1. Paul, wishing to show the difference between the New and Old Testaments, points out this difference in many places, and speaks of it at the very beginning, and then, teaching his hearers, prepares them. At the very beginning he pointed this out when he said that "God, who spoke many times and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets," and to us through the Son. Then, having spoken of the Son who He was and what He had done, having exhorted them to obey Him so as not to suffer the same fate as the Jews, having explained that He was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, having repeatedly expressed a desire to reveal this difference, and having already prepared many things for it, rebuking them for their weaknesses, and then encouraging and confirming them not to lose heart, (the Apostle) finally proceeds to explain the very difference before the encouraged listeners: For a man who is discouraged cannot easily accept what he hears. And in order that you may be convinced (of the justice of this), listen to the Scriptures, which say: "They did not listen to Moses because of cowardice" (Exodus 6:9). Therefore, having dispelled their despondency beforehand with many, both formidable and meek, suggestions, then he proceeds to reveal this difference. What does he say? "For Melchizedek, king of Salem, is a priest of the Most High God." And this is what is surprising: in the type itself he reveals a great difference between them: he always, as I have said, proves to the prototype the truth that has passed through the present, through the weakness of the hearers. "For," he says, "Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, he who met Abraham and blessed him, returning after the defeat of the kings, to whom Abraham set apart even the tithe from all things." Having briefly described the whole event, he considers it from the mysterious side, and first of all begins with the name: "First," he says, "by the sign of [the name] the king of righteousness." True: sedek means truth, and Melkhi means king; therefore, Melchizedek is the king of righteousness. Do you see the accuracy in the expressions themselves? Who is this king of righteousness, if not our Lord Jesus Christ? "Then also the king of Salem," from the name of the city, "that is, the king of peace," because Salem has such a meaning. This again applies to Christ, because He made us righteous and made us peaceful in heaven and on earth. Which of men is the king of truth and peace? No one; such is only our Lord Jesus Christ. Then (the Apostle) presents another peculiarity: "without a father," he says, "without a mother, without a genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." As it seems to have been contradicted by the words, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," for Melchizedek was dead, and was not a priest for ever, see how he explains it. So that no one would object: Who can say this about a person? He says: I do not mean this in the proper sense, i.e., we do not know whom Melchizedek had as his father and whom he had as his mother, nor when he was born and when he died. But what is it, you will say (what we do not know)? Is it therefore that we do not know that he did not die, or did not have parents? Thou shalt speak justly; he died and had parents. Why is he without a father, without a mother? Why "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"? Why? Because it is not mentioned in the Scriptures. What does this mean? That as he is "without a father," since there is no genealogy of him, so Christ is in reality.

2. Here the beginninglessness and infinity (of the Son) are revealed. Just as we do not know the beginning of days or the end of life (Melchizedek) because it is not written, so we do not know this about Jesus, not because it is not written, but because He really does not have it. The first is a type, and therefore it is only not written about it; and the latter is the truth, and therefore He really does not have it. Just as in relation to names the former has only the name: "the king of truth" and "the world", and the latter has the matter itself, so here only the names refer to the former, and to the latter the very deed. How, then, is He said to have a beginning? And here the Son is called beginningless, not in the sense that He has no culprit, for this is impossible: He has a Father: otherwise how would He be the Son? - but in the fact that He has neither a beginning nor an end to His being. "Becoming like the Son of God." What is this similarity? In the fact that we know neither the beginning nor the end of both; but the first because it is not written, and the second because he does not have them. Here is the similarity. If they had a resemblance in all things, they would not be one type and the other truth, but both would be types. The same can be seen in the paintings; and there is some similarity in them, there is also dissimilarity (with the original); in a simple outline there is a certain resemblance in appearance, and when paints are superimposed, then the difference is clearly revealed; There are similarities and dissimilarities. "See," says (the Apostle), "how