Chapter 14 of 50

14:18Melchisedech. St. Jerome being earnestly requested by Evagrius, to give his judgement touching Melchisedech, whom a nameless author had endeavoured to prove to be the Holy Ghost, plainly confuteth that error: as also another error of Origen and Didymus saying, he was an Angel. Likewise St. Epiphanius (heresi 55. & 76.) relateth and condemneth a third error, of some that thought him to be the Son of God. These two Fathers, and St. Augustine (l. de heresibus her. 34.) and divers others, whom St. Jerome allegeth, prove evidently, that he was a very man, a Priest and a king, yea the high Priest (at least of that country) Superior to Abraham, and a figure of Christ. Besides these heresies, the same St. Jerome relateth two probable opinions. The Jewish Rabbins generally hold that Melchisedech was Sem the son of Noe, from whom Abraham and all the Hebrews descended. Which they seem rather to affirm, as loath to confess that any man, of other nation than their own, should have been greater and more excellent than Abraham in spiritual causes, than for any reason they do, or can allege. Yet many especially latter writers as Lyranus, Tostatus, Genebrardus and others do embrace this opinion as most probable. Though St. Jerome seemeth only to have added the Hebrews' opinion (as he saith) because he would intimate all to his friend, when he had first cited graver authors, Saints Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius Cæsariensis, Eusebius Emissenus, Apollinarius, and Eustathius, all agreeably affirming that Melchisedech was a Chananite, king of Salem, which was afterwards called Jerusalem. To this opinion agreeth Philo the Jew continually speaking of him, as of a stranger to the Jews' nation. Josephus also a Jew writeth plainly (li. 7. de bello Iudaico. c. 18.) that he was of Chanaan, and Prince of the Chananites. Also St. Dionysius the Areopagite, (Celest. Hier. c. 9.) St. Epiphanius (her. 55. & 67.) Theodoret (q. 63. in Gen.) and Suidas, are of the same mind, and many other Christian Doctors. Who confirm their assertion by that St. Paul saith to the Hebrews: He whose generation is not numbered among them, took tithes of Abraham. For what else can St. Paul mean, but that Melchisedech's kindred and people, was diverse from the kindred, and people of the Jews? which he could not say of Sem, from whom Abraham and all Jews descended: as it cannot be said, that Adam and Noe are of diverse generation from any people that now liveth, because we all come of them. Of this difficulty (not pertaining to any controversy of our time) the studious may see more in F. Pererius his commentaries upon this 14. chap. of Genesis. disp. 3.

14:18Bringing forth. Seeing the Royal Prophet David, and St. Paul say Christ is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, we demand of Protestants, if Christ fulfilled not Melchisedech's figurative Sacrifice offered in bread and wine, by offering his own body and blood at his last supper in forms of bread and wine, and by instituting the same to be offered by his Priests till the end of the world, what other figurative sacrifice of Melchisedech they can find performed by Christ, by which it may appear that he is a Priest for ever according to that order? Calvin (li. 4. Instit. c. 18. para 2.) Kemnitius (par. 2. exam. pag. 740. & 747.) Peter Martyr (in 1 Cor. 5.) and most English Protestants grant that Melchisedech was a Priest, and that the peculiar function of a Priest is to offer Sacrifice, wherefore they having no sacrifice will have only ministers and no Priests, but they deny that Melchisedech offered Sacrifice in bread and wine. Whereupon we join issue with them to prove that he did. and that by this place amongst others of holy Scripture. Kemnitius complaineth that the Latin text hath Obtulit for Protulit, Offered, for brought forth. And to disprove the same, he allegeth the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and St. Cyprian. But Catholics more justly complain of him, for lying. For all Latin Editions have Proferens, bringing forth. The question therefore in controversy is, to what end and use Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine? Calvin and Kemnitius say it was only to refresh or feed Abraham and his men, and not for sacrifice. which their bare saying is without reason, for that there was store of victuals in the prey (v. 11.) and they had eaten thereof. Moreover the Hebrew word Hotsi, brought forth, is a word pertaining to Sacrifice, as in the 6. chap of Judges (v. 18. and 19.) and importeth that the bread and wine were first offered in Sacrifice, and then doubtless they did participate: though they