He begins to say how there were symbols in the law and the types of things in the era of grace and how it was possible to see clearly the things of the new covenant glimpsed beforehand in the things of the old covenant, even as he shows in comparison what sort of preeminence the new covenant things have over those of the old covenant. He makes this the beginning of the exposition of his teaching. Then he says that also the first testament had bounds and commandments of ritual that were obligated to be offered to God. The phrase regulations for worship refers to the commandments concerning these things.

And an earthly sanctuary. Most likely he calls the temple the sanctuary because the liturgy is rendered in it to God, or also he calls the tabernacle the sanctuary, since they had this in service before the temple. For in a similar manner he called the tabernacle the temple, inasmuch as God happened to be present in it, while the later temple was built by Solomon. And Samuel sat in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was,^[1] although the temple had not yet been built by Solomon. And just as when God commanded Moses to erect the tabernacle as a symbol of the world according to a certain plan, God ordered him to make an enclosure out of curtains that would divide the middle from the rest,^[2] so also the temple was made according to the same plan.

I think that the phrase also the first one had regulations for worship^[1] refers to the old covenant and not the tabernacle. For he did not compare the tabernacle with the new covenant but the whole old covenant with the new one, and he showed the superiority of the latter over the whole former covenant. For behold, he says, the days are coming and I will effect a new covenant on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I established for their fathers,^[2] and again, When he says ‘new’ he has already made the first old.^[3] And he adds these things and says, Now the first one had. . . . Therefore it is clear that the discussion is still concerning the covenant. For since he struck it down in comparison with the new covenant, in order that no one may say then that it was rejected as worthless, he anticipates the argument and says that even that covenant had regulations for worship, laws and order and fitting conformity with the service of God. And having spoken broadly of the whole law, that it had regulations of worship, he also proceeds part by part, beginning with the tent. It had, he says, the earthly sanctuary. Then after the earthly sanctuary (which was accessible to all), he had again another tabernacle placed in front of the yet more mystical and holier tabernacle. And in the more outward tabernacle there was the lampstand and the showbread, which tabernacle is not called the earthly sanctuary, as is the tabernacle in front of all the other tabernacles, but it is simply called the Holy Place.

The first part of the tabernacle was that portion near the Holy of Holies, since it technically was not the first but the middle part of the tabernacle. For the first part of the tabernacle was where the bronze altar was for sacrifices and whole burnt offerings, while the second part was that of which he says, In it was the lampstand and the showbread on the table, and the third part was the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant.

Since the Word knows the tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation—I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible—shall we pass the first veil and, stepping beyond the realm of sense, shall we look into the holy place, the intellectual and celestial creation?

This is the term he used of the tabernacle, which represents a type of the whole world: it is divided into two down the middle by a veil, one part of it called Holy, the other Holy of Holies. While the Holy represented the way of life on earth, the Holy of Holies represented life in heaven. The veil itself performed the function of the firmament. . . . Accordingly, just as he separates what is below from what is above, so the veil stretched out in the middle of the tabernacle divided the Holy of Holies from the Holy.

Now even the first covenant had in it some rules in addition to regulations of the ministry of worship, because sin exacted the punishment of the sword. However, this sanctification—this law that sanctifies us by means of water—does not pass away like those rules; in fact, it remains forever hereafter, because Jesus rejected that law for a new covenant, which was earlier proclaimed through Jeremiah.

Then Paul turns his attention to the temporary tabernacle and to all the things which were in it in order to prove and reveal that they also have passed away, together with the abrogation of their law. It could not happen that they remained after the cessation of the law, because they also were shadows and symbols of this true ministry, which will last. Therefore, he begins again to deprive of its authority the service of the ministry held in the temporary tabernacle, of which the priests were proud in their overconfidence, by saying, The first tent was prepared so, because in it were the lampstand and the table and the other things. In the inner tent, called the Holy of Holies, under its veil, there was placed one golden altar of incense and the ark covered on all sides with gold, together with the other things. However, is there now any need to describe these objects in detail, one by one? In fact, even though each of these things had been set in their proper place for the service of religious ministry, they were nonetheless symbolic shadows of this heavenly ministry; since the truth has now come, it is not necessary anymore that we deal with shadows.

Each one of us can build a tabernacle for God in himself. For if, as some before us have said, this tabernacle represents a figure of the whole world, and if each individual can have an image of the world in oneself, why should not each individual be able to fulfill the form of the tabernacle in oneself? . . . For that part within you which is most valuable of all can act the part of priest—the part which some call the first principle of the heart, others the rational sense or the substance of the mind or whatever other name one wishes to give to that part of us which makes us capable of receiving God.

If you wish to achieve true knowledge of Scripture, you must hurry to achieve unshakable humility of heart. This is what will lead you not to the knowledge that puffs a person up^[1] but to the love which illuminates through the achievement of love. It is impossible for the unclean of heart to acquire the gift of spiritual knowledge. Therefore be very careful that your zeal for scriptural reading does not, because of empty pretentiousness, prove to be a cause of perdition instead of being for you the source of knowledgeable light and of the endless glory promised to the one enlightened by knowledge.

