(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was 
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)


ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

HOMILIES 11-23 ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

PUBLISHED AFTER HIS FALLING ASLEEP, FROM NOTES BY CONSTANTINE, PRESBYTER OF 
ANTIOCH.

[The Oxford Translation Revised by Rev. Frederic Gardiner, D.D.
Late Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn.]


HOMILY XI: HEBREWS vi. 13-16.

"For when God made promise to Abraham, because lie could swear by no 
greater, He sware by Himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, 
and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so after he had patiently 
endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater, and 
an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife."

    [1.] HAVING boldly reflected on the faults of the Hebrews, and 
sufficiently alarmed them, he consoles them, first, by praises, and 
secondly (which also is the stronger ground), by the [thought] that they 
would certainly attain the object of their hope. Moreover he draws his 
consolation, not from things future, but again from the past, which indeed 
would the rather persuade them. For as in the case of punishment, he alarms 
them rather by those [viz. things future], so also in the case of the 
prizes [set before them], he encourages them by these [viz. by things 
past], showing [herein] God's way of dealing. And that is, not to bring in 
what has been promised immediately, but after a long time. And this He 
does, both to present the greatest proof of His power, and also to lead us 
to Faith, that they who are living in tribulation without having received 
the promises, or the rewards, may not faint under their troubles.

    And omitting all [the rest], though he had many whom he might have 
mentioned, he brought forward Abraham both on account of the dignity of his 
person, and because this had occurred in a special way in his case.

    And yet at the end of the Epistle he says, that "all these, having seen 
the promises afar off, and having embraced them, received them not, that 
they without us should not be made perfect." (c. xi. 13.) "For when God 
made promise to Abraham" (he says) "because He could swear by no greater, 
He sware by Himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and 
multiplying I will multiply thee. And so after he had patiently endured, he 
obtained the promise." (c. xi. 39, 40.) How then does he say at the end [of 
the Epistle] that "he received not the promises," and here, that "after he 
had patiently endured he obtained the promise"? How did he not receive? How 
did he obtain? He is not speaking of the same things in this place and in 
the other, but makes the consolation twofold. God made promises to Abraham, 
and after a long space of time He gave the things [spoken of] in this 
place, but those others not yet.

    "And so after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise." Seest 
thou that the promise alone did not effect the whole, but the patient 
waiting as well? Here he alarms them, showing that oftentimes a promise is 
thwarted through faintheartedness.[1] And this he had indeed shown through 
[the instance of] the [Jewish] people: for since they were faint-hearted, 
therefore they obtained not the promise. But now he shows the contrary by 
means of Abraham. Afterwards near the end [of the Epistle] he proves 
something more also: [viz.] that even though they had patiently endured, 
they did not obtain; and yet not even so are they grieved.

    [2.] "For men verily swear by the greater, and an Oath for confirmation 
is to them an end of all strife. But God because He could swear by no 
greater, sware by Himself." Well, who then is He that sware unto Abraham? 
Is it not the SON? No, one says. Certainly indeed it was He: however, I 
shall not dispute [thereon]. So when He [the Son] sweareth the same oath, 
"Verily, verily, I say unto you," is it not plain that it was because He 
could not swear by any greater? For as the Father sware, so also the Son 
sweareth by Himself, saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." He here 
reminds them also of the oaths of Christ, which He was constantly uttering. 
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, he that believeth on Me shall never die." 
(John xi. 26.)

    What is, "And an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all 
strife"? it is instead of, "by this every doubtful question is solved": not 
this, or this, but every one.

    God, however, ought to have been believed even without an oath: (ver. 
17) "wherein" (he says) "God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs 
of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it [lit. 
"mediated"[2]] by an oath." In these words he comprehends also the 
believers, and therefore mentions this "promise" which was made to us in 
common [with them]. "He mediated" (he says) "by an oath." Here again he 
says that the Son was mediator between men and God.

    Ver. 18. "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible that 
God should lie." What are these two? The speaking and promising; and the 
adding an oath to the promise. For since among men that which is 
[confirmed] by an oath is thought more worthy of credit, on this account He 
added that also.

    Seest thou that He regardeth not His own dignity, but how He may 
persuade men, and endures to have unworthy things said concerning Himself. 
That is He wishes to impart full assurance. And in the case of Abraham 
indeed [the Apostle] shows that the whole was of God, not of his patient 
endurance, since He was even willing to add an oath, for He by whom men 
swear, by Him also God "sware," that is "by Himself." They indeed as by one 
greater, but He not as by one greater. And yet He did it. For it is not the 
same thing for man to swear by himself, as for God. For man has no power 
over himself. Thou seest then that this is said not more for Abraham than 
for ourselves: "that we" (he says) "might have strong consolation, who have 
fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us." Here too again,[1] 
"after he had patiently endured he obtained the promise."

    "Now" he means, and he did not say "when[2] He swore." But what the 
oath is, he showed, by speaking of swearing by a greater. But since the 
race of men is hard of belief, He condescends to the same [things] with 
ourselves. As then for our sake He swears, although it be unworthy of Him 
that He should not be believed, so also did [the Apostle] make that other 
statement "He learned from the things which He suffered" (c. v. 8), because 
men think the going through experience more worthy of reliance.

    What is "the hope set before us"? From these [past events] (he says) we 
conjecture the future. For if these came to pass after so long a time, so 
certainly the others will. So that the things which happened in regard to 
Abraham give us confidence also concerning the things to come.

    [3.] (Ver. 19, 20) "Which [hope] we have as an anchor of the soul both 
sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil: whither 
the forerunner is for us entered, even JESUS, made High Priest forever 
after the order of Melchisedech." He shows, that while we are still in the 
world, and not yet departed from [this] life, we are already among the 
promises. For through hope we are already in heaven. He said, "Wait; for it 
shall surely be." Afterwards giving them full assurance, he says, "nay 
rather by hope."[3] And he said not, "We are within," but 'It hath entered 
within,' which was more true and more persuasive. For as the anchor, 
dropped from the vessel, does not allow it to be carried about, even if ten 
thousand winds agitate it, but being depended upon makes it steady, so also 
does hope.

    And see how very suitable an image he has discovered: For he said not, 
Foundation; which was not suitable; but, "Anchor." For that which is on the 
tossing sea, and seems not to be very firmly fixed, stands on the water as 
upon land, and is shaken and yet is not shaken. For in regard to those who 
are very firm, and philosophic, Christ with good reason made that 
statement, saying, "Whosoever hath built his house on a rock." (Matt. vii. 
24.) But in respect of those who are giving way, and who ought to be 
carried through by hope, Paul hath suitably set down this. For the surge 
and the great storm toss the boat; but hope suffers it not to be carried 
hither and thither, although winds innumerable agitate it: so that, unless 
we had this [hope] we should long ago have been sunk. Nor is it only in 
things spiritual, but also in the affairs of this life, that one may find 
the power of hope great. Whatever it may be, in merchandise, in husbandry, 
in a military expedition, unless one sets this before him, he would not 
even touch the work. But he said not simply "Anchor," but "sure and 
steadfast" [i.e.] not shaken. "Which entereth into that within the veil"; 
instead of 'which reacheth through even to heaven.'

    [4.] Then after this he led on to Faith also, that there might not only 
be hope, but a very true [hope]. For after the oath he lays down another 
thing too, even proof by facts, because "the forerunner is for us entered 
in, even JESUS." But a forerunner is a forerunner of some one, as John was 
of Christ.

    Now he did not simply say, "He is entered in," but "where He is entered 
in a forerunner for us," as though we also ought to attain. For there is no 
great interval between the forerunner and those who follow: otherwise he 
would not be a forerunner; for the forerunner and those who follow ought to 
be in the same road, and to arrive after [each other].

    "Being made an High Priest forever after the order," he says, "of 
Melchisedech." Here is also another consolation, if our High Priest is on 
high, and far better than those among the Jews, not in the kind [of 
Priesthood] only, but also in the place, and the tabernacle, and the 
covenant, and the person. And this also is spoken according to the flesh.

    [5.] Those then, whose High Priest He is, ought to be greatly superior. 
And as great as the difference is between Aaron and Christ, so great should 
it be between us and the Jews. For see, we have our victim[4] on high, our 
priest on high, our sacrifice[1] on high: let us bring such sacrifices as 
can be offered on that altar, no longer sheep and oxen, no longer blood and 
fat. All these things have been done away; and there has been brought in 
their stead "the reasonable service." (Rom. xii. 1.) But what is "the 
reasonable service"? The [offerings made] through the soul; those made 
through the spirit. ("God," it is said, "is a Spirit, and they that worship 
Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"--John iv. 24); things which 
have no need of a body, no need of instruments, nor of special places, 
whereof each one is himself the Priest, such as, moderation, temperance, 
mercifulness, enduring ill-treatment, long-suffering, humbleness of mind.

    These sacrifices one may see in the Old [Testament] also, shadowed out 
beforehand. "Offer to God," it is said, "a sacrifice of righteousness" (Ps. 
iv. 5); "Offer a sacrifice of praise" (Ps. 1. 14); and, "a sacrifice of 
praise shall glorify Me" (Ps. 1. 23), and, "the sacrifice of God is a 
broken spirit" (Ps. li. 17); and "what doth the Lord require of thee but" 
to hearken to Him? (Mic. vi. 8.) "Burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin 
Thou hast had no pleasure in: then I said, Lo I come to do Thy will, O 
God!" (Ps. xl. 6, 7), and again, "To what purpose do ye bring the incense 
from Sheba?" (Jer. vi. 20.) "Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs, 
for I will not hear the melody of thy viols." (Amos v. 23.) But instead of 
these "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." (Hosea vi. 6.) Thou seest with 
what kind of "sacrifices God is well pleased." (c. xiii. 16.) Thou seest 
also that already from the first the one class have given place, and these 
have come in their stead.

    These therefore let us bring, for the other indeed are [the offerings] 
of wealth and of persons who have [possessions], but these of virtue: those 
from without, these from within: those any chance person even might 
perform; these only a few. And as much as a man is superior to a sheep, so 
much is this sacrifice superior to that; for here thou offerest thy soul as 
a victim.

    [6.] And other sacrifices also there are, which are indeed whole burnt-
offerings, the bodies of the martyrs: there both soul and body [are 
offered]. These have a great savor of a sweet smell. Thou also art able, if 
thou wilt, to bring such a sacrifice.

    For what, if thou dost not burn thy body in the fire? Yet in a 
different fire thou canst; for instance, in that of voluntary poverty, in 
that of affliction. For to have it in one's power to spend one's days in 
luxury and expense, and yet to take up a life of toil and bitterness, and 
to mortify the body, is not this a whole burnt-offering? Mortify thy body, 
and crucify it, and thou shalt thyself also receive the crown of this 
martyrdom. For what in the other case the sword accomplishes, that in this 
case let a willing mind effect. Let not the love of wealth burn, or possess 
you, but let this unreasonable appetite itself be consumed and quenched by 
the fire of the Spirit; let it be cut in pieces by the sword of the Spirit.

    This is an excellent sacrifice, needing no priest but him who brings 
it. This is an excellent sacrifice, performed indeed below but forthwith 
taken up on high. Do we not wonder that of old time fire came down and 
consumed all? It is possible now also that fire may come down far more 
wonderful than that, and consume all the presented offerings:[2] nay 
rather, not consume, but bear them up to heaven. For it does not reduce 
them to ashes, but offers them as gifts to God.

    [7.] Such were the offerings of Cornelius. For (it is said) "thy 
prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." (Acts x. 4.) 
Thou seest a most excellent union. Then are we heard, when we ourselves 
also hear the poor who come to us. "He" (it is said) "that stoppeth his 
ears that he may not hear the poor" (Prov. xxi. 13), his prayer God will 
not hearken to. "Blessed is he that considereth the poor and needy: the 
Lord will deliver him in the evil day." (Ps. xl. 1.) But what day is evil 
except that one which is evil to sinners?

    What is meant by "he that considereth"? He that understandeth what it 
is to be a poor man, that has thoroughly learned his affliction. For he 
that has learned his affliction, will certainly and immediately have 
compassion on him. When thou seest a poor man, do not hurry by, but 
immediately reflect what thou wouldest have been, hadst thou been he. What 
wouldest thou not have wished that all should do for thee? "He that 
considereth" (he says). Reflect that he is a free-man like thyself, and 
shares the same noble birth with thee, and possesses all things in common 
with thee; and yet oftentimes he is not on a level even with thy dogs. On 
the contrary, while they are satiated, he oftentimes lies, sleeps, hungry, 
and the free-man is become less honorable than thy slaves.

