The priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech excels the Levitical priesthood and puts an end both to that and to the law.
To proue the Priesthod of Christ incomparably to excel the priesthod of Aaron (and therfore, that Leuitical priesthod novv to cease, and that lavv also vvith it) he scanneth euery vvord of the verse alleaged out of the Psalme, Our Lord hath svvorne: thou art a Priest for euer, according to the order of Melchisedec.
1For this Melchisedech was king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him:Imperocché questo Melchisedech (era) Re di Salem, sacerdote del sommo Dio, il quale andò incontro d'Abramo, che ritornava dalla rotta dei Re, e lo benedisse:FOR this Melchisedec, the king of Salem, Priest of the God most high, vvho mette Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him:Hic enim Melchisedech, rex Salem, sacerdos Dei summi, qui obviavit Abrahæ regresso a cæde regum, et benedixit ei: 2To whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all: who first indeed by interpretation is king of justice: and then also king of Salem, that is, king of peace:A cui diede ancora Abramo la decima di tutte le cose: il quale primieramente si interpreta Re di giustizia: e poi Re di Salem, viene a dire, Re di pace,to vvhom also Abrahā deuided tithes of al: first in deede by interpretation, the king of iustice: & then also king of Salem, vvhich is to say, king of peace,cui et decimas omnium divisit Abraham: primum quidem qui interpretatur rex justitiæ: deinde autem et rex Salem, quod est, rex pacis, 3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever.Senza padre, senza madre, senza genealogia, senza principio di giorni, senza fine di vita, è rassomigliato al Figliuolo di Dio, rimane sacerdote in eterno.vvithout father, without mother, vvithout genealogie, hauing neither beginning of daies nor end of life, but likened to the sonne of God, continueth a priest for euer.sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia, neque initium dierum, neque finem vitæ habens, assimilatus autem Filio Dei, manet sacerdos in perpetuum. 4Now consider how great this man is, to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave tithes out of the principal things.Ma osservate, quanto sia grande costui, al quale diede la decima delle cose migliori anche Abramo il patriarca.And behold hovv great this man is, to vvhom also Abraham the Patriarke gaue tithes of the principal things.Intuemini autem quantus sit hic, cui et decimas dedit de præcipuis Abraham patriarcha. 5And indeed they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is to say, of their brethren: though they themselves also came out of the loins of Abraham.Or quegli, che de' figliuoli di Levi sono assunti al sacerdozio, hanno ordine di ricever le decime dal popolo secondo la legge, cioè a dire, dai propri fratelli, quantunque ancor essi usciti dai lombi di Abramo.And certes they of the sonnes of Leui that take the priesthod, haue commaundement to take tithes of the people according to the Lavv, that is to say, of their brethren: albeit them selues also issued out of the loines of Abraham.Et quidem de filiis Levi sacerdotium accipientes, mandatum habent decimas sumere a populo secundum legem, id est, a fratribus suis: quamquam et ipsi exierint de lumbis Abrahæ.
6But he, whose pedigree is not numbered among them, received tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises.Ma questi, del quale non è tra di quegli riferita la schiatta, ricevette le decime da Abramo, ed a lui, che aveva le promesse, diede la benedizione.but he vvhose generation is not numbered among them, tooke tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.Cujus autem generatio non annumeratur in eis, decimas sumpsit ab Abraham, et hunc, qui habebat repromissiones, benedixit. 7And without all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the better.Or senza alcun dubbio il minore dal maggiore riceve la benedizione.But vvithout al contradiction, that vvhich is lesse, is blessed of the better.Sine ulla autem contradictione, quod minus est, a meliore benedicitur. 8And here indeed, men that die receive tithes: but there, he hath witness that he liveth.E qui ricevon le decime uomini mortali: là poi uno, del quale è attestata la vita.And here in deede, men that die, receiue tithes: but there he hath vvitnes, that he liueth.Et hic quidem, decimas morientes homines accipiunt: ibi autem contestatur, quia vivit. 9And (as it may be said) even Levi who received tithes paid tithes in Abraham:E (per parlare così) in Abramo pagò le decime anche Levi, il quale riscuote le decime:And (that it may so be said) by Abraham Leui also, which receiued tithes, vvas tithed.Et (ut ita dictum sit) per Abraham, et Levi, qui decimas accepit, decimatus est: 10For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him.Imperocché questi era tuttora ne' lombi del padre, quando a questo andò incontro Melchisedech.for as yet he vvas in his fathers loines, vvhen Melchisedec mette him.adhuc enim in lumbis patris erat, quando obviavit ei Melchisedech. 11If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech: and not be called according to the order of Aaron?Se adunque la perfezione si aveva mediante il sacerdozio Levitico (imperocché sotto di questo ricevette il popolo la legge) qual bisogno vi fu di poi, che uscisse fuori un altro sacerdote secondo l'ordine di Melchisedech, e non fosse detto secondo l'ordine di Aronne?If then consummation vvas by the Leuitical priesthod (for vnder it the people receiued the Lavv) vvhat necessitie vvas there yet an other priest to rise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici ?