Then, having banished all worldly concerns and thoughts, strive in every way to devote yourself constantly to the sacred reading, so that continuous meditation will seep into your soul and, as it were, will shape it to its image. Somehow it will form that ark of the Scriptures and will contain the two stone tablets, that is, the perpetual strength of the two Testaments. There will be the golden urn that is a pure and unstained memory and which will preserve firmly within itself the everlasting manna, that is, the eternal, heavenly sweetness of spiritual meanings and of that bread which belongs to the angels. The branch of Aaron is the saving standard of our exalted and true high priest, Jesus Christ. It leafs out forever in the greenness of undying memory. This is the branch that was cut from the root of Jesse and which after death comes more truly alive.

Now all of these things are covered over by the two cherubim, that is, by the plentitude of historical and spiritual lore. Cherubim means knowledge in abundance. They provide an everlasting protection for that which appeases God, namely, the calm of your heart, and they will cast a shadow of protection against all the attacks of malignant spirits.

And thus your soul will not only become the ark of God’s testament, but it will be carried forward into a priestly realm. And, by its unfailing love of purity, its concentration upon the disciplines of the spirit, it will implement the priestly command imposed by the lawgiver, He will not emerge from the holy place, lest he profane the sanctuary of God.^[2] That is, he will not depart from his own heart, where the Lord promised to live continuously when he said, I will live and walk among them.

The brothers assembled at evening as was their custom. For in all seasons, when they had finished their modest meal, it was their habit to assemble and for each one to pronounce what he knew of the holy Scriptures. . . . The brother who had returned from the north spoke and said, Allow me, my brothers, to tell you the saying and its commentary which I heard from a righteous man. It was while returning south that I passed by Tabennesi and was put up there at Abba Pachomius’s monastery. Toward evening Pachomius seated himself and spoke the Word of God to the brothers gathered around him. He spoke of the tabernacle and of the Holy of Holies, applying them to two peoples. The first people is the outer tabernacle, whose service consisted in sacrifices and visible loaves; the Holy of Holies, on the other hand, is the Gentiles’ calling, which, according to the gospel, is the fulfillment of the law. And all the objects that are found in this inner tabernacle are filled with glory. For instead of animal sacrifices, there is the altar of incense; instead of the table, the ark containing the spiritual loaves, that is, the fullness of the law and all that is to be found there; and instead of the light of the lamp, the mercy seat where God appears as a consuming fire,^[1] that is, God the Word made human who became remission for us by appearing in the flesh. The words mercy seat mean indeed the place of the remission of sins.

When the brother had finished his exposition of that saying and its commentary, he said, I am confident that God will forgive me many of my sins because of the remembrance of that just man whose name I just pronounced here before you. All the brothers uttered their admiration for the great knowledge that was in our father Pachomius, until it was time for each of them to return with joy to his cell.

Now the golden urn in the ark holding the manna is the holy soul in Christ that contains in itself all the fullness of divinity.^[1] Aaron’s rod that budded although cut off from the tree is the invincible power of his priesthood, concerning which the prophet says, Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.^[2] Even after it seemed for the time being to have been cut off through death, in the dawn of the resurrection morn it was found to have blossomed again all the more vigorously, and it became clear that it would remain forever imperishable and unfading. For Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.^[3] The tablets of the covenant in the ark indicate that all knowledge of the Father’s secrets and all power of judgment are in Christ. For on the tablets of the covenant were inscribed the faith of the eternal divinity which creates and rules the world, and the commandments through which one ought to serve God, and the discerning judgment with which God rightly condemns those who hate God and with due mercy rewards those who love him. This, then, is the testimony that the Lord gave Moses to be put into the ark. It indicated the truth that we ought to confess in Christ about his flesh, his son, and his word. It showed that after the passion of death the same flesh would be glorified in the resurrection and lifted up in the eternal dignity of a king and priest. It taught that he alone is privy to the Father’s secrets, just as truly as he is the judge of all worlds, of one and the same majesty with the Father.

The ark can also be taken figuratively as the holy church that is constructed from incorruptible wood, that is, from holy souls. Extended throughout the four quarters of the world, with faith in the holy gospel, the church expects from God the eternal crown of life.^[1] It contains in itself the tables of the covenant by continual meditation on the law of God. It also contains the golden urn with the manna as a guarantee of the Lord’s incarnation, and Aaron’s rod that budded as a sharing in the kingship and priesthood of the Lord; for the apostle Peter says, But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood.^[2] Up above, it has the propitiatory to remind it that every good thing it possesses it has received from the generosity of divine grace. And on the propitiatory it has the glorious cherubim, signifying either the angelic assistance with which it is always aided by a gracious God or the Testaments in which it is taught how it ought to live and in what manner it ought to seek the aid of divine propitiation so that it may live properly. Now the cherubim were set over the propitiatory in this way, just as the city of Christ, that is, the holy church, is said to have been built upon the mountain,^[3] that is, upon Christ himself; not that his city can be higher than he but because it derives support from his assistance. The ark has cherubim over the propitiatory because both the angelic ministries and the divine eloquences surely give aid to the church insofar as they themselves stand firm upon the foundation of the highest truth.