    But they perform needful services for thee. What are these? Do they 
serve thee well? Suppose then I show that this [poor man] too performs 
needful services for thee far greater than they do. For he will stand by 
thee in the Day of judgment, and will deliver thee from the fire. What do 
all thy slaves do like this? When Tabitha died, who raised her up? The 
slaves who stood around or the poor? But thou art not even willing to put 
the free-man on an equality with thy slaves. The frost is hard, and the 
poor man is cast out in rags, well-nigh dead, with his teeth chattering, 
both by his looks and his air fitted to move thee: and thou passeth by, 
warm and full of drink; and how dost thou expect that God should deliver 
thee when in misfortune?

    And oftentimes thou sayest this too: 'If it had been myself, and I had 
found one that had done man), wrong things, I would have forgiven him; and 
does not God forgive?' Say not this. Him that has done thee no wrong, whom 
thou art able to deliver, him thou neglectest. How shall He forgive thee, 
who art sinning against Him? Is not this deserving of hell?

    And how amazing! Oftentimes thou adornest with vestments innumerable, 
of varied colors and wrought with gold, a dead body, insensible, no longer 
perceiving the honor; whilst that which is in pain, and lamenting, and 
tormented, and racked by hunger and frost, thou neglectest; and givest more 
to vainglory, than to the fear of God.

    [8.] And would that it stopped here; but immediately accusations are 
brought against the applicant. For why does he not work (you say)? And why 
is he to be maintained in idleness? But (tell me) is it by working that 
thou hast what thou hast, didst thou not receive it as an inheritance from 
thy fathers? And even if thou dost work, is this a reason why thou 
shouldest reproach another? Hearest thou not what Paul saith? For after 
saying, "He that worketh not, neither let him eat" (2 Thess. iii. 10), he 
says, "But ye be not weary in well doing." (2 Thess. iii. 13.)

    But what say they? He is an impostor.[1] What sayest thou, O man? 
Callest thou him an impostor, for the sake of a single loaf or of a 
garment? But (you say) he will sell it immediately. And dost thou manage 
all thy affairs well? But what? Are all poor through idleness? Is no one so 
from shipwreck? None from lawsuits? None from being robbed? None from 
dangers? None from illness? None from any other difficulties? If however we 
hear any, one bewailing such evils, and crying out aloud, and looking up 
naked toward heaven, and with long hair, and clad in rags, at once we call 
him, The impostor! The deceiver! The swindler! Art thou not ashamed? Whom 
dost thou call impostor? Give nothing, and do not accuse the man.

    But (you say) he has means, and pretends. This is a charge against 
thyself, not against him. He knows that he has to deal with the cruel, with 
wild beasts rather than with men, and that, even if he utter a pitiable 
story, he attracts no one's attention: and on this account he is forced to 
assume also a more miserable guise, that he may melt thy soul. If we see a 
person coming to beg in a respectable dress, This is an impostor (you say), 
and he comes in this way that he may be supposed to be of good birth. If we 
see one in the contrary guise, him too we reproach. What then are they to 
do? O the cruelty, O the inhumanity!

    And why (you say) do they expose their maimed limbs? Because of thee. 
If we were compassionate, they would have no need of these artifices: if 
they persuaded us at the first application, they would not have contrived 
these devices. Who is there so wretched, as to be willing to cry out so 
much, as to be willing to behave in an unseemly way, as to be willing to 
make public lamentations, with his wife destitute of clothing, with his 
children, to sprinkle ashes on [himself]. How much worse than poverty are 
these things? Yet on account of them not only are they not pitied, but are 
even accused by us.

    [9.] Shall we then still be indignant, because when we pray to God, we 
are not heard? Shall we then still be vexed, because when we entreat we do 
not persuade? Do we not tremble for fear, my beloved?

    But (you say) I have often given. But dost thou not always eat? And 
dost thou drive away thy children often begging of thee? O the 
shamelessness! Dost thou call a poor man shameless? And thou indeed art not 
shameless when plundering, but he is shameless when begging for bread! 
Considerest thou not how great are the necessities of the belly? Dost not 
thou do all things for this? Dost thou not for this neglect things 
spiritual? Is not heaven set before thee and the kingdom of heaven? And 
thou fearing the tyranny of that [appetite] endurest all things, and 
thinkest lightly of that [kingdom]. This is shamelessness.

    Seest thou not old men maimed? But O what trifling! 'Such an one' (you 
say) 'lends out so many pieces of gold, and such an one so many, and yet 
begs.' You repeat the stories and trifles of children; for they too are 
always hearing such stories from their nurses. I am not persuaded of it. I 
do not believe this. Far from it. Does a man lend money, and beg when he 
has abundance? For what purpose, tell me? And what is more disgraceful than 
begging? It were better to die than to beg. Where does our in inhumanity 
stop? What then? Do all lend money? Are all impostors? Is there no one 
really poor? "Yea" (you say) "and many." Why then dost thou not assist 
those persons, seeing thou art a strict enquirer into their lives? This is 
an excuse and a pretense.

    "Give to every one[2] that asketh of thee, and from him that would 
borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Matt. v. 42.) Stretch out thy hand, 
let it not be closed up. We have not been constituted examiners into men's 
lives, since so we should have compassion on no one. When thou callest upon 
God why dost thou say, Remember not my sins? So then, if that person even 
be a great sinner, make this allowance in his case also, and do not 
remember his sins. It is the season of kindness, not of strict enquiry; of 
mercy, not of account. He wishes to be maintained: if thou art willing, 
give; but if not willing, send him away without raising doubts.[1] Why art 
thou wretched and miserable? Why dost thou not even thyself pity him, and 
also turnest away those who would? For when such an one hears from thee, 
This [fellow] is a cheat; that a hypocrite; and the other lends out money; 
he neither gives to the one nor to the other; for he suspects all to be 
such. For you know that we easily suspect evil, but good, not [so easily].

    [10.] Let us "be merciful," not simply so, but "as our heavenly Father 
is." (Luke vi. 36.) He feeds even adulterers, and fornicators, and 
sorcerers, and what shall I say? Those having every kind of wickedness. For 
in so large a world there must needs be many such. But nevertheless He 
feeds all; He clothes all. No one ever perished of hunger, unless one did 
so of his own choice. So let us be merciful. If one be in want and in 
necessity, help him.

    But now we are come to such a degree of unreasonableness, as to act 
thus not only in regard to the poor who walk up and down the alleys, but 
even in the case of men that live in [religious] solitude.[2] Such an one 
is an impostor, you say. Did I not say this at first, that if we give to 
all indiscriminately, we shall always be compassionate; but if we begin to 
make over-curious enquiries, we shall never be compassionate? What dost 
thou mean? Is a man an impostor in order to get a loaf? If indeed he asks 
for talents of gold and silver, or costly clothes, or slaves, or anything 
else of this sort, one might with good reason call him a swindler. But if 
he ask none of these things, but only food and shelter, things which are 
suited to a philosophic life,[3] tell me, is this the part of a swindler? 
Cease we from this unseasonable fondness for meddling, which is Satanic, 
which is destructive.

    For indeed, if a man say that he is on the list of the Clergy, or calls 
himself a priest, then busy thyself [to enquire], make much ado: since in 
that case the communicating[4] without enquiry is not without danger. For 
the danger is about matters of importance, for thou dost not give but 
receivest. But if he want food, make no enquiry.

    Enquire, if thou wilt, how Abraham showed hospitality towards all who 
came to him. If he had been over-curious about those who fled to him for 
refuge, he would not have "entertained angels." (c. xiii. 2.) For perhaps 
not thinking them to be angels, he would have thrust them too away with the 
rest. But since he used to receive all, he received even angels.

    What? Is it from the life of those that receive [thy bounty] that God 
grants thee thy reward? Nay [it is] from thine own purpose, from thy 
abundant liberality; from thy loving-kindness; from thy goodness. Let this 
be [found], and thou shalt attain all good things, which may we all attain, 
through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to 
the Father and together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, power, honor, now 
and for ever and world without end. Amen.


HOMILY XII: HEBREWS vii. 1-3.

"For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, who met 
Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him: to whom 
also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King 
of Righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of 
Peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither 
beginning of days, nor end of life, But made like unto the Son of God, 
abideth a Priest continually."

    [1.] PAUL wishing to show the difference between the New and Old 
[Covenant], scatters it everywhere; and shoots from afar, and noises it 
abroad,[1] and prepares beforehand. For at once even from the introduction, 
he laid down this saying, that "to them indeed He spake by prophets, but to 
us by the Son" (c. i. 1, 2), and to them "at sundry times and in divers 
manners," but to us through the Son. Afterwards, having discoursed 
concerning the Son, who He was and what He had wrought, and given an 
exhortation to obey Him, lest we should suffer the same things as the Jews; 
and having said that He is "High Priest after the order of Melchisedec" (c. 
vi. 20), and having oftentimes wished to enter into [the subject of] this 
difference, and having used much preparatory management; and having rebuked 
them as weak, and again soothed and restored them to confidence; then at 
last he introduces the discussion on the difference [of the two 
dispensations] to ears in their full vigor. For he who is depressed in 
spirits would not be a ready hearer. And that you may understand this, hear 
the Scripture saying, "They hearkened not to Moses for anguish of 
spirit."[9] (Ex. vi. 9.) Therefore having first cleared away their 
despondency by many considerations, some fearful, some more gentle, he then 
from this point enters upon the discussion of the difference [of the 
dispensations].

    [2.] And what does he say? "For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest 
of the Most High God." And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the 
difference to be great by the Type itself. For as I said, he continually 
confirms the truth from the Type, from things past, on account of the 
weakness of the hearers. "For" (he says) "this Melchisedec, King of Salem, 
Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter 
of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of 
all." Having concisely set down the whole narrative, he looked at[3] it 
mystically.

    And first from the name. "First" (he says) "being by interpretation 
King of righteousness": for Sedec means "righteousness"; and Melchi, 
"King": Melchisedec, "King of righteousness." Seest thou his exactness even 
in the names? But who is "King of righteousness," save our Lord Jesus 
Christ? "King of righteousness. And after that also King of Salem," from 
his city, "that is, King of Peace," which again is [characteristic] of 
Christ. For He has made us righteous, and has "made peace" for "things in 
Heaven and things on earth." (Col. i. 20.) What man is "King of 
Righteousness and of Peace"? None, save only our Lord JESUS Christ.

    [3.] He then adds another distinction, "Without father, without mother, 
without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but 
made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually." Since then 
there lay in his way [as an objection] the [words] "Thou art a Priest for 
ever, after the order of Melchisedec," whereas he [Melchisedec] was dead, 
and was not" Priest for ever," see how he explained it mystically.

    'And who can say this concerning a man?' I do not assert this in fact 
(he says); the meaning is, we do not know when[4] [or] what father he had, 
nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And 
what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do not know it, 
that he did not die, [or] had no parents? Thou sayest well: he both died 
and had parents. How then [was he] "without father, without mother"? How 
"having neither beginning of days nor end of life"? How? [Why] from its not 
being expressed? And what of this? That as this man is so, from his 
genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the 
reality.

    See the "without beginning"; see the "without end." As in case of this 
man, we know not either "beginning of days," or "end of life," because they 
have not been written; so we know [them] not in the case of JESUS, not 
because they have not been written, but because they do not exist. For that 
indeed is a type,[1] and therefore [we say] 'because it is not written,' 
but this is the reality,[2] and therefore [we say] 'because it does not 
exist.' For as in regard to the names also (for there "King of 
Righteousness" and "of Peace" are appellations, but here the reality) so 
these too are appellations in that case, in this the reality. How then hath 
He a beginning? Thou seest that the Son is "without beginning,"[3] not in 
respect of His not having a cause;[4] (for this is impossible: for He has a 
Father, otherwise how is He Son?) but in respect of His "not having 
beginning or end of life."

    "But made like unto the Son of God." Where is the likeness? That we 
know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the 
one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. 
Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, 
there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. [Here] 
then just as in representations[5] [by painting or drawing], there is 
somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike. By means of the lines 
indeed there is a likeness of features,[6] but when the colors are put on, 
then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness.