12For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law,Imperocché trasportato il sacerdozio, è di necessità, che si muti anche la legge.For the priesthod being translated, it is necessarie that a translation of the Lavv also be made.Translato enim sacerdotio, necesse erat ut et legis translatio fiat. 13For he of whom these things are spoken is of another tribe, of which no one attended on the altar.Imperocché quegli, per causa del quale queste cose si dicono, ad un'altra tribù appartiene, della quale nissuno servi all'altare.For he on vvhom these things be said, is of an other tribe, of the vvhich, none attended on the altar,In quo enim hæc dicuntur, de alia tribu est, de qua nullus altari præsto fuit. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.Imperocché ella è cosa evidente, che della tribù di Giuda nacque il Signor nostro: alla qual tribù Mosè non parlò mai di sacerdozio.For it is manifest that our Lord sprung of Iuda: in the which tribe Moyses spake nothing of priestes'.Manifestum est enim quod ex Juda ortus sit Dominus noster: in qua tribu nihil de sacerdotibus Moyses locutus est. 15And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest,E questo tanto più è manifesto; mentre un altro sacerdote esce fuori, che è simile a Melchisedech,And yet it is much more euident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedec there arise an other priest,Et amplius adhuc manifestum est: si secundum similitudinem Melchisedech exsurgat alius sacerdos, 16Who is made, not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life.Il quale è fatto sacerdote non secondo la legge de' riti carnali, ma per virtù di una vita indissolubile.which vvas not made according to the Lavv of the carnal commaundement, but according to the povver of life indissoluble.qui non secundum legem mandati carnalis factus est, sed secundum virtutem vitæ insolubilis. 17For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.Imperocché lo dichiara così: tu se' sacerdote in eterno secondo l'ordine di Melchisedech.For he vvitnesseth, That thou art a priest for euer, according to the order of Melchisedec.Contestatur enim: Quoniam tu es sacerdos in æternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech. 18There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof:Or il precedente ordinamento viene rivocato per la sua debolezza, e inutilità:Reprobation certes is made of the former cō maundement, because of the vveakenesse and vnprofitablenesse thereof.Reprobatio quidem fit præcedentis mandati, propter infirmitatem ejus, et inutilitatem:
19For the law brought nothing to perfection: but a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God.(Imperocché niuna cosa condusse a perfezione la legge): ma dopo di essa s'introduce una migliore speranza, per la quale a Dio ci accostiamo.For the Lavv brought nothing to perfection, but an introduction of a better hope, by the vvhich vve approche to God.nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex: introductio vero melioris spei, per quam proximamus ad Deum. 20And inasmuch as it is not without an oath (for the others indeed were made priests without an oath:E di più (sacerdote) non senza giuramento (conciossiaché gli altri sono stati fatti sacerdoti senza giuramento;And in as much as it is not vvithout an othe, (the other truely vvithout an othe vvere made priestes:Et quantum est non sine jurejurando (alii quidem sine jurejurando sacerdotes facti sunt, 21But this with an oath, by him that said unto him: The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever).Ma questi col giuramento da lui, che dissegli: giurò il Signore, e non si ritratterà: tu se' sacerdote in eterno:)but this vvith an othe, by him that said vnto him: Our Lord hath svvorne, and it shal not repent him: thou art a priest for euer)hic autem cum jurejurando per eum, qui dixit ad illum: Juravit Dominus, et non pœnitebit eum: tu es sacerdos in æternum): 22By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament.Di lauto migliore alleanza è divenuto mallevadore Gesù.by so much, is IESVS made a suretie of a better testamēt.in tantum melioris testamenti sponsor factus est Jesus. 23And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue:E quegli sono stati molti sacerdoti, perché la morte non permetteva, che molto durassero:And the other in deede vvere made priestes, being many, because that by death they vvere prohibited to continue:Et alii quidem plures facti sunt sacerdotes, idcirco quod morte prohiberentur permanere: 24But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood:Ma questi, perché dura in eterno, ha un sacerdozio, che non passa.but this, for that he continueth for euer, hath an euerlasting priesthod.hic autem eo quod maneat in æternum, sempiternum habet sacerdotium. 25Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us.Onde ancora può in perpetuo salvare coloro, che per mezzo suo si accostano a Dio: vivendo sempre, affin di supplicare per noi.vvhereby he is able to saue also for euer going' by him self to God: alvvaies liuing to make intercession for vs.Unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum: semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis.
26For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens:Imperocché tale conveniva, che noi avessimo pontefice, santo, innocente, immacolato, segregato da' peccatori, e sublimato sopra de' cieli:For it vvas seemely that vve should haue such a high priest, holy, innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners, and made higher then the heauens.Talis enim decebat ut nobis esset pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus, et excelsior cælis factus: 27Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself.Il quale non ha necessità, come que' sacerdoti, di offerir ostie ogni giorno prima pe' suoi peccati, poi per quelli del popolo: imperocché ciò fece egli una volta, offerendo se stesso.vvhich hath not necessitie daily (as the priestes) first for his ovvne sinnes to offer hostes, then for the peoples. for this he did once, in offering him self.qui non habet necessitatem quotidie, quemadmodum sacerdotes, prius pro suis delictis hostias offerre, deinde pro populi: hoc enim fecit semel, seipsum offerendo. 28For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath (which was since the law) the Son who is perfected for evermore.Imperocché la legge costituì sacerdoti uomini infermi: ma la parola del giuramento posteriore alla legge (costituì) il Figliuolo perfetto in eterno.For the Lavv appointeth priestes them that haue infirmitie: but the vvord of the othe vvhich is after the Lavv, the Sonne for euer perfected.Lex enim homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes: sermo autem jurisjurandi, qui post legem est, Filium in æternum perfectum.
7:1
Witham
This Melchisedech. If we look for the construction, Melchisedech may be joined with what follows, (ver. 3.) continueth a priest for ever. (Witham)
The excellency of this personage was so transcendent, that some of the ancients took him to be an Angel, and some the Holy Ghost. This the Fathers condemn; for had he not been a man, a king, and a priest, he would not have been so worthy a type of our Saviour.
7:2
Witham
King of justice, according to the signification of the word Melchisedech, and of peace, signified by the place Salem, of which he was king. By Salem is commonly expounded Jerusalem, though St. Jerome thinks it was a town in Samaria afterwards called Sichem. This king was also a priest of the Most High; that is of the true God. He blessed Abraham, after he had defeated Chodorlahomor and the other kings; (Genesis xiv.) and Abraham gave him the tithes of all things which he had taken from his enemies. He is said (ver. 3.) to have been without father, without mother, without any genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, inasmuch as we have no account in the Scripture of these particulars. He is said in Genesis to have brought out, inasmuch as he was a priest, that is, to have offered up a sacrifice to God of bread and wine. The apostle here shews two things, that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham, and that he is a figure of Christ, who is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. (Psalm 109:4.) (Witham)
7:3
Challoner
Without father, etc. Not that he had no father, etc. but that neither his father, nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in Scripture. (Challoner)
Not that he was without father and mother, says St. Jerome, (ep. cxxxvi.) for Christ himself was not without a Father according to his divinity, nor without a Mother in his humanity; but because his genealogy is not given in Genesis, as that of the other patriarchs is, but he is abruptly introduced without any mention of either his birth or death. In Melchisedech all was prophetical and figurative of Jesus Christ; and Abraham undoubtedly in this patriarch saw Jesus Christ in spirit, and exulted that all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in him. Abraham, your father, greatly desired, says our Lord to the Jews, to see the day of my coming: he saw it, and was filled with joy. (John 8:56.)
