Commentary on Hebrews (Super Epistolam ad Hebraeos Lectura)

Above, the Apostle proved the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the levitical priesthood on the part of the person; here he proves the same on the part of the priesthood itself, and concerning this he does two things. For first he shows that the priesthood of Christ is more excellent than the priesthood of the old law, and first this in general; second in particular, where he says "It had indeed also before," namely chapter 9. The first is divided into two. For first he sets down his intention; second he manifests his proposal, where he says "For every high priest." Concerning the first he does two things: for first he sets down the manner of treating the matter; second he sets forth beforehand what must be said, where he says "We have such a high priest," etc.

He says, then, capitulum, etc. A capitulum is a brief summation containing many things, and it is called this from caput (head); because, just as in the head all the things that are in the body are contained, as it were, in power and summarily, so in a capitulum those things which are to be said. Therefore we shall speak in a certain capitulum, and as it were in a certain summary, concerning the things that are said. The word "super" can indicate something appended, and then the sense will be: the things that are to be said summarily are appended to what has gone before. Or it can designate excess, and then the sense is: the things that are to be said in sum and capitulum are greater things.

Then, when he says "We have such a high priest," etc., he sets forth beforehand what he must say. And first the dignity of this priesthood; second its office, where he says "a minister of the holies." Its dignity is this: that we have such a high priest, who sits together at the right hand of the throne of greatness in the heights. A throne is judiciary power, which belongs to some as ministers of God, as to all kings, because "all the kings of the earth shall adore him," as is said in Ps. 71:11, and to all prelates, 1 Cor. 4:1: "so let a man esteem us as the ministers of Christ." The throne of greatness, therefore, is the most excellent power of judging. Likewise, the right side is the more powerful part in an animal, and signifies spiritual goods. Because, therefore, Christ has judiciary power, he is said to sit. For the Father has given all judgment to the Son, Jn. 5:22. But because he has this after God, he sits most excellently at the right hand of greatness in the heights, that is, in the more excellent goods. Above, 1:3: "he sits at the right hand of majesty on high."

Now this that is said, "to sit together," or "he shall sit together," can be referred to Christ according as he is God; and thus he sits together because he has the same authority of judging that the Father has, but he is distinct in person. And thus the term "greatness" is taken for the person of the Father. Or according as he is man, and this more properly to the intention of the Apostle, because he speaks of the pontificate of Christ, who is a high priest inasmuch as he is man. And thus he sits together, because the assumed humanity has a certain association with the deity, and he sits together to judge. Ps. 8:1: "thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens." Jn. 5:27: "he gave him power to do judgment, because he is the son of man." And thus the dignity of the priest appears.

Consequently, when he says "a minister of the holies," he shows the dignity of his office. Now he is called "a minister of the holies," that is, of the holy buildings, namely of the sanctuaries. For the ancient ministers received their ministry so that they might guard the sacred things, and serve the tabernacle. But Christ has this more excellently, who is a minister, not indeed inasmuch as he is God, because thus he is the author, but inasmuch as he is man. Lk. 12:37: "passing, he will minister to them." For the humanity of Christ is as it were the instrument of the divinity. He is, therefore, a minister of the holies, because he ministers the sacraments of grace in the present, and of glory in the future. Likewise he is a minister of the true tabernacle, which is, either, the Church militant. Ps.: "how beloved are thy tabernacles, Lord of hosts." Or the Church triumphant. Is. 33:20: "a tabernacle that can by no means be removed." Ps. 14:1: "Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle," etc. But Christ as man is a minister, because all the goods of glory are dispensed through him.

Now he says "true," for two reasons. First, because of the difference from the old, which was figurative of this one. 1 Cor. 10:11: "all these things happened to them in figure." But this one is the truth of that one. It is, therefore, "true," that is, containing the truth with respect to the figure. Second, because that one was made through man; but this one, namely either of grace or of glory, is from God alone. Ps. 83:12: "the Lord will give grace and glory." Rom. 6:23: "the grace of God, life everlasting." And therefore he says that God fixed it, and not man. 2 Cor. 5:1: "we know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have from God a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Then, when he says "For every high priest," etc., he explains in particular. And concerning this he does three things. For first he shows that Christ is the minister of certain holy things; second, that these are not of the old law, where he says "If then he were"; third, that they are of certain greater things, where he says "But now better."