    [4.] Ver. 4. "Now consider" (saith he) "how great this man is to whom 
even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."[7] Up to this 
point he has been applying the type: hence-forward he boldly shows him 
[Melchisedec] to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who 
bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but 
even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the 
reality? Thou seest how super-abundantly he shows the superiority.

    "Now consider" (he says) "how great this man is to whom even the 
Patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the choice portions." Spoils taken in 
battle are called "choice portions."[8] And it cannot be said that he gave 
them to him as having a part in the war, because (he said) he met him 
"returning from the slaughter of the kings," for he had staid at home (he 
means), yet [Abraham] gave him the first-fruits of his labors.

    Ver. 5. "And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the 
office of Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people 
according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of 
the loins of Abraham." So great (he would say) is the superiority of the 
priesthood, that they who from their ancestors are of the same dignity, and 
have the same forefather, are yet far better than the rest. At all events 
they "receive tithes" from them. When then one is found, who receives 
tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, 
and he among the Priests?

    And not only this; but neither was he of the same dignity with them, 
but of another race: so that he would not have given tithes to a stranger 
unless his dignity had been great. Astonishing! What has he accomplished? 
He has made quite clear a greater point than those relating to faith which 
he treated in the Epistle to the Romans. For there indeed he declares 
Abraham to be the forefather both of our polity and also of the Jewish. But 
here he is exceeding bold against him, and shows that the uncircumcised 
person is far superior. How then did he show that Levi paid tithes? Abraham 
(he says) paid them. 'And how does this concern us?' It especially concerns 
you: for you will not contend that the Levites are superior to Abraham. 
(Ver. 6 ) "But he whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes 
of Abraham."

    And after that he did not simply pass on, but added, "and blessed him 
that had the promises." Inasmuch as throughout, this was regarded with 
reverence, he shows that [Melchisedec] was to be reverenced more than 
Abraham, from the common judgment of all men. (Ver. 7) "And without all 
contradiction," he says, "the less is blessed of the better," i.e. in the 
opinion of all men it is the inferior that is blessed by the superior. So 
then the type of Christ is superior even to "him that had the promises."

    (Ver. 8) "And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it 
is testified that he liveth." But lest we should say, Tell us, why goest 
thou so far back? He says, (ver. 9) "And as I may so say" (and he did well 
in softening it) "Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham." 
How? (Ver. 10) "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. 
Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites 
but Levi.

    Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the 
interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High 
Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not 
necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the 
other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority 
passes on also to the descendants.

    In a marvelous and triumphant way he cast out the Jewish [system]. On 
this account he said, "Ye are become dull," (c. v. 12), because he wished 
to lay these foundations, that they might not start away. Such is the 
wisdom of Paul, first preparing them well, he so leads[1] them into what he 
wishes. For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, 
even more than plants. Since in that case there is [only] the nature of 
material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: 
but in this there is will, which is liable to many alterations, and now 
prefers this, now that. For it quickly turns to evil.

    [5.] Wherefore we ought always to "guard" ourselves, test at any time 
we should fall asleep. For "Lo" (it is said) "he that keepeth Israel shall 
neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps. cxxi. 4), and "Do not suffer[2] thy foot to 
be moved." (Ps. cxxi. 3.) He did not say, 'be not moved' but "do not thou 
suffer," &c. The suffering depends then on ourselves, and not on any other. 
For if we will stand "steadfast and unmoveable" (1 Cor. xv. 58), we shall 
not be shaken.

    What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but 
not so that our free-will is hindered. 'If then it depend on God,' (one 
says), 'why does He blame us?' On this account I said, 'so that our free-
will is no hindered.' It depends then on us, and on Him For we must first 
choose the good; and then He leads us to His own.[3] He does not anticipate 
our choice,[4] lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have 
chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.

    How is it then that Paul says, "not of him that willeth," if it depend 
on ourselves also "nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." 
(Rom. ix. 16.)

    In the first place, he did not introduce it as his own opinion, but 
inferred it from what was before him and from what had been put forward[5] 
[in the discussion]. For after saying, "It is written, I will have mercy on 
whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have 
compassion" (Rom. ix. 15),he says, "It follows then[6] that it is not of 
him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." 
"Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth He yet find fault?" (Rom. ix. 16, 
19.)

    And secondly the other explanation may be given, that he speaks of all 
as His, whose the greater part is. For it is ours to choose[7] and to wish; 
but God's to complete and to bring to an end. Since therefore the greater 
part is of Him, he says all is of Him, speaking according to the custom of 
men. For so we ourselves also do. I mean for instance: we see a house well 
built, and we say the whole is the Architect's [doing], and yet certainly 
it is not all his, but the workmen's also, and the owner's, who supplies 
the materials, and many others', but nevertheless since he contributed the 
greatest share, we call the whole his. So then [it is] in this case also. 
Again, with respect to a number of people, where the many are, we say All 
are: where few, nobody. So also Paul says, "not of him that willeth, nor of 
him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

    And herein he establishes two great truths: one, that we should not be 
lifted up:[8] even shouldst thou run (he would say), even shouldst thou be 
very earnest, do not consider that the well doing[9] is thine own. For if 
thou obtain not the impulse that is from above, all is to no purpose. 
Nevertheless that thou wilt attain that which thou earnestly strivest after 
is very evident; so long as thou runnest, so long as thou willest.

    He did not then assert this, that we run in vain, but that, if we think 
the whole to be our own, if we do not assign the greater part to God, we 
run in vain. For neither hath God willed that the whole should be His, lest 
He should appear to be crowning us without cause: nor again our's, lest we 
should fall away to pride. For if when we have the smaller [share], we 
think much of ourselves, what should we do if the whole depended on us?

    [6.] Indeed God hath done away many things for the purpose of cutting 
away our boastfulness, and still there is the[11] high hand. With how many 
afflictions hath He encompassed us, so as to cut away our proud spirit! 
With how many wild beasts hath He encircled us! For indeed when some say, 
'why is this?' 'Of what use is this?' They utter these things against the 
will of God. He hath placed thee in the midst of so great fear, and yet not 
even so art thou lowly-minded; but if thou ever attain a little success, 
thou reachest to Heaven itself in pride.

    For this cause [come] rapid changes and reverses; and yet not even so 
are we instructed. For this cause are there continual and untimely deaths, 
but are minded as if we were immortal, as if we should never die. We 
plunder, we over-reach, as though we were never to give account. We build 
as if we were to abide here always. And not even the word of God daily 
sounded into our ears, nor the events themselves instruct us. Not a day, 
not an hour can be mentioned, in which we may not see continual funerals. 
But all in vain: and nothing reaches our hardness [of heart]: nor are we 
even able to become better by the calamities of others; or rather, we are 
not willing. When we ourselves only are afflicted, then we are subdued, and 
yet if God take off His hand, we again lift up our hand: no one considers 
what is proper for man,[1] no one despises the things on earth; no one 
looks to Heaven. But as swine turn their heads downwards, stooping towards 
their belly, wallowing in the mire; so too the great body of mankind defile 
themselves with the most intolerable filth, without being conscious of it.

    [7.] For better were it to be defiled with unclean mud than with sins; 
for he who is defiled with the one, washes it off in a little time, and 
becomes like one who had never from the first fallen into that slough; but 
he who has fallen into the deep pit of sin has contracted a defilement that 
is not cleansed by water, but needs long time, and strict repentance, and 
tears and lamentations, and more wailing, and that more fervent, than we 
show over the dearest friends. For this defilement attaches to us from 
without, wherefore we also speedily put it away; but the other is generated 
from within, wherefore also we wash it off with difficulty, and cleanse 
ourselves from it. "For from the heart" (it is said) "proceed evil 
thoughts, fornications, adulteries, thefts, false witnesses." (Matt. xv. 
19.) Wherefore also the Prophet said, "Create in me a clean heart, O God." 
(Ps. li. 10.) And another, "Wash thine heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem." 
(Jer. iv. 14.) (Thou seest that it is both our [work] and God's.) And 
again, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Matt. v. 
8.)

    Let us become clean to the utmost of our power. Let us wipe away our 
sins. And how to wipe them away, the prophet teaches, saying, "Wash you, 
make you clean, put away your wickedness from your souls, before Mine 
eyes." (Isa. i. 16.) What is "before Mine eyes"? Because some seem to be 
free from wickedness, but only to men, while to God they are manifest as 
being "whited sepulchers." Therefore He says, so put them away as I see. 
"Learn to do well, seek judgment, do justice for the poor and lowly." "Come 
now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: and though your sins be as 
scarlet, I will make you white as snow, and if they be as crimson, I will 
make you white as wool." (Isa. i. 17, 18.) Thou seest that we must first 
cleanse ourselves, and then God cleanses us. For having said first, "Wash 
you, make you clean," He then added "I will make you white."

    Let no one then, [even] of those who are come to the extremest 
wickedness, despair of himself. For (He says) even if thou hast passed into 
the habit, yea and almost into the nature of wickedness itself, be not 
afraid. Therefore taking [the instance of] colors that are not superficial 
but almost of the substance of the materials, He said that He would bring 
them into the opposite state. For He did not simply say that He would 
"wash" us, but that He would "make" us "white, as snow and as wool," in 
order to hold out good hopes before us. Great then is the power of 
repentance, at least if it makes us as snow, and whitens us as wool, even 
if sin have first got possession and dyed our souls.

    Let us labor earnestly then to become clean; He has enjoined nothing 
burdensome. "Judge the fatherless, and do justice for the widow." (Isa. i. 
17.) Thou seest everywhere how great account God makes of mercy, and of 
standing forward in behalf of those that are wronged. These good deeds let 
us pursue after, and we shall be able also, by the grace of God, to attain 
to the blessings to come: which may we all be counted worthy of, in Christ 
Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost, be 
glory, power, honor, now and for ever and world without end. Amen.


HOMILY XIII: HEBREWS vii. 11-14.

"If therefore perfection were by[1] the Levitical priesthood; (for under it 
the people have received the law'[2]) what further need was there that 
another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be 
called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there 
is[3] made of necessity a change also of the law. For He of whom these 
things are spoken, pertained to another tribe, of[4] which no man gave 
attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of 
Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests."[5]

     [1.] "IF therefore" (he says) "perfection were by the Levitical 
priesthood." Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much 
superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference 
between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide 
difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the 
other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters 
themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the 
tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the 
unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and 
believed.

    He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to 
Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a 
different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, "after 
the order of Aaron"? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority [of his 
argument]. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His 
priesthood, viz. that He was not "after the order of Aaron," from that he 
establishes Him, and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I 
say (he declares); why has He "not been made after the order of Aaron"?

    And the [saying] "what further need" has much emphasis. For if Christ 
had been "after the order of Melchisedec" according to the flesh, and then 
afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that pertained to Aaron, 
one might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled 
the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if Christ comes later, 
and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that 
it is because those. were imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for 
argument's sake, that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing 
imperfect in the priesthood. "What need" was there in that case that He 
should be called "after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of 
Aaron"? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different priesthood, 
that of Melchisedec? "If then perfection," that is the perfection of the 
things themselves, of the doctrines, of life,[6] "had been by the Levitical 
priesthood."

    And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that [He was] 
"after the order of Melchisedec," implying that the [priesthood] "after the 
order of Melchisedec" is superior: for [he was][7] far superior. Afterwards 
he shows this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as 
being better.

    [2.] And what is the meaning of what follows? "For" (he says) "under 
[or "upon"] it the people have received the Law for "have been legislated 
for"]."[8] What is "under it" [&c.]? Ordereth itself[9] by it; through it 
does all things. You cannot say that it was given to others, "the people 
under it have received the law," that is, have used it, and did use it. You 
cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; "they 
have been legislated for upon it," that is, they used it.

    What need was there then of another priesthood? "For the priesthood 
being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law also." But if 
there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, there must 
needs be also another law. This is for those who say, What need was there 
of a new Covenant? For he could indeed have alleged a testimony from 
prophecy also. "This is the covenant which I made with your fathers" [&c.]. 
(c. viii. 10.) But for the present he contends on the ground of the 
priesthood. And observe, how be says this from the first. He said, 
"According to the order of "Melchisedec." By this he excluded the order of 
Aaron. For he would not have said "After the order of Melchisedec," if the 
other had been better. If therefore another priesthood has been brought in, 
there must be also [another] Covenant; for neither is it possible that 
there should be a priest, without a covenant and laws and ordinances, nor 
that having received a different priesthood He should use the former 
[covenant].