7:4
Witham
Consider how great this man (Melchisedech) was, and greater than our great patriarch, Abraham: 1. Because Abraham, of his own accord, paid tithes to this priest of all the chief things he had: which was to own himself inferior to him: as the rest of the Jewish people are inferior to the sons of Levi, the descendants of Aaron, who being raised to the dignity of the priesthood by the command of God, have a right to take tithes or tenths of the people; and so are honoured above the rest. 2. This Melchisedech blessed, or gave a benediction to our great father Abraham, to whom the promises of blessing all nations was made. Now he that gives a blessing to another, must be better or greater than he to whom the blessing is given; therefore Melchisedech was greater than Abraham. 3. To shew another pre-eminence of the priesthood of Melchisedech (which was a figure of the eternal priesthood of Christ) above the priesthood of Aaron, the apostle takes notice that the sons of Levi, the priests of the ancient law, to whom tithes were to be paid, were no more than mortal men, always dying, whereas the Scripture only witnesseth of Melchisedech that he liveth; he is represented as one that hath neither beginning nor end of his days. This agrees chiefly with Christ, who by the psalmist is called, a priest for ever. And, though Christ also died for us, for it was chiefly by his death that he offered his sacrifice, yet he presently rose again, and continues for ever a priest, without a successor as to his priesthood, and as to the sacrifice of expiation for the sins of mankind. His priesthood, his sacrifice, and oblation for our redemption, lasts for ever. 4. Another reason that shews the priesthood of Melchisedech (and of our Saviour, Christ) to be above the Aaronical priesthood, is, that not only Abraham, but even Aaron and Levi, and all their successors, may be said in the person of Abraham to have paid tithes to Melchisedech, because we may consider them as yet in the loins of Abraham, from whom they descended; though it cannot be said, in like manner, that Christ himself was in the loins of Abraham, because though he was Son of Abraham, yet his conception was not in the ordinary way of human generation, but by the operation of the Holy Ghost. See St. Augustine, lib. X. de Gen. ad lit. Hebrews 20. tom. 3. p. 270. nov. edit. 5. St. Paul (ver. 11.) brings another reason to shew that the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech was more perfect, because true justice and sanctification could not be given either by the priesthood of Aaron or by the law of Moses, which began as it were together; for if the former law and sacrifices offered by the priests of Aaron, had been sufficient for man's justification and salvation, there would have been no necessity of a new priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech. Of this St. Paul speaks elsewhere to the Romans. And, as there is a new priesthood, so there is a new law, by which the former is no longer in force. 6. He takes notice of this difference from the former priesthood, that they were priests of the tribe of Levi, but that Christ, the priest according to the order of Melchisedech, is of the tribe of Juda. 7. Another difference is, that the former law, and all belonging to it, consisted of carnal precepts, (ver. 16) in outward ceremonies and sacrifices, with promises of temporal blessings and a long life in this world; but the new law and sacrifice of Christ, is according to the power of an indissoluble and never-ending life, conferring inward graces, with the remission of sins, by which men are justified and saved, with promises of eternal happiness. 8. He tells us that Christ's priesthood was confirmed by God himself with an oath: not so the priesthood of Aaron. This second testament therefore is much better, and more excellent. 9. The former testament brought nothing to perfection. (ver. 19.) It had nothing but types and figures of what was to be fulfilled under the priesthood of Christ. The priests died, and succeeded one to another; and there was need of different sacrifices, which they were to offer daily for their own sins and for the sins of the people; but Christ was innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, (ver. 26) could not sin, but by suffering once has redeemed all, has satisfied for the sins of all mankind, and by this one sacrifice can save all that come to him by faith, hope, and love; he lives for ever to make intercession for us, as our Mediator and Redeemer. As he remains for ever, he is a priest for ever; and by virtue of that one sacrifice on the cross, all that believe in him and obey him may be may be saved, and be happy for eternity. Christ's sacrifice and oblation on the cross, is that one sacrifice of the new law which remains and will be continued by his ministers, the priest of the new law, to the end of the world, the manner only being different, but not the sacrifice. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, delivered to the faithful in the Council of Trent,[Ver. 4. Una eademque est Hostia, idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa. (Sess. 22. cap. 2.) Canon 1. Si quis dixerit in missa non offerri verum et proprium sacrificium, etc. anathema. Canon 3. Si quis dixerit missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis, et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, etc. Anathema sit.] (session 22. cap. 2.) where it is declared, that in the Mass is continued the same sacrifice and oblation which Christ offered, who is still the chief priest, in whose name only his ministers, the bishops and priests, speak and act as his instruments. The Victim that is offered is also the same, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, after a spiritual and unbloody manner, according to his command at his last supper. The oblation at the Mass is indeed a true and proper sacrifice, yet not a new or different sacrifice of expiation for the sins of mankind, but an application of Christ's satisfactions and merits, which, though of infinite value, and more than sufficient to satisfy for the sins of the whole world, yet by the will of God are to be applied to us by faith, by the sacraments, by the same sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, offered at the mass, etc. (Witham)
7:12
After giving a decided preference to Melchisedech, and his priesthood, over the Levitical priesthood, St. Paul proves the abrogation of the latter, and even of the law, by the introduction of a new priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech.
7:20
The old law was good in itself, being established by God, who does nothing in vain; but it was weak and imperfect, and the shadow and figure of that which was to come. It was preparatory to a more perfect dispensation under Jesus Christ, who, as our new high priest, was to finish by the gospel what Moses began by the law.