great is he, to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of his best booty" (Hebrews 7:4). Hitherto he had revealed the type; now he confidently presents (Christ) as the most excellent of all that was true among the Jews. If such is the prototype of Christ, if he is so much higher not only than the priests, but also the forefather of the priests himself, then what can be said about the Truth? Do you see with what power He proves His superiority? "See," he says, "how great is he to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of his best elect[1]." Prey is called the chosen. It cannot be said that he gave it as a participant in the war, because it is said: "He met Abraham and blessed him when he returned after the defeat of the kings"; it is evident that he remained at home, and that (Abraham) gave him the beginnings of what he himself had acquired. "Those who receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes according to the law from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these also came from the loins of Abraham" (Hebrews 7:5). Such, he says, is the advantage of the priesthood, that men who are equal in origin and have one and the same progenitor, are made much higher than others; therefore they receive tithes from them. And if there is someone who takes a tithe from them, will they not stand along with the laity, and he along with the priests? Moreover, (Melchizedek) was not equal to them in birth, but came from a different family; therefore (Abraham) would not have given tithes to a foreigner, if he had not seen in him a high honor. Alas, what happened! Here (the apostle) expressed more than in the Epistle to the Romans, when he discussed faith. There he says that Abraham is the forefather of both our and the Jewish state; but here he speaks of him in a completely different way, and proves that the uncircumcised is much higher than he. How does he prove? By the fact that Levi himself gave tithes? "Abraham," he says, "gave." How, you say, does this relate to us? It is especially true of you, because you will certainly not prove that the Levites are higher than Abraham. "He who is not of their generation, but has received tithes from Abraham." And not only did he say this, but he added: "And he blessed him who had the promises" (Hebrews 7:6). Since this has always been considered important by the Jews, he proves the superiority of the one over the other, and in relation to the general judgment of all: "Without any reproach, the lesser is blessed by the greater" (Hebrews 7:7), i.e. everyone knows that the lesser is blessed by the greater. Therefore the type of Christ was higher than this one who had the promises. "And here mortal men take tithes, and there he who bears witness that he lives" (Hebrews 7:8). And lest they say: why do you turn to ancient times? - What does Abraham have to do with our priests? - Speak about what concerns us, - for this (the Apostle) continues: "And, so to speak." He expresses himself beautifully, without expressing his thoughts clearly, so as not to amaze his listeners. "Levi himself, who receives tithes, in [the person of] Abraham gave tithes" (Hebrews 7:9). How? "For he was still in his father's loins when Melchizedek met him" (Hebrews 7:10), i.e. Levi was in him, and before he was born, he gave tithes through him. And behold, he did not say, Levites, but Levi, with the intention of proving his superiority by this. Do you see what a difference there is between Abraham and Melchizedek, the type of our high priest? Here you can see the advantage of power, not of necessity. He gave a tithe that he owed to the priest; and this one blessed, which is characteristic of the highest. This advantage passes on to descendants. Amazingly victoriously (the apostle) refuted everything Jewish; wherefore he said before, "Ye have become incapable of hearing" (Hebrews 5:11), that he wanted to offer these truths, so that they might not turn away the ear. Such is the wisdom of Paul: he prepares in advance, and then proceeds to what he intends to say. The human race is not quickly convinced and requires many cares, even more than plants. There is a property of bodies and earth, which yields to the hands of farmers; but here is free will, which allows frequent changes and chooses one thing or another, because it is susceptible to evil.

3. Therefore we must constantly watch ourselves, so as not to slumber: "He will not give it," says (the Psalmist), "to shake thy foot," and again: "He who keeps Israel does not slumber nor sleep" (Psalm 120:3,4). He did not say, "Do not be troubled," but, "He will not give"; therefore it depends on us, and not on anyone else; if we want to stand upright and motionless, we will not be dismayed; it was he who expressed this in the words quoted. What then? Is it possible that nothing (depends) on God? Everything is from God, but not in such a way that our freedom is violated. If everything is from God, then why, you say, should we be blamed? But that's why I added: not so that our freedom is violated. Everything here depends on us and on Him; we should choose the good beforehand, and when we have chosen, then He also gives His help.