wanted not other sufficient corporal food. Again the words following, For he was the Priest of God most high, can have no other sense, but he did the function of a Priest in the bread and wine which he brought, otherwise if the only cause of bringing that provision had been to relieve the camp with victuals, the reason would rather have been yielded, because he was a bountiful King, a liberal Prince, a special friend to Abraham, as indeed he was, but none of these reasons, or the like fitted this purpose so well, nor touched the cause of bringing forth bread and wine, as to signify that he was Priest, whose office is to offer Sacrifice. Here again some Protestants take exception against the Latin text, that the causal conjunction Enim, for, is not agreeable to the Hebrew, but should be the copulative Et, and, which is a mere wrangling. For the learned know well enough, that the Hebrew particle is better expressed in such places, by Enim or quia, for or because, than by &. And so the English Bible printed in the year of our Lord 1552. readeth: Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the most highest God. The latter Editions also in like sort have not the copulative And, but some other word as the sense requireth. Gen. 20. v. 3. Thou art but a dead man, for the woman's sake which thou hast: for she is a man's wife. where the Hebrew phrase is, And she is married to a husband. Gen. 30. v. 27. they read thus: For I have proved that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake, where precisely construing the Hebrew they should say, I divined (or conjectured) and the Lord blessed me for thy sake. Likewise Isaias 64. v. 5. they read: But Lo, thou hast been angry, for we offended, the Hebrew is thus: thou art angry, and we have sinned. In the same place, they translate, Yet shall be saved, which the Hebrew expresseth by the copulative, And we shall be saved. So when they think it convenient, they translate the Hebrew particle, for, yet, which strictly signifieth And. Now let us also see the original in this place. In the Hebrew it is thus: VMALCHI TSEDEC MELEC SALEM HOTSI LECHEM VAIAIIN. VEHV COHEN LEEL ELION. VAIE VARECHEHV, &c. In English word for word thus: And Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread and wine. And he the priest to God most high. And he blessed him, &c. where albeit the causal word For, is not expressed, yet these words, And he the priest, further declaring that besides the office and dignity of a King (which was said before) Melchisedech was also a Priest, must needs signify that he did something about bread and wine belonging to a Priest's office. And what that something was, perhaps the University of Cambridge will testify, whose late professor of Divinity teacheth plainly, that Melchisedech offered Sacrifice, and was therein a figure of Christ (Pag. 6. Reprehen.) Sacerdotes (saith he) ii vere & proprie sunt, qui sacrificia faciunt, qualis fuit Aaron, & Aaronis filii, & Melchisedechus, & quem illi adumbrabant, Christus. Priests truly and properly are they, that offer sacrifices, such as was Aaron, and the sons of Aaron, and Melchisedech, and Christ, whom they prefigured. If then both Aaron and Melchisedech were truly and properly Priests, because they offered sacrifices (according to this Professor's definition) and both were figures of Christ, it must needs be granted that as Christ fulfilled the figure of Aaron's bloody sacrifices, in offering himself upon the Cross: so he also fulfilled the figure as well of unbloody sacrifices of Aaron, as especially of Melchisedech's Sacrifice (in some other besides that on the Cross, seeing the prophet David and St. Paul say, Christ is a Priest (not according to Aaron's order, for that was to have an end, but) For ever according to the order of Melchisedech. And what other Sacrifice did our Saviour offer to remain perpetual, but of his own body and blood in unbloody manner, under the forms of bread and wine, with commandment to his Apostles and Priests to do the same till the end of the world? Let the indifferent reader weigh it well. And whosoever is not very proud will for his better instruction, or confirmation, esteem the uniform judgement of many, ancient, godly, and learned Fathers writing upon this place. We will only recite their words, without other deduction for brevity sake. St. Clement of Alexandria (li. 4. Strom. versus finem) writeth thus: Melchisedech king of Salem, Priest of God most high, gave wine and bread sanctified nutriment in type of the Eucharist. St. Cyprian (Epist. 