7:23
Challoner
Many priests, etc. The apostle notes this difference between the high priests of the law, and our high priest, Jesus Christ: that they being removed by death, made way for their successors: whereas our Lord Jesus is a priest for ever, and hath no successor; but liveth and concurreth for ever with his ministers, the priests of the New Testament, in all their functions. Secondly, that no one priest of the law, not all of them together, could offer that absolute sacrifice of everlasting redemption, which our one high priest, Jesus Christ, has offered once and for ever. (Challoner)
7:25
Challoner
Make intercession. Christ, as man, continually maketh intercession for us, by representing his passion to his Father. (Challoner)
7:27
Jesus Christ offered himself but once in a bloody manner on the cross; but, besides this bloody offering, he still continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner. This he does both in heaven and upon earth; in heaven, by presenting his sacred humanity continually to his Father; and on earth, by daily offering himself, under the appearances of bread and wine, on our altars. Hence this eucharistic sacrifice is both a commemoration and continuation of the sacrifice of the cross. To understand this, it must be observed, that the essence of a sacrifice includes several actions, the principal of which are the immolation of the victim, and the oblation of the victim when immolated. Now the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, ended only as to the bloody immolation; the same victim is still immolated mystically, by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, and continues as the oblation. Jesus Christ, in quality of the eternal high priest, has carried his victim, that is his body, into heaven, and there offers it continually to his Father. He continues also his sacrifice here on earth, by the ministry of his priests: who to the end of time will offer to God the same immolated victim, present on our altars under the appearance of bread and wine---a sacrifice infinitely perfect, since a God is the priest, and a God the victim. The chief-priest who offers it is a God-man; the victim offered is a Man-God: a God the victim, offered by a God the priest! Behold a sacrifice truly worthy of God---a sacrifice capable of atoning not only for our sins, but for the sins of ten thousand worlds. What confidence then ought Christians to have in such a sacrifice! How solicitous ought they to be to assist daily at these awful, or, to use St. Chrysostom's expression, these tremendous mysteries! Let us now examine the sentiments of learned Protestant divines: "It is certain," says Dr. Grabe, "that Irenaeus and all the Fathers, either contemporary with the apostles, or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant, considered the blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular Church or teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and they from Christ, is expressly shewn by Irenaeus, and before him by Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome." (Nota in Irenaeum. p. 323.)
"The elements being really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, mystically present, as in a sacrament, and that by virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives, I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consonant with this truth, viz. that the elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ are contained in them. ... And the sacrifice of the cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice with that upon the cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory." (Thorndike Epil. p. 44 and 46.)
"The holy Fathers frequently say, that in the Eucharist is offered and sacrificed the very body of Christ, as is evident in almost innumerable places." (Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. Hebrews 2. sect. 10.)
"The sacrifice of the supper is not only propitiatory, and may be offered up for the remission of our daily sins, but likewise is impetratory, and may be rightly offered for the obtaining all blessings. Although the Scripture does not plainly and in express words teach this, yet the holy Fathers with universal consent have thus understood the Scripture, as has been demonstrated by many; and all the ancient liturgies prescribe, that in time of the oblation, prayers be offered for peace, etc. as is evident to all." (Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. 3:chap. 2. sect. 12.)
Grotius of Christian sacrifice
"The Church, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ with the usual rites and words, in this also sacrificeth and offereth that which is her own, given to her by Christ; that she placeth before the eyes of God; by that she beseecheth God; and it is the same sacrifice that Christ offered; the same one, true, and singular sacrifice, as St. Augustine calls it; a sacrifice of memory according to Eusebius; a spiritual sacrifice, according to others. After that the faithful offer themselves according to the example of Christ, etc. In all this what is there new, what deformed, what hurtful? But minds once distracted, distract all things into a depraved meaning, and then are glad to find a hint for it in any of the schools." (Grotius of Christian sacrifice.)
7:3
Without father, etc.... Not that he had no father, etc., but that neither his father, nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in scripture.
7:23
Many priests, etc.... The apostle notes this difference between the high priests of the law, and our high priest Jesus Christ; that they being removed by death, made way for their successors; whereas our Lord Jesus is a priest for ever, and hath no successor; but liveth and concurreth for ever with his ministers, the priests of the new testament, in all their functions. Also, that no one priest of the law, nor all of them together, could offer that absolute sacrifice of everlasting redemption, which our one high priest Jesus Christ has offered once, and for ever.
7:25
Make intercession.... Christ, as man, continually maketh intercession for us, by representing his passion to his Father.
7:1
1. Melchisedec.] The excellencie of this person vvas so great, that some of the antiquity tooke him to be an Angel, and some the holy Ghost. Vvhich opinion not onely the Hebrues, that auouch him to be Sem the sonne of Noë, but also the cheefe fathers of the Christians do condemne: not doubting but he vvas a mere man and a Priest and a king, vvhosoeuer he vvas. for els he could not in office and order and sacrifice haue been so perfect a type and resemblance of our Sauiour, as in this Chapter and other is shevved.
Concordance Gen. 14, 18.
7:2
When the fathers & catholike expositours pike out allegories and mysteries out of the names of mē, the Protestāts not endued vvith the Spirit vvherby the scriptures vvere giuē, deride their holy labours in the search of the same: but the Apostle findeth high mysterie in the very names of persons and places, as you see.
7:3
3. Without father.] The resemblāce of Melchisedec to Christ, in many points. Not that he vvas vvithout father and mother, saith S. Hierom ep. 126: for Christ him self vvas not vvithout father, according to his diuinity, not vvithout mother, in his humanity: but for that his petigree is not set out in the Genesis, as the genealogie of other Patriarches is, but is sodenly induced in the holy historie, no mention made of his stocke, tribe, beginning or ending, and therfore in that case also resembling in a sort the sonne of God, vvhose generation vvas extraordinarie, miraculous, and ineffable, according to both his natures, lacking a father in the one, By the sundrie excellencies of Melchisedeck⸢s⸣ Priesthod is proued the excellē cie of the Priesthod & sacrifice of the nevv Testament. and a mother in the other. his person hauing neither beginning nor ending, and his kingdom, and Priesthod specially, in him self and in the Church, being eternall, both in respect of the time past, and the time to come: as the said Doctor in the same epistle vvriteth.