He does not anticipate our desire, lest our freedom be violated; but when we choose, then He gives us great help. Why, then, if it depends on us, does Paul say: "Therefore [mercy depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy" (Romans 9:16)? In the first place, he cites this not as his own thought, but as a consequence of the previous and previously revealed subject, after he had said: "It is written: ... whom I will have mercy on; whom I have pity, I will have pity" (Romans 9:13, 15), he added: "[mercy depends] not on him who wills, nor on him who strives, but on God who has mercy." Will you still say after this: why should you accuse? Secondly, and even then it can be said that to whom the greater part belongs, to him he attributes everything; our work is to choose and will, and the work of God is to bring to fulfillment and complete. Since the greater part belongs to God, (the apostle) attributes everything to Him, expressing himself according to human custom. And this is what we do, for example, when we see a house well built, and we say: "All this is the work of the architect, although not everything belongs to him, but also to the workmen, and to the master who supplied the material, and to many others; but since the greater part of the matter depended on him, we say that all this was his business. Exactly, it's the same here. In like manner, of a people where they are many, we say: there are all; but where there is a little, we say: there is none. Thus Paul here says: "Not from him who wills, nor from him who strives, but from God who has mercy." With these words he teaches two very important lessons: first, that we should not be puffed up by the good works we do; the second, so that, while doing good works, we attribute their fulfillment to God. No matter how much you work, no matter how hard you try, do not consider a good deed your own, because if you did not receive help from above, then everything would be in vain. If you succeed in your labors, it will obviously be with help from above, however, when you yourself work, when you reveal a desire. Not that he showed that we labor in vain, but that we labor in vain in such a case, if we consider everything to be our own, if we do not attribute the greater part to God. God has not been pleased to keep everything to Himself, lest it should seem that He crowns us in vain, nor has He given us all things, lest we should fall into pride. If, even by doing a lesser part, we are so much exalted, what would happen if we were the authors of everything? God has done much to destroy our pride. "And His hand shall still be stretched out," says (the prophet) (Isaiah 5:25). How many passions has He allowed to take possession of us in order to destroy our arrogance? How many beasts have you surrounded us with? Truly, when someone says, "What is this?" What is this thing for? - then he speaks contrary to the will of God. (God) has placed you in the midst of such horrors, and you are not humble; but if you receive even a little success in something, you immediately exalt yourself with arrogance to the very heavens.

4. For this reason there are very rapid changes and falls, and yet we are not taught by them; hence frequent and unexpected deaths, and yet we live as if we were immortal, as if we never had to die; we steal what is not ours, we give ourselves over to covetousness, as if we would never give an account; we erect buildings as if we will remain here forever. Neither the word of God, which is proclaimed to us every day, nor the events themselves enlighten us. There is not a day, not even an hour, in which the funeral is not visible, and all in vain, nothing touches our insensibility. From the misfortunes of others we cannot, or rather, do not want to become better; only when we ourselves suffer, then we are broken, and as soon as God withdraws His hand, we again raise our own hand. No one thinks of things above, no one despises earthly things, no one looks up to heaven; As pigs look down, bending down to their bellies and wallowing in the mud, so many of the people remain insensible, defiling themselves with the most abominable filth. For it is better to be soiled with abominable filth than with sins, for he who is soiled with filth may soon be washed and become like one who has never fallen into this impurity, but he who falls into the pit of sin receives a defilement which is not washed away by water, but requires a long time, sincere repentance, tears, sobs, weeping much greater and stronger than is the case with those who are closest to the heart. Dirt adheres to us from without, so we quickly cleanse it; And the impurity of sin is born within, so it is difficult for us to destroy it and cleanse ourselves. "For out of the heart," says (the Lord), "proceed evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury" (Matthew 15:19). That is why the prophet says: "Create in me a pure heart, O God" (Psalm 50:12); and another: "Wash away the evil from your heart, O Jerusalem" (Jer. 4:14). Do you see that the accomplishment of a good deed depends both on us and on God? And again: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

