Translated by John Litteral ----------------------------------------------------------- In this letter Jerome refutes the interpretation by Ambrosiaster in his Q&A on the Old and New Testaments Q. 109 concerning Melchizedek being a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Jerome of Stridon, Letter 73 to Evangelus, Patrologia Latina 22 An anonymous writer had asserted that the high priest Melchizedek was not a man, but the Holy Spirit; Jerome refutes it by the judgement of the ancient Christians, showing that he was really a man, of the race of the Chananeans; and, if the Jews were to be believed, it would be Shem himself, the first of Noah's children. 1. You sent me a volume without the author's name; and I don't know if it was you who erased the name in the title, or if it was the author himself who did not want to confess to escape the danger of the discussion. On reading it I understood that by the power of reasoning on the famous question of the office of Melchizedek, he had come to impose himself the task of demonstrating that the one who had blessed the great Patriarch was not a simple mortal and participated in the divine nature. He ended up daring to say that the Holy Spirit had gone to meet Abraham and appeared under the figure of a man. As for knowing how the Holy Spirit could offer bread and wine, and receive the tithe of the spoils made by Abraham on the four defeated kings, he did not even touch on this question. You therefore ask me to explain to you what I think of the writer and the subject itself. I recognize that I wanted to conceal my opinion, and not to get involved in a debate which is not without danger and which lends itself to recriminations; for I was convinced that I would make people dissatisfied, whatever I might have said. After having re-read the letter and the pressing requests addressed to me on the last page, I did not think I could reject your petition, and I began to leaf through the books of the ancients, to make sure of what everyone teaches, and to respond to you as after taking advice from a large assembly. 2. And first, I met the first homily of Origen on Melchizedek; and in this explanation of Genesis, the author drawn by the very extent of his discussion, comes to the point of declaring that this pontiff was an angel. To establish his assumption, he uses the same arguments roughly as your writer to establish his own. From there I went to Didymus his disciple, and I saw a man who threw himself right in the opinion of his master. I then went to consult Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and that of Emesa, Apollinaris, and our Eustathius, who the first of the bishops of Antioch sounded his brilliant trumpet the combat against Arius; and I found that all by different arguments and paths, led to the same conclusion, to declare that Melchizedek was a Chananean, king of this city which first was called Salem, then Jebus, and finally Jerusalem. They add that we should not be surprised if he is represented to us as a priest of the Most High, apart from circumcision, legal ceremonies and the family of Aaron; for Abel also, Enoch and Noah offered victims and were acceptable to God. We also see in the book of Job that this patriarch made offerings, fulfilled sacred functions, and every day immolated victims for his children. (Job 1) They add that Job was by no means of the race of Levi, but descended from Esau, although the Hebrews claim something else. 3. But, like Noah, though having been drunk in his tent, and by the same token as an object of mockery for his second son because of his nakedness, (Gen. 9) became the figure of the Savior, and Cham that of the Jewish people; just as Samson, having fallen in love with a poor courtesan, Dalila, killed more enemies by dying than he had struck during his life, (Jud. 16) thus symbolizing the passion of Christ; just as almost all the holy patriarchs and prophets have in some way retraced the figure of the Savior; Likewise Melchizedek, precisely because he was a Canaanite, and not of the Jewish race, foreshadowed the priesthood of the Son of God; this is why it is said to him in the hundred and ninth psalm: "You are a priest for eternity, according to the order of Melchizedek." This order is interpreted in many ways: Melchizedek was alone and king and priest; his priesthood had preceded circumcision, so that it was not the Gentiles who received the priesthood from the Jews, but quite the opposite; he was not anointed with sacred oil, as evidenced by the laws of Moses, but with the oil of joy and the purity of faith; he did not sacrifice the victims of flesh and blood, nor hold the entrails of the animals in his hands; but, by offering bread and wine, he preludes by a pure sacrifice to the sacrament of Christ. It would be easy for me to continue this parallel, if the brevity of a letter allowed me to do so. 4. It is exposed, moreover, with much more breadth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, admitted by all the Greeks and by a great number of Latins, that Melchizedek, that is to say, the just king, reigned over Salem , or even the king of peace, was without father or mother, in a word without genealogy; we also see there what is the meaning of this word; for it should not be understood by this that he really had neither father nor mother, Christ himself having a father and a mother according to his double nature; it simply means that he suddenly appears to us in Genesis going to meet Abraham when he came back from