7:4
4. Behold.] To proue that Christes Priesthod far passeth the Priesthod of Aaron: and the Priesthod of the nevv Testament, the Priesthod of the old lavv: and consequently that the sacrifice of our Sauiour and the sacrifice of the Church doth much excel the sacrifices of Moyses lavv, he disputeth profoundly of the preeminences of Melchisedec aboue the great Patriarch Abraham, vvho vvas father of the Leuites.
4. Tithes.] The first preeminence, that Abraham paied tithes, and that of the best and most cheefe things that he had, vnto Melchisedec, as a duety and homage, not for him self onely in person, He receiued tithes of Abrahā, & consequently of Leui & Aarō. but for Leui, vvho yet vvas not borne, and so for the vvhole Priesthod of Leuies stocke, acknovvledging thereby, Melchisedec not onely to be a Priest, but his Priest and Superior, and so of al the Leuitical order. And it is here to be obserued, that vvhereas in the 14 of Genesis, vvhence this holy narration is taken, both in the Hebrue, and in the 70, it standeth indifferent or doubtfull, vvhether Melchisedec paied tithes to Abraham, or tooke tithes of him: the Apostle here putteth al out of controuersie, plainely declaring that Abraham paid tithes to the other, at the inferiour to his Priest and Superior. Tithes. And touching paiment of tithes, it is a natural duety, that men ovve to God in al lavves, and to be giuen to his Priests in his behalfe, for their honour and liuelihod. Iacob promised or vovved to pay them, Gen. 28. Moyses appointed them Leuit. 27. Num. 18. Deut. 12. 14. 26. Christ confirmeth that duety Mat. 23: and Abraham specially here giueth them to Melchisedec plainely thereby approuing them or their equiualent to be due to Christ and the Priesthod of the nevv Testament, much more then either in the lavv of Moyses, or in the lavv of Nature. Of vvhich tithes due to the Clergie of Chrises Church see S. Cyprian ep. 66. S. Hierom ep. 1. c. 7. and ep. 2 c. 5. to Hellodorus and Nepolianus. S. Augustine ser. 119 de tempore.
7:5
Concordance Nu. 18, 21. Deu. 18, 1. Ios. 14, 4.
7:7
7. Is blessed of the better.] He blessed Abraham. The second preeminence is, that Melchisedec did blesse Abraham: vvhich vve see here S. Paul maketh a great and soueraine holy thing, grounding our Sauiours prerogatiue aboue the vvhole order of Aaron therein: and vve see that in this sort it is the proper act of Prieshod • and that vvithout al controuersie as the Apostle saith, Blessing a great preeminēce, specially in Priests. he is greater in dignitie, that hath authority, to blesse, then the person that hath not, and therfore the Priests vocation to be in this behalfe far aboue any earthly king, vvho hath not povver to giue benediction in this sacred maner, neither to man, nor other creature. As here Melchisedec, so Christ blessed much more, and so haue the Bishops of his Church done, and do, Vvhich no man can maruel that our forefathers haue so highly esteemed and sought for, if he marke the vvonderful mysterie and grace thereof here expressed. 〈…〉 also vvhich here taketh blossing of Melchisedec, him self (though in an inferior sort) blessed his sonnes, as the other Patriarches did, and fathers do their children by that example.
7:8
The tithes giuen to Melchisedech were not giuē as to a mere mortal mā, as al of the tribe of Leui & Aarons order were: but as to one representing the Sonne of God, vvho now liueth and reigneth and holdeth his priesthod & the functions therof for euer.
7:11
11. If consummation.] The ful accomplishment of mans redēption vvas not by Aarons but by Melchisedecks Priesthod. The principal proposition of the vvhole epistle and al the Apostle discourse, is inserted & grounded vpon the former prerogatiues of Melchisedec aboue Abraham and Leul: that is, that the end, perfection, accomplishment, and consummation of al mans dueties and debtes to God, by the general redemption, satisfaction, full price and perfect ransom of al mankind, vvas not atchieued by any or al the Priests of Aarons order, not by any sacrifice or act of that Priesthod, or of al the lavv of Moyses, vvhich vvas grounded vpon the Leuitical Priesthod, but by Christ and his Priesthod, vvhich is of the order and rite of Melchisedec.
11. What necessitie.] This disputation of the preeminence of Christes Priesthod aboue the Leuitical order, The Apostle to consute the Ievves false persuasion of Aarons Priesthod and sacrifices, speaketh altogether of the sacrifice of the Crosse. is against the erroneous persuasion of the Ievves, that thought their lavv. Priesthod, and sacrifices to be euerlasting, and to be sufficient in them selues, vvithout any other Priest then Aaron and his successors and vvithout al relation to Christes Passion or any other redemption or remission, then that vvhich their Leuitical offices did procure: not knovving that they vvere all figures of Christes death, and to be ended and accomplished in the same. Vvhich point vvell vnderstood and kept in mind, vvill cleere the vvhole controuersie betvvixt the Catholikes and Protestants, concerning the sacrifice of the Church, for, the scope of the Apostles disputation being, to auouch the dignity, preeminence, necessitie, and eternal fruite and effect of Christes Passion, he had not to treate at all of the other, vvhich is a sacrifice depending of his Passion, specially vvriting to the Hebrues, that vvere to be instructed and reformed first touching the sacrifice of the Crosse, before they could fruitfully heare any thing of the other, though in couert and by most euident sequele of disputation, the learned and faithfull may easily perceiue vvherevpon the said Sacrifice of the Church (vvhich is the Masse) is grounded. And therfore S. Hierom saith, ep. 126: that al these commendations of Melchisedec are in the type of Christ, euius profectus Ecclesiae sacramenta sunt.