Above the ark there was, so to speak, a certain golden, rectangular table, which was called seat of propitiation, signifying Christ, who is called our propitiation and redemption.^[1] . . . In Exodus, in the passages concerning these things he says that the high priest enters the Holy of Holies twice during the day, as he sacrifices. For it is written as follows: And Aaron will burn an offering of pleasant mixture of incense on it—that is, on top of the golden altar which was in the Holy of Holies—early in the morning. Whenever he trims the lamps, he will burn incense on it, and whenever he lights the lamps in the evening, he will offer a perpetual burning of incense.^[2] How then does the blessed apostle say, the high priest alone enters and that but once a year? And we say that he enters only once a year with blood, as he says in the same passage of Exodus, making sacrifice twice that day. For also he says, Not without taking blood,^[3] that is, with blood, in order that it might be so. For once a year the high priest alone enters with blood, not with the fragrant offering of incense.

Figuratively, the curtain in the temple represents the same curtain that the apostle declares openly to the Hebrews, in the place where he also explains properly, according to the allegorical sense, the reason that the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. This curtain is interpreted as heaven.^[1] And the priests entered into the first tabernacle with sacrifices daily throughout the year, which further illustrates the circumstances of this life, in which the saints who serve the Lord as true priests of God and of his Christ ceaselessly atone for the daily errors of their frailty, without which they are by no means able to exist in this life through the daily sacrifices of good works and the daily libations of their own tears. But the apostle understands the high priest who went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of victims once a year to be the great high priest himself, of whom it was said, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.^[2] He who as both priest and victim had offered himself through his own blood once for our sins entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.^[3]

And Paul well said, not without taking blood. . . . 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, offered once for all^[1] in blood.

This is a symbol for the present age, the apostle says. What does he mean by the present? That time before the coming of Christ, for, after the coming of Christ, it is no longer a present age. How could it be, having arrived and being ended? There is something else as well that he indicates when he says, which is symbolic for the present age, that is, became the type. Gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper. You see now what is the meaning of The law made nothing perfect,^[1] and If that first covenant had been faultless.^[2] How? As pertaining to the conscience. For the sacrifices did not put away the defilement from the soul but still were concerned with the body: after the law of a carnal commandment.^[3]

We are being taught through figures, he is saying, that the law bears of this life and is appropriate for those who still have a moral nature. . . . He also clearly taught us in these words that he does not reject the law as a whole—only the regulations about eating and drinking, menstruation, leprosy, childbirth and periods; they washed themselves and purified themselves with sprinkling, but none of this could make the conscience pure. Now none of these was imposed without reason but to meet some need, specifying which is not relevant at the present time. They were all temporary, however, looking forward to the time of perfection.

We indeed who are of the church rightly receive Moses and read his writings, believing that he is a prophet who wrote down the future mysteries which God revealed to him in symbols, figures and allegorical forms, which we teach were fulfilled in their own time. But whoever does not receive such an understanding in him, whether one of the Jews or even one of us, certainly cannot teach that he is a prophet. For how will he prove he is a prophet whose writings he asserts to be common, containing no knowledge of the future or anything of a hidden mystery? Whoever thinks thus the divine word censures, saying, Do you understand what you are reading?^[1]

Therefore, the law and all the things that are in the law are, according to the opinion of the apostle, imposed until the time of reformation. . . . Those whose craft is to make tokens from copper and to pour statues, before they produce a true work of copper or of silver or of gold, must first form figures from clay to the likeness of the figure image. (The model is necessary only until the work that is principal is completed, for when that work for which that image was made of clay is completed, its use is no longer sought.) [Thus we] understand also something like this in these things which were written or done in a type and in a figure of the future in the law and prophets. For the artist and creator of all himself came and transformed the law which has but a shadow of the good things to come to the true form of these realities.^[2] But lest perhaps the things we say appear difficult for you to be able to prove, examine them one by one.

First, there was Jerusalem, that great, royal city, where the most renowned temple had been constructed for God. But after that, one who was the true temple of God came and said about the temple of his body, Destroy this temple,^[3] and began to open the mysteries of the heavenly Jerusalem.^[4] This earthly place was destroyed, and the heavenly became visible, and in the temple stone did not remain upon stone^[5] from the time when the flesh of Christ was made the true temple of God. First there was a high priest who purified the people by the blood of bulls and goats;^[6] but when the true high priest who sanctifies believers through his own blood^[7] came, that first high priest existed no more, and neither was any place left for him. First there was the altar, and sacrifices were being celebrated; but when the true Lamb came who gave himself up as an offering to God,^[8] all these other, as it were, temporary institutions ceased.

Therefore, does it not seem to you that, according to the figure set forth above, there were some models made from clay, as it were, through which true images were represented? Finally, for this reason, the divine dispensation provided that the city and the temple and all those as well be overthrown, lest he who is perhaps still a child and feeding on milk of the faith^[9] be enraptured by the view itself of the diverse forms, if he should see them standing and be astonished and amazed during the ritual of sacrifices and during the order of the services. But God, watching out for our weakness and desiring his church to be multiplied, made all these to be overthrown and taken away completely, so that without any hesitation, when those ceased, we might believe these to be true for which the type was contained in advance in them.

All these things, as I have said, were performed according to rules by infirm priests up to the time when God made a correction. From that time Christ came as a high priest not of sacrifices but of good things. And he entered the tent—not a small one made with hands but a huge and perfect one, which is not the product of human work—that is, not of this creation, because it was made out of nothing, unlike that tent which was erected with the spoils of the Egyptians.

Here he referred to human nature, which Christ the Lord assumed. It was not made in accordance with the law of marriage: the all-holy Spirit was responsible for the tabernacle.

