections, but is altogether perfect, for ever — namely, a priest who will endure. For he did not offer for his own sins, but only for ours. Isaiah 53:5: he was wounded for our iniquities. Likewise, neither did he offer for us frequently, but only once. 1 Peter 3:18: Christ died once for our sins. For his one single offering suffices to exhaust the sins of the whole human race.