7:12
12. Translated.] Note vvel this place, and you shal perceiue thereby, that euery lavvful forme and manner of lavv, No lavvful state of people vvith out an external Priesthod. state, or gouernement of Gods people dependeth on Priesthod, riseth, standeth, falleth, or altereth vvith the Priesthod. In the lavv of Nature, the state of the people hanged on one kind of Priesthod: in the lavv of Moyses, of an other in the state of Christianity, of an other: and therfore in the former sentence the Apostle said, that the Ievvish people or Commonvvealth had their lavv vnder the Leuitical Priesthod, 〈Greek〉 and the Greeke more properly expresseth the matter, that they vvere legitimated, that is to say, made a lavvful people or communitie vnder God, by the Priesthod. for there is no iust nor lavvful Commonvvealth in the vvorld, that is not made legal and Gods peculiar, External Priesthod necessarie for the nevv Testament. and distinguished from vnlavvful Commonvveales that hold of false goddes, or of none at al, by Priesthod. Vvherevpon it is cleere, that the nevv lavv, and al Christian peoples holding of the same, is made lavvful by the Priesthod of the nevv Testament, and that the Protestants shamefully are deceiued, and deceiue others, that vvould haue Christian Commonvveales to lacke an external Priesthod, or Christes death to abolish the same. for, this is a demonstration. that if Christ haue abolished Priesthod, he hath abolished the nevv lavv, vvhich is the nevv Testament and state of Grace, vvhich as Christian Commonvvealths liue vnder. Neither vvere it true, that the Priesthod vvere trāslated vvith the Lavv, if al external Priesthod ended by Christes death, vvhere the nevv lavv began. for so the lavv should not depend on Priesthod, but dure vvhen al Priesthod vvere ended: vvhich is against S. Paules doctrine.
Furthermore it is to be noted, External sacrifice also necessarie for the same. that this legitimation or putting Communities vnder lavv, and Priesthod, of vvhat order soeuer, is no othervvise, but ioyning one vvith an other in one homage or sacrifice external, vvhich is the proper act of Priesthod for, as no lavvful state can be vvithout priesthod, so no priesthod can be vvithout sacrifice. And vve meane alvvaies of Priesthod & sacrifice taken in their ovvne proper signification, as here S. Paul taketh them, for, the constitution difference, alteration, or trāslation of states and lavves rise not vpon any mutation of spiritual or metaphorically taken Priesthod, or sacrifice: but vpon those things in proper acception, as it is most plaine.
Lastly, it foloweth of this, that though Christ truely sacrificed him self vpon the Crosse (there also a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec) and there made the ful redemption of the vvorld, The translation of the old Priesthod & sacrifices, must needes be into the said Priesthod and sacrifice of the Church. confirmed, and consummated his compact, and Testament, and the lavv and priesthod of this his nevv and eternal state, by his bloud: yet that can not be the forme of sacrifice into vvhich the old Priesthod and sacrifices vvere translated, vvherevpon the Apostle inferreth the translation of the Law. For they all vvere figures of Christes death, and ended in effect at his death, yet they vvere not altered into that kind of sacrifice, vvhich vvas to be made but once, and vvas executed in such a sort, that peoples and nations Christened could not meete often to vvorship at it, nor haue their law and Priestes constituted in the same. though for the honour and duety, remembrance and representatiō thereof, not onely vve Christians, but also al peoples faithful both of Iewes & Gentiles, haue had their priesthod and sacrifices according to the difference of their states. Vvhich kind of Sacrifices vvere translated one into an other: and so no doubt is the Priesthod Leuitical properly turned into the Priesthod and sacrifice of the Church, according to Melchisedecks rite, and Christes institution in the formes of bread and vvine. See the next note.
7:14
Priesthod.
7:17
17. A Priest for euer.] Christ is not called a Priest for euer, onely for that his person is eternal, Hovv Christ is a Priest for eues. or for that he sitteth on the right hand of God, and perpetually praieth or maketh intercession for vs, or for that the effect of his death is euerlasting: for al this proueth not that in proper signification his Priesthod is perpetual: but according to the iudgement of al the fathers grounded vpon this deepe and diuine discourse of S. Paul, and vpon the very nature, definition, and propriety of Priesthod, and the excellent act and order of Melchisedec, and the state of the new law, Christs eternal Priesthod consisteth in the perpetual sacrifice of his body & bloud in the Church. he is a Priest for euer according to Melchisedecks order, specially in respect of the sacrifice of his holy body and bloud, instituted at his last supper, and executed by his commission, commaundement, and perpetual concurrence vvith his Priests, in the formes of bread and vvine: in vvhich things onely the said high Priest Melchisedec did sacrifice. For though S. Paul make no expresse mention hereof, because of the depth of the mysterie, and their incredulity or feeblenesse to vvhom he vvrote: yet it is euident in the iudgement of all the learned fathers (vvithout exception) that euer vvrote either vpon this epistle, or vpon the 14 of Genesis, or the Psalme 109, or by occasion haue treated of the sacrifice of the altar, that the eternity and proper act of Christes Priesthod, and consequently the immutability of the new, law, consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christes body and bloud in the Church.
Which thing is so vvell knowen to the Aduersaries of Christes Church and Priesthod, The Protestāts cauilling vpon particles, agaīst Melchisedecks sacrifice & Priesthod, directly against the Apostle. and so graunted, that they be forced impudently to cauill vpon certaine Hebrue particles, that Melchisedec did not offer in bread and vvine: yea and vvhen that vvill not serue, plainely to deny him to haue been a Priest: vvhich is to giue checkmate to the Apostle, and to ouerthrow all his discourse. Thus vvhiles these vvicked men pretend to defend Christes onely Priesthod, they in deede abolish as much as in them lieth, the vvhole order, office, and state of his eternall law and Priesthod.