    In the next place, as to the ground of objection: "How could He be a 
priest if He were not a Levite?" Having overthrown this by what had been 
said above, he does not even think it worth answering, but introduces it in 
passing. I said (he means) that the priesthood was changed, therefore also 
the Covenant is. And it was changed not only in its character,[1] or in its 
ordinances, but also in its tribe. For of necessity [it must be changed] in 
its tribe also. How? "For the priesthood being changed [or "transferred 
"]," from tribe to tribe, from the sacerdotal to the regal [tribe], that 
the same might be both regal and sacerdotal.

    And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it is become 
sacerdotal: so therefore also in regard to Christ: for King indeed He 
always was, but has become Priest from the time that He assumed the Flesh, 
that He offered the sacrifice. Thou seest the change, and the very things 
which were ground of objection these he introduces, as though the natural 
order of things required them. "For" (he says) "He of whom these things are 
spoken pertained to another tribe." I myself also say it, I know that this 
tribe [of Judah] had nothing of priesthood. For there is a transferring.

    [3.] Yea and I am showing another difference also (he would say): not 
only from the tribe, nor yet only from the Person, nor from the character 
[of the Priesthood], nor from the covenant, but also from the type itself., 
(Ver. 16) "Who was made [" became" so], not according to the law of a 
carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. He 
became" (he says) "a priest not according to the law of a carnal 
commandment ": for that law was in many respects unlawful.[2]

    What is, "of a carnal commandment"? Circumcise the flesh, it says; 
anoint the flesh; wash the flesh; purify the flesh; shave the flesh; bind 
upon the flesh;[3] cherish the flesh; rest as to the flesh. And again its 
blessings, what are they? Long life for the flesh; milk and honey for the 
flesh; peace for the flesh; luxury for the flesh. From this law Aaron 
received the priesthood; Melchisedec however not so.

    Ver. 15. "And it is yet far more evident, if after the similitude of 
Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." What is evident? The interval 
between the two priesthoods, the difference; how much superior He is "who 
was made not

according to the law of a carnal commandment." (Who? Melchisedec? Nay; but 
Christ.) "But according to the power of an endless[4] life. For He 
testifieth, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"; 
that is, not for a time, nor having any limit, "but according to the power 
of an endless life," that is, by means of power, by means of "endless 
life."

    And yet this does not follow after, "who was made not according to the 
law of a carnal commandment": for what would follow would be to say, "but 
according to that of a spiritual one." However by "carnal," he implied 
temporary. As he says also in another place, carnal ordinances imposed 
until the time of reformation." (c. ix. 10.)

    "According to the power of life," that is, because He lives by His own 
power.

    [4.] He had said, that there is also a change of law, and up to this 
point he has shown it; henceforward he enquires into the cause, that which 
above all gives full assurance to men's minds, [I mean] the knowing the 
cause thoroughly; and it leads us more to faith[5] when we have learned 
also the cause, and the principle according to which [the thing] comes to 
pass.

    Ver. 18. "For there is verily" (he says) "a disannulling of the 
commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." 
Here the Heretics[6] press on. But listen attentively. He did not say "for 
the evil," nor, "for the viciousness," but "for the weakness and 
unprofitableness [thereof]," yea and in other places also he shows the 
weakness; as when he says "In that it was weak through the flesh." (Rom. 
viii. 3.0 [The law] itself then is not weak, but we.

    Ver. 19. "For the Law made nothing perfect." What is, "make nothing 
perfect"? Made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And besides, even if it had 
been listened to, it would not have made one perfect and virtuous. But as 
yet he does not say this here, but that it had no strength: and with good 
reason. For written precepts were there set down, Do this and Do not that, 
being enjoined only, and not giving power within.[7] But "the Hope" is not 
such.

    What is "a disannulling"? A casting out. A "disannulling" is a 
disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that it 
[once] was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it 
accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use; and 
of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For in this respect 
he says, "The Law made nothing perfect." All were figures, all shadows; 
circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. Therefore they could not reach through 
the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. "But the 
bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh unto God."

    [5.] (Ver. 20) "And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath."[1] 
Thou seest that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here. 
Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much [hereon], how that 
God swore; and swore for the sake of [our] fuller assurance.

    "But the bringing in of a better hope." For that system also had a 
hope, but not such as this. For they hoped that, if they were well pleasing 
[to God], they should possess the land, that they should suffer nothing 
fearful. But in this [dispensation] we hope that, if we are well pleasing 
[to God], we shall possess not earth, but heaven; or rather (which is far 
better than this) we hope to stand near to God, to come unto the very 
throne of the Father, to minister unto Him with the Angels. And see how he 
introduces these things by little and little. For above he says "which 
entereth into that within the veil", (c. vi. 19), but here, "by which we 
draw nigh unto God."

    "And inasmuch as not without an oath." What is "And inasmuch as not 
without an oath"? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things 
were not merely promised (he says). "For those priests were made without an 
oath," (ver. 21, 22) "but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The 
Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of 
Melchisedec.[2] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better 
covenant."[3] He lays down two points of difference, that it hath no end as 
the [covenant] of the Law had;[4] and this he proves from [its being] 
Christ who exercises [the priesthood]; for he says "according to the power 
of an endless life." And he proves it also from the oath, because "He 
swore," &c., and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it 
was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from 
the priest. How? Because He is One [only]; and there would not have been 
One [only], unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, 
because they were mortal, so [here is] The One, because He is immortal. "By 
so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant," inasmuch as He sware 
to Him that He should always be [Priest]; which He would not have done, if 
He were not living.

    [6.] (Ver. 25) "Wherefore He is able also to save them to the 
uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make 
intercession for them." Thou seest that he says this in respect of that 
which is according to the flesh. For when He [appears] as Priest, then He 
also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, "who also maketh 
intercession for us" (Rom. viii. 34), he hints the same thing; the High 
Priest maketh intercession. For He "that raiseth the dead as He will, and 
quickeneth them," (John v. 21), and that "even as the Father" [doth], how 
[is it that] when there is need to save, He "maketh intercession'? (John v. 
22 .) He that hath "all judgment," how [is it that] He "maketh 
intercession"? He that "sendeth His angels" (Matt. xiii. 41, 42), that they 
may "cast" some into "the furnace," and save others, how [is it that] He 
"maketh intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save." For 
this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as "He ever 
liveth," He hath (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He 
is able to aid all men. For there [under the Law] indeed, the High Priest 
although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was [High 
Priest] (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no 
longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but "He" saves "to the 
uttermost."[5]

    What is "to the uttermost"? He hints at some mystery. Not here[6] only 
(he says) but there[7] also He saves them that "come unto God by Him." How 
does He save? "In that He ever liveth" (he says) "to make intercession for 
them." Thou seest the humiliation? Thou seest the manhood? For he says not, 
that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but 
continually, and whensoever it may be needful to intercede for them.

    "To the uttermost." What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in 
the future life. ' Does He then always need to pray? Yet how can [this] be 
reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes accomplished all by one 
entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with [the 
Father]?' Thou seest that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not 
afraid, nor say, Yea, He loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the 
Father, but He cannot live always. For He doth live alway.

    [7.] (Ver. 26) "For such an High Priest also[8] became us, who is holy, 
harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners." Thou seest that the whole 
is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say 'the manhood,' I 
mean [the manhood] having Godhead; not dividing [one from the other], but 
leaving [you] to suppose[1] what is suitable.) Didst thou mark the 
difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, "in 
all points tempted like as we are yet without sin." (c. iv. 15.) "For" (he 
says) "such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless." 
"Harmless ": what is it? Without wickedness: that which another[2] Prophet 
says: "guile was not found in His mouth" (Isa. liii. 9), that is, [He is] 
not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed 
to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, in 
respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable [to say it]. "Holy, 
undefiled." This too would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature 
capable of defilement? "Separate from sinners."

    [8.] Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice 
itself also? How? (Ver. 27) "He needeth not" (he says) "daily, as the High 
Priest,[3] to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for 
all, when He offered up Himself. "This," what? Here what follows sounds a 
prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and 
the interval [between them]. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he 
has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not 
entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a 
prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He 
is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office. For 
He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." (c. x. 12.) Lest thou 
suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the 
matter is [part] of a dispensation [or economy]. For as He became a 
servant, so also [He became] a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming 
a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a 
Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister 
to sit, but to stand.

    This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice, if 
being [but] one, and having been offered up once only, it affected that 
which all [the rest] were unable to do. But he does not yet [treat] of 
these points.

    "For this He did," he says. "This"; what? "For" (he says) "it is of 
necessity that this [Man] have somewhat also to offer" (c. viii. 3); not 
for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What sayest 
thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). "For the Law maketh men 
high priests, which have infirmity." (c. vii. 28.) And doth He not need to 
offer for Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the 
[words, "this "] "He did once for all," are said respecting Himself also, 
hear what he says: "For the law maketh men high priests, which have 
infirmity." On this account they both offer continually, and for 
themselves. He however who is mighty, He that hath no sin, why should He 
offer for Himself, or oftentimes for others?

    "But the word of the oath which was since the Law [maketh] the Son who 
has been consecrated for evermore." "Consecrated":[4] what is that? Paul 
does not set down the common terms of contradistinction;[5] for after 
saying "having Infirmity," he did not say "the Son" who is mighty, but 
"consecrated":[4] i.e. mighty, as one might say. Thou seest that the name 
Son is used in contradistinction to that of servant. And by "infirmity" he 
means either sin or death.

    What is, "for evermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If then 
He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why shall He offer 
many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on 
this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on 
His own behalf.

    [9.] Since then we have such an High Priest, let us imitate Him: let us 
walk in His footsteps. There is no other sacrifice: one alone has cleansed 
us, and after this, fire and hell. For indeed on this account he repeats it 
over and over, saying, "one Priest," "one Sacrifice," lest any one 
supposing that there are many [sacrifices] should sin without fear. Let us 
then, as many as have been counted worthy of The Seal,[6] as many as have 
enjoyed The Sacrifice, as many as have partaken of the immortal Table, 
continue to guard our noble birth and our dignity for failing away is not 
without danger.

    And as many as have not yet been counted worthy these [privileges], let 
not these either be confident on that account. For when a person goes on in 
sin, with the view of receiving holy baptism at the last gasp, oftentimes 
he will not obtain it. And, believe me, it is not to terrify you that I say 
what I am going to say. I have myself known many persons, to whom this has 
happened, who in expectation indeed of the enlightening[1] sinned much, and 
on the day of their death went away empty. For God gave us baptism for this 
cause, that He might do away our sins, not that He might increase our sins. 
Whereas if any man have employed it as a security for sinning more, it 
becomes a cause of negligence. For if there had been no Washing, they would 
have lived more warily, as not having [the means of] forgiveness. Thou 
seest that we are the ones who cause it to be said "Let us do evil, that 
good may come." (Rom. iii. 8.)

    Wherefore, I exhort you also who are uninitiated, be sober. Let no man 
follow after virtue as an hireling, no man as a senseless[2] person, no man 
as after a heavy and burdensome thing, Let us pursue it then with a ready 
mind, and with joy. For if there were no reward laid up, ought we not to be 
good? But however, at least with a reward, let us become good. And how is 
this anything else than a disgrace and a very great condemnation? Unless 
thou give me a reward (says one), I do not become self- controlled. Then am 
I bold to say something: thou wilt never be self-controlled, no not even 
when thou livest with self-control, if thou dost it for a reward. Thou 
esteemest not virtue at all, if thou dost not love it. But on account of 
our great weakness, God was willing that for a time it should be practiced 
even for reward, yet not even so do we pursue it.

    But let us suppose, if you will, that a man dies, after having done 
innumerable evil things, having also been counted worthy of baptism (which 
however I think does not readily happen), tell me, how will he depart 
thither? Not indeed called to account for the deeds he had done, but yet 
without confidence;[3] as is reasonable. For when after living a hundred 
years, he has no good work to show,[4] but only that he has not sinned, or 
rather not even this, but that he was saved by grace[5] only, and when he 
sees others crowned, in splendor, and highly approved: even if he fall not 
into hell, tell me, will he endure his despondency?