Let us try to be pure to the best of our ability; let us cleanse ourselves from sins. And how can you cleanse yourself? This is what the prophet teaches when he says: "Wash yourselves, cleanse yourselves; remove your evil deeds from my eyes; cease to do evil" (Isaiah 1:16). What does it mean, "from my eyes"? Others seem to be blameless, but only before men, but before God they are graves painted over. Therefore (God) says: Purify yourselves so that I may see (you clean). "Learn to do good, seek righteousness, save the oppressed, defend the fatherless, intercede for the widow. Then come, and let us reason, saith the Lord. If your sins be as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall be as white as wool" (Isaiah 1:17-18). Do you see that first we need to cleanse ourselves, and then God cleanses us? He first said, "Wash yourselves, be cleansed"; And then he added: "As white as a wave." Thus, none of the people, even if they have reached the extreme degree of evil, should despair; Though you, he says, acquire the habit and even enter into the nature of evil itself, do not be afraid. For this purpose He takes as an example paints, which are not easily deduced, but enter almost into the very essence of things, and says that He will turn them into the opposite state. He did not simply say, "I will wash myself," but, "I will be as white as snow" and "I will be white as wool," in order to give us good hope. Therefore the power of repentance is great if it makes us pure as snow and white as a wave, even though sin has previously stained our souls. Therefore, let us try to make ourselves clean; (God) commands us nothing difficult: "Defend," He says, "the fatherless, intercede for the widow." Do you see how often and how much God speaks about alms and the protection of the oppressed? Let us do these good works, and by the grace of God we will attain future blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[1] To the Synod. The translation here is "prey".

CONVERSATION 13

"If, then, perfection were to be attained by the Levitical priesthood, for the law of the people is bound up with it, what need would there be for any priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Aaron? For with a change in the priesthood it is necessary to change the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one came to the altar. For it is known that our Lord shone forth out of the tribe of Judah, of which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood" (Hebrews 7:11-14).

1. "If, therefore," he says, "perfection were attained by the Levitical priesthood." Having spoken of Melchizedek, having shown how much higher he was than Abraham, and having explained the great difference between them, he now begins to show the difference of the covenants themselves, how one is imperfect, and the other is perfect. However, even now he does not yet proceed to the matter itself, but first discusses the priesthood and the covenant, because it was more convincing for the unbelievers to offer proofs from subjects already accepted and previously known. He proved that Melchizedek was far superior to Levei and Abraham by appearing to be a priest in relation to them. He now proves this from the other side. From which exactly? On the part of the priesthood of the present and the Jews. And look at his great wisdom: whereby Christ seems to have separated himself from the priesthood, since he was not "after the order of Aaron," he cites as a proof of His priesthood, and excludes the rest. He does this by presenting himself as if he were doubting why (Christ) is not called a priest after the order of Aaron, and then resolves the perplexity. And I, he says, wonder why He was not in the order of Aaron. This he expresses in the words: "if perfection were attained through the Levitical priesthood." And the words: "whatever other need there may be" strengthen the thought. If Christ according to the flesh had been a priest after the order of Melchizedek before, and then the law and (the priesthood) after the order of Aaron had appeared, then one might justly say that the latter is more perfect, and, being introduced afterwards, abolishes the former; but if Christ (appears) after and assumes a different form of priesthood, it is evident that because of the imperfection of all that was before. Suppose, he says, that all the former things have been fulfilled and there is nothing imperfect in the (former) priesthood: why was it still necessary "for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not to be called after the order of Aaron"? Why does (God), having left Aaron, introduce another priesthood - Melchizedek's? "If perfection were attained by means of the Levitical priesthood," i.e., if perfection in deeds, in doctrine, in life were attained by means of the Levitical priesthood. Notice how gradually he goes forward. By saying that Christ is "after the order of Melchizedek," he