Now he first makes this argument: every high priest is appointed for this, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices, and according to this he is called a minister of the holies. But Christ is a high priest, as was proved above. Therefore it is necessary that he have some things which he may offer. Above, 5:1: "every high priest taken from among men," etc. A sacrifice is of animals, gifts of whatever else. Lev. 21:6: "they offer the incense and the loaves of their God." But because it was necessary for Christ to have something to offer, he offered himself. Now such an oblation was clean, because his flesh had no stain of sin. Ex. 12:5: "the lamb shall be without blemish, a male, of one year." Likewise it was fitting, because it is fitting that man should make satisfaction for man. Below, 9:14: "he offered himself unspotted unto God." Likewise it was apt for immolation, because his flesh was mortal. Rom. 8:3: "God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh." Likewise he is the same as him to whom he is offered. Jn. 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Likewise he unites to God those for whom he is offered. Jn. 17:21: "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."

Then, when he says "If then he were," he shows that Christ is not a minister of the things of the law. And concerning this he does three things: for first he introduces a certain consequence; second he shows the reason for it, where he says "seeing there are"; third he proves it by authority, where he says "as it was answered to Moses." Now the consequence is this: "therefore if he were upon earth" — this is the antecedent — "he would not be a priest" — and this is the consequent. Hence the consequence is a single conditional.

And it is read in many ways. First thus, and this is according to the Gloss, and no nominative is placed here; and therefore it is understood thus: "for if that which is offered were upon earth," etc.; which is understood in two ways. In one way, so that the sense is: if that which is offered were something earthly, Christ would not be a priest, as if he were to say: there would be no necessity for his priesthood, because there would be many who would offer such things.

But was not the flesh of Christ earthly? I respond. It must be said that materially it is earthly. Job 9:24: "the earth is given into the hand of the wicked." But it is said not to be earthly: first by reason of the union, Jn. 3:31: "he who comes from heaven is above all," that is, the Son of God who united it to himself. Likewise by reason of the active power, namely of the Holy Spirit, who formed it. Likewise by reason of the fruit; because his oblation is not ordered to obtaining something earthly, but heavenly. Jn. 8:23: "you are of this world, I am not of this world." This is the first exposition, and the better one.

The second is this: "although," that is, granted that that which is offered were upon earth — since it is necessary that something be offered — he would not be a priest, nor would another suitable one be found; because no one suitable could be found to offer this. There are three other readings, in which "the one offering" is understood: and first in general, so that the sense is: if there were some earthly priest who could offer for heavenly things, Christ would not be a priest. Another is about Christ specifically, thus: if Christ were an earthly priest, the right of priesthood would not belong to him, since there would be those who would offer gifts according to the law. Otherwise thus: if Christ were still upon earth, that is, in such a way that he had not yet ascended, he would not be a priest, because he would not have completed his priesthood.

But according to the first exposition the letter continues thus, and proves it: because there would be many who, according to the law, would offer such gifts, namely those who serve the exemplar and shadow of heavenly things. The sacraments of the law were a figure of other things, in two respects, namely as to knowledge, and as to the fulfillment of the realities. As to knowledge, when he says "exemplar," because in the old law, as in a certain exemplar, could be read that to which our knowledge ought to be carried. But it seems that he speaks improperly. For an exemplar is prior to the thing exemplified, which is properly called an example. But heavenly things are prior, and were not made in the likeness of the old law, but rather the reverse.

I respond. It must be said that "prior" is said in two ways: in one way simply, and thus the objection proceeds. Or with respect to us, and thus it is true that those things are not prior. As to the second he says "shadow," because just as a shadow represents a body, yet does not attain to it, so also those things represented the New Testament. Below, 10:1: "having a shadow, the law of things to come," etc.