The tent built under Moses was to signify servitude [to the law]. Therefore, the more perfect tent is the dwelling of grace, the body of Christ whose head is Christ himself.

It ought to be observed that the priest uses certain clothes while he is in the ministry of sacrifices and other clothes when he goes out to the people. Paul, the wisest of the high priests and the most knowledgeable of the priests, used to do this. When he was in the assembly of the perfect or, as it were, placed in the Holy of Holies,^[1] having put on the robe of perfection, he used to say, Among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God. . . . None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.^[2] But nevertheless, after all these things, going out to the people,^[3] he changes his robe and puts on another one, greatly inferior to that one. And what does he say? I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.^[4] You see, therefore, how this most learned priest, when he is among the perfect ones as in the Holy of Holies, uses one robe of doctrine. But when he goes out to those who are not capable, he changes the robe of the word and teaches lesser things. And he gives to some milk to drink as children,^[5] to others he gives solid food, of course, for those who, insofar as they are able, have their faculties trained to distinguish good from evil.^[6] Thus, Paul knew how to change robes and to use one with the people, another in the ministry of the sanctuary.

But the high priest of high priests, and the priest of priests, is our Lord and Savior, about whom the apostle said, He is a high priest of the good things that have come. Hear how first he did these things and so left them for his disciples to imitate. The Gospel refers to this, saying, In parables he spoke to the crowds, and without parables he did not speak to them. But separately he explained them to his disciples.^[7] You see how he taught that the high priest ought to use certain garments when he went out to the crowds and others when he ministered to the experienced and perfect in the sanctuary. So we must choose and do, lest Jesus find us so unprepared and bound to the cares of the world that he speaks to us as to the crowds in parables, that, seeing, we may not see, and, hearing, we may not hear.^[8] Rather, let us be worthy to be found among those to whom he says, To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.^[9]

Well did he say, greater and more perfect tent, since God the Word and all the power of the Spirit dwells therein, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit.^[1] More perfect, as being both without blame 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, if humankind had constructed it. Nor yet is it of this creation, that is, not of these created things, but spiritual, of the Holy Spirit.

See how he calls the body tent and curtain and heaven: Through the greater and more perfect tent. Through the curtain, that is, through his flesh.^[2] And again, into the inner shrine behind the curtain.^[3] And again, entering into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God. Why then does he say this? In accordance with whether one thing or another is signified. I mean, for instance, the heaven is a curtain, for as a curtain it walls off the Holy of Holies; the flesh is a curtain hiding the Godhead; and the tent likewise holds the Godhead. Again, heaven is a tent, for the priest is there within.

The Jews said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’^[1] They answered as they understood. But lest we too should perceive our Lord’s spiritual word in a carnal way, the Evangelist subsequently explained what temple it was of which he was speaking. . . . This number forty-six of years is most apt for the perfecting of our Lord’s physical body. Writers of natural history tell us that the form of the human body is completed within this number of days. During the first six days after conception it has a likeness to milk; during the following nine days it is changed into blood; next, in twelve days it becomes solid; during the remaining eighteen days it is formed into the perfect features of all its members; and after this, during the time remaining until birth, it increases in size. Six plus nine plus twelve plus eighteen make forty-five. If to this we add one, that is the day on which the body, divided into its separate members, begins to grow. We find the same number of days in the building up of our Lord’s body as there were years in the construction of the temple.

And because that temple made by human hands^[2] prefigured our Lord’s most sacred body, which he took from the Virgin, and in like manner pointed to his body which is the church,^[3] and to the body and soul of each one of the faithful, as we find in quite a few places in the Scriptures.^[4]

Our Lord did not enter yearly like their high priest. After his coming he entered only once, not into the shrine which ceases, like their priesthood, but into the Holy of Holies of eternity, and he made a propitiation through his blood for all nations.

Since he deemed it worthy to be the head of humanity, the apostle says that the things accomplished by us were accomplished by him.

This is what the letter of the law explains to us, so that, collecting seeds of mysteries from them, we may use them as steps to climb from the lowly to a lofty place, from earthly to heavenly things. Therefore, my hearer, climb up now, if you can, and mount above earthly senses by the contemplation of your mind and by the discernment of your heart. Forget for a while earthly concerns; climb above the clouds and above heaven itself by the tread of your mind. Seek there the tabernacle of God where Jesus has entered.

For, he says, if the blood of bulls is able to purify the flesh, much more shall the blood of Christ wipe away the defilement of the soul. Because you may not suppose when you hear the word sanctifies that it is some great thing, he marks out and shows the difference between each of these purifications and how the one of them is high and the other low. And he says it is so with good reason, since that is the blood of bulls and this the blood of Christ.

We ought to examine not merely one single form of self-control in sexual matters but the other objects which our soul self-indulgently desires, not content with bare necessities but making a fuss about luxury. Self-control means indifference to money, comfort and property, a mind above spectacles, control of the tongue, mastery of evil thoughts. It actually happened that some angels suffered a failure of self-control, were overpowered by sexual desire and fell from heaven to earth.^[1] Valentinus in his letter to Agathopus says, Jesus showed his self-control in all that he endured. He lived in the practice of Godhead. He ate and drank in a way individual to himself without excreting his food. Such was his power of self-control that the food was not corrupted within him, since he was not subject to corruption. So we embrace self-control out of the love we bear the Lord and out of its honorable status, consecrating the temple of the Spirit.^[2] It is honorable to emasculate oneself of all desire for the sake of the kingdom of heaven^[3] and to purify the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Shall purify your conscience, the apostle says, from dead works. And well said he from dead works; if any man touched a dead body, he was polluted. And here also, if any touch a dead work, those ones are defiled through their conscience. . . . Here the apostle declares that it is not possible while one has dead works to serve the living God, for they are both dead and false.