    [10.] But to make the matter clear by an example, Suppose there are two 
soldiers, and that one of them steals, injures, overreaches, and that the 
other does none of these things, but acts the part of a brave man, does 
important things well, sets up trophies in war, stains his right hand with 
blood; then when the time arrives, suppose that (from the same rank in 
which the thief also was) he is at once conducted to the imperial throne 
and the purple; but suppose that the other remains there where he was, and 
merely of the royal kindness does not pay the penalty of his deeds, let him 
however be in the last place, and let him be stationed under the King. Tell 
me, will he be able to endure his despair when he sees him who was [ranked] 
with himself ascended even to the very highest dignities, and made thus 
glorious, and master of the world, while he himself still remains below, 
and has not even been freed from punishment with honor, but through the 
grace and kindness of the King? For even should the King forgive him, and 
release him from the charges against him, still he will live in shame; for 
surely not even will others admire him: since in such forgiveness, we 
admire not those who receive the gifts, but those who bestow them. And as 
much as the gifts are greater, so much the more are they ashamed who 
receive them, when their transgressions are great.

    With what eyes then will such an one be able to took on those who are 
in the King's courts, when they exhibit their sweatings out of number and 
their wounds, whilst he has nothing to show, but has his salvation itself 
of the mere loving-kindness of God? For as if one were to beg off a 
murderer, a thief, an adulterer, when he was going to be arrested, and were 
to command him to stay at the porch of the King's palace, he will not 
afterwards be able to look any man in the face, although he has been set 
free from punishment: so too surely is this man's case.

    For do not, I beseech you, suppose that because it is called a 
palace,[6] therefore all attain the same things. For if here in Kings' 
courts there is the Prefect, and all who are about the King, and also those 
who are in very inferior stations, and occupy the place of what are called 
Decani[7] (though the interval be so great between the Prefect and the 
Decanus) much more shall this be so in the royal court above.

    And this I say not of myself. For Paul layeth down another difference 
greater even than these. For (he says) as many differences as there are 
between the sun and the moon and the stars and the very smallest star, so 
many also between those in the kingdom [of Heaven]. And that the difference 
between the sun and the smallest star is far greater than that between the 
Decanus (as he is called) and the Prefect, is evident to all. For while the 
sun shines upon all the world at once, and makes it bright, and hides the 
moon and the stars, the other often does not appear, not even in the dark. 
For there are many of the stars which we do not see. When then we see 
others become suns, and we have the rank of the very smallest stars, which 
are not even visible, what comfort shall we have?

    Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be so slothful, not so inert, let 
us not barter away the salvation of God for an easy life, but let us make 
merchandise of it, and increase it. For even if one be a Catechumen, still 
he knows Christ, still he understands the Faith, still he is a hearer of 
the divine oracles, still he is not far from the knowledge; he knows the 
will of his Lord. Wherefore does he procrastinate? wherefore does he delay 
and postpone? Nothing is better than a good life whether here or there, 
whether in case of the Enlightened or of the Catechumens,

    [11.] For tell me what burdensome command have we enjoined? Have a wife 
(it is said) and be chaste. Is this difficult? How? when many, not 
Christians only but heathens also, live chastely without a wife. That which 
the heathen surpasses[1] for vainglory, thou dost not even keep for the 
fear of God.

    Give (He says) to the poor out of what thou hast. Is this burdensome? 
But in this case also heathen condemn us who for vainglory only have 
emptied out their whole possessions.

    Use not filthy communication. Is this difficult? For if it had not been 
enjoined, ought we not to have done right in this, to avoid appearing 
degraded? For that the contrary conduct is troublesome, I mean the using 
filthy communication, is manifest from the fact that the soul is ashamed 
and blushes if it have been led to say any such thing and would not unless 
perhaps it were drunk. For when sitting in a public place, even if thou 
doest it at home, why dost thou not do it there? Because of those that are 
present. Why dost thou not readily do the same thing before thy wife? That 
thou mayest not insult her. So then thou dost it not, lest thou shouldest 
insult thy wife; and dost thou not blush at insulting God? For He is 
everywhere present, and heareth all things.

    Be not drunken, He says. For this very thing of itself, is it not a 
chastisement? He did not say, Put thy body on the rack, but what? Do not 
give it free rein[2] so as to take away the authority of the mind: on the 
contrary "make not provision for the lusts thereof." (Rom. xiii. 14.)

    Do not (He says) seize by violence what is not thine own; do not 
overreach; do not forswear thyself. What labors do these things require 
!what sweatings!

    Speak evil of no man (He says) nor accuse falsely. The contrary indeed 
is a labor. For when thou hast spoken ill of another, immediately thou art 
in danger, in suspicion, [saying] Did he of whom I spake, hear? whether he 
be great or small. For should he be a great man, immediately thou wilt be 
indeed in danger; but if small, he will requite thee with as much, or 
rather with what is far more grievous; for he will say evil of thee in a 
greater degree. We are enjoined nothing difficult, nothing burdensome, if 
we have the will. And if we have not the will, even the easiest things will 
appear burdensome to us. What is easier than eating? but from great 
effeminacy many feel disgust even at this, and I hear many say, that it is 
weariness even to eat. None of these things is wearisome if thou hast but 
the will. For everything depends on the will after the grace from above. 
Let us will good things that we may attain also to the good things eternal, 
in Christ Jesus our Lord, whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost 
be glory, might, honor, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.


HOMILY XIV: HEBREWS viii. 1, 2.

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an 
High Priest; who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty 
in the heavens: a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle 
which the Lord pitched, and not man."

    [1.] PAUL mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his 
Master, so that the lowly become the path to the lofty, and through the 
former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we 
learn that these [lowly ones] were a condescension. This accordingly he 
does here also. After declaring that "He offered up Himself," and showing 
Him to be a "High Priest," what does he say? "Now of the things which we 
have spoken this is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on 
the right hand of the throne of the majesty." And yet this is not [the 
office] of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve.

    "A minister of the sanctuary," not simply a minister, but "a minister 
of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and 
not man." Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a 
separation,[1] saying: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" (supra, i. 
14) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, "Sit thou on my right 
hand," (supra, i. 13) for He that sitteth is not a minister. How is it then 
that it is here said, "a minister," and "a minister of the Sanctuary "? for 
he means here the Tabernacle.

    See how he raised up the minds of the believing Jews. For as they would 
be apt to imagine that we have no such tabernacle [as they had], see here 
(he says) is the Priest, Great, yea, much greater than the other, and who 
has offered a more wonderful sacrifice. But is not all this mere talk? is 
it not a boast, and merely said to win over our minds? on this account he 
established it first from the oath, and afterwards also from "the 
tabernacle." For this difference too was manifest: but the Apostle thinks 
of another also, "which" (he says) "the Lord pitched [or "made firm "] and 
not man." Where are they who say that the heaven whirls around?[2] where 
are they who declare that it is spherical? for both of these notions are 
overthrown here.

    "Now" (he says) "of the things which we have spoken this is the sum." 
By "the sum" is always meant what is most important. Again he brings down 
his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks 
fearlessly.

    [2.] In the next place that thou mayest understand that he used the 
word "minister" of the manhood, observe how he again indicates it: "For" 
(ver. 3) (he says) "every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and 
sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also 
to offer."

    Do not now, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose that His 
being called High Priest is mere idle talk.[3] For the former, viz. His 
sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead,[4] but this to His great 
lovingkindness, and His tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly 
urges[5] this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest the 
other[truth] should overthrow it.[6] Therefore he again brings down his 
discourse to this: since some were enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. 
But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He 
also should have a sacrifice.

    And in another way; Having said that He is on high, he affirms and 
proves that He is a Priest from every consideration, from Melchisedec, from 
the oath, from offering sacrifice. From this he also frames another and 
necessary syllogism. "For if" (he says) "He had been on earth, He would not 
be a Priest, seeing that there are priests who offer the gifts according to 
the Law." If then He is a Priest (as He really is), we must seek some other 
place for Him. "For if He were" indeed "on earth, He should not be a 
priest." For how [could He be]? He offered no sacrifice, He ministered not 
in the Priest's office. And with good reason, for there were the priests. 
Moreover he shows, that it was impossible that [He] should be a priest upon 
earth. For how [could He be]? There was no rising up against [the appointed 
Priests], he means.

    [3.] Here we must apply our minds attentively, and consider the 
Apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the Priesthood. 
"Who" (he says) "serve unto the example[1] and shadow of heavenly things."

    What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. 
For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of 
the Heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain[2] [as a sacrifice], 
when the Spirit is with us,[3] when He who sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father is here,[4] when sons are made by the Washing, when they are fellow-
citizens of those in Heaven, when we have a country, and a city, and 
citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these 
be other than "heavenly' things "? But what !Are not our Hymns heavenly? Do 
not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things which 
the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also 
heavenly? How? It hath nothing carnal, all spiritual things become the 
offerings.[5] The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes, or into smoke, or 
into steamy savor, it makes the things placed there bright and splendid. 
How again can the rites which we celebrate be other than heavenly? For when 
He says, "Whose soever sins ye retain they are retained, whose soever sins 
ye remit, they are remitted" (John xx. 23) when they have the keys of 
heaven, how can all be other than heavenly?

    "Who" (he says) "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, 
as Moses was admonished of God,[6] when he was about to make the 
tabernacle, for see, saith He, that thou make all things according to the 
pattern showed to thee in the mount." Inasmuch as our hearing is less ready 
of apprehension than our sight (for the things which we hear we do not in 
such wise lay up in our soul, as those which we see with our very eyes), He 
showed him all. Either then he means this by "the example and shadow," or 
else he [speaks] of the Temple. For, he went on to say, "See" (His words 
are), that "thou make all things according to the pattern[7] showed to thee 
in the mount." Was it then only what concerned the furniture of the temple 
that he saw, or was it also what related, to the sacrifices, and all the 
rest? Nay, one would not be wrong in saying even this; for The Church is 
heavenly, and is nothing else than Heaven.

    [4.] (Ver. 6) "But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry,[8] 
by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant." Thou seest (he 
means) how much better is the one ministration than the other, if one be an 
example and type, and the other truth [reality]. But this did not profit 
the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered 
them: "Which was established upon better promises." Having raised them up 
by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets 
forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before 
that it was "weak and unprofitable." (See Heb. vii. 18.)

    And observe what safeguards he lays down, when intending to find fault 
with it. For in the former place after saying, "according to the power of 
an endless life" (Heb. vii. 16), he then said that "there is a disannulling 
of the commandment going before" (Heb. vii. 18); and then after that, he 
set forth something great, saying, "by which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. 
vii. 19.) And in this place, after leading us up into Heaven, and showing 
that instead of the temple, we have Heaven, and that those things were 
types of ours, and having by these means exalted the Ministration [of the 
New Covenant], he then proceeds suitably to exalt the priesthood.

    But (as I said) he sets down that which especially cheers them, in the 
words, "Which was established upon better promises." Whence does appear? In 
that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for 
it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, "If 
perfection were by" it, "what further need was there, that another priest 
should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?" (Heb. vii. 11); so also here 
he used the same syllogism, saying (ver. 7) "For if that first covenant had 
been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second"; that 
is, if it made men "faultless." For it is because he is speaking of this 
that he did not say, "But finding fault with" it, but (ver. 8, 9) "But 
finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, 
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in 
the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: 
because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith 
the Lord."

    Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that [the first Covenant] came 
to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more 
clearly by express words that it has been cast out.

    But how is it "upon better promises "? For how, tell me, can earth and 
heaven be equal? But do thou consider,[1] how he speaks of promises there 
[in that other covenant] also, that thou mayest not bring this charge 
against it. For there also, he says "a better hope, by which we draw nigh 
unto God" (Heb. vii. 19), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this 
place "better promises," hinting that there also He had made promises.

    But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, "Behold! 
the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the 
house of Israel and with the house of Judah." He is not speaking of any old 
Covenant: for, that they might not assert this, he determined the time 
also. Thus he did not say simply, "according to the covenant which I made 
with their fathers," lest thou shouldest say [it was] the one made with 
Abraham, or that with Noah: but he declares what [covenant it was], "not 
according to the covenant which I made with their fathers "in the Exodus. 
Wherefore he added also, "in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead 
them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, 
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Thou seest that the evils begin 
first from ourselves (" they" themselves first, saith he," continued not in 
[the "covenant "] ") and the negligence is from ourselves, but the good 
things from Him; I mean the [acts] of bounty. He here introduces, as it 
were, an apology showing the cause why He forsakes them.

    [5.] (Ver. 10) "For this," he says, "is the covenant that I will make 
with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put[2] My 
laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them 
a God, and they shall be to Me a people." Thus He says this concerning the 
New [covenant] because His words are "not according to the covenant which I 
covenanted."