Consequently he proves by authority the reasonableness of the consequence, when he says "as it was answered to Moses," namely by the Lord, Ex. 25:40: "See," namely by considering diligently, "and make all things according to the exemplar," etc. Because naturally lower things tend toward the likeness of higher things. For the Lord willed that we be led by the hand through sensible things to intelligible and spiritual things. Job 38:33: "Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set the reason thereof on the earth," etc.

Above, the Apostle proved that Christ is a high priest, and consequently a minister of the sacraments, though not according to the old law; here he shows that he is the minister of greater and better things than those were. And concerning this he does three things. For first he sets forth what he intends; second he assigns the cause of it; third he proves it. The second, at by how much also of a better. The third, at for if that.

He says therefore: I say that he has nothing earthly to offer, but now, that is, in the time of grace, he has obtained by lot, that is, has received by lot, a better ministry, that is, a more worthy priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is called a ministry, because it belongs to him only insofar as, as man, he was a minister. Rom. XV, 8: for I say that Christ Jesus was a minister, etc. He says obtained by lot, that is, received by lot, because that which is had by lot is awaited from the Lord. Ps. XXX, 15: in thy hands are my lots. And therefore all things that come about according to the distribution of the divine will are said to be given by lot, and such are the effects of grace. Eph. I, 11: we are called by lot, that is, by divine election, because when it happens that human judgment fails, men are accustomed to betake themselves to divine election and disposition, casting lots, as is clear from Acts I, 26, concerning the election of Matthias. Hence Prov. XVI, 33: lots are cast into the lap, but they are tempered by the Lord. Christ indeed obtained this ministry by lot, that is, by divine disposition.

Then when he says by how much also of a better, etc., he assigns the cause why this ministry is greater. For every priest is a mediator. But this one is the mediator of a better covenant, namely of man to God. For it belongs to a mediator to reconcile the extremes. But he brought divine things to us, because through him we have been made partakers of the divine nature, as is said in II Pet. I, 4. He also offers our things to God. And therefore the Apostle says, I Tim. II, 5: the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. There temporal things were promised. Is. I, 19: if you be willing and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land. But here, heavenly things, as was said above. Thus therefore this is better as to that which the Lord promises to men. Likewise, in that covenant certain things are set down which pertain to the worship of God, and these are the ceremonial precepts; and certain others which pertain to the rightness of life, and these are the moral precepts, which remain — but the others do not. But in the new covenant, counsels are added to those precepts, which are given to the perfect, who are capable of spiritual things. And thus the precepts remain the same, but the promises are different. Likewise the sacraments are different, because there the figure alone was present, but here the truth of the figure is expressed. In every respect, therefore, that covenant is better.

Then when he says whether if that, etc., he proves that the covenant of which Christ is the mediator is better. And he makes such an argument: if the first covenant had not had fault, another would not be sought to correct its defect; but one is sought, therefore, etc. The antecedent is set down, and is clear in the text.

But against this, Rom. VII, 7: is the law then sin? God forbid. Therefore he speaks wrongly in saying that it was not free from fault. I answer. It must be said that something can belong to the law in two ways: either according to itself, and thus it was good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and thus it is said to have fault, on account of two things. First, because it did not give the power to cleanse away sins committed. Below, X, 4: it is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls or of goats. Second, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but only to know them; and thus it was an occasion of sin. Rom. VII, 7: I had not known concupiscence, unless the law said: thou shalt not covet. And thus it is said not to have been free from fault, because men were left in fault by it.

But he says a place would not be sought. For just as a body never perfectly comes to rest, but is always in motion, until it reaches its own place, so as long as something is possessed imperfectly, desire does not rest, but always tends further, until it comes to the perfect. The place of this, therefore, was sought by man, who desired it; but more by God, who is said to seek it on account of his desire for our salvation.

