or when he had put it off, he did not take it up again. It could therefore perhaps be that the second priests clothed the first by way of service, not of pre-eminence. But whence did it appear which of the sons ought to succeed to the high priest? For Scripture did not determine that it should be the firstborn or the elder; unless we understand that it was wont to be done by some divine indication, whether through a prophet or by whatever other manner in which God is wont to give counsel. Although the matter seems to have arisen from contention, so that afterwards there were on that account several high priests, because, when the more excellent contended, for the sake of ending the strife the honour itself was bestowed on several. What is it that Moses says to Aaron and his sons, when they are sanctified for entering upon the priesthood:
'At the door of the tabernacle of testimony you shall sit seven days, day and night, lest you die'? Is it credible that they were commanded to sit in one place in a single posture of body for seven days, day and night, so that they moved not at all? Nor yet are we to be compelled to take this as though something were signified allegorically, which would not be done but only understood; but rather to recognize the manner of speech of the Scriptures, where it puts 'sitting' for 'dwelling' and 'abiding.' For not because it was said of Shimei that he sat in Jerusalem three years, is it therefore to be supposed that throughout all that time he sat on a chair and did not rise. Hence too they are called 'seats' (sedes) where they whose seats they are have their abode; for dwelling (habitatio) received this name.
'And it came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his sons and the senate (senatum) of Israel.' Which certain of our own translated as 'the sedate ones' (sedatum); the Greek has γερουσίαν; this therefore the translator followed, because 'senate' (senatus) too seems to be named from old age (a senio). But it would not aptly be said in Latin: 'he called the old age (senectutem) of Israel' for 'the old men' or 'the elders,' although it would be the same expression as if it were said: 'he called the youth (iuventutem) of Israel' for 'the young men.' But this is customary in the Latin tongue, whereas that is not. For this would be properly said, if it were said: 'he called the old age of Israel.' Whence certain, thinking unusually that 'senate' also is said, translated it as 'the order of elders.' Yet perhaps it would be better said more concisely: 'he called the elders of Israel.'
Moses says to Aaron: 'And speak to the senate of Israel, saying: Take one he-goat of the goats for sin, and a ram and a bullock and a lamb a year old, for a holocaust (holocarposin), without blemish; and a bullock of the herd and a ram for a peace-offering before the Lord; and fine flour kneaded in oil — because today the Lord will be seen among you.' Above he commended four kinds of sacrifices from animals: holocaust, for-sin, peace-offering, and of-consecration; but that of consecration pertains to the sanctification of a priest. Three kinds therefore, the rest, are here commanded to be offered, and this is said to the elders of Israel, so that it may pertain to the whole people. But in this place the sacrifice for sin has three cattle: a he-goat and a ram and a bullock;
but to the holocaust the lamb pertains, and to the peace-offering the bullock and the ram. Wherefore it is not to be so distinguished that by 'for sin' nothing be understood but the he-goat, and the remaining three for a holocaust, that is, the ram and the bullock and the lamb; but rather the first three are for sin — that is, so that what was said, 'Take one he-goat of the goats for sin, and a ram and a bullock,' the words 'for sin' be understood, and the remaining be the lamb for a holocaust (holocarposin), that is, for a holocaust. This we had to point out, because it could also be so distinguished that, when it had been said 'Take one he-goat of the goats for sin,' the rest would be said now to pertain to the holocaust. But as for what he adds, 'without blemish,' it can be referred to all.
Since therefore it is ambiguous how it is more aptly distinguished, this consideration leads us to understand the three former as for sin, since above he commanded a he-goat to be offered for the sin of a ruler, and for each one's own sin, when he sins before the Lord by doing one of the things that ought not to be, he prescribed a ram; but for the sin of the whole congregation, a bullock. It was fitting therefore that, when he spoke to the senate concerning what the whole people ought to offer, both a he-goat should be commanded on account of the rulers, and a ram on account of each one's own sin, and a bullock on account of the sin of the whole congregation. For it is one thing that within the people each one has his own sin, and all can have their own;
another when there is a common sin, which is done with one mind and one will, when something is committed by a united multitude. But as for his commanding a bullock and a ram for the peace-offerings, these he commands which are chief; for it is the cause of the whole people. Yet earlier, when prescribing about the peace-offerings, he commanded that it be offered from whatever source, whether male or female, provided only that offerings be made only of oxen and of sheep and goats. But if it be asked why he commanded two, a bullock and a ram, it is difficult to find out; unless perhaps he willed the bullock to be the peace-offering of the whole people, and the ram for each one as it were for individuals, since above too he seems as it were to have prescribed two kinds of peace-offering sacrifice:
one, which was as it were of all, he called 'the peace-offering'; the other, where he said: 'if anyone offer his own peace-offering.' Where too we found a difference, because in that which he called 'peace-offering' he did not mention that the fat of the breast was to be offered to the Lord, and the breast itself and the right shoulder given to the priest; but in the other he commanded this to be done, which he afterwards calls 'his own peace-offering' — which is perhaps understood as the private offering of individuals, not the public one of all. For Moses too offered peace-offerings, and it was not there said 'his own peace-offering'; I believe, because he offered for the whole people. But where all are, there are also the individuals; not, however, where the individuals are, are all necessarily there.