    But what other difference is there beside this?[3] Now if any person 
should say that "the difference is not in this respect, but in respect to 
its being put into their hearts; He makes no mention of any difference of 
ordinances, but points out the mode of its being given: for no longer" (he 
says) "shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts;" let the Jew in 
that case show that this was ever carried into effect; but he could not, 
for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. 
But I show that the Apostles received nothing in writing, but received [it] 
in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Wherefore also Christ said, "When 
He cometh, He will bring all things to your remembrance, and He shall teach 
you." (John xiv. 26.)

    [6.] (Ver. 11, 12) "And they shall not teach" (he says) "every man his 
neighbor,[4] and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all 
shall know Me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to 
their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember 
no more." Behold also another sign. "From the least even to the greatest of 
them" (he says) "they shall know Me, and they shall not say, Know the 
Lord." When hath this been fulfilled save now? For our [religion][5] is 
manifest: but theirs [i.e. the Jews'] was not manifest, but had been shut 
up in a corner.

    [A covenant] is then said to be "new," when it is different and shows 
some advantage over the old. "Nay surely," says one,[6] "it is new also 
when part of it has been taken away, and part not. For instance, when an 
old house is ready to fall down, if a person leaving the whole, has patched 
up the foundation, straightway we say, he has made it new, when he has 
taken some parts away, and brought others into their place. For even the 
heaven also is thus called 'new,'[7] when it is no longer ' of brass,' but 
gives rain;[8] and the earth likewise is new when it is not unfruitful, not 
when it has been changed; and the house is likewise new, when portions of 
it have been taken away, and portions remain. And thus, he says,[1] he hath 
well termed it 'a New Covenant.' "

    If then I show that that covenant had become "Old" in this respect, 
that it yielded no fruit? And that thou mayest know this exactly, read what 
Haggai says, what Zechariah, what the Messenger,[2] when the return from 
the Captivity had not yet fully taken place; and what Esdras charges. How 
then did [the people] receive him?[3] And how no man enquired of the Lord, 
inasmuch as they [the priests] themselves also transgressed, and knew it 
not even themselves?[4] Dost thou see how thy [interpretation] is broken 
down,[5] whilst I maintain my own: that this [covenant] must be called 
"New" in the proper sense of the word?

    And besides, I do not concede that the words "the heaven shall be new" 
(Isa. lxv. 17), were spoken concerning this. For why, when saying in 
Deuteronomy "the heaven shall be of brass," did he not set down this in the 
contrasted passage,[6] "but if ye hearken, it shall be new."

    And further on this account He says that He will give "another 
Covenant, because they did not continue in the first." This I show by what 
he says (" For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the 
flesh," Rom. viii. 3; and again, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the 
neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" 
Acts xv. 10.) But "they did not continue therein," he says.

    Here he shows that [God] counts us worthy of greater and of spiritual 
[privileges]: for it is said "their sound went out into all the earth and 
their words unto the ends of the world." (Ps. xix. 5; Rom. x. 18.) That is 
[the meaning of] "they shall not say each man to his neighbor, Know the 
Lord." And again, "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord 
as much water to cover the seas." (Isa. xi. 9.)

    [7.] "In calling it new" (he says), "He hath made the first old: but 
that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." See what was 
hidden, how he hath laid open the very mind of the prophet !He honored the 
law, and was not willing to call it "old" in express terms: but 
nevertheless, this he did call it. For if the former had been new, he would 
not have called this which came afterwards "new" also. So that by granting 
something more and different, he declares that "it was waxen old." 
Therefore it is done away and is perishing, and no longer exists.

    Having taken boldness from the prophet, he attacks it more suitably, 
[7] showing that our [dispensation] is now flourishing. That is, he showed 
that [the other] was old: then taking up the word "old," and adding of 
himself another [circumstance], the [characteristic] of old age, he took up 
what was omitted by the others, and says "ready to vanish away."

    The New then has not simply caused the old to cease, but because it had 
become aged, as it was not [any longer] useful. On this account he said, 
"for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Heb. vii. 18), and, "the 
law made nothing perfect" (Heb. vii. 19); and that "if the first had been 
faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." (Heb. 
viii. 7.) And "faultless"; that is, useful; not as though it [the old 
Covenant] was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He 
used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not 
faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not 
faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here 
speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

    [8.] So then we also are new, or rather we were made new, but now are 
become old; therefore we are "near to vanishing away," and to destruction. 
Let us scrape off[8] this old age. It is indeed no longer possible to do it 
by Washing, but by repentance it is possible here [in this life].[9] If 
there be in us anything old, let us east it off; if any "wrinkle," if any 
stain, if any "spot," let us wash it away and become fair (Eph. v. 27): 
that "the King may desire our beauty." (Ps. xlv. 11.)

    It is possible even for him who has fallen into the extremest 
deformity[10] to recover that beauty of which David says that the King 
shall desire thy beauty. "Hearken, O daughter, and consider; forget also 
thine own people and thy father's house: so shall the King greatly desire 
thy beauty." (Ps. xlv. 10, 11.) And yet forgetting doth not produce beauty. 
Yea, beauty is of the soul. What sort of forgetting? That of sins. For he 
is speaking about the Church from among the Gentiles, exhorting her not to 
remember the things of her fathers, that is [of] those that sacrificed to 
idols; for from such was it gathered.

    And he said not, "Go not after them," but what is more, Do not admit 
them into thy mind; which he says also in another place, "I will not 
mention their names through my lips." (Ps. xvi. 4.) And again, "That my 
mouth may not talk of the deeds of men." (Ps. xvii. 3, 4.) As yet is this 
no great virtue; nay, rather, it is indeed great, but not such as this 
[which is here spoken of]. For what does he say there? He says not; "Talk 
not of the things of men, neither speak of the things of thy fathers"; but, 
neither remember them, nor admit them into thy mind. Thou seest to how 
great a distance he would have us keep away from wickedness. For he that 
remembers not [a matter] will not think of it, and he that does not think, 
will not speak of it: and he that does not speak of it, will not do it. 
Seest thou from how many paths he hath walled us off? by what great 
intervals he hath removed us, even to a very great [distance]?

    [9.] Let us then also "hearken and forget" our own evils. I do not say 
our sins, for (He says) "Remember thou first, and I will not remember." 
(Isa. xliii. 26, 25, LXX.) I mean for instance, Let us no longer remember 
rapacity, but even restore the former [plunder']. This is to forget 
wickedness, and to cast out the thought of rapacity, and never at any time 
to admit it, but to wipe away also the things already done amiss.

    Whence may the forgetfulness of wickedness come to us? From the 
remembrance of good things, from the remembrance of God. If we continually 
remember God, we cannot remember those things also. For (he says) "When I 
remembered Thee upon my bed, I thought upon Thee in the morning dawn." (Ps. 
lxiii. 6.) We ought then to have GOD always in remembrance, but then 
especially, when thought is undisturbed, when by means of that remembrance 
[a man] is able to condemn himself, when he can retain [things] in memory. 
For in the daytime indeed, if we do remember, other cares and troubles 
entering in, drive the thought out again: but in the night it is possible 
to remember continually, when the soul is calm and at rest; when it is in 
the haven, and under a serene sky. "The things which you say in your hearts 
be ye grieved for on your beds," he says. (Ps. iv. 4, LXX.) For it were 
indeed right to retain this remembrance through the day also. But inasmuch 
as you are always full of cares, and distracted amidst the things of this 
life, at least then remember God on your bed; at the morning dawn meditate 
upon Him.

    If at the morning dawn we meditate on these things, we shall go forth 
to our business with much security. If we have first made God propitious by 
prayer[1] and supplication, going forth thus we shall have no enemy. Or if 
thou shouldest, thou wilt laugh him to scorn, having God propitious. There 
is war in the market place; the affairs of every day are a fight, they are 
a tempest and a storm. We therefore need arms: and prayer is a great 
weapon. We need favorable winds; we need to learn everything, so as to go 
through the length of the day without shipwrecks and without wounds. For 
every single day the rocks are many, and oftentimes the boat strikes and is 
sunk. Therefore have we especially need of prayer early and by night.

    [10.] Many of you have often beheld the Olympic games: and not only 
have beheld but have been zealous partisans and admirers of the combatants, 
one of this [combatant], one of that. You know then that both during the 
days of the contests, and during those nights, all night long the herald[2] 
thinks of nothing else, has no other anxiety, than that the combatant 
should not disgrace himself when he goes forth. For those who sit by the 
trumpeter admonish him not to speak to any one, that he may not spend his 
breath and get laughed at. If therefore he who is about to strive before 
men, uses such forethought, much more will it befit us to be continually 
thoughtful, and careful, since our whole life is a contest. Let every night 
then be a vigil,[3] and let us be careful that when we go out in the day we 
do not make ourselves ridiculous. And would it were only making ourselves 
ridiculous. But now the Judge of the contest is seated on the right hand of 
the Father, hearkening diligently that we utter not any false note, 
anything out of tune. For He is not the Judge of actions only, but of words 
also. Let us keep our vigil,[1] beloved; we also have those that are eager 
for our success, if we will. Near each one of us Angels are sitting; and 
yet we snore through the whole night. And would it were only this. But many 
do even many licentious things, some indeed going to the very brothels,[2] 
and others making their own houses places of whoredom by taking courtesans 
thither. Yes most certainly. For is it not so? They care well for their 
contest. Others are drunken and speak amiss;[3] others make an uproar. 
Others keep evil vigil through the night weaving, and worse than those who 
sleep, schemes of deceit; others by calculating usury; others by bruising 
themselves with cares, and doing anything rather than what is suited to the 
contest. Wherefore, I exhort you, let us lay aside all [other] things, and 
look to one only, how we may obtain the prize, [how we may] be crowned with 
the Chaplet; let us do all by which we shall be able to attain to the 
promised blessings. Which may we all attain in Christ Jesus our Lord, with 
whom to the Father and also to the Holy Ghost be glory, might, honor, now 
and for ever and world without end. Amen.


HOMILY XV: HEBREWS ix. 1-5.

"Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, 
and a[4] worldly Sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, 
wherein was the Candlestick, and the Table, and the Shew-bread, which is 
called the Sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is 
called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer and the Ark of the 
Covenant overlaid round about with gold: wherein was the golden pot that 
had[5] manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant: 
and over it the Cherubim of glory, shadowing the Mercy-seat: of which we 
cannot now speak particularly."

    [1.] HE has shown from the Priest, from the Priesthood, from the 
Covenant, that that [dispensation] was to have an end. From this point he 
shows it from the fashion of the tabernacle itself. How? This, he says, 
[was] the "Holy"[6] and the "Holy of Holies."[7] The holy place then is a 
symbol of the former period (for there all things are done by means of 
sacrifices); but the Holy of Holies of this that is now present.

    And by the Holy of Holies he means Heaven; and by the veil, Heaven, and 
the Flesh[8] "entereth[9] into that within the veil": that is to say, 
"through the veil of His flesh." (Supra, vi. 19; Heb. x, 20.)

    And it were well to speak of this passage, taking it up from the 
beginning. What then does he say? "Then verily the first had also" (the 
first what? "The Covenant"). "Ordinances of Divine service." What are 
"ordinances "? symbols or rights. Then;[10] as (he means) it has not now. 
He shows that it had already given place, for (he says) it had at that 
time; so that now, although it stood, it is not.

    "And the worldly Sanctuary." He calls it "worldly," inasmuch as it was 
permitted to all to tread it, and in the same house the place was manifest 
where the priests stood, where the Jews, the Proselytes, the Grecians, the 
Nazarites. Since, therefore even gentiles were permitted to tread it, he 
calls it "worldly." For surely the Jews were not "the world."

    "For" (he says) "there was a tabernacle made; the first, which is 
called holy, wherein was. the Candlestick, and the Table, and the Shew-
bread." These things are symbols of the world. "'And after the second veil" 
(There was then not one veil [only], but there was a veil without also) 
"the tabernacle, which is called holy of holies." Observe how everywhere he 
calls it a tabernacle in regard of [God's] encamping there.[11]

    "Which had" (he says) "a golden Censer, and the ark of the Covenant 
overlaid round about with gold: wherein was the golden pot that held the 
manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant." All 
these things were venerable and conspicuous memorials of the Jewish 
obstinacy; "and the tables of the covenant" (for they brake them) "And the 
manna" (for they murmured; and therefore handing on the memory thereof to 
posterity, He commanded it to be laid up in a golden pot). "And Aaron's rod 
that budded. And over it, the Cherubim of glory." What is "the Cherubim of 
glory"? He either means "the glorious," or those which are under God.[1] 
"Shadowing the mercy-seat."