How did he become mediator? He brought words from God and brought them to us, conveying what came from the Father and adding his own death. We had offended; we ought to have died. He died for us and made us worthy of the covenant. By this is the covenant secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy.

Inasmuch as the apostle says to the Hebrews, A will takes effect only at the death of the one who made it, he therefore asserts that, with Christ’s death for us, the new covenant has become valid. Its likeness was the old covenant, in which the death of the testator was prefigured in the sacrificial victim. Therefore, if one should ask how it is that we, in the words of the same apostle, are children and heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ,^[1] since of course the inheritance is made valid by the death of the deceased and since an inheritance cannot be understood in any other way, the answer is this: he himself having in fact died, we have become heirs because we were also called his sons. The sons of the bridegroom, he says, do not fast while the bridegroom is with them.^[2] Therefore we are called his heirs, for he has left the peace of the Church, a peace which we possess in this life, in our possession through faith in the divine plan of salvation revealed in time.

It was probable that many of those who were weaker would especially distrust the promises of Christ because he had died. Paul, accordingly, out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, 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 covenants are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living but dead. Therefore, he says, he is the mediator of a new covenant. A covenant is made toward the last day, the day of death.

And a covenant is of this character: it makes some heirs and some disinherited. So in this case also. I desire that they also, Christ says, may be with me where I am.^[1] And again of the disinherited, hear him saying, I do not pray for all, but for those who believe in me through their word.^[2] Again, a covenant 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 to you.^[3] Again, a covenant ought to have witnesses. Hear him again saying, I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.^[4] And again, he will bear witness to me,^[5] speaking of the Spirit. The twelve apostles too he sent, saying, Bear witness before God.

Since the divine nature is immortal, through the blood of the victims he realized the type of death and confirmed the covenant. Since God the Word became man and took a mortal body, there was no longer need of brute beasts as offerings; instead, he confirmed the new covenant with his own blood, the type corresponding to the shadow and the reality to the body. The water was a type of baptism, the blood of brute beasts the saving blood, the heat of the hyssop the grace of the divine Spirit, the scarlet wool the new garment, the piece of cedar (being a wood that does not rot) the impassible divinity, the ashes of a heifer the suffering of humanity.

When every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.’ Tell me then, why is the book of the covenant 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, for baptism is his passion. And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Why the almost? Why did he qualify it? Because those ordinances were not a perfect purification or a perfect forgiveness of sins, but [they were] half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case he says, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.^[1]

Where then is the book? He purified their minds. They themselves then were the books of the new covenant. But where are the vessels used in worship? They are themselves. And where is the tabernacle? Again, they are; for I will live in them, he says, and move among them.^[2]

Vice is a sickness of the soul, and delusion is a loss of truth. Most men who are sick with the disease of vice and delusion proclaim health and are lauded by men. Unless the soul is cured from vice and is found in her natural state of health (with which she was created) so that she can be reborn by health of spirit, it is impossible for a man to desire the supernatural things of the Spirit. For so long as the soul is sick with passions, her senses have no perception of what is spiritual, and she does not even know how to desire it, saving only from the hearing of the ears and from writings. . . . Those who desire perfection must keep all the commandments, since the working of the commandments heals the powers of the soul. The practice of the commandments is not accomplished simply and by chance, for it is written that, There is no remission without the shedding of blood. Our nature first received renewal through the incarnation of Christ, and it participated in His passion and death, and then, after the renewal of the shedding of blood, our nature was renewed and sanctified and became able to receive his new and perfect commandments. For if the new commandments had been given to men before the shedding of the Lord’s blood, before our nature was renewed and sanctified, then it is perhaps possible that even the new commandments, like those of old, would have merely cut off vice from the soul but would have been unable completely to pluck out the very root of vice from her. But now it is not so; now there is a secret labour that accompanies the new, spiritual commandments. When the soul keeps these through the circumspection of the fear of God, they renew her, sanctify her and secretly heal all her members. For it is obvious which passion is quietly cured in the soul by each commandment. The operation of the commandments is perceived only by the healer and the healed, after the likeness of the woman who had an issue of blood.

Paul, writing to the Hebrews—those, of course, who were indeed reading the law and had meditated on these things^[1] and were examining them well but lacked understanding as to how the sacrifices should be understood—says, For Christ has entered not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. And again he says about the offerings, He did this once for all when he offered up himself.^[2] But why do we seek testimonies from these one by one? If anyone examines the entire epistle written to the Hebrews—and especially this place, where he compares the high priest of the law with the high priest of the promise, of whom it is written, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek—he will find how this entire passage of the apostle shows that those things which were written in the law are copies and forms^[3] of living and true things.

