Primo enim ostendit, quod quantum ad illud quod mundatur, et quantum ad id quo mundatio efficitur, sit melior mundatio in Novo; First, he shows that both as to what is cleansed and as to that by which the cleansing is effected, there is a better cleansing in the New; secundo manifestat quod dixit, ibi non enim in manufacta. second, he clarifies what he has said, at for Jesus is not entered. 462. Dicit ergo necesse est ergo exemplaria caelestium, scilicet ipsum tabernaculum, quod, quoad nos, est exemplar, licet simpliciter sit exemplatum et figura illius, et ideo minoris dignitatis, quia figuratum nobilius est quam figura, sicut corpus quam umbra. His, scilicet sacrificiis, mundari, ipsa autem caelestia, scilicet Novum Testamentum, melioribus hostiis quam istis; melioribus quidem, quia alia mundabantur sanguine animalium, sed in Novo Testamento fit mundatio sanguine Christi. Semper autem meliora melioribus mundantur. Ista autem erant caelestia, id est, figura caelestium. Si ergo illa mundabantur sanguine, oportet ista caelestia mundari meliori sanguine. 462. He says, therefore, it is necessary therefore that the patterns of heavenly things, namely, the tabernacle itself, which, so far as we are concerned, is a pattern, although, absolutely speaking, it is the thing exemplified and its figure, and, therefore, of less value, because the thing exemplified is superior to the figure, as the body is superior to its shadow: should be cleansed with these, i.e., with the sacrifices. But the heavenly things themselves, namely, the New Testament, with better sacrifices than these: better, because the others were cleansings with the blood of animals, but in the New Testament the cleansing is accomplished with the blood of Christ. Now better things are always cleansed with better things. But they were heavenly things, that is, the figures of heavenly things. If therefore they were cleansed with blood, thes heavenly things ought to be cleansed with better blood. 463. Sed contra. In caelo nulla est immunditia. 463. But on the other hand, there is no uncleanness in heaven. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod caelestia intelliguntur secundum Glossam ea quae pertinent ad statum praesentis Ecclesiae, quae dicuntur caelestia. Item homines fideles gerunt imaginem caelestium, inquantum mente conversantur in caelis. I answer that according to a Gloss, by heavenly things are understood things which pertain to the state of the present Church, which are called heavenly. Furthermore, believing men bear the image of heavenly things, inasmuch as they mentally dwell in heaven. Vel aliter et melius, quod per caelestia intelligatur caelestis patria. Et loquitur hic Apostolus eo modo quo in Veteri Testamento dicebatur emundari tabernaculum, non quod haberet in se aliquam immunditiam, sed quia mundabantur quaedam irregularitates, quibus impediebantur accedere ad sanctuarium. Et dicuntur mundari caelestia, inquantum per sacramentum novae legis purgantur peccata, quae impediunt ab ingressu caelestium. Or, in another way and better: by heavenly things is understood the heavenly home. And the Apostle is speaking here in the way that the tabernacle was said to be cleansed in the Old Testament; not that it had any uncleanness in itself, but because certain irregularities were washed away, by which they were hindered from coming to the sanctuary. And heavenly things are said to be cleansed inasmuch as a sacrament of the new law cleanses sins, which hinder one from entering heaven. 464. Item dicit hostiis, in plurali. Contra: quia tantum est una hostia Christi. Infra X, 14: una enim oblatione consummavit in aeternum sanctificatos. 464. But he says, sacrifices, in the plural. Yet there is but one sacrifice of Christ: for by one oblation he has perfected for ever those who are sanctified (Heb 10:14). Respondeo. Licet una sit in se, tamen pluribus hostiis veteris legis figurabatur. I answer that although it is one in itself, it was prefigured by several sacrifices of the old law. Ex loco habetur, quod hostiae veteris legis erant bonae. Melius enim non dicitur, nisi respectu boni. This text also shows that the sacrifices of the old law were good, for something is called better in relation to something good. 465. Deinde cum dicit non enim in manufactis, etc., ostendit, quod caelestia mundantur melioribus hostiis. Pontifex enim expiabat sanctuarium, quod erat manufactum, sed Christus intravit non in manufacta sancta, quae erant quo ad nos exemplaria verorum, sed in ipsum caelum, quod non in se, sed quo ad nos expiavit, ut dictum est, sed non expiavit carnalibus hostiis, quia Christus non venit ad offerendum talia. Ps. XXXIX, v. 6: holocaustum et pro peccato non postulasti. Item: holocaustis non delectaberis. Item supra VII, 14: manifestum, quod de tribu Iuda ortus est Dominus, de qua nullus praesto fuit altario, sed introivit in ipsum caelum. Mc. ult.: Dominus quidem Iesus assumptus est in caelum. Act. I, 11: hic Iesus qui assumptus est a vobis in caelum. 