Arnobius saith, By the mysterie of bread and vvine he vvas made a Priest for euer. And againe, Christs eternal Priesthod and sacrifice in the Church is proued out of the fathers. The eternal memorie, by vvhich he gaue the food of his body to them that feare him. in psal. 109. 110. Lactatius, In the Church he must needes haue his eternal Priesthod according to the order of Melabisedec. Li. 14. Institut. S. Hierom to Luagrius, Ep. 126. Aarons Priesthod had an end, bus Melchisedecks, that is, Christes and the Churches is perpetuall, That is, from Adā to the end of the vvorld, represented by sacrifice. both for the time past and to come. S. Chrysostom therfore calleth the Churches sacrifice, hostia• inconsumptib•em, an host or sacrifice that can not be consumed. ho. 17 in 9 Hebr. S. Cyprian, bostiam qua sublatae, nulla esset futura religio, an host vvhich being taken away, there could be no religion. de Cana• Domini. nu 2. Emissenus, perpetuam oblationem & perpetuò currentem redemptionem, a perpetual oblation and a redemption that runneth or continueth euerlastingly. ho. 5 de Pasch. And our Sauiour expresseth so much in the very institution of the B. Sacrament of his body and bloud: specially vvhen he calleth the later kind, the nevv Testament in his bloud, signifying that as the old law vvas established in the bloud of beastes, so the new (vvhich is his eternal Testament) should be dedicated and perpetual in his owne bloud: not onely as it vvas shed on the Crosse, but as giuen in the Chalice. And therfore into this sacrifice of the altar (saith S. Augustine li. 17 de Ciuit. c. 20. S. Leo ser. 8 de Passione, and the rest) vvere the old sacrifices to be translated. See S. Cyprian ep. 63 ad Cecil. nu. 2. Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. 6. 4. S. Augustine in Psal. 33. Conc. •. and li. 17. de Ciuit. c. 17. S. Hierom ep. 17. c. 2. & ep. 126. Epiph. har. 55. Theodoret in Psal. 109. Damascene li. 4. c. 14.
Finally if any of the fathers, or all the fathers, had either vvisedom, grace, or intelligence of Gods vvorde and mysteries, this is the truth. If nothing vvil serue our Aduersaries, Christ Iesus confound them, and defend his eternal Priesthod, and state of his new Testament established in the same.
Concordance Ps. 109, 4.
7:18
18. Of the former commaundement.] The old commaundement, and the new. The vvhole law of Moyses conteining all their old Priesthod, sacrifice, sacraments, and ceremonies, is called the Old commaundement: and the new Testament conteining the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud, and al the sacraments and graces giuen by the same, is named the Nevv mandatum: for vvhich our forefathers called the Thursday in the holy vveke, Maundy thursday vvhy so called. Maundy thursday, because that in it, the new law and Testament was dedicated in the Chalice of his bloud: the old mandatum, law, Priesthod, and sacrifices, for that they vvere insufficient and vnperfect, being taken avvay: and this new sacrifice, after the order of Melchisedec, giuen in the place thereof. The introduction of a new Priesthod.
7:19
19. The introduction.] Euer obserue, that the abrogation of the old law, is not an abolishing of al Priesthod, of al Priesthod, but an introductiō of a new, conteining the hope of eternal things, vvhere the old had but temporal. The eternitie of the new Priesthod confirmed by the fathers othe, & Christs passion.
7:20
Concordance Ps. 10•, 4.
7:21
21. With an othe.] This othe signifieth the infallible and absolute promis of the eternitie of the new Priesthod and state of the Church: Christ by his death, and bloud shed in the sacrifice of the Crosse, confirming it, sealing it, and making him self the surety and pledge therof. For though the new Testament vvas instituted, giuen, and dedicated in the Supper, yet the vvarrant, confirmation, and eternal operation therof, vvas atchieued vpon the Crosse, in the one oblation and one general and euer lasting redemption there made.
7:23
23. Being many.] By the comparison of many priests, & one, is not meant that there is but one Priest of the new Testament. The Protestants not vnderstanding this place, feine very folishly, that the Apostle should make this difference betvvixt the old state and the new: that in the old, there were many Priests: in the new, none at all but Christ. Which is against the Prophet Esay, Esa. c. 61. specially prophecying of the Priests of the new Testament (as S. Hierom declareth vpon the same place) in these vvordes, You shal be called the 〈Greek〉. Priests of God: the 〈Greek〉. ministers of our God, shal it be said to your & it taketh away al visible Priesthod, & consequently the lawful state that the Church and Gods people haue in earth, vvith al Sacraments and external vvorship.
The Apostle then meaneth first, The meaning is, that the absolute sacrifice of eternal redēption could not be done by those many Aaronical priests but by one onely, Christ Iesus: vvho liueth a Priest for euer, hath no successor, and as cheefe priest, worketh and concurreth vvith al Priests in their priestly functions. that the absolute sacrifice of cōsummation, perfection, and vniuersal redemption, vvas but one, once done, and by one onely Priest done, and therfore it could not be any of the sacrifices, or al the sacrifices of the Iewes law, or vvrought by any or by all of them, because they vvere a number at once, and succeding one an other, euery of their offices and functions ending by their death, and could not vvorke such an eternal redemption as by Christ onely vvas vvrought vpon the Crosse. Secondly, S. Paul insinuateth therevpon, that Christ neuer loseth the dignitie or practise of his eternal Priesthod, by death nor othervvise, neuer yeldeth it vp to any, neuer hath successors after him, that may enter into his roome or right of Priesthod, as Aaron and al other had in the Leuitical Priesthod, but that him self vvorketh and concurreth vvith his ministers the Priests of the new Testament, in al their actes of Priesthod, as vvel of sacrifice as Sacrament, blessing, preaching, praying, and the like vvhat so euer.
This therfore vvas the fault of the Hebrues, that they did not acknowledge their Leuitical sacrifices and Priesthod to be reformed and perfited by Christes sacrifice on the Crosse: and against them the Apostle onely disputeth, and not against our Priests of holy Church, or the number of them, vvho al confesse their Priesthod and al exercises of the same, to depend vpon Christes onely perpetual Priesthod.
In the liturgy The Epistle for a Cōfessor that is a Bishop.
7:25
them that goe
Christ according to his humane nature praieth for vs, & continually representeth his former passion and merites to God the Father.