Thus it was necessary for the copies, he says, of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. And how are they copies of the heavenly things? And what does he mean now by the heavenly things? Is it heaven? Or is it the angels? None of these, but what is ours. 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. The cherubim appeared on earth but yet are heavenly. And why do I say appeared? No, rather, they dwell on earth, as indeed in paradise, but this is nothing, for they are heavenly. And our commonwealth is in heaven,^[1] and yet we live here. But these are the heavenly things, that is, the philosophy which exists among us, those who have been called to heaven.

With better sacrifices than these. What is better is better than something else that is good. Therefore, the copies of the heavenly things have become good, though the copies were not evil; else the things whereof they are copies would also have been evil. If then we are heavenly and have obtained such a sacrifice, let us stand in awe. 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 whether one is or is not of the earth is the effect of moral disposition and choice. For instance, God is said to be in heaven. Why? Not because he is confined by space—far from it—nor as having left the earth destitute of his presence, but by his relation to and intimacy with 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 make our home with him.^[2] 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.

Let us then become heaven. Let us mount up to that height, whence we shall see people differing nothing from ants. I do not speak of the poor only, nor the many, but even if there be a general there, even if the emperor is there, we shall not distinguish the emperor or the private person. We shall not know what is gold or what is silver, what is silken or purple raiment. We shall see all things as if they were flies, if we are seated at that height. There is no tumult there, no disturbance or clamor. . . .

For there is no hindrance, no, not any, but that we may rise above all people, if we have the will. For if we are so successful in arts that are beyond the reach of most people, much more may we rise in that which does not require so great labor. For, tell me, what is more difficult than to walk along a tightrope, as if on level ground, and when walking on high to dress and undress, as if sitting on a couch? Does not the performance seem to us to be so frightful that we are not even willing to look at it but are terrified and tremble at the very sight? And tell me, what is more difficult than to hold a pole upon your face, and, when you have put up a child upon it, to perform innumerable feats and delight the spectators? And what is more difficult than to play at ball with swords? And tell me, what is harder than thoroughly to search out the bottom of the sea? And one might mention innumerable other arts.

But easier than all these, if we have the will, is virtue and the going up into heaven. For here it is only necessary to have the will, and all the rest follows. For we may not say, I am unable, nor accuse the Creator. For if he made us unable and then commands, it is an accusation against himself.

If the ancient custom of sacrifices is clear to you, let us see what these things also contain according to the mystical understanding. You heard that there were two sanctuaries: one, as it were, visible and open to the priests; the other, as it were, invisible and inaccessible. With the exception of the high priest alone, the others were outside. I think this first sanctuary can be understood as this church in which we are now placed in the flesh, in which the priests minister at the altar of the whole burnt offerings^[1] with that fire kindled about which Jesus said, I came to cast fire upon the earth, and would that it were already kindled.^[2] And I do not want you to marvel that this sanctuary is open only to the priests. For all who have been anointed with the chrism of the sacred anointing have become priests, just as Peter says to all the church, But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.^[3] Therefore you are a priestly race, and because of this you approach the sanctuary. . . . Therefore the priesthood is exercised in this way in the first sanctuary and the offerings are offered. And from this sanctuary the high priest, dressed in the sanctified garments, proceeds and enters into the interior of the veil just as we already pointed out above in citing the words of Paul, Christ has entered not into a sanctuary made with hands but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Therefore, the place of heaven and the throne itself of God are designated by the figure and the image of the interior sanctuary.

The statement that he entered into the heaven itself must be taken by common agreement as this: And so that he might not offer himself often, he entered into the very heaven. For it is characteristic of those entering the antitypes of the true things to bear sacrifices often and with blood, but not of the one entering into heaven itself.

But this world, which is itself called an age, is said to be the end of many ages. Now the holy apostle teaches that in the age that was before this, Christ did not suffer, nor even in the age before that; and I do not know that I am able to enumerate the number of previous ages in which he did not suffer. I will show, however, the statements of Paul from which I have arrived at this understanding. He says, He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself. He says that Christ was made a sacrifice once, and at the end of the ages has appeared to take away sin.^[1] Now after this age, which is said to be made for the consummation of other ages, there will be other ages again to follow; for we have clearly learned this from Paul himself, who says, that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness toward us.^[2] He did not say in the age to come or in the two ages to come but in the ages to come. I think, therefore, that by his language many ages are indicated.

In this place he has also veiled over something. But now once more in the end of the world. Why at the end of the world? After the many sins. If it had taken place at the beginning, then no one would have believed. He must not die a second time; otherwise all would have been useless. But since later there were many transgressions, with reason he appeared, which he expresses in another place also, Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.^[1] But now once in the end of the world, he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

What then? Do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of his death, and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that sacrifice was once for all offered and carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that sacrifice and a remembrance of it. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing, so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? But Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one body. As then, while offered in many places, he is one body and not many bodies, so also he is one sacrifice. He is our high priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For he says, Do this in remembrance of me.^[1] It is not another sacrifice, as the high priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice.

In trying to reconcile two apostolic passages it has often occurred to me to raise the question of how there can be a consummation of ages at which Jesus has been manifested once for all to do away with sin if there are going to be ages following this age. The passages are these: In Hebrews, But now at a consummation of the ages he has been manifested once for all to do away with sin through his sacrifice, but in Ephesians, In order that he may show forth in the years following, the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us.^[1] Well, conjecturing on a matter so great, I believe that, just as the year’s consummation is its last month after which arises another month’s beginning, so probably the present age is a consummation of numerous ages completing as it were a year of ages, and after it certain coming ages will arise whose beginning is the coming age. In those coming ages God shall show forth the riches of his grace in kindness, when the greatest sinner, who for having spoken ill against the Holy Spirit is held fast by his sin throughout the present age and the coming one from beginning to end, shall after that, I know not how, receive a dispensation.