Then when he says for finding fault, etc., he proves the truth of the consequent, namely that a place for the covenant is sought, and this by the authority of Jer. XXXI, 31: behold the days shall come, etc. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the authority; second he argues from it, at but in saying a new. The first is divided into two. For first he sets forth the prophecy concerning the giving of the new covenant; second he describes it, at not according to the covenant, etc. Again the first is divided into three. For first he shows the fitness of the time of the giving; second, the perfection of the new covenant, at I will perfect a new covenant; third, to whom it was given, at upon the house of Judah.

He says therefore, for finding fault, not indeed with the law, but with those who, namely, were under the law, the Lord says: behold the days come, etc. This is the authority, which is Jer. XXXI, v. 31; and it is not held entirely under these words, but a few are changed. For there it is said thus: behold the days come, says the Lord, and 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 in the day when I stretched out my hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them. Thus therefore it is clear that the covenants are changed.

He says, therefore, as to the fitness of the time, behold the days come, that is, the time of grace, which is compared to the day, because it is illumined by the sun of justice. Rom. XIII, 12: the night is passed, and the day is at hand. As to the perfection of the new covenant he says, I will perfect a new covenant. And he says I will perfect, which sounds toward perfection. Apoc. XXI, 5: behold, I make all things new. But this word I will perfect is not found there, but the Apostle uses it to designate the perfection of the new covenant. Is. c. X, 23: the Lord shall make a consummation and an abridgment upon the earth. For the new covenant was perfect as to the instruction of life, which is extended not only to a general instruction of justice, but to a perfect one. Matth. V, 20: unless your justice abound, etc. Likewise in the old covenant there were only figurative things; but in the new, the truth of the figures; and thus the new consummates and perfects the old.

As to the third he says, upon the house of Israel, and of Judah. But is it given only to the Jews? No. Rom. IX, 6: not all who are of Israel, these are Israelites; and it follows: not they who are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but they who are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. Those, therefore, who have obtained the grace of God, are Israel through faith, and Judah through confession. Rom. X, 10: with the heart, belief is unto justice, etc. Now it is said upon the house, etc., for a threefold reason. One, because Christ in his own person preached to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Matth. XV, 24: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. The second, because the Gentiles were made participants of the new covenant, just as a wild olive grafted into a good olive tree partakes of its richness, Rom. XI, 24. Another, because in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes, which indeed remained in idolatry, but the kingdom of Judah adhered more to God, although not entirely. And therefore he touched on both.

Then when he says not according to the covenant, he describes the new covenant, and first by its difference from the old; second by its own conditions, at for this is the covenant. Again the first is divided into two. First he shows the distinction of the new and the old covenant; second, the weakness of the old, at in the day in which. For someone could say: is this new one like that one? Therefore, as if answering, he says: no. Because not according to that which I did with their fathers — in which he shows that the old is not to be kept together with the new. Gal. V, 1: stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of servitude. Matth. IX, 17: neither do they put new wine into old bottles, etc. And Rom. VII, 6: let us serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. For if anything is found in the old which is indicated to the Gentiles for keeping, it must be referred to a spiritual understanding, as is said in Is. XIX, 21: they shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings — which is wholly to be understood spiritually.

Then when he says in the day when I took, etc., he shows the defect of the old covenant, first from its handing down; second from the outcome, at because they themselves. For the old covenant was handed down to slaves and to the weak. To slaves indeed, because they had at one time come out of the servitude of Egypt. And as to this he says, that I might lead them out, etc. Gal. IV, 24: the one indeed begetting unto servitude, etc. Likewise, because it was a law of servile fear. Rom. VIII, 15: you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear, etc. Augustine: the brief difference of the old and new covenant is fear and love. Likewise to the weak, because by themselves they were not able to help themselves. And as to this he says, I took them by the hand, which belongs to the weak. Ps. LXXII, 23: thou hast held my right hand. Rom. VIII, 3: what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak. Now he says their fathers, namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom he entered into a special covenant. Ps. CIV, 8f.: he hath been mindful for ever of his covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he appointed to Abraham, etc. But to these, at the exodus from Egypt, he promised carnal things.