63. ad Cæcilium): Christ is Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, which order is this coming from that Sacrifice, and thence descending, that Melchisedech was Priest of God most high, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a Priest of God most high, than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same, which Melchisedech had offered, bread and wine, to wit, his own body and blood. And a little after: That therefore in Genesis, the blessing might be rightly celebrated, about Abraham, by Melchisedech the Priest, the image of Christ's Sacrifice consisting in bread and wine went before, which thing our Lord perfecting and performing, offered bread and chalice mixed with wine, and he that is the plenitude, fulfilled the verity of the prefigured image. Eusebius Cæsariensis (li. 5. Demonst. Evang. c. 3.): Even as he who was Priest of Nations was never seen to offer corporal sacrifices, but only bread and wine, when he blessed Abraham: so first our Lord and Saviour himself, then priests that come from him, exercising the spiritual office of Priesthood in all nations after the Ecclesiastical ordinances, do represent the mysteries of his body, and healthful blood in bread and wine. which mysteries Melchisedech knew so long before by divine spirit, and used as representations of things to come. St. Ambrose (li. 5. de Sacramen. c. 1.): We know the figure of the Sacraments went before, in Abraham's time, when Melchisedech offered Sacrifice. The same in cap. 5. Heb.: It is clear that oblations of cattle are vanished, which were in Aaron's order, but Melchisedech's institution remaineth, which is celebrated all the world over in administration of the Sacraments. St. Jerome (Epist. ad Marcellam ut migret Bethleem): Have recourse to Genesis, and you shall find Melchisedech king of Salem, prince of this city, who even then in figure of Christ offered bread and wine, and dedicated the Christian mystery in our Saviour's body and blood. The same Epist. ad Evagrium: Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the Sacrament of Christ in bread and wine, simple and pure sacrifice. The same Quest. in Gen. c. 14: Our mystery is signified in the word of order, not by Aaron in immolating brute victims, but in offering bread and wine, that is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus. The same in c. 26. Matthei: Melchisedech the Priest of God most high, by offering bread and wine, prefigured the Mystery of the Eucharist. St. Chrysostom (ho. 35. in Gen.): Seeing the figure, think also I pray thee, of the verity. ho. 36.: After that Melchisedech king of Salem brought bread and wine (for he was Priest of God most high) Abraham received his oblations. St. Augustine (Epist. 95.): Melchisedech bringing forth the sacrament (or mystery) of our Lord's table, knew how to figurate his eternal priesthood. The same li. 16. c. 22. civit.: There first appeared that sacrifice, which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole world. The same li. 17. c. 17. li. 18. c. 35. and upon the Psalm 109. li. 1. contra adverse. Leg. & prophet. c. 20. Ser. 4. de Sanctis Innocentibus. But it is bootless or needless to cite more places, or more authors. for whosoever will not submit their judgements to these, would not, it is like, believe, if their own masters should rise again and warn them, lest they be damned for their incredulity.

14:19Blessed him. Calvin (in cap. 7. v. 9. Heb.) Musculus (locis com. c. de Missa Papist.) and some other Protestants to avoid the connexion of Melchisedech's Priesthood and bringing forth of bread and wine, will needs have these words, He was a Priest, referred only to that which followeth, he blessed Abraham. And some English translators for this purpose have corrupted the text, changing, And into Therefore, saying thus: And he was a Priest of the most high God, therefore he blessed him. which is also a false gloss. For Melchisedech did not bless Abram because he was a Priest, for Abram was also a Priest, but because he was a greater Priest than Abram. which St. Paul urgeth saying: Without all contradiction that which is less, is blessed of the better, concluding thereupon that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham. Again other Superiors that are not Priests may bless their inferiors. As Josue and Salomon blessed the people, and parents bless their children.

14:20Gave tithes. This is another prerogative of Melchisedech, that Abram paid tithes to him, which St. Paul likewise explicateth (Heb. 7.) and proveth thereby that Christ's Priesthood is greater than the Levitical. Moreover this paying of tithes by Abraham showeth the antiquity of this tradition, being practised in Abraham's time, that the spiritual Superiors received tithes of their inferiors.