Do you see again the superabundance of his proofs? This sacrifice, he says, is one. The others were many. Therefore they had no strength, because they were many. For, tell me, what need is there of many, if one had been sufficient? So that their being many and offered continually, proves that they, the worshipers, were never made clean. For as a medicine, when it is powerful and productive of health and able to remove the disease entirely, effects all after one application—as, therefore, if being once applied, it accomplishes the whole—it proves its own strength in being no more applied, and this is its business, to be no more applied. If it is applied continually, this is a plain proof of its not having strength. For it is the excellence of a medicine to be applied once and not often. So is it in this case also. Why indeed are they continually cured with the same sacrifices? For if they were set free from all their sins, the sacrifices would not have gone on being offered every day. For they had been appointed to be continually offered in behalf of the whole people, both in the evening and in the day, so that there was an arraignment of sins, and not a release from sins; an arraignment of weakness, not an exhibition of strength. For because the first had no strength, another also was offered and, since this effected nothing, again another; so that it was an evidence of sins. The offering indeed, then, was an evidence of sins, the continually, an evidence of weakness. But with regard to Christ, it was the contrary. He was once offered. The types therefore contain the figure only, not the power; just as in images the image has the figure of the man not the power. The reality and the type partake of one another. For the type is equal to, but no longer possesses the full strength of, the reality. So too also is it in respect of heaven and of the tent, for the figure was equal; there was the Holy of Holies, but the power and the other things were not the same.

He completely destroyed the force of sin, promising us immortality; sin is incapable of proving a problem to immortal bodies.

And as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment. He next says why he died once only: because he became a ransom by one death. It is appointed, he says for men to die once. This then is the meaning of he died once, for all. What then? Do we no longer die that death? We do indeed die, but we do not continue in it, which is not to die at all. For the tyranny of death, and death indeed, is when he who dies is never more allowed to return to life. But when after dying there is life, indeed a better life, this is not death, but sleep. Since, then, death was to have possession of all, he therefore died that he might deliver us.

Because he was man along with his being God, he also endured the things common to humankind. For just as people die one time only, so also Christ died once.

On the day of atonement the high priest was commanded to expiate the sanctuary and the tabernacle of testimony, together with the altar, the priests as well, and the entire people. John showed clearly who that high priest was and what the expiation was when, as Jesus was coming to his baptism, he spoke, saying, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.^[1] This expiation had been established to be celebrated once during the year because, as the apostle says, Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. As for the fact that after the high priest went into the sanctuary to make intercession, no other person was permitted to be in the tabernacle until after he came out—this indicates the weakness of the holy church, which was not yet fit to suffer for its faith in him. This was made evident in the case of the apostles themselves, who, when his passion had begun, all forsook him and fled.^[2] When the expiation was completed, the high priest came forth so that an opportunity might be given to others to go into the tabernacle. When the sacrifice of his passion was over, Christ appeared to his disciples; by giving them the grace of the Holy Spirit he strengthened their heart further for offering to God sacrificial offerings, not only of devoted works and prayer but also of his own blood. I have explained these details about the observance of this festivity under the law so fully in order that you, dear ones, may acknowledge how appropriately the proclamations of new grace took their starting point from it, in which, in so many ways, the working out of this grace and the redemption of the whole world is expressed.

But now once by coming at the end of times he has suffered, so that through his sacrifice he might destroy sin, which killed the people and all nations together.

In fact as it is appointed for men to die once because of their first sin, and after death their judgment comes, so Christ too, by coming, was revealed once and offered himself for the sins of everybody. Then he will appear a second time, not in order to die for the sins, for which he has already died once, but in order to appear in a new world, where there will be no sins on the part of those who in hope expect salvation through him.

Christ having now been seen when he gained mastery over sin, took on death that had power because of sin. When sin had been atoned for, as was reasonable, he also will appear apart from suffering. For without sin^[1] means that when sin no longer has power, so also he himself will be seen apart from all human suffering.

He says that he bore the sins of many on the cross, in order that he might quell them, paying the penalty that they deserved.

Now the Father sent him, having made him sin.^[1] For also Christ became as if a sinner, inasmuch as he took on the sins of the whole world and claimed them as his own. But then he paid the penalty that was owed, the punishment belonging to sinners. At last he will come with his Father’s glory, no longer as a sinner, no longer reckoned among the lawless.^[2]

It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.

We may subvert their doctrine of transmigration from body to body by this fact, that souls remember nothing of the events that took place in their previous states of existence. For if they were sent forth with this object, that they should have experience of every kind of action, they must of necessity retain a remembrance of those things that have been previously accomplished, that they might fill up those in which they are still deficient, and not hover, without intermission, round the same pursuits, spend their labor wretchedly in vain (for the mere union of a body [with a soul] could not altogether extinguish the memory and contemplation of those things that had formerly been experienced), and especially as they came [into the world] for this very purpose. . . .