defeating enemies, and that his name is no longer written in this book neither before nor after. Now the Apostle affirmed that the priesthood of Aaron, or indeed of the Jewish nation, had a beginning and must have an end; while that of Melchizedek, or that of Christ and the Church, is of eternal duration, either in the past or in the future, and is not the work of anyone. He also teaches that, the priesthood being transferred, the law must change; and that the word of the Lord must be transmitted, not by the handmaid Hagar and by the mountain of Sina, but by the free woman Sara and by the citadel of Zion; that the law of God must come out of Jerusalem. He first intensifies the difficulty by expressing himself in this way: "The above we would have a lot to say, and our speech would still be incomprehensible." (Heb. 5:11) It is not that the Apostle could not have interpreted it; is that the time did not include such a revelation. He spoke to Jews, not to faithful; he therefore should not indiscriminately give them the Christian mysteries. If the vase of election remains dumb with astonishment and declares ineffable what he wants to speak of, how much more we, worms, puny insects, should we only profess the knowledge of ignorance, and only show a vast nonsense by a narrow opening, recognizing the two priesthoods compared by the Apostle, that of the old and that of the new people? In all this long discussion, its sole purpose is to establish that before Lévi and Aaron, there was a priest from the Gentiles, Melchizedek, whose merit was all the greater, that he was able to bless the future priests of the Jews in the person of their father Abraham. Everything that comes next to the praise of Melchizedek relates to the type of Christ, must be realized in the sacraments of the Church. 5. This is what I read in the works of the Greeks; and, as we reduce a vast landscape to small proportions in a painting, I wanted to summarize everything in a few essential points, instead of following their thoughts and their developments; and so you can learn in a short letter what the opinions of many are. But, as you question me with so much affection and confidence, I must distill all my research on this point, and tell you the very feeling of the Hebrews. So that nothing is missing and your legitimate curiosity is fully satisfied, I place before your eyes even the Hebrew terms: UMELCHISEDEC MELEC SALEM MOSI LEHEM VAIAIN, UHU CHOEN LEEL ELION: VAIBAR CHEU VAIOMER BARUCH ABRAM LEEL ELION CONE SAMAIM VA ARES: UBARUCII EL ELION ESER MAGGEN SARACH BIADACH VAIETHEN LO MAASER MECCHOL (Gen. 14:18). Here is how we can render this passage: "And Melchizedek king of Salem, offered bread and wine, for he was a priest of God Most High; he blessed him by saying: Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, who created heaven and earth; and blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered your enemies into your hands. And he gave him a tenth of everything." It is claimed that this pontiff was Shem, the first son of Noah, and that he was, at the birth of Abraham, three hundred and ninety years old, which is broken down as follows: Shem, the second year after the flood, then having a hundred years, fathered Arphaxad, and lived five hundred years from this time, in all six hundred years. Arphaxad, at the age of thirty-five, fathered Salem, who himself, at the age of thirty, fathered Heber, who in turn became the father of Phaleg, at the age of thirty-four , as we read in Scripture. Phaleg, after thirty years of age, fathered Rehu, who became Serug's father after his thirty-second year. Serug, when he was thirty, fathered Nachor; who, at the age of twenty-nine, fathered Thare; and we read that this one, already seventy, fathered Abram, Nachor and Aran. Now suppose the number of years in each generation, and you will find that from the birth of Sem until that of Abratham, three hundred and ninety years had passed. Now Abraham died at the age of one hundred and seventy-five. So we see that Sem survived thirty-five years from his tenth degree great-nephew. 6. It adds that to the priesthood of Aaron all the firstborn of the descendants of Noah, the order and the series which read the sacred books, were priests, sacrificed victims to God; and it was the birthright that Esau sold to his brother Jacob. (Gen. 25) So we should not be surprised if Melchizedek goes to meet Abraham when he came back victorious, if he presented him with bread and wine to repair his strength and that of the combatants, if he blessed him, something to which he was bound by right with regard to his grandson, if he finally received the tenth of the spoils, fruit of the victory. There is however an ambiguity: he himself could have given the tenth of his goods, and renewed in this circumstance the ancient generosity. Either meaning is permissible, either according to the Hebrew text or according to the version of the Septuagint: he may have received the tithe of the spoils as well as having given the tithe of his possessions. But the Apostle, in his Epistle to Hebrews (Heb. 7) declares in the most formal way that it is not Abraham who received the tenth of the riches of Melchizedek, and that it is on the contrary this one which received that spoils. 