proved that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is higher, because he himself (Melchizedek) is higher; then he proves the same with regard to time, i.e., what (Christ) is after Aaron, and therefore higher. And what is the meaning of these words, "For the law of the people is bound up with it"? What does it mean, "with him"? It is guided, everything is done through it, and it cannot be said that it was given to others. "The law of the people is bound up with it," i.e. it is used and has been used, and it cannot be said that it, being itself perfect, did not lead the people. "The law of the people is conjugated", i.e. they were guided by it. What need is there for another priesthood, if it were perfect? "For with the change of the priesthood it is necessary to have a change in the law": if there must be a different priest, or better, another priesthood, then there must be another law. This is against those who say, What was the need of the new covenant? He could have given evidence from the prophecy: "Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God commanded unto your fathers" (Acts 3:25); but for the time being he discusses the priesthood. And see how I wanted to suggest this. By saying, "after the order of Melchizedek," he rejected the order of Aaron, since he would not have said, "after the order of Melchizedek," if it had been better. And when another priesthood is introduced, then there must be another covenant, because it is impossible for a priest to be without a covenant, laws, and ordinances, or for one who has received another priesthood to be guided by the former covenant. Here the objection was presented: how can one be a priest without being a Levite? But (the Apostle), having prepared an answer to this in what has been said above, now no longer offers permission, but speaks of it in passing: "I have said," he says, "that the priesthood is changed, therefore the covenant must also be changed; changed not only in the manner of actions and ordinances, but also in the tribe, as it should have been (changed) in the tribe, How? "By a change," he says, "of the priesthood," i.e., it passed from tribe to tribe, from priestly to royal, so that both royal and priestly would be one. And note the sacrament: first there was the royal tribe, and then the priestly tribe, just as in Christ, who was always king, and became a priest when he took flesh, when he offered sacrifice. Do you see the change? That which was the subject of the objection, he presents as a necessary consequence of events: "For He," he says, "of whom these things are spoken, belonged to another tribe, of which no one came to the altar. For it is known that our Lord shone forth from the tribe of Judah, of which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood." The meaning of his words is this: And I know and say that this tribe had no priesthood, and none of them was a priest - this is the meaning of the words, "from which no one came to the altar" - but there was a change in everything. Thus, it was necessary to change the law and the Old Testament, because the tribe itself was changed. Do you see how he shows another difference (of covenants) from the difference of tribes? And not only by this he proves their difference, but also from the point of view of the person (the high priest), and the covenant, and the manner of action, and the type itself. "Who is such, not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh, but according to the power of life that does not cease" (Hebrews 7:16).

2. "Who is such," says the priest, "not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh," because that law had much of the flesh. And he well called it a carnal commandment: everything that he defined was carnal. Thus, the precepts: circumcise the flesh, anoint the flesh, wash the flesh, cleanse the flesh, shave the flesh, bind the flesh, nourish the flesh, rest the flesh - all these, tell me, are not carnal (commandments)? If you want to know what are the blessings that he promised, listen: longevity, he says, for the flesh, milk and honey for the flesh, rest for the flesh, delight for the flesh. By such a law Aaron received the priesthood; but Melchizedek was not. "And this is seen even more plainly, that in the likeness of Melchizedek another priest arises" (Hebrews 7:15). What is "more clearly seen"? The difference between the two priesthoods, the difference, the advantage of the one who was "not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh." Who? Melchizedek? No, it is Christ. "Who is such, not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh, but according to the power of life that does not cease. For it is testified: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7:16-17), i.e. not temporary, not limited by limits, "but according to the power of life that does not cease." By this (the Apostle) expresses that (Christ) became a priest by His own power and by the Father, by the power of endless life. Although this expression does not correspond to the expression: "not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh," because it should be said: but according to (the commandment) spiritual; but by the name of the flesh he means temporary, just as in another place he says: "Which, with food and drink, and various washings and ceremonies [pertaining] to the flesh, were instituted only until the time of correction (Heb. 9:10). "According to the power of life," i.e., because He lives by His own power. The Apostle said that "there must be a change in the law," and showed how; And then he gives the reason: the human mind is most satisfied when it knows the cause, and through this it is exalted in faith, because we believe more when we know both the cause and the reason why something happens. "But the abolition of the former commandment," he says, "is because of its weakness and uselessness" (Hebrews 7:18). Here heretics rise up against us, who say: "Behold, Paul also called the commandment evil." But listen carefully; He did not say, "Because it is neither good nor good," but "because of its weakness and uselessness." And in another place he proves her weakness when he says: "Weakened in the flesh, he was powerless" (Romans 8:3). Therefore it is not the commandment that is weak, but we. "For the law hath brought nothing to perfection" (Hebrews 7:19). What does it mean: "I have brought nothing to perfection"? He said that he did not bring anyone to perfection, because they did not obey him. Even if he were obeyed, he would not make anyone perfect and virtuous. However, (the apostle) does not say this here, but (says) that he had no power, and rightly so, because his writings commanded: "Do this, and do not do that," they offered only (commands), but did not give power. This is not our hope. What does "abolition" mean? Cancellation, rejection. And what exactly, he explains, continuing: "before the former commandment": so he calls the law, because it has already been abolished because of its weakness; it was before, but it passed away and became obsolete due to its weakness. "Abrogation" is the annulment of what was valid. From this it is evident that he had power, but was abandoned because he was completely unsuccessful. So, the law was completely useless? No, he was useful, and very useful, but he couldn't make people perfect.

For this reason (the Apostle) says: "The law brought nothing to perfection": everything in it was a type, everything was a shadow, and circumcision, and sacrifices, and the Sabbath, all could not penetrate into the soul, and therefore passed away and was abolished. "But a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And how [it was] not without an oath" (Hebrews 7:19,20). Do you see how necessary the oath was here? For this reason (the Apostle) reasoned much about the fact that God swore, and swore for greater assurance. "A better hope is being introduced." What does that mean? And the law, he says, had hope, but not such; those who were pleased (with God) hoped to inherit the earth and not suffer any calamity, but we, if we please God, hope to inherit not the earth, but the heavens; or even, which is much more important, we hope to become close to God, to draw near to the very throne of the Father, to serve Him together with the angels. And see how little by little he reveals these (truths); before, he said: "And he enters into the innermost beyond the veil" (Heb. 6:19); and here: "A better hope is introduced, by means of which we draw near to God. And how [it was] not without an oath." What does it mean, "And how [it was] not without an oath"? That is, not without an oath. Here is another difference. This is promised, he says, not easy. "For they were priests without an oath, but this one with an oath, because it is said of him, The Lord swore, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, then Jesus became the surety of a better covenant. Moreover, those priests were many, because death did not allow him to be alone; but this one, as he who abides forever, also has a priesthood that does not pass away" (Hebrews 7:21-24). (The Apostle) points out two advantages (of the New Testament priesthood): that it has no end, like that under the law, and that it is established with an oath. All this he proves by the person of Christ, who received (this priesthood): "according to the power," he says, "life without ceasing," also by an oath, because God "swore," and by the very deed, because that law, he says, was abolished, because it was weak, and this one stands, because it has power. He does the same on the part of the priest. How? Proving that He is one; and He would not be alone if He were not immortal; as there were many priests before because they were mortal, so He is one because He is immortal. "Of a better covenant Jesus was made a surety": God swore to Him that He would always be a priest; and God wouldn't have done it if He hadn't been alive. "Wherefore he is also able to save always, those who come to God through him, being always alive, to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25).