For individual things can exist without the whole; but the whole cannot subsist except from the several individuals. For the several individuals, gathered together or reckoned into a sum, make up the whole. It is indeed to be noted that, when sacrifices are offered for the people, both sacrifices for sin were commanded to be offered, and a holocaust, and peace-offerings; but for the priest there were offered a sacrifice for sin and a holocaust and one of consecration, but not a peace-offering. But the sacrifice of consecration was offered then, when the priests were sanctified that they might discharge the priesthood, and these Moses offered for Aaron and his sons.
But afterwards Aaron himself, now sanctified and discharging the priesthood, was commanded to offer for himself a bullock for sin and a ram for a holocaust; but he was not commanded to offer for himself a sacrifice of consecration, because it was offered then for this reason, that he might be consecrated and be able to discharge the priesthood, which, since he was now already discharging it, there was no need for him to be consecrated again. And Moses said to Aaron: 'Approach the altar and offer that which is for your sin and your holocaust, and make expiation for yourself and for your house.' It is remarkable how he says that what is for sin is to be done first, and then the holocaust, when above he commands the sacrifices for sins to be laid upon the holocausts — except for what he prescribed concerning birds.
Or is it perhaps that here he mentioned afterward what was done first, that is, the holocaust? For he did not say, as concerning the birds, 'do this first and that afterward,' but 'do this and that.' But what is to be done first, the instruction set forth above indicates, where he says the sacrifice for sins is to be laid upon the holocaust. Yet it greatly troubles us, that Scripture even thus narrates Aaron to have done what he heard, so as first to mention his doing that which is for sin, and then the holocaust. Whether he himself also did the former first, or whether Scripture narrated first that which was done afterward — as it is wont to do in many places — would be held uncertain, were it not that what I quoted above is read, when it treated of the sacrifice for sin. For thus it is read:
'and the priest shall lay it upon the altar, upon the holocaust of the Lord; and the priest shall make expiation for him for the sin which he sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.' How then could this be laid upon the holocaust, unless the holocaust were laid on first? But he commanded this also concerning the peace-offering, that it be laid upon the holocaust. Yet because he does not say this everywhere — not throughout all the peace-offerings nor throughout all the sacrifices for sin — it can perhaps be said that this was not commanded as a rule; but it was said to be done there only, that is, in the peace-offering when it is made of the herd — for there he prescribed it — and in the sacrifice for sin when it is made of a female from the sheep;
but the rest, whether they be peace-offerings or for sin, need not be laid upon the holocausts. It also troubles us that, when Aaron made the gifts of the people which he mentioned above, not all the things that had been foretold are recorded as immolated, but only the he-goat for sin and the holocaust — where, however, he did not expressly name that lamb; but the two others, which we said pertained rather to the sacrifice for sin than to the holocaust, he passed over in silence, that is, the ram and the bullock. Unless perhaps he wished the whole to be understood from a part, so that, the he-goat alone being mentioned, we should take those others also to have followed. When he was narrating concerning the peace-offering sacrifices of the people, how Aaron performed them, he says of the bullock and the ram:
'and he slew the bullock and the ram of the peace-offering sacrifice of the people; and the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him, and he poured it out at the altar round about; and the fat which was of the bullock and of the ram, the loin and the fat covering over the belly, and the two kidneys and the fat which is upon them, and the caul which is in the liver; and he put the fats upon the breasts and laid the fats at the altar; and the breast and the right shoulder Aaron took away as an oblation before the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.' Now he speaks in the singular, now in the plural, though he is speaking of two animals, the bullock and the ram. So when he says 'two kidneys,' it is to be understood as from each animal, and thus they become four; and so with the rest. But as for what he says:
'and he put the fats upon the breasts,' although he did not lay the breasts themselves upon the altar — for they were due to the priest together with the right shoulders — what does it mean? Or is it to be understood: 'and he put the fats which are upon the breasts'? For he laid those very fats, which he would place on the altar, taken from the breasts. For thus he had also prescribed above. Finally it follows: 'and he laid the fats upon the altar, and the breast and the right shoulder Aaron took away as an oblation before the Lord,' now introducing in the singular and saying 'the breast,' meaning of course both from each animal, which he had called 'the breasts.' What is it that he says:
'And when Aaron had lifted up his hands over the people, he blessed them and came down, when he had done that which is for sin and the holocausts and the things of the peace-offering'? But where did he do these things except upon the altar, that is, standing at the altar and ministering at it? Thence therefore he came down, where he stood. Doubtless the solution of that question seems to be aided by this testimony, where we had asked in Exodus how it could be possible to minister at an altar which was three cubits high. For we were forbidden to understand a step there, because God had forbidden it, lest upon the altar the private parts of the minister be uncovered — which certainly would happen if a part of the altar were a step, that is, if it adhered joined to it. Finally, there he forbade this, where he was speaking of the altar built of stones:
For the altar together with the step would be one thing, of which the step would be a part, and for that reason it was forbidden. But here, where the height of the altar had been so great that unless the priest stood upon something he could not minister fittingly, we must understand that whatever it was that was placed there at the hour of ministering and then taken away was not a part of the altar, and therefore was not contrary to the precept by which having a step was forbidden. But of what sort this thing was, whatever it may have been, Scripture kept silent, and for that reason the question has arisen. Yet now, when Scripture says that the priest, after he had performed the sacrifices, came down — that is, when he had laid the sacrificed offerings upon the altar — it clearly shows that he had stood somewhere from which he might come down; and because he had stood there.
therefore he could have devoted himself to ministering at an altar of three cubits. 'And all the people saw it, and were struck out of their minds': which other translators rendered 'was terrified,' attempting to carry over from the Greek what was there said; whence it is also called 'ekstasis,' which is often read in the Latin Scriptures as 'excess of mind' (a going out of the mind). 'And fire went out from the Lord, and devoured what was upon the altar, the burnt offerings and the fat.' What it means by 'from the Lord' may be asked: whether because it was done by the nod and will of the Lord, or because the fire went out from that place where the ark of the testimony was. For the Lord is not in some place in such a way that he should not be elsewhere. After the sons of Aaron were burnt and slain when fire went out from the Lord.
who had dared to put incense upon censers before the Lord with strange fire applied — which was for this reason not lawful, because from that fire which had divinely come upon the altar, and was thenceforth kept, all things were to be kindled that ought to be kindled in the tabernacle — when therefore they were dead, Moses said: 'This is what the Lord spoke, saying: In those who draw near to me I will be sanctified, and in all the congregation I will be glorified,' meaning by those who draw near to the Lord to be understood those who exercised the priesthood in the tabernacle; and that he is sanctified in them also by taking vengeance, as was done. Whether this was so that hence it might be known how much less he spares others, if he does not spare these — in which sense it is said:
'If the righteous will scarcely be saved, where will the sinner and the ungodly appear?' — or rather according to that saying: 'To whom more is given, more is required of him'; and that other: 'The servant who did not know his master's will and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes; but the servant who knew his master's will and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with many stripes'; and that other: 'For to the small mercy will be granted, but the mighty shall suffer mightier torments.' But where the Lord said this which Moses recorded him to have said is not found in the Scripture that comes before. This, then, is like the case in Exodus, where he says to the Lord: 'You said: I know you above all,' which is indeed found to have been said to him by the Lord, but afterward.
But since Moses would never say this falsely, it is understood that he had said it to him even before, although it was not written down; and so also in this case. Whence it appears that not all things were written down that God spoke to those through whom his holy Scripture was ministered to us. What is the meaning of this, that when he forbids Aaron and his remaining sons to mourn the death of those two, he says: 'You shall not uncover your head of the turban,' where he certainly shows that turbans were coverings of the head? Unless it be that mourners did those things which were contrary to the custom of adornment. For just as in our custom, because the head is more usually kept uncovered, it is covered in mourning, so, because they were adorned by a covering of the head, it had to be bared by mourners.
Which he therefore forbids, lest they should mourn those in whose punishment the Lord was sanctified — that is, whereby fear of him was commended. And not because they were not to be mourned — for he permits others to mourn them — but because they ought not then to mourn, while the days of their consecration were being kept, the seven not yet being completed, during which he commanded them not to depart from the tabernacle. Although it can seem that, because they had been consecrated with that oil, this was said to mean that they ought never to mourn anyone at all. For thus he says: 'But your brethren, all the house of Israel, shall bewail the burning wherewith they were burnt by the Lord. And you shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, lest you die; for the oil of anointing which is from the Lord is upon you.'