7. Salem would not designate the city of Jerusalem, as Josephus thought and all our interpretations, this name obviously cannot be made up of two different languages, Greek and Hebrew, which would be absurd; it would designate a stronghold located near Seythopolis, and which until today is still called Salem. We show the palace of Melchizedek, which by the size of the ruins attests to the magnificence of the old constructions. Here is what we read in this regard towards the end of Genesis: "Jacob went to Socoth, which means tabernacles, and there he built houses for him and pitched tents; then he passed to Salem, city of the region of Sichem, which is in the land of Chanaan." (Gen. 33:17-18) 8. It should also be noted that, when Abraham returned after having won the victory over the enemies, which he had pursued until Dan, (Gen. 14) today named Paneas, he encountered on his way, not the outskirts of Jerusalem, but the stronghold of the metropolis of Sichem; and we see moreover in the Gospel the following line: "John was to be baptized in Ennon, near Salim, because there was abundant water.” (Jn. 3:23) And it does not matter that Latin writes Salem or Salim, the Hebrews almost never using the vowels in the interior of the words, and the pronunciation remaining free, varying the sounds and the accents according to the idea of the readers and the difference of the countries. 9. This is what we have learned from the most learned men in this nation; and they are so far from taking Melchizedek for the Holy Spirit or for an angel, that they write the name of man with absolute certainty. Indeed, as soon as it is said on the occasion of the type that the priesthood of Christ will have no end, as soon as he himself priest and king has given us to be a royal and priestly race, (l Peter. 2) brought the two walls together as the cornerstone, and of the two flocks is one, being the good Shepherd, (Ephes. 2:16) it is absurd to interpret all of this in an anagogical sense to the point of destroying the truth of the facts and claiming that he was not king, that it was an angel who showed himself in human appearance; so especially that the Hebrews neglect no means to establish that Melchizedek king of Salem was himself a saint, the son of Noah, and that they refer to this passage from the sacred book: "Now the king of Sodom went out to go to meet him," to meet Abraham, there is no doubt, "when he came back to cut Chodorlahomor and the other kings in the Save valley, which is the king's valley." (Gen. 14) After that comes the text: "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, presented the bread and the wine..." If it is therefore here the city or the valley of the king, or else, according to the translation of the Septuagint, the countryside today named Aulon by the inhabitants of Palestine, the one who reigned over a valley and an earthly city, was obviously a man. 10. You now know what I collected, what I read about Melchizedek. Calling the witnesses was my job: it's up to you to judge the degree of faith that their testimony deserves. If you reject them all, you will certainly not receive your spiritual interpreter, who, no less able to speak than devoid of knowledge, pronounces with so much assurance and pride that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit; and from then on he will recognize the truth of what the Greeks are proclaiming: "Inability gives confidence, knowledge inspires timidity." As for what concerns me after a long illness, it was hardly during Lent that I was able to get rid of the fever; and, as I was preparing to occupy myself with another work, I devoted the few days which remained to the explanation of Saint Matthew. I resumed with such greed my interrupted studies, that a useful work to untie my tongue became harmful to my health. ---------------------------------------------------- Ambrosiaster, Questions on the Old and New Testaments Q. 109 ON MELCHIZEDEK. — Here is what we read of Melchizedek in the book of Genesis and also in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews: Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared at the meeting with Abraham when he returned from the defeat of the kings, offered him bread and wine and blessed him, saying, "Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God who created heaven and earth and put your enemies into your hands (Gen. 13:18).” And to make us better understand the one who was represented by Melchizedek, the Apostle adds: "No doubt the one who receives the blessing is inferior to him who gives it (Heb. 7:3)”; words which the Apostle does not apply to the tradition of ecclesiastical ministry. Who, indeed, would dare to say that the rule instituted by the Lord to bless the faithful is superior to those which it blesses? It is therefore the mysterious presence of the Lord that is felt in these words of which he is the object and which recall him to our memory. The sacred author has wished to show us here his personal dignity and his power. What then is the greatness of this man in comparison with whom Abraham has only the second rank, in spite of the superiority which his generosity and faith give him among the faithful? Let us understand here that this Melchizedek does not bless Abraham, like the priests, by pronouncing a solemn formula of blessing, but by a blessing peculiar to him, and which he received not by an oral tradition but by nature and substantially. The priests to whom we give the name of pontiffs have solemn formulas of blessing which have been transmitted to them, and which they recite on the men whom they bless, not always on those whom they desire, but upon those which they do not wish to bless, because the author of this rule knows in what soul he ought to