465. Then when he says for Jesus is not entered into the holies, he shows that heavenly things are cleansed by better sacrifices. For the high priest expiated the sanctuary which was made with hands, but Christ has entered into the holies not made with hands, for they were not, so far as they were concerned, the patterns of the true: but into heaven itself, which he expiated not in itself but in regard to us, as has been said. But he did not expiate it with fleshly sacrifices because Christ did not come to offer such things: burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require (Ps 40:7); with burnt offerings you will not be delighted (Ps 51:18); for it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Judah: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests (Heb 7:14). But he entered into heaven itself: and the Lord Jesus was taken up to heaven (Mark 16:19); this Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come (Acts 1:11). 466. Sed quare? Ut appareat pro nobis vultui Dei. Et loquitur Apostolus alludendo ritui veteris legis, secundum quam pontifex qui intrabat sancta sanctorum, stabat coram propitiatorio ut oraret pro populo: ita et Christus intravit caelum, secundum quod homo, ut astaret Deo pro salute nostra. 466. But why? That he may appear now in the presence of God for us. Here the Apostle alludes to a rite of the old law according to which the high priest, who entered the holy of holies, stood before the mercy seat to pray for the people. Similarly, Christ entered into heaven to stand before God for our salvation. Sed ista differenter, quia sacerdos, impediente fumo qui ascendebat de thuribulo, non videbat sancta sanctorum, nec videbat aliquem vultum; sed Christus apparet vultui Dei, non quod sit ibi facies corporalis, nec aliqua nebula, sed cognitio manifesta. But not in the same way, because the high priest could not see the holy of holies or any face on account of the smoke ascending from the censer; but Christ appears before the face of God: not that a bodily face is there, or a cloud, but clear vision. 467. Sed numquid Christus existens in terra, non poterat apparere vultui Dei, cum Deus omnia videat? 467. But when Christ was on earth, could he not appear before the face of God, since God sees all things? Respondeo. Dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus loquens Deo dicit: mecum eras, et tecum non eram, quia scilicet Deus est in omnibus per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam, mali autem non sunt cum Deo per gratiam: ita dicitur Christus introisse ut appareat vultui Dei, quia, licet semper videret eum clara visione, ut perfecte beatus, tamen status viatoris inquantum huiusmodi non habet hoc, sed tantum status caelestis. Et ideo quando ascendit perfecte beatus in corpore et anima intravit, ut appareat vultui Dei, id est, intravit locum ubi Deus manifeste videtur. I answer that, as Augustine speaking of God says: you were with me, but I was not with you, namely, because God is in all things by his essence, power, and presence; but the wicked are not with God through grace. Thus, Christ is said to have entered to appear before the face of God, for although he always saw him clearly as one perfectly happy, yet the state of pilgrims, as such, does not confer this, but only the heavenly state. Therefore, when he ascended perfectly happy in body and soul he entered, to appear in the presence of God, i.e., he entered the place where God is seen clearly. Et hoc pro nobis. Ad hoc enim ascendit ut pararet nobis viam. Io. XIV, 2 s.: vado parare vobis locum. Iterum autem veniam et assumam vos ad meipsum. Mich. II, 13: ascendit pandens iter ante vos. Corpus enim debet sequi caput suum. Matth. XXIV, 28: ubicumque fuerit corpus, ibi congregabuntur et aquilae. And this for us. For he entered heaven to prepare the way for us: I go to prepare a place for you. But I will come again and will take you to myself (John 14:3); he shall go up that shall open the way before them (Mic 2:13). For the body should follow the head: where the body is, there the eagles shall be gathered (Matt 24:28). 