'And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying: You and your sons with you shall not drink wine or strong drink, when you enter into the tabernacle of the testimony or when you approach the altar, and you shall not die.' When, then, was it lawful for them to drink, seeing that it was necessary for them daily to enter into the tabernacle and to approach the altar because of their continual service? But if anyone says that sacrifices were not wont to be laid on every day, what does he say of the entrance into the tabernacle, which was daily because of the candlestick and the loaves of the presence to be placed upon the table?
But if it is answered that by 'into the tabernacle of the testimony' — now, in what he says — is to be understood that place where the ark of the testimony was, the high priest also had need to enter even there because of the incense of the continual offering. For he did not enter only once a year: but with the blood of purification once a year, yet because of the incense daily. Or is it to be understood that God commanded them not to drink wine at all? Why then did he not rather so command, to say briefly: 'You shall not drink wine,' but added: 'when you enter into the tabernacle or when you approach the altar'? Or is it because the reason for not drinking was not to be passed over in silence, especially because God foreknew that afterward there would be so many even high priests at one time.
that is, not by succession, who would serve the tabernacle and the sacrifices and the incense and all that ministry by turns — since those certainly did not drink whose turn it was to serve, while others drank? Or what else is to be understood in this place? For since he forbade the priests to drink wine and strong drink, he went on to say: 'a perpetual statute throughout your generations.' It is ambiguous whether it is connected with the preceding sense, that is, whether it pertains to the not drinking of wine, or with the following, where there follows:
'to distinguish between the midst of the holy and the profaned, and between the midst of the clean and the unclean, and to instruct the children of Israel in all the statutes which the Lord spoke to them by the hand of Moses' — so that this may be a perpetual statute for the office of the priests throughout their generations. But in what manner he says 'perpetual,' we have already often said. This also is set down ambiguously, when he says: 'to distinguish between the midst of the holy and the profaned, and between the midst of the clean and the unclean,' whether from that which,
which are holy things and clean things, or defiled and unclean things; or from that which they are holy men and clean men, or defiled and unclean men — that is, whether he wished the priests to distinguish between those sacred things themselves, which were done rightly or not rightly, or between the men themselves who were to be approved or disapproved; or rather is it to be referred to both, whether men or sacred things. 'The little breast of separation and the arm of removal you shall eat in a holy place.' Although each was given for each, yet without doubt both could be called 'of separation,' because each is set apart for the priest, and both 'of removal' or of taking away — which in Greek is called 'aphairema' — because both are removed and taken away from those for whom the offering is made, that it may be given to the priest.
We read above 'the little breast of the placing' and 'the arm of removal,' because nothing from the arm was placed upon the altar. But the fat from the little breast was placed upon it. What is the meaning of his saying: 'of the sacrifices of the saving offerings' (salutarium), when he speaks of those things which elsewhere he called 'the sacrifices of the saving offering' (salutaris), and when he said it in the singular number: 'the sacrifice of the saving offering,' when the same thing was being spoken of? Or perhaps in this place, where he says 'from the sacrifices of the saving offerings' (salutarium), it ought to have been said 'of healings' (sanitatum)? For in that psalm, where it is said: 'Hear us, O God of our health' (sanitatum), the Greek has this word which it has also in this place, that is 'sotērion.'
This genitive plural in the Greek tongue is ambiguous, whether the noun is declined from 'salvation' (salus) or from 'saving' (salutare), since 'sōtēria' means salvation or health. Whence comes the genitive plural 'tōn sōtēriōn'; but 'sōtērion' means the saving thing, and thence the genitive plural is the very same. If, therefore, it can rightly be understood also as 'the sacrifice of salvation,' which is 'the sacrifice of the saving thing,' since salvation is given by the saving thing, and that is the saving thing from which salvation is received, it is not necessary that we here understand, as it were, sacrifices of many saving things where it is said 'from the sacrifices of the saving offerings' (salutarium), but perhaps of many healings, which nevertheless are received from the one saving thing. But what the saving thing (salutare) of God is, of which it is said:
'I will take the cup of salvation,' and of which Symeon says in the Gospel: 'For my eyes have seen your salvation' (salutare) — the Christian faith knows. Indeed, they may not absurdly be understood or called also 'saving sacrifices,' which belong to the saving thing. 'And it shall be for you and for your sons and for your daughters a perpetual statute.' Not in vain is 'daughters' added, since he forbids certain things pertaining to the priests' food to be received by women, but commands them to be received by males. When Moses had sought the goat offered for the sins of the people and had not found it, because it had been burnt, and was angry, because those things which were offered by the people for sin.