shed his holy blessing. He, on the contrary, who possesses this blessing substantially in virtue of his nature, and whom Moses calls the priest of the Most High God, gives this blessing as he does. The words of blessing and his nature always agree with his will. He never errs in wanting to give it where it should not be, or refusing it when he should give it, the words of the blessing he utters always have their efficiency. Our priests, on the contrary, invoke the name of the Lord every day, and pronounce formulas of blessing, but very few of them receive the effect. The priests also bless those who are superior to them. Whatever saint we may be, we bow to receive the blessing, because it is not an invention of the priest, but a divine institution. The high priest Heli blessed Anna, and this blessing has not the merit of the grandmaster, but the faith of this pious woman, whose pure heart God knew. (I Kings 1:17) If Melchizedek is declared superior to Abraham, it is not only because of priestly dignity, but by his nature, and the sacred writer wants to teach us that he is more that a man. It is impossible, indeed, to see only one man in one who is placed above such a great friend of God, of a man so full of faith that for love and fear of God he hesitated not to sacrifice his son, who was so dear to him. By what justice, by what works could he have acquired more merit than Abraham? What more could he do that Abraham did? In the first place, when he did not know God, and without yet seeing any decisive sign, God said to him, "Come out of your land and your kinsfolk and your father's house (Gen. 12:1)”, And he immediately obeyed without delay, thus accomplishing the will, not only of God who spoke to him at that time, but of the Lord was to manifest himself to mankind. Does not the Savior say, "Whoever loves his house, his father, or his mother, or his brothers, or his parents, more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:37)?" What then is the virtue and perfection of Abraham who fulfills the commandments of the Savior before they are proclaimed to the world? The Apostle recommends above all the practice of hospitality, Abraham so faithfully exercised it that it is his example which seems to have determined St. Paul to make this recommendation. He then thought that his posterity would multiply like the stars of heaven, which seems a madness to the eyes of the sages of the century (Heb. 13:2; Gen. 18:3), who are thus condemned by his example even before God had threatened to lose their wisdom, for it is afterwards that he says by his prophets: "I will lose the wisdom of the wise (Is. 29:14).” Abraham still obeys the command of God, who commands him to circumcise himself, which he could not do without pain, and he submits to it to give his descendants the example of patience (Gen. 17:24). God promises him that he will have a son of Sarah his wife despite his advanced age, and he does not doubt for a moment. He thus taught to future centuries that faith in the authority of God must be so complete, that it does not allow the slightest doubt about the commandments or the promises he can make even though they appear contrary to reason. We must consider here the person rather than the words, for it is the person who confirms and makes possible what the words appear to be weak. It is God who promises, and we must believe that he can do what seems impossible to men. In what way would man be reprehensible by attributing to God a power which he does not recognize in himself? Thus Abraham on the command of God does not hesitate for a single moment to put to death the son that God has given him (Gen. 22:3), he is not surprised at the will of God who demands death of a child whom he had given him as a testimony of his goodness and power; he is too convinced that it is not for man to discuss the will of God, and that his orders and his actions are inspired by a sovereign reason. Now, in order to execute this order with the most eagerness, he leaves his wife unaware; he knew the weakness of mothers for their sons, and that the tears of tenderness might have hindered the act of religion which he could have accomplished; he teaches his son only at the hour of sacrifice, that his obedience may be full and entire at the command of God, in the execution of which he does not see a parricide, but a holocaust demanded by the just judge. What more heroic actions could have made Melchizedek to surpass Abraham, whose obedience we have seen. was never surprised at fault? Moses, who conversed with God face to face, was sent to his people and his brothers and refused to go. The Prophet Jonah disobeys the order given him to go and preach to the Ninevites, and to another country where he was not from (Jon. 1:11). Job, this admirable man in all things, was, however, shaken by the death of his children; he tore his clothes, and cut his hair (Job 1:20), but we do not read that Abraham was grieved at the death of a son that was so dear to him, and we do not see that this son whom God commanded him to sacrifice trembled before this order that was given. We conclude from this that Melchizedek was more than a man, for he could not prevail over Abraham unless he was of a superior nature. Impassive nature possesses bliss by virtue of its substance, human nature obtains it by its actions. It does not have the perfection of divinity, it is therefore by exercise and by struggle that it becomes better from day to day, when its victories are more numerous than its