    But in another point of view also he extols these things in his 
discourse, in order to show that those which come after them are greater. 
"Of which" (he says) "we cannot now speak particularly." In these words he 
hints that these were not merely what was seen, but were a sort of 
enigmas.[2] "Of which" (he says) "we cannot now speak particularly," 
perhaps because they needed a long discourse.

    [2.] Ver. 6. "Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests 
went always into the first tabernacle accomplishing the service [of God]." 
That is, these things indeed were [there], but the Jews did not enjoy them: 
they saw them not. So that they were no more theirs than [ours] for whom 
they prophesied.[3]

    (Ver.7) "But into the second the High Priest went alone once[4] every 
year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors 
of the people."[5] Thou seest that the types were already laid down 
beforehand? for, lest they should say, "how is there [but] one sacrifice?" 
he shows that this was so from the beginning, since at least the more holy 
and the awful [sacrifice] was [but] one. And how did the High Priest offer 
once for all? Thus were they wont [to do] from the beginning, for then also 
(he says) "the High Priest" offered "once for all."

    And well said he, " not without blood." (Not indeed without blood, yet 
not this blood, for the business was not so great.) He signifies that there 
shall be a sacrifice, not consumed by fire, but rather distinguished by 
blood. For inasmuch as he called the Cross a sacrifice, though it had 
neither fire, nor logs, nor was offered many times, but had been offered in 
blood once for all; he shows that the ancient sacrifice also was of this 
kind, was offered "once for all" in blood.

    "Which he offers for himself;" again, "for himself; and for the errors 
of the people." He said not "sins"; but "errors," that, they might not be 
high-minded. For even if thou hast not sinned intentionally, yet 
unintentionally thou hast erred,[6] and from this no man is pure.

    And everywhere [he adds] the "for himself," showing that Christ is much 
greater. For if He be separated from our sins, how did He "offer for 
Himself"? Why then saidst thou these things (one says)? Because this is [a 
mark] of One that is superior.

    [3.] Thus far there is no speculation.[7] But from this point he 
philosophizes[8] and says, (ver. 8) "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that 
the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the 
first tabernacle was yet standing." For this cause (he says) have these 
things been thus "ordained," that we might learn that "the Holy of Holies," 
that is, Heaven, is as yet inaccessible. Let us not then think (he says) 
that because we do not enter them, they have no existence: inasmuch as 
neither did we enter the Most Holy [place].

    Ver. 9. "Which" (he says) "was established[9] as a figure for the time 
then present."[10] What does he mean by "the time present"? That before the 
coming of Christ: For after the coming of Christ, it is no longer a time 
present: For how [could it be], having arrived, and being ended?

    There is too something else which he indicates, when he says this, 
"which [was] a figure for the time then present," that is, became the Type. 
"In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him 
that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." Thou seest 
now what is [the meaning of] "The Law made nothing perfect," (Heb. vii. 
19,) and "If that first [covenant] had been faultless." (Heb. viii. 7.) 
How? "As pertaining to the conscience." For the sacrifices did not put 
away[12] the defilement from the soul, but still were concerned with the 
body: "after the law of a carnal commandment." (Heb. vii. 16.) For 
certainly they could not put away[13] adultery, nor murder, nor sacrilege. 
Seest thou? Thou hast eaten this, Thou hast not eaten that, which are 
matters of indifference. ["Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and 
divers washings." "Thou hast drunk this," he says: and yet nothing has been 
ordained concerning drink, but he said this, treating them as trifles.[14]

    Ver. 10. "And [in] divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on 
them until the time of reformation."[1] For this is the righteousness of 
the flesh. Here he depreciates the sacrifices, showing that they had no 
efficacy, and that they existed "till the time of reformation," that is, 
they waited for the time that reformeth all things.

    [4.] Ver. 11. "But Christ being come an High Priest of good things that 
are come[2] by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands." 
Here he means the flesh. And well did he say, "greater and more perfect," 
since God The Word and all the power of The Spirit dwells therein; "For God 
giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto Him]." (John iii. 34.) And "more 
perfect," as being both unblamable, and setting right greater things.

    "That is, not of this creation." See how [it was] "greater." For it 
would not have been "of the Spirit" (Matt. i. 20), if man had constructed 
it. Nor yet is it "of this creation"; that is, not of these created things, 
but spiritual, of[3] the Holy Ghost.

    Seest thou how he calls the body tabernacle and veil and heaven.[4] "By 
a greater and more perfect tabernacle. Through the veil, that is, His 
flesh." (Heb. x. 20.) And again, "into that within the veil." (Heb. vi. 
19.) And again, "entering into[5] the Holy of Holies, to appear before the 
face of God." (Heb. ix. 24.) Why then doth he this? According as one thing 
or a different one is signified. I mean for instance, the Heaven is a veil, 
for as a veil it walls off the Holy of Holies; the flesh [is a veil] hiding 
the Godhead;[6] and the tabernacle likewise holding the Godhead. Again, 
Heaven [is] a tabernacle: for the Priest is there within.

    "But Christ" (he says) "being come an High Priest ": he did not say, 
"become," but "being come," that is, having come for this very purpose, not 
having been successor to another. He did not come first and then become 
[High Priest], but came and became at the same time.[7] And he did not say 
"being come an High Priest" of things which are sacrificed, but "of good 
things that are come,"' as if his discourse had not power to put the whole 
before us.

    Ver. 12. "Neither by the blood," he says, "of goats and calves" (All 
things are changed) "but by His own Blood" (he says) "He entered in once 
for all[8] into the Holy Place." See thus he called Heaven. "Once for all" 
(he says) "He entered into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal 
redemption." And this [expression] "having obtained," was [expressive] of 
things very difficult, and that are beyond expectation, how by one entering 
in, He "obtained everlasting redemption."

    [5.] Next [comes] that which is calculated to persuade.

    Ver. 13, 14. "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of 
an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
flesh; how much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the Holy[9] 
Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead 
works, to serve the living God."

    For (he says) if "the blood of bulls" is able to purify the flesh, much 
rather shall the Blood of Christ wipe away the defilement of the soul. For 
that thou mayest not suppose when thou hearest [the word] "sanctifieth," 
that it is some great thing, he marks out[10] and shows the difference 
between each of these purifyings, and how the one of them is high and the 
other low. And says it is [so] with good reason, since that is "the blood 
of bulls," and this "the Blood of Christ."

    Nor was he content with the name, but he sets forth also the manner of 
the offering. "Who" (he says) "through the Holy[11] Spirit offered Himself 
without spot to God," that is, the victim was without blemish, pure from 
sins. For this is [the meaning of] "through the Holy Spirit," not through 
fire, nor through any other things.

    "Shall purge your conscience" (he says) "from dead works." And well 
said he "from dead works"; if any man touched a dead body, he was polluted; 
and here, if any man touch a "dead work," he is defiled through his 
conscience. "To serve" (he says) "the Living and true God." Here he 
declares that it is not [possible] while one has "dead works to serve the 
Living and true God," for they are both dead and false; and with good 
reason [he says this].

    [6.] Let no man then enter in here with "dead works." For if it was not 
fit that one should enter in who had touched a dead body, much more one 
that hath "dead works ": for this is the most grievous pollution. And "dead 
works" are, all which have not life, which breathe forth an ill odor. For 
as a dead body is useful to none of the senses, but is even annoying to 
those who come near it, so sin also at once strikes the reasoning 
faculty,[1] and does not allow the understanding itself to be calm, but 
disturbs and troubles it.

    And it is said too that a plague at its very commencement corrupts[2] 
the living bodies; such also is sin. It differs in nothing from a plague, 
not [indeed] corrupting the air first, and then the bodies, but darting at 
once into the soul. Seest thou not how persons affected with the plague, 
are inflamed: how they writhe about, how they are full of an ill scent, how 
disfigured are their countenances: how wholly unclean they are? Such are 
they also that sin, though they see it not. For, tell me, is not he who is 
possessed by the desire of riches or carnal lust, worse than any one that 
is in a fever? Is he not more unclean than all these, when he does and 
submits to all shameless things?

    [7.] For what is baser than a man who is in love with money? Whatever 
things women that are harlots or on the stage refuse not to do neither does 
he [refuse]. Rather it is likely that they would refuse [to do] a thing, 
rather than he. He even submits to do things fit for slaves, flattering 
those whom he ought not; again he is overbearing where he ought not to be, 
being inconsistent in every respect. He will sit by flattering wicked 
people, and oftentimes depraved old men, that are of much poorer and meaner 
condition than himself; and will he insolent and overbearing to others that 
are good and in all respects virtuous. Thou seest in both respects the 
baseness, the shamelessness: he is both humble beyond measure, and 
boastful.

    Harlots however stand in front of their house, and the charge against 
them is that they sell their body for money: yet, one may say, poverty and 
hunger compel them (although at the most this is no sufficient excuse: for 
they might gain a livelihood by work). But the covetous man stands, not 
before his house, but before the midst of the city, making over to the 
devil not his body but his soul; so that he [the devil] is in his company, 
and goes in unto him, as verily to a harlot: and having satisfied all his 
lusts departs; and all the city sees it, not two or three persons only.

    And this again is the peculiarity of harlots, that the), are his who 
gives the gold. Even if he be a slave or a gladiator,[3] or any person 
whatever, yet if he offers their hire, they receive him. But the free, even 
should they be more noble than all, they do not accept without the money. 
These men also do the same. They turn away right thoughts when they bring 
no money; but they associate with the abominable, and actually with those 
that fight with wild beasts,[4] for the sake of the gold, and associate 
with them shamelessly and destroy the beauty of the soul. For as those 
women are naturally of odious appearance[5] and black, and awkward and 
gross, and formless and ill-shaped, and in all respects disgusting, such do 
the souls of these men become, not able to conceal their deformity by their 
outward paintings.[6] For when the ill look[7] is extreme, whatever they 
may devise, they cannot succeed in their feigning.

    For that shamelessness makes harlots, hear the prophet saying, "Thou 
wert shameless towards all; thou hadst a harlot's countenance." (Jer. iii. 
3.) This may be said to the covetous also: "Thou wert shameless towards 
all," not towards these or those, but "towards all." How? Such an one 
respects neither father, nor son, nor wife, nor friend, nor brother, nor 
benefactor, nor absolutely any one. And why do I say friend, and brother, 
and father? He respects not God Himself, but all [we believe] seems to him 
a fable; and he laughs, intoxicated by his great lust, and not even 
admitting into his ears any of the things which might profit him.

    But O! their absurdity! and then what things they say! "Woe to thee, O 
Mammon, and to him that has thee not." At this I am torn to pieces with 
indignation: for woe to those who say these things, though they say them in 
jest. For tell me, has not God uttered such a threat as this, saying, "Ye 
cannot serve two masters "? (Matt. vi. 24.) And dost thou set at nought[8] 
the threat? Does not Paul say that it is Idolatry, and does he not call 
"the covetous man an Idolater "? (Eph. v. 5.)

    [8.] And thou standest laughing, raising a laugh after the manner of 
women of the world who are on the stage. This has overthrown, this has cast 
down everything. Our affairs,[9] both our business[10] and our politeness, 
are turned into laughing; there is nothing steady, nothing grave. I say not 
these things to men of the world only; but I know those whom I am hinting 
at. For the Church has been filled with laughter. Whatever clever thing one 
may say, immediately there is laughter among those present: and the 
marvelous thing is that many do not leave off laughing even during the very 
time of the prayer.

    Everywhere the devil leads the dance,[1] he has entered into all, is 
master of all. Christ is dishonored, is thrust aside; the Church is made no 
account of. Do ye not hear Paul saying, Let "filthiness and foolish talking 
and jesting" (Eph. v. 4) be put away from you? He places "jesting" along 
with "filthiness," and dost thou laugh? What is "foolish talking "? that 
which has nothing profitable. And dost thou, a solitary, laugh at all and 
relax thy countenance? thou that art crucified? thou that art a mourner? 
tell me, dost thou laugh? Where dost thou hear of Christ doing this? 
Nowhere: but that He was sad indeed oftentimes. For even when He looked on 
Jerusalem, He wept; and when He thought on the Traitor He was troubled; and 
when He was about to raise Lazarus, He wept; and dost thou laugh? If he who 
grieves not over the sins of others deserves to be accused, of what 
consideration will he be worthy, who is without sorrow for his own sins, 
yea laughs at them? This is the season of grief and tribulation, of 
bruising and bringing matter [the body], of conflicts and sweatings, and 
dost thou laugh? Dost not thou see how Sarah was rebuked? dost thou not 
hear Christ saying, "Woe to them that laugh, for they shall weep "? (Luke 
vi. 25 .) Thou chantest these things every day, for, tell me, what dost 
thou say? "I have laughed?" By no means; but what? "I labored in my 
groaning." (Ps. vi. 6.)