468. Deinde cum dicit neque ut saepe, ostendit quod mundatio Novi Testamenti est perfectior quam Veteris. Hoc autem ostendit per duo. Primo per hoc quod illa reiterabatur quolibet anno, haec autem tantum semel. Item quantum ad effectum, quia illa non poterat auferre peccata, quod ista potest. 468. Then when he says nor yet that he should offer, he shows that the cleansing effected by the New Testament is more complete than that of the Old. But he shows this in two ways: first, by the fact that the former were repeated every day, but this only once. Likewise, as to its effects, because the former could not remove sin, but this one can. Circa hoc ergo duo facit. In regard to this he does two things. Primo enim ostendit primum; First, he describes the first; secundo secundum, ibi umbram habens. second, the second, at for the law, having a shadow (Heb 10:1). Sciendum est autem quod Apostolus supra dixerat tria de Christo. Primo scilicet quod est pontifex; secundo quae sit dignitas loci quem intravit; tertio quomodo introivit, scilicet cum sanguine; ista autem tria iam declaravit: hic declarat quando intravit, quia sicut pontifex legalis semel in anno, Christus semel tantum. Et hoc erat quartum. But it should be noted that above, the Apostle had said three things about Christ: first, that he is a high priest; second, what is the dignity of the place he entered; third, how he entered, namely, with blood. But since he has already explained these three things, he now explains how he entered because, as the high priest entered once a year, so Christ entered only once. Unde circa hoc tria facit. In regard to this he does three things. Primo enim ostendit quid fiebat in Veteri Testamento; First, he shows what was accomplished in the Old Testament; secundo quod esset inconveniens istud fieri in Novo Testamento, ibi alioquin; second, that it would not be fitting for the same to be accomplished in the New Testament, at for then he ought; tertio ostendit quid fiat in Novo Testamento, ibi nunc autem semel. third, he shows what is accomplished in the New Testament, at but now once, at the end of ages. 469. In Veteri enim Testamento pontifex, licet non intraret nisi tantum semel in anno, tamen quolibet anno ex praecepto legis oportebat ipsum intrare cum sanguine alieno, sicut dicitur Lev. XVI, 14. Christus autem intravit non in manu facta, et cetera. Nec ut saepe offerat seipsum, quemadmodum pontifex intrabat in sancta per singulos annos cum sanguine alieno. 469. For in the Old Testament, although the high priest could not enter lawfully but once a year, yet according to the law he had to enter it every year with the blood of others, as it says in Leviticus (Lev 16). But Christ has not entered into the place made with hands . . . nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holies every year with the blood of others. 470. Deinde cum dicit alioquin oportebat, etc., probat quod esset inconveniens istud fieri in Novo Testamento, quia sequeretur maximum inconveniens, quia cum Christus intraret per proprium sanguinem, sequeretur quod oportuisset eum frequenter pati ab origine mundi. Non sic autem est de Veteri hostia, quia illa offerebatur pro peccatis filiorum Israel. Ille autem populus incepit spiritualiter quando data fuit lex, et ideo non oportet eam offerri ab origine mundi. Christus autem seipsum obtulit pro peccatis totius mundi, quia ipse propitiatio nostra factus est pro peccatis nostris et totius mundi, I Io. II, 2. Et sic, si saepe offerretur, oportuisset ipsum nasci, et pati ab origine mundi, quod fuisset maximum inconveniens. 