defeats. If it were always impeccable in its actions, which is impossible, it would be better than God (far from us this thought), because if a nature that can commit like avoiding sin was always victorious from sin, it should be put above nature, which does not sin because it is impassive. There would not seem to be great merit in not sinning, because it cannot be; heroism would seem to have the faculty of ease and of not sinning. There is, therefore, this difference between the nature of God and the nature of man, that the nature of God is always happy in the security of his invincible eternity, while the nature of man only reaches happiness by work. Now it is necessary that the impassive beatitude should be diluted with that which is the fruit of the tribulations which thus bring joy. Impassive bliss has in it an inexhaustible source of happiness; for nature, on the contrary, it is only after great trials that it rejoices at having escaped death. Sadness is for it the means of animating happiness, and it’s passability is irreconcilable with uninterrupted happiness. He, on the contrary, who is impassive by nature, is always happy, because he does not know sadness, and cannot even suspect that he can attain it. As to the human nature, although it succeeds in felicity through labor, it will not be exempt from trials, and scars will not fail. And how, in the midst of so many battles in which naature is sometimes defeated, could it not receive wounds? Impassible nature, on the contrary, remains inaccessible to any attack, any wound, to any defeat. Scripture, therefore, would not say of Abraham that he is inferior to Melchizedek, if Melchizedek was not of a superior nature to that of Abraham? What we have just said may seem more ingenious than dense. But if we examine the divine Scriptures, we will be able to raise still more and more of the more excellent titles of glory. "This Melchizedek," says St. Paul, “king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God, who, when Abraham returned from the defeat of kings, appeared to meet him and blessed him, and who first signified the king of justice, was king of Salem, that is to say, king of peace; without father, mother, genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is thus the image of the Son of God, and remains a priest forever.” And to bring out these prerogatives in his place, he adds: "Consider therefore how great was he to whom Abraham gave the tithe of his richest spoils (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1).” To show the full extent of the merit and power of Melchizedek, he praises Abraham by saying that he is the chief and prince of the patriarchs, that is, he is superior to all the others, but inferior to Melchizedek, is it not evident that Melchizedek is not a man, but that he is of a superior nature? But what do these two titles mean, king of peace and king of righteousness? Look closer and see: the sun seen from far away seems like a flaming beam, and at a distance you take money from a man and be called king of peace, and justice, peace is preached to men, as well as justice, but he is called king of peace and justice, to make you understand that it is from him that justice and peace derive their origin, for it is impossible to put above it what is subject to its direction, it is to the institute of justice and peace that men do what is pleasing to God. Now these two virtues, which are the mistresses of man, have Melchizedek as king. What then is the superiority of Melchizedek over man, since the virtues which govern mankind are subject to him, is it not being the king of kings? When St. Paul tells us that he is a king of justice and peace, he wants to teach us that he is the principle of both, and that just as our Lord Jesus Christ is the king, the author of life, Melchizedek is the author of justice and peace, because those who receive life through Jesus Christ are ruled by righteousness and peace. For in the hearts of the servants of God he sends righteousness and peace to serve as an ornament to the doctrine of the Lord. We read in Psalm: "Let righteousness and peace be embraced, and let the truth rise from the earth (Ps. 85:11)." And to be well aware of what justice he meant to speak, the Psalmist adds: "Righteousness has looked from heaven.” Scripture predicts what was to happen in the days of the Savior, when the righteousness of God was given to the world through Jesus Christ, in the knowledge of the mystery of one God whom he had promised previously by the prophets. It was true, indeed, that the creature knew the truth of its Creator, and this righteousness having been manifested to the earth, put an end to the divisions which the injustice of ignorance of God had engendered, and reign peace and harmony among the most divided minds, establishing them in the unity of the same faith. It was thus that one saw kissing justice, the peace and the truth exited from the same source. It was from the earth that the righteousness which was to teach men was raised, for the incarnation of Jesus Christ taught them the truth which they ought to know concerning the nature of God. Such is the righteousness of God. Peace also comes from him, to the apostle's testimony: "May the God of peace crush Satan under your feet.” I do not see how these two things can be distinguished here, since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, for he says: "I give you my peace (Jn. 14:27).” Why do you say that Melchizedek is the king of justice and peace? I