Then when he says because they themselves did not, etc., he shows the defect of the old covenant from the outcome; and first as to the fault, and therefore he says, because they did not continue in my covenant, namely because it was not written in their hearts. Hence immediately after the law was given they made a molten calf. Ex. XXXII, 8 and Ps. CV, 20: they made a calf in Horeb, and adored a graven thing. And as to the punishment. Therefore he says, and I disregarded them. For a thing is said to be disregarded by someone when he permits it to perish. And thus he disregarded them, because he permitted them to perish by the destroyer, as is said in I Cor. X, 10; and Ps. CXVIII, v. 118: thou hast despised all them that fall off from thy judgments. Another reading: and I had dominion over them, that is, by punishing I showed myself to be their lord.

Then when he says for this is the covenant, etc., he describes the conditions of the new covenant. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the manner of its promulgation; second, its effect, at and I will be to them a God. He says therefore, for this is, that is, such is, the covenant that I will dispose for the house of Israel, etc.; disposition implies a fittingness of order. And therefore he says after those days, that is, after the law was given. For the new law had to be given after the old law, just as first a pedagogue is given, and afterward a master, so that man might first recognize his own weakness. In this, therefore, the fittingness of the time for giving the new covenant is clear.

Now the manner of handing it down is twofold. One is through exterior things, as by setting forth words for someone's knowledge. And this a man can do, and thus the old covenant was handed down. In another way, by working inwardly. And this is proper to God. Job XXXII, 8: the inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding. And in this manner the new covenant was given, because it consists in the infusion of the Holy Spirit, who instructs inwardly. But it is not enough only to know, for acting is also required. And therefore first he illumines the intellect to know. And therefore he says, I will give my laws, etc. And he says it in the plural, on account of the diverse precepts and counsels. And this the Holy Spirit does. I Jo. II, 27: his unction teacheth you. Jo. XIV, 26: he shall teach you all things, etc. Likewise he inclines the affection to act well, whence it is imprinted on the heart. And as to this he says, I will write them upon their heart, that is, upon knowledge I will write charity. But above all things have charity, etc., Col. III, 14, and Rom. V, 5: the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, etc. And this is the epistle, concerning which he adds, II Cor. III, 3: not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.

Above, the Apostle set down the conditions of the new testament from its promulgation; now he sets down three effects of it. The first is the perfect union of man to God; the second is the perfect knowledge of God, at the words and he shall not teach; the third is the remission of sins, at the words for I will be propitious. Concerning the first, it must be known that for man to be joined to God, the help of divine grace is required, because he cannot do this by his own power. Jer. 31:3: with an everlasting love have I loved you, therefore have I drawn you, taking pity on you. First, then, that union is touched upon on the part of God; second, on the part of man, at the words and they themselves shall be. He says, therefore, I will be to them a God. The name God signifies universal providence. He is then to us a God when he has care of us, and draws our hearts to himself, and this is especially with respect to the just. From this, then, that I will be to them a God, the second follows, namely that they themselves shall be to me a people, that is, they will show themselves to me as a people. For as Augustine says, II On the City of God, ch. 21: a people is an assembly of a multitude, united by agreement as to right and by community of interest. When, therefore, they agree in the right of the divine law, so that they are useful to one another and tend toward God, then it is the people of God. Apoc. 21:3: they themselves shall be his people, and God himself with them shall be their God.