With reference to these objections, Plato, that ancient Athenian, who was the first to introduce this opinion, when he could not set them aside, invented the [notion of] a cup of oblivion, imagining that in this way he would escape this difficulty. He attempted no proof, but simply replied dogmatically that when souls enter into this life, they are caused to drink of oblivion by that demon who watches them, before they enter into the bodies [assigned them]. It escaped him that [by speaking thus] he fell into a greater perplexity. For if the cup of oblivion can obliterate the memory of all the deeds that have been done, how, O Plato, do you obtain knowledge of this?

Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to prove his view, will he not gain acceptance for it [among the pagans], and work in some conviction that, on account of this, they should abstain from eating animal food? May anyone be persuaded that he should abstain, lest by chance in his beef he eats an ancestor of his? But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the actual Gaius [resurrected] from Gaius . . . they will not . . . grant him a hearing. If there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into different bodies, why may they not return to the very one they have left?

And [Jn 1:21] they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John [Mt 11:14], “If you will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come.” Why, then, does John say to those who ask him, “Are you Elijah?” “I am not.” And how can it be also true that John is Elijah who is to come, according to the words of Malachi [Mal 4:5–6], “And behold I send unto you Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and notable day of the Lord come, who shall restore the heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his neighbor, lest I come, and utterly smite the earth.” The words of the angel of the Lord, too, who appeared to Zacharias, as he stood at the right hand of the altar of incense, are similar to the prophecy of Malachi: “And [Lk 1:13] your wife Elizabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.” And a little further on: “And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.” [Lk 1:17] As for the first point, one might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation chosen by those who find in our passage support for their doctrine of transcorporation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not remember its former lives. These thinkers will also point out that some of the Jews assented to this doctrine when they spoke about the Savior as if he were one of the old prophets, and had risen not from the tomb but from his birth. His mother Mary was well known, and Joseph the carpenter was supposed to be his father, and it could readily be supposed that he was one of the old prophets risen from the dead. The same person will offer the text in Genesis, “I will destroy the whole resurrection,” and will thereby reduce those who find in Scripture solutions of false probabilities a great difficulty in respect of this doctrine. Another, however, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of transcorporation as a false one, and does not admit that the soul of John ever was Elijah, may appeal to the words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah.

If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be baseless.

Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, so that they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be believed. And perhaps some idea like this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers that worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following argument: Just as because of the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, “This is Elijah who is to come” [Mt 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John’s case caused in him works of baptism and teaching—for John did not do one miracle [Jn 10:41]—but in Jesus [they caused] miraculous portents.

Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, “Lord, help me,” but he answered and said, “It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.” . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture.

In this place [when Jesus said Elijah had come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures.

But if . . . the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in the face, which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments about the interpretation of things concerning the consummation, which even if they wish they will not be able to do.

[M]an’s real death [is] when souls that do not know God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire, into which certain fiercely cruel beings shall cast them. . . . [T]here is no reason that [one] should mislead us, should hold our vain hopes to us, and carried away by an extravagant opinion of themselves, and say that souls are immortal, next in point of rank to the God and ruler of the world, descended from that parent and sire. . . . [And] while we are moving swiftly down toward our mortal bodies, causes pursue us from the world’s circles, through the working of which we become bad—aye, most wicked . . . [and] that the souls of wicked men, on leaving their human bodies, pass into cattle and other creatures.

What of Pythagoras, who was first called a philosopher, who judged that souls were indeed immortal, but that they passed into other bodies, either of cattle, or of birds, or of beasts? Would it not have been better that they should be destroyed, together with their bodies, than thus to be condemned to pass into the bodies of other animals? Would it not be better not to exist at all, than, after having had the form of a man, to live as a swine or a dog? And the foolish man, to gain credit for his saying, said that he himself had been Euphorbus in the Trojan War, and that, when he was slain, he passed into other figures of animals, and at last became Pythagoras. O happy man! to whom alone so great a memory was given; or rather unhappy, who, when changed into a sheep, was not permitted to be ignorant of what he was! And would to heaven that he alone had been thus senseless!

[A]void the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog, who say that they have themselves formerly been women, shrubs, or fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know, but I say that in their writings they show less sense than fish.

It is a cause for wonder that though they [the heathen] . . . say that souls pass and migrate into other bodies. . . . But let those who have not been taught doubt [the resurrection]. For us who have read the law, the prophets, the apostles, and the gospel, it is not lawful to doubt.

But is their opinion preferable who say that our souls, when they have passed out of these bodies, migrate into the bodies of beasts or of various other living creatures? . . . For what is so like a marvel as to believe that men could have been changed into the forms of beasts? How much greater a marvel would it be that the soul that rules man should take on the nature of a beast so opposed to that of man, and being capable of reason should be able to pass over to an irrational animal, than that the form of the body should have been changed?

[I]f one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he was born a man, and afterwards assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature; and he who said these things about himself did not, as far as I can judge, go far from the truth: for doctrines like this, that say that one soul passed through so many changes, are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws, or the stupidity of fishes, or the insensibility of trees.

As for doctrines on the soul, there is nothing very shameful that [the disciples of Plato and Pythagoras] have left unsaid, asserting that the souls of men become flies and gnats and bushes and that God himself is a [similar] soul, with similar indecencies. . . . At one time he says that the soul is of the substance of God; at another, after having exalted it thus, immoderately and impiously, he exceeds again in a different way, and treats it with insult, making it pass into swine and asses and other animals of less esteem than these.