    But perchance there are some persons so dissolute and silly as even 
during this very rebuke to laugh, because forsooth we thus discourse about 
laughter. For indeed such is their derangement, such their madness, that it 
does not feel the rebuke.

    The Priest of God is Standing, offering up the prayer of all: and art 
thou laughing, having no fears? And while he is offering up the prayers in 
trembling for thee, dost thou despise all? Hearest thou not the Scripture 
saying, "Woe, ye despisers!" (cf. Acts xiii. 41 from Hab. i. 5); dost thou 
not shudder? dost thou not humble thyself? Even when thou enterest a royal 
palace, thou orderest thyself in dress, and look, and gait, and all other 
respects: and here where there is the true Palace, and things like those of 
heaven, dost thou laugh? Thou indeed, I know, seest [them] not, but hear 
thou that there are angels present everywhere, and in the house of God 
especially they stand by the King, and all is filled by those incorporeal 
Powers.

    This my discourse is addressed to women also, who in the presence of 
their husbands indeed do not dare readily to do this, and even if they do 
it, it is not at all times, but during a season of relaxation, but here 
they do it always. Tell me, O woman, dost thou cover thine head and laugh, 
sitting in the Church? Didst thou come in here to make confession of sins, 
to fall down before God, to entreat and to supplicate for the 
transgressions thou hast wretchedly committed, and dost thou do this with 
laughter? How then wilt thou be able to propitiate Him?

    [9.] But (one says) what harm is there in laughter? There is no harm in 
laughter; the harm is when it is beyond measure, and out of season. 
Laughter has been implanted in us, that when we see our friends after a 
long time, we may laugh; that when we see any persons downcast and fearful, 
we may relieve them by our smile; not that we should burst out violently[2] 
and be always laughing. Laughter has been implanted in our soul, that the 
soul may sometimes be refreshed, not that it may be quite relaxed. For 
carnal desire also is implanted in us, and yet it is not by any means 
necessary that because it is implanted in us, therefore we should use it, 
or use it immoderately: but we should hold it in subjection, and not say, 
Because it is implanted in us, let us use it.

    Serve God with tears, that thou mayest be able to wash away your sins. 
I know that many mock us,[3] saying, "Tears directly." Therefore it is a 
time for tears. I know also that they are disgusted, who say, "Let us eat 
and drink, for to-morrow we die." (1 Cor. xv. 32.) "Vanity of vanities, all 
is vanity." (Eccles. i. 2.) It is not I that say it, but he who had had the 
experience of all things saith thus: "I builded for me houses, I planted 
vineyards, I made me pools of water, [I had] men servants and women 
servants." (Eccles. ii. 4, 6, 7.) And what then after all these things? 
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." (Eccles. xii. 8.)

    Let us mourn therefore, beloved, let us mourn in order that we may 
laugh indeed, that we may rejoice indeed in the time of unmixed joy. For 
with this joy [here] grief is altogether mingled: and never is it possible 
to find it pure. But that is simple and undeceiving joy: it has nothing 
treacherous, nor any admixture. In that joy let us delight ourselves; that 
let us pursue after. And it is not possible to obtain this in any other 
way, than by choosing here not what is pleasant, but what is profitable, 
and being willing to be afflicted a little, and bearing all things with 
thanksgiving. For thus we shall be able to attain even to the Kingdom of 
Heaven, of which may we all be counted worthy, in Christ Jesus our Lord, 
with whom to the Father be glory, together with the Holy Ghost, now and for 
ever and world without end, Amen.


HOMILY XVI: HEBREWS ix. 15-18.

"And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means 
of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first 
Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of an eternal 
inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the 
death of the testator.[2] For a testament is of force after men are dead? 
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 
Whereupon[3] neither the first [testament] was dedicated[4] without blood."

    [1.] IT was probable that many of those who were more weakly would 
especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul 
accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration,[5] 
deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, "indeed, on 
this very account we ought to be of good courage." On what account? Because 
testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made 
them are not living, but dead. "And for this cause," he says, "He is the 
Mediator of the New Testament." A Testament is made towards the last day, 
[the day] of death.

    And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some 
disinherited. So in this case also: "I will that where I am," Christ says, 
"they also may be." (John xvii. 24.) And again of the disinherited, hear 
Him saying, "I pray not for" all, "but for them that believe on Me through 
their word." (John xvii. 20.) Again, a testament has relation both to the 
testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, 
and some to do, So also in this case. For after having made promises 
innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, "a new 
commandment I give unto you." (John xiii. 34.) Again, a testament ought to 
have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, "I am one that bear witness of 
Myself, and He that sent Me beareth witness of Me." (John viii. 18.) And 
again, "He shall testify of Me" (John xv. 26), speaking of the Comforter. 
The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, "Bear ye witness before God."[6]

    [2.] "And for this cause" (he says) "He is the Mediator of the New 
Testament." What is a "Mediator "? A mediator is not lord of the thing of 
which he is mediator, but the thing belongs to one person, and the mediator 
is another: as for instance, the mediator of a marriage is not the 
bridegroom, but one who aids him who is about to be married. So then also 
here: The Son became Mediator between the Father and us. The Father willed 
not to leave us this inheritance, but was wroth against us, and was 
displeased [with us] as being estranged [from Him]; He accordingly became 
Mediator between us and Him, and prevailed with Him.

    And what then? How did He become Mediator? He brought words from [Him] 
and brought [them to us], conveying over[7] what came from the Father to 
us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have 
died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament. By this is the 
Testament secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy. At 
the beginning indeed, He made His dispositions as a father for sons; but 
after we had become unworthy, there was no longer need of a testament, but 
of punishment.

    Why then (he would say) dost thou think upon the law? For it placed us 
in a condition of so great sin, that we could never have been saved, if our 
Lord had not died for us;[8] the law would not have had power, for it is 
weak.

    [3.] And he established this no longer from common custom only, but 
also from what happened under the old [Testament]: which especially 
influenced them. There was no one who died there: how then could that 
[Testament] be firm? In the same way (he says). How? For blood was there 
also, as there is blood here. And if it was not the blood of the Christ, do 
not be surprised; for it was a type. "Whereupon," he says, "neither was the 
first [Testament] dedicated without blood."

    What is "was dedicated "? was confirmed, was ratified. The word 
"whereupon"[1] means "for this cause." It was needful that the symbol of 
the Testament should be also that of death.

    For why (tell me) is the book of the testament sprinkled? (Ver. 19, 20) 
"For" (he says) "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people 
according to the law, he took the blood of calves, with water, and scarlet 
wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 
saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto 
you:" Tell me then why is the book of the testament sprinkled, and also the 
people, except on account of the precious blood, figured from the first? 
Why "with hyssop"? It is close and retentive? And why the "water"? It shows 
forth also the cleansing by water. And why the "wool"? this also [was 
used], that the blood might be retained. In this place blood and water show 
forth the same thing,[3] for baptism is His passion.[4]

    [4.] Ver. 21, 22. "Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle 
and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost[5] all things are by the 
law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission." Why 
the "almost "? why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a 
perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a 
very small degree. But in this case He says, "This is the blood[6] of the 
New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins." (Matt. 
xxvi. 28.)

    Where then is "the book"? He purified their minds. They themselves then 
were the books of the New Testament. But where are "the vessels of the 
ministry "? They are themselves. And where is" the tabernacle "? Again, 
they are; for "I will dwell in them," He says, "and walk in them." (2 Cor. 
vi. 16.)

    [5.] But they were not sprinkled with "scarlet wool," nor yet "with 
hyssop." Why was this? Because the cleansing was not bodily but spiritual, 
and the blood was spiritual. How? It flowed not from the body of irrational 
animals, but from the Body prepared by the Spirit. With this blood not 
Moses but Christ sprinkled us, through the word which was spoken; "This is 
the blood of the New Testament, for the remission of sins." This word, 
instead of hyssop, having been dipped in the blood, sprinkles all. And 
there indeed the body was cleansed outwardly, for the purifying was bodily; 
but here, since the purifying is spiritual, it entereth into the soul,-and 
cleanseth it, not being simply sprinkled over, but gushing forth in our 
souls. The initiated understand what is said. And in their case indeed one 
sprinkled just the surface; but he who was sprinkled washed it off again; 
for surely he did not go about continually stained with blood. But in the 
case of the soul it is not so, but the blood is mixed with its very 
substance, making it vigorous and pure, and leading it to the very 
unapproachable beauty.

    [6.] Henceforward then he shows that His death is the cause not only of 
confirmation, but also of purification. For inasmuch as death was thought 
to be an odious thing, and especially that of the cross, he says that it 
purified, even a precious purification, and in regard to greater things. 
Therefore the sacrifices preceded, because of this blood. Therefore the 
lambs; everything was for this cause.

    Ver. 23. "It was therefore necessary that the Patterns"[7] (he says) 
"of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the 
heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

    And how are they "patterns[8] of things in the heavens "? And what does 
he mean now by "the things in the heavens "? Is it Heaven? Or is it the 
Angels? None of these, but what is ours.[9] It follows then that our things 
are in Heaven, and heavenly things are ours, even though they be 
accomplished on earth; since although angels are on earth, yet they are 
called Heavenly. And the Cherubim appeared on earth, but yet are heavenly. 
And why do I say "appeared "? nay rather they dwell on earth, as indeed in 
Paradise: but this is nothing; for they are heavenly.[10] And, "Our 
conversation is in Heaven" (Phil. iii. 20), and yet we live here.

    "But these are the heavenly things," that is, the philosophy which 
exists amongst us; those who have been called thereto.[11]

     With better sacrifices than these." What is "better" is better than 
something [else] that is good. Therefore "the patterns also of things in 
the heavens" have become good; for not even the patterns were evil: else 
the things whereof they are patterns would also have been evil.

    [7.] If then we are heavenly, and have obtained such a sacrifice,[1] 
let us fear. Let us no longer continue on the earth; for even now it is 
possible for him that wishes it, not to be on the earth. For to be and not 
to be on the earth is the effect of moral disposition and choice. For 
instance; God is said to be in Heaven. Wherefore? not because He is 
confined by space,[2] far from it, nor as having left the earth destitute 
of His presence, but by His relation to and intimacy with[3] the Angels. If 
then we also are near to God, we are in Heaven. For what care I about 
Heaven when I see the Lord of Heaven, when I myself am become a Heaven? 
"For," He says, "We will come," I and the Father, "and will make our abode 
with him." (John xiv. 23.)

    Let us then make our soul a Heaven. The heaven is naturally bright; for 
not even in a storm does it become black, for it does not itself change its 
appearance, but the clouds run together and cover it. Heaven has the Sun; 
we also have the Sun of Righteousness. I said it is possible to become a 
Heaven; and I see that it is possible to become even better than Heaven. 
How? when we have the Lord of the Sun. Heaven is throughout pure and 
without spot; it changes not either in a storm or in the night. Neither let 
us then be so influenced either by tribulations or by "the wiles of the 
devil" (Eph. vi. 11), but let us continue spotless and pure. Heaven is high 
and far from the earth. Let us also effect this [as regards ourselves]; let 
us withdraw ourselves from the earth, and exalt ourselves to that height, 
and remove ourselves far from the earth. Heaven is higher than the rains 
and the storms, and is reached by none of them. This we also can do, if we 
will.

    It does appear to be, but is not really so affected. Neither then let 
us be affected, even if we appear to be so. For as in a storm, most men 
know not the beauty of [heaven,] but think that it is changed, while 
philosophers know that it is not affected at all, so with regard to 
ourselves also in afflictions; most men think that we are changed with 
them, and that affliction has touched our very heart, but philosophers know 
that it has not touched us.

    [8.] Let us then become heaven, let us mount up to that height, and so 
we shall see men differing nothing from ants. I do not speak of the poor 
only, nor the many, but even if there be