Then, when he says and he shall not teach, etc., he sets down the second effect of the new testament. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down the sign of that effect; second, the effect itself, at the words for all, etc. The sign of perfect knowledge is when someone does not need to be taught, because teaching is the way to the acquisition of knowledge, and therefore, once knowledge is perfectly acquired, teaching ceases. But is it the case that in the new testament one man does not teach another? And it seems that he does not, according to this very text. But on the contrary, because the Apostle calls himself teacher of the nations, 1 Tim. 2:7, and Eph. 4:11: others pastors, and teachers; Rom. 12:7: or he who teaches, in teaching. I answer. It must be said that what is said here can be understood in two ways. In one way, of the present state, and thus it is not verified universally of all, but only of the first founders of the new testament, namely the apostles, who were immediately instructed by God, when he opened to them their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. Lk., last chapter. The apostles, therefore, were made perfectly knowing, and were not instructed by others, but received infused wisdom at once from Christ. In another way, that it be referred to the future state of the homeland, into which we are led by the new testament, not by the old. And thus what is said here is universally true. But on the contrary: blessed men are equal to the Angels, not greater, but according to Dionysius one Angel teaches another by illuminating him; therefore a blessed man too will teach another. I answer. It must be said that there is a twofold knowledge in the blessed Angels. One which makes them blessed, namely the knowledge of the divinity, which alone makes them blessed; as Augustine says in the book of the Confessions: blessed is he who knows you, etc. The other is that which is of all the things that are other than God, of which sort are the effects of God, and this does not beatify. As to the first, then, one does not teach another, because one is not beatified through the mediation of another, but immediately by God. Ps. 35:9: in your light we shall see light. But as to the other, which is of certain mysteries, one teaches another. And this perhaps until the end of the world, for as long as the working out of the effects of God endures. And therefore he adds, saying: know the Lord, as if he were to say: he does not receive the knowledge of God. And he says his neighbor and his brother, because, although according to Augustine all men are to be loved out of charity, yet if you cannot benefit all, you ought especially to benefit those who are joined to you, either naturally, as blood-relations are, whom he here calls brothers, or by another kind of union, and such a one is a neighbor. For all shall know me, from the least even to the greatest of them. This is the reason why one will not teach another, because all will know the Lord. 1 Jn. 3:2: we shall see him as he is. In this vision, indeed, beatitude consists. Jn. 17:3: this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, etc. Jer. 9:24: in this let him glory who glories, to know and to understand me. And the blessed have this teaching not from anyone else, but from God alone. Is. 54:13: I will make all your children taught by the Lord.

But that which he says, from the least, can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the older saints are called the greater. And thus greater and lesser are said according to the order of time. All, then, will know, because each one will receive his own penny, Matt. 20:9 ff. Or he says this to show the difference of rewards, because although all will know, yet one will know more than another. Matt. 5:19: he who shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For reward corresponds to merit; and this is against those who say that punishments and all merits are equal, and consequently that rewards are equal. Against whom it is said, 1 Cor. 15:41: star differs from star in brightness.

Then, when he says for I will be propitious, etc., he sets down the third effect, which is the remission of guilt, which the old testament could not do. Below, 10:4: it is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats. He says, then, I will be propitious. Now iniquity and sin differ, because iniquity is opposed to justice, which indeed properly is always toward another. Therefore iniquity is said of that by which someone harms another. Job 35:8: your iniquity will harm a man who is like you. But sin is said of every defect of action, because it implies a disordering. And thus iniquity is properly toward one's neighbor, but sin is toward oneself; and this properly speaking, yet broadly, iniquity and sin are the same. And as to this he says, for I will be propitious to their iniquities, namely, by relaxing punishment in the present, and I will remember their sins no more, namely, by not punishing their sins in the future. Ez. 18:22: I will not remember all his iniquities that he has committed. Ps. 78:9: be propitious to our sins, etc., likewise v. 8: remember not our iniquities, etc. Rom. 11:29: for the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance, etc.; that is, God does not repent that he has here forgiven sins, as if by punishing again.

Then, when he says but in saying a new one, etc., having as it were laid down the authority, he argues from it, and forms this reasoning: a thing is not called new except in comparison to an old, but everything that is called old signifies, as it were, that it is near to its ceasing; therefore, in saying a new one, he made the former old, that is, he gave one to understand that the former is old. But that which becomes obsolete and grows old is near to its passing away. If, then, that is old, it must be cast away. Lev. ch. 26:10: when new things come upon you, you shall cast away the old. In saying new, then, he designates the ceasing of the old. But properly speaking, nothing becomes obsolete except what is subject to time, and what is subject to time ceases in time. It is necessary, then, that that old thing cease. He says, however, becomes obsolete on account of things inanimate, but grows old on account of things animate. It must be known, however, that where we have of sins, another text has of sin; and then it is referred to original sin, which is common to all.