do not understand how that distinction can be made. I therefore think that there is no difference here between the king of peace and the God of peace. As no one on earth should be called God, be reserved exclusively to the principle of all things, God establishes kings who would be like his image, and who, with the exception of the name of God, would have all his power; but as they are of earthly origin, they are the kings of men, but not the kings of peace and justice: for they themselves have believed above them righteousness that they are not permitted to despise. Justice for them is God himself, justice is God's own good, and he who transgresses it becomes guilty to the judgment of God. But for Melchizedek, Scripture does not represent him as an ordinary king among men, because he has under his authority justice which is above all kings. No one, in fact, can have justice under his rule unless he is impeccable by nature. Now it is under its rule, because it is he who has established it as a law destined to be a part of the world, to direct those who are subject to sin. The king of justice is therefore the one who rules the laws of which he is the author and who teach men what to believe and practice to arrive at happiness. We have already stretched ourselves long over the person of Melchizedek, and yet we say nothing worthy of him, unless we return to the Scriptures, which has long pressed us, and which shouts to us to draw us from the deep sleep which overwhelms us and call us to the intelligence not of the night, but of the day. Scripture tells us that Melchizedek is without father, mother, genealogy, and to prevent any interpretation would be less worthy of this personage, it adds that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, Melchizedek, who was not subjected to birth or death, can testify so clearly to all the subtleties of human reasoning, and what a mind so clever and skillful that he would dare to resist and to pretend to impose its interpretation on the sacred text, instead of accepting the meaning which it naturally presents violence is inflicted on the divine Scriptures, and they meet here as enemies the very people who seem to submit to it. There are some who maintain that we ought not to believe in the person of Melchizedek what the Scripture brings us, and who wish to turn the Scriptures to their thoughts. The authority of the Scriptures to use ploys against them, by declaring war to them under the appearance of peace, and by hiding hostile intentions under the guise of friendship. They pretend, therefore, that it is not to show the greatness of Melchizedek, but rather to show the obscurity of his condition that the Scripture tells us that he was fatherless and without a mother. It wished to show us that Melchizedek was of an unknown race, and was not of the tribe from which Abraham came, since there was no trace of his family in the law. That is why it says again, "and without genealogy," to make us understand that there is no mention of his origin in the law, that he is not born of any parents, and that it is to him that he owes the great qualities that distinguish him. Now Scripture has so great authority here that it exposes in a perfect order all the elements necessary for the cause. At first it said that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother." Let us see what was the mother of Nachor, the grandmother of Abraham, and the mother of Thare; nor do we see what Abraham's mother was, not to mention the others. Shall we say that they did not have mothers? If the Scripture had said only "without a father," there would be a specious reason, for it has us preserved the names of the fathers of all of whom it speaks. Scripture adds: "And without genealogy.” If it expresses itself in this way to show that his birth is not mentioned in the law, it was enough to say: "Without a father," because no one knows his father. But it puts us still more clearly on the path of truth by adding: "Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Tell me, whoever you may be, who wish to do violence to the text, how do you explain these words? What does it mean to have neither the beginning of days nor the end of life? It is certainly sufficient to say that the genealogy of Melchizedek was not inscribed in the law, and that, by the same token, it must have been believed that he was of foreign origin. But one can say that he was taken away from this world like Enoch, and that is why he does not have end of life. Who then does not see a beginning of days? Will you say: It is because there is no mention of the day of his birth. But is the birth of others mentioned? and for you, however, the one whose day of birth is not mentioned, must be regarded as having no beginning of days? But then the same conclusion can be applied to others. Supposing now that he was taken from this world, he was not for that reason without life, for everything that lives in the expectation of death has a purpose. Stop these vain contestations, which seem to please you. It is better to be vanquished by truth than to triumph over truth by falsehood. It is a loss rather than a victory, for though the truth seems to have loss in the eyes of man, it remains victorious in the eyes of God because its reason is invincible. Our mind must therefore be conquered by the law, in order to receive the meaning which it offers it, and not impose upon it an interpretation at will, by violently substituting its authority for that of the law. Listen