3. Do you see that (the apostle) says this (about Christ) according to the flesh? Having shown that He is a priest, He then says in good time that He intercedes. And in another place, when Paul says, "The Spirit himself intercedes for us" (Romans 8:26; 1 Tim. 2:5), he means that He intercedes as a high priest. Indeed, He who raises the dead whom He wills and lives like the Father, how can He intercede when it is necessary to save? How can He intercede, in whose power is the whole judgment (John 3:19)? How can He intercede who sends angels to cast some into the furnace and save others (Matthew 8:8)? "Wherefore," he says, "he is able to save always" (Heb. 7:25). He saves because He does not die, because He "always lives" and has no successor; and if he has no successor, then he can intercede for all. The local high priests, however glorious they may be, were there only for the time that Samuel and all the like existed, for example, and after that they were no more, because they died; but He is not so, but saves "always." What does "always" mean? (The Apostle) inspires a certain great mystery: not only here, he says, but also there He saves "those who come through Him to God." How does it save? "Always alive to intercede for them." Do you see how many despised things he said (about Christ) according to His human nature? He did not intercede once, he says, and received, but always when it is necessary to intercede for them; This is what the expression "always" means. "Always", i.e. not only in the present time, but also there in the future life. Therefore, does He need to pray without ceasing? But is this fair? Even righteous people often received everything by one petition: how will He pray without ceasing? And why does He sit with the Father? Do you see that what is said of Him here is despised by His condescension? The meaning of the words is as follows: fear nothing, do not say: yes, although He loves us and has boldness before the Father, He cannot live forever; He is always alive. "Such ought to be our High Priest: holy, untouched by evil, blameless, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26). Do you see that all this is said about humanity (Christ)? But when I say of humanity, I mean humanity united to the divinity, not separating them, but suggesting that they should be understood properly. And so, do you see the difference between the high priest (and the Old Testament)? All of the above (the Apostle) combined in the words: "Who, like [us], was tempted in all things, except sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "Such," he says, "is the High Priest we ought to have: venerable, not malicious." What does it mean: "not malicious"? Not involved in evil, not treacherous. And that He is really so, listen to the prophet who says: "There was no lie in His mouth" (Isaiah 53:9). Can anyone say this about God? Who is not ashamed to say that God is neither cunning nor flattering? And this can be said about Christ according to the flesh. "Venerable[2]", "undefiled[3]" and this cannot be said of God, because He is essentially blameless. "Separated from sinners." And is this the only proof of His superiority? Does not the sacrifice itself prove it? Yes, a victim. How? "Who hath not," he says, "need daily, as those high priests did, to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for he did it once, offering himself" (Hebrews 7:27). What is it? Here (the Apostle) begins to speak of the superiority of spiritual sacrifice. He spoke about the difference between the priests (Old Testament and New Testament), he spoke about the difference between the covenants (Old and New), although he did not say it completely; here he finally begins to talk about the victim himself. When you hear that Christ is a priest, do not think that He performs the sacraments constantly; He performed a sacred act once, and then sat down (at the right hand of the Father). Lest you think that He stands on the mountain and performs the sacraments, (the Apostle) shows that this was a work of dispensation. As He was a slave, so too was a priest and a priest; just as He did not remain a slave as a slave, so as a priest He did not remain a priest, because it is characteristic of a priest not to sit but to stand. Here (the Apostle) expresses the greatness of the sacrifice, which alone, being offered once, had as much power as all the others did not have together. However, he does not yet speak of this, but for the time being only of the following: "I did it once." What is "this"? "It was necessary," he says, "that this one also should have something to offer" (Heb. 8:3), not for Himself, - how could He, being sinless, offer a sacrifice for Himself? - but for people. What do you say? Does He have no need to offer for Himself and is He so powerful? Yes, he does. Lest you think that the words, "He did these things once," also speak of Him, listen to what (the Apostle) says further: "For the law appoints high priests men who have infirmities" (Hebrews 7:28). Therefore, they always make sacrifices for themselves; but He, being strong and having no sin, why will He offer for Himself? Therefore, He did not offer a sacrifice for Himself, but for people, and that once. "And the word of the oath, after the law, [ordained] the Son, perfect for ever." What does "perfect" mean? See: Paul does not use literally opposite expressions; after the words, "having infirmities," he did not say, "the son of the mighty," but, "perfect," which may also be said to mean the strong. Do you see that the word "Son" is spoken in contrast to the servant? By weakness he means either sin or death. What does it mean, "forever"? Not only the sinless one, he says, but always. But if He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives faithfully, then why should He offer sacrifices for us many times? However, this (the apostle) does not yet prove, but only proves that he did not offer a sacrifice for himself. Therefore, if we have such a high priest, let us imitate Him and walk in His footsteps. There is no other victim; one has cleansed us; and then fire and hell. For this reason (the Apostle) often repeats: "One priest is one sacrifice," so that someone, thinking that there are many, would not sin without fear.