470. Then when he says, for then he ought to have suffered, he proves that it would have been unbecoming to do the same thing in the New Testament because the greatest impropriety would follow, because since Christ entered with his blood, it would follow that he would have to have suffered often from the beginning of the world. For this is not the case in the sacrifices of the Old Testament because they were offered for the sins of the children of Israel. But that people began when the law was given; therefore, it was not fitting that it be offered from the beginning of the world. But Christ offered himself for the sins of the whole world, because he was made the propitiation for our sins and for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Therefore, if he were offered frequently, it would have been necessary for him to have been born and to suffer from the beginning of the world; but this would have been most unbecoming. Sed contra Apoc. XIII, 8: Agnus, qui occisus est ab origine mundi. Respondeo. Verum est occisus, id est, praefiguratus ab origine mundi occidi, sicut in occisione Abel. But against this view is Revelation, which states, the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world (Rev 13:8). I answer that it is true that the Lamb was slain, that is, the slaying was prefigured from the beginning of the world, as in the slaying of Abel. 471. Deinde cum dicit nunc autem, ostendit quid fiat in Novo, 471. Then when he says but now once, he shows what is done in the New. et circa hoc facit duo. In regard to this he does two things. Primo quare non iteratur hostia in Novo Testamento, dat duas causas; First, he gives two reasons why the sacrifice is not repeated in the New Testament; secundo explicat eas, ibi et quemadmodum, et cetera. second, he explains them, at and as it is appointed. 472. Dicit ergo nunc ergo Christus semel apparuit in consummatione saeculorum. I Cor. X, 11: nos sumus in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt. 472. He says, therefore: but now once, at the end of the ages, he has appeared: we are the ones upon whom the ends of the ages are come (1 Cor 10:11). Et hoc dicit propter numerum annorum, quia iam sunt plus quam mille anni ex quo hoc dixit. Aetates enim mundi accipiuntur secundum aetates hominis, quae principaliter distinguuntur secundum statum proficiendi, non secundum numerum annorum. Ita prima aetas fuit ante diluvium, in qua nec lex scripta, nec punitio, sicut infantia. Alia a Noe usque ad Abraham, et sic de aliis, ita quod ultima aetas est status praesens, post quem non est alius status salutis, sicut nec post senium. Sicut autem in aliis aetatibus hominis est numerus annorum determinatus, non autem in senio, quia senium incipit a sexagesimo anno, et aliqui vivunt per centum et viginti annos, ita non est determinatum, quantum iste status mundi debeat durare, tamen est consummatio saeculorum, quia non restat alius ad salutem. And he says this on account of the number of years, because already more than a thousand years had passed since he said this. For the ages of the world are taken according to the ages of men, which are chiefly distinguished according to the state of progress and not according to the number of years. The first age was before the deluge, in which there was no written law or punishment, as in infancy. Another was from Noah to Abraham; and so on for the ages, so that the final age is the present one, after which there is no other state of salvation, just as there is no other age after old age. But just as in the other ages of men there is a definite number of years, but not in old age, which begins at sixty, and some live for a hundred and twenty years, so it has not been determined how long this state of the world will continue. Yet it is the end of the ages, because no other age remains for salvation. In isto autem Christus semel apparuit, cuius ponit duas rationes, quia scilicet semel tantum offerebatur. Prima est, quia in Veteri Testamento non auferebantur peccata, quod fit per hostiam Christi. Alia est, quia sacerdos legalis non offerebat proprium sanguinem, sicut Christus. Unde dicit, quod apparuit ad destitutionem peccati per hostiam, scilicet sui ipsius, et ideo illa reiteratur, non autem ista. I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. But Christ appeared once during that age, and he gives two reasons why he was offered only once: the first is because in the Old Testament sins were not taken away, but this was accomplished by the offering of Christ. The second is because the high priest of the law did not offer his own blood as Christ did. Hence, he says, he has appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of himself. Therefore, the former are repeated, but not this one: Christ died once for our sins (1 Pet 3:8). 473. Deinde cum dicit et quemadmodum, explicat istas rationes. 473. Then when he says and as it is appointed, he explains the two reasons. Et primo secundam, First, the second one;