the Lord had appointed for the priests to be eaten from thence, the fat and the kidneys being offered — but he was angry not with his brother, but with his sons, I believe because the ministry of suggesting to them belonged to those — Aaron answered him and said: 'If today they have offered those things which are for their sin and their burnt offerings before the Lord, and such things have befallen me, and I eat that which is for sin today, will it be pleasing to the Lord?' And Moses heard, and it pleased him. Aaron seems to have said this: that on that very day, on which the children of Israel first offered for their sin, it ought not to be eaten by the priests, but wholly burnt — not making of this a rule for the rest: for thereafter they themselves ate the sacrifices for sins.
But because this was the first, offered first on that very first day, it is to be believed that Aaron the priest said this by divine inspiration, so that both that concerning the priests might thenceforth be observed which the Lord had commanded Moses, and that what Aaron said, as though divinely spoken, Moses should approve. What, then, of the other sacrifices of that same day, that is, of the ram and the calf, which we have said ought also themselves to be understood as offered for sin? Or is there no question about the calf, since it had to be done in such a way that from its blood, as had been commanded, it should be brought in, whereby also the horns of the altar of incense might be touched, and it was consequent that the whole should burn? What, then, of the ram?
Or since Moses first sought the goat, what was answered to him about the goat is also to be understood about the ram, which in order he would have sought, had not that answer of the priest pleased him? But what should he ask about the calf, since it could be done by that law which God had commanded concerning the calf for the sin of the whole congregation, just as concerning the calf for the sin of the priest, that is, that the whole should burn outside the camp? For these are the words of Moses being angry at the sons of his brother, when he had not found the goat sought for sin, because it had been wholly burnt: 'Why did you not eat that which was for sin in a holy place?'
'For since they are most holy, he has given this to you to eat, that you may take away the sin of the congregation and make intercession for it before the Lord. For its blood was not brought into the holy place within, before the face. You shall eat it in a holy place, as the Lord appointed me.' Assuredly, when he says: 'For its blood was not brought into the holy place within, before the face,' he without doubt distinguishes that which is thus done for the sin of the priest or for the sin of the whole congregation, not from the goat, of whose blood, since it had not been commanded to be brought in for touching the horns of the altar of incense within, it ought not to be wholly burnt, but to be eaten by the priests.
But why this was done, that is, that this one too should be wholly burnt, Aaron answered, and it pleased Moses. Assuredly, since six animals had been commanded to the elders of the people to be offered for the people, of which four he mentioned first,
a goat and a ram and a calf and a lamb of a year old — of which it is manifest that the goat was for sin, and manifest also that the lamb of a year old was for a burnt offering — but the two middle ones, the ram and the calf, we had seen were set down ambiguously, whether they pertained to the sacrifice for sin and were joined to the goat, or rather to the lamb, so as to be offered for a burnt offering — whence we set forth in its place what seemed to us — but afterward, that the six animals might be completed, he mentioned the calf and the ram as a sacrifice of the saving offering. And yet in what follows, when they were sacrificed and again mentioned, no mention is made of those very animals, the ram and the calf, which he had set between the goat and the lamb; but only that calf and that ram are mentioned which he had commanded to be offered as a sacrifice of the saving offering, so that now not six animals, but rather four, are to be believed to have been:
It can perhaps be understood that those two which he had first set between the goat and the lamb, he named again, and it is not another calf and another ram for the sacrifice of the saving offering; so that, when he had said the goat for sin and the ram and the calf without saying for what, that is, for what purpose, but the lamb of a year old for a burnt offering, afterward he wished to say what was to be done with the calf and the ram, that is, that neither for sin like the goat nor for a burnt offering like the lamb, but for a sacrifice of the saving offering they were commanded to be brought.
But if we understand this, a question will remain: why a goat was offered for the sin of the congregation, when concerning the sacrifices that were to be offered for sins the Lord, speaking from the beginning, commanded a calf to be offered for the sin of the congregation, just as for the sin of the priest, not a goat but a calf — of which calf he also commanded the blood likewise, as for the sin of the priest, to be brought in for touching the horns of the altar of incense — and what was the reason that for the sin of Aaron and Moses a calf should be offered, and Aaron himself another calf, just as for the sin of the priest it was fitting to be offered according to God's precept, but for the sin of the people not a calf, as had been commanded, but rather a goat should be offered.