4. Therefore, we, who have been vouchsafed this seal, who have tasted this sacrifice that partakes of the immortal meal, will preserve our nobility and honor, since falling away is not safe. And those who have not yet been vouchsafed this, let them not be presumptuous, for whoever sins in order to receive holy baptism at his last breath, often does not receive it. Believe me, it is not to arouse fear in you that I will say what I intend to say. I know many with whom this has happened, who have sinned much in anticipation of enlightenment (by baptism); but on the day of his death they departed without receiving him. God gave baptism to destroy sins, not to multiply sins. But if anyone uses it in order to give himself over to greater sins more freely, then he is guilty of carelessness. Such a person, if there had been no baptism, would have lived more abstinently, without waiting for remission (of sins). Do you see how the words are fulfilled in us: "And shall we not do evil, that good may come out" (Romans 3:8)? Wherefore I exhort you who have not yet received the sacraments: Watch; let none of you approach virtue as a hireling, as ungrateful, as something difficult and unbearable; on the contrary, let us approach it with zeal and joy. If a reward had not been promised, would it not have been necessary to be virtuous? But let us be virtuous, at least because of the reward. Is it not shameful, is it not utterly unreasonable to say: if you do not give me a reward, then I will not be chaste? To this I can say this: Though you keep your chastity, you will never be chaste if you do it for the sake of reward; you do not value virtue in the least if you do not love it for its own sake. However, God, in our great weakness, is pleased to urge us to it, at least by reward; but even so we do not become virtuous. Suppose, if you will, that a man who has committed a multitude of sins departs after being vouchsafed to be baptized, although this, I think, does not happen often: how, tell me, will he go there? He will not be condemned for his works, but he will have no boldness, and justly. For if, having lived a hundred years, he does not do a single good deed, but only that he has not sinned, or even not even that, but only that he has been saved by grace alone, and sees others crowned, glorified, and exalted, then, tell me, can he not be discouraged, although he will not fall into hell? I will explain this with an example. Let's imagine two warriors; let one of them steal, offend, seize someone else's; and let the other do nothing of the kind, but behave well, show many virtues, win victories in war, staining his hand with blood; Afterwards, in the course of time, let him be raised from the rank in which he was with the thief to the king's throne, and put on purple, and let the thief remain where he was, but only by the grace of the king shall he be free from punishment for his transgressions, and shall be placed in the last place, and subject to the power of the king. Tell me, how to feel sorrows, seeing that the one who was equal to him, has reached the highest level of honors, has become glorified and rules the universe, and he remains in a low state, and received the very deliverance from punishment not with honor, but only by the mercy and love of humanity of the king? The king forgave him and released him from condemnation, but he himself will lead a life in shame. And others will not be surprised at him, because, with such mercies, we are amazed at those who have not received gifts, but who give them, and the higher these gifts, the more shameful are those who receive them, if they have been guilty of great sins. With what eyes will he look at those who are in the royal palaces, showing the multitude of their wounds and feats, while he himself has nothing to show, but has received deliverance itself solely through the love of God? As if a murderer, thief, or adulterer, led to execution, were released from it at someone's request and ordered to appear at the entrance of the king's palace, he would not be able to look at anyone, although he was released from punishment, so he would be.