to what Zorobabel says: "Truth triumphs over everything (III Esdras 3:12).” Now Melchizedek reveals to us the future mystery of the Incarnation and the Passion of the Savior, first restoring to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist of the body and of the soul, blood of the Lord, to make the Father the truth that was to be fulfilled in the children. If we want him to have been a priest like Aaron, or the present priests, to be told, to be shown the place where he lived, the temple or the synagogue in which he gathered the people, and offered sacrifices to him, or the people who gathered round him. For if he exerts his priesthood on earth, no doubt there existed, and before Abraham, a people whose priest he was, and this people now worshiped the true God. How then did Abraham become the leader of the believers, and it was through him that God was known to his people? In the same way, if Melchizedek taught men on earth the fear of one God, why choose Abraham to give his name to the people of God, since the servants of the true God could be found among those who gathered around of Melchizedek? What more do we read in the hymn which is found in Deuteronomy? When the Most High divided the people, when he separated the children of Adam, he marked the limits of the people, according to the number of angels of God. And he chose the people of Jacob to be especially his (Deut. 32:8). If there were no other people of God in the world other than the children of Israel, why should there be found another people who followed the doctrine of Melchizedek against the contrary testimony of the prophet? Since he names all the peoples of the world, and gives only to the children of Abraham the name of the people of God, the logical consequence is that he denies that with the exception of the children of the God of Abraham, the others had the knowledge of God, because God is known in the alleged. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared as a symbol of the holy mysteries which the future was to reveal. The blessing was to be given later to the people of God by a minister of God to whom we give the name of priest. Melchizedek therefore appears as the precursor of the sacred person of the Son of God, and precedes him to do him honor, though inferior to him in dignity. Let us then leave what we have said of Melchizedek, Scripture says a thousand times more for the confusion of the opponents. Indeed, after these admirable testimonies to Melchizedek, Scripture confuses spiteful spirits by adding: "He is thus the image of God and he remains forever." Consider then who is the object of your unchallenged discussions and if he inspires no reserve, at least fear Jesus Christ, to whom it is like, according to the authority of Scripture. The Apostle comes insensibly and by order to the excellence of his nature, and if the prerogatives which precede have impressed upon the spirits, that is, that Melchizedek was king of justice and peace, has appeared in a visible body without having either father or mother, that is to say without being born, having neither beginning nor end, the last trait adds to all that he has just said a new degree of credibility. Who would dare to say, unless renouncing reason, that these glorious prerogatives are not suited to him whom the Scriptures declares like the Son of God, and who remains a priest forever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he has the same nature. And what is so incredible that Melchizedek appeared in a humorous form, as soon as we understand that he was the third person of the Trinity? For if the Christ who is the second person has frequently appeared in the form of a man, what doubt can we raise on what we have said? Do not we read in a psalm: "You are a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4)?” These words of the confession of all relate to the person of Jesus Christ, because Christ is a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek. But Christ is the sovereign priest, and Melchizedek occupies the second rank. Now, if Melchizedek is only a man, would it be proper that Jesus Christ should be a priest for eternity according to his order? We see them both alike, both clothed in one ministry, because they have one and the same nature. But since the authority of one God must be preserved in every way, the third person appears here subordinate to the name of the Father. As for Christ, he holds the place of the Father, he is like his minister, and that is why he is given the name (the priest). Similarly, the Holy Spirit, as minister, is also called the priest of the Most High God, but not the sovereign priest, as our brethren presume in the oblation: for although Christ and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, it is nevertheless necessary to preserve to each one the rank given him The priests are given the name of envoys because they are the representatives of the one who sends them, and they are like his image, and this is the reason why Christ and the Spirit which is the natural image of the Father, are called his priests: God manifests Himself in their person, as our Lord has said: "He that sees me sees my Father (Jn. 14:9).” Now, if the Lord has revealed Himself in the divine actions which He has effected, and if these actions are the works of the Holy Spirit as he declares: "It is in the Spirit of God that I cast out demons”, God manifested Himself in the Holy Spirit. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 109] |
Home >