7:27
27. This did he once.] This is the special preeminence of Christ, that the offereth for other mens sinnes onely, hauing none of his owne to offer for, as al other Priests both of the old and new law haue. And this againe is the special dignitie of his owne person, not communicable to any other of vvhat order of Priesthod so euer, that he by his death (which is the onely oblation that is by the Apostle declared to be irreiterable in it self) paied the one full sufficient ransom for the redemption of all sinnes.
Concordance Leu. 9, 7. 16, 6.
7:1
Tertullian † AD 220 Appendix: Against All Heresies 8
… Melchizedek does so for heavenly angels and Virtues. For to such a degree, he says, is he better than Christ, that he is ἀπάτωρ (fatherless), ἀμήτωρ (motherless), ἀγενεαλογητον (without genealogy), of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.11
… for even that Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, the Church doth certainly not hold to be an angel (as some Jewish triflers do), but a holy man and priest of God, who, prefiguring our Lord, is described as “without father or mother, without history of his descent, without beginning and without end,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God; abideth a priest continually.”
7:3
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 38
… again Israel is enlightened by a pillar. The people that sat in the darkness of ignorance, let it see the Great Light of full knowledge. Old things are passed away, behold all things are become new. The letter gives way, the Spirit comes to the front. The shadows flee away, the Truth comes in upon them. Melchisedec is concluded.
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 8.1
… He, therefore, Who hath all things that are the Father’s , and is contemplated in all the glory of the Father, even as, being in the endlessness of the Father, He has no end, so, being in the unoriginateness of the Father, has, as the Apostle says, “no beginning of days
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… What is this vain flourish of baseless expressions, seeing that our Master simply says that whatever in the Divine essence transcends the measurable distances of the ages in either direction is called by certain distinctive names, in the case of Him Who, as saith the Apostle, hath neither beginning of days nor end of life
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
Moreover, if He be not Co-eternal with the Father, how can you say that His Life is infinite? For if it have a beginning from before, although it be endless, yet it is not infinite; for the infinite must be infinite in both directions. As Paul also declared, when he said, “Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.23
… And no one doubts that the priests sprang from the stock of Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinees. And seeing that they had wives, they would be rightly brought against us, if, led away by the error of the Encratites, we were to maintain that marriage deserved censure, and our high priest were not after the order of Melchizedek, without father, without mother,
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.14
… Nor indeed is it wonderful that, as you cannot do what you want, you only do what you can: as you cannot turn the sacred witnesses against God, you do what you can, and pervert them. For you say: Then Paul tells a lie, when he says of Christ: “Without mother, without genealogy.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
Orth. —For any one willing to consider it with attention it will not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After saying “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” the divine Apostle adds “made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
On account of this difference of term He is said by the divine Paul to be “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.”
7:4
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 2
Herein standeth the trophy of the cross, glorious, and conspicuous, the spoils won by Christ, the first-fruits
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
… henceforward he boldly shows him [Melchisedec] to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? Thou seest how super-abundantly he shows the superiority.
7:5
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
… At all events they “receive tithes” from them. When then one is found, who receives tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, and he among the Priests?
7:6
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
… But here he is exceeding bold against him, and shows that the uncircumcised person is far superior. How then did he show that Levi paid tithes? Abraham (he says) paid them. ‘And how does this concern us?’ It especially concerns you: for you will not contend that the Levites are superior to Abraham. (
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… And this is what the divine Apostle would have us understand, for in this very passage he says further, “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.”
7:7
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
And after that he did not simply pass on, but added, “and blessed him that had the promises.” Inasmuch as throughout, this was regarded with reverence, he shows that [Melchisedec] was to be reverenced more than Abraham, from the common judgment of all men. (
7:8
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
… He says, ( ver. 9 ) “And as I may so say” (and he did well in softening it) “Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham.” How? ( Ver. 10 ) “For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him,” i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi.
7:9
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 1-2.39
… Why, even of men we cannot say absolutely that any one was not, and then was born. Levi, many generations before his own birth in the flesh, was tithed by Melchisedech; so the Apostle says, “Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes (in Abraham),”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
( Ver. 8 ) “And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it is testified that he liveth.” But lest we should say, Tell us, why goest thou so far back? He says, (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.39
… “For why,” they ask, “could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Levi,
7:10
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
IX. Well, but the Father begat a Son who either was or was not in existence. What utter nonsense! This is a question which applies to you or me, who on the one hand were in existence, as for instance Levi in the loins of Abraham;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
( Ver. 8 ) “And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it is testified that he liveth.” But lest we should say, Tell us, why goest thou so far back? He says, ( ver. 9 ) “And as I may so say” (and he did well in softening it) “Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham.” How? (
7:11
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 14
… In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, “If perfection were by” it, “what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.5
… [And again he says, “Present your bodies a living sacrifice.” ] What, therefore, he has added, to “eat bread,” also elegantly expresses the very kind of sacrifice of which the Priest Himself says, “The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The same is the sacrifice not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec:
7:12
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 7
… And David too, showing the very same thing, said concerning Christ, “Thou art a Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” ( Ps. cx. 4 ;) not after the order of Aaron. Wherefore also Paul, giving a clear interpretation of this, says, “The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law.” (
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 5.22
… wherefore he says, ‘Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come.’ The same truths are also confirmed by him in the epistle to the Hebrews
7:13
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
… For what they worship as true, they veil as mythical. But if these things are true, they ought not to be called myths, but to be proved not to be shameful;
7:14
Julius Africanus † AD 240 Julius Africanus 1.1
… the other traced that of Heli also, though in a different way, the father of Joseph, from Nathan the son of David. And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
Orth. —So again the divine apostle, reminding us of the blessing of Judah, and pointing out how it received its fulfilment exclaims
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3.2
The angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who was descended from David’s line . For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe no one turned his attention to the altar
7:15
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… Melchisedec? Nay; but Christ.) “But according to the power of an endless life. For He testifieth, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”; that is, not for a time, nor having any limit, “but according to the power of an endless life,” that is, by means of power, by means of “endless life.”
7:16
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
[3.] Yea and I am showing another difference also (he would say): not only from the tribe, nor yet only from the Person, nor from the character [of the Priesthood], nor from the covenant, but also from the type itself. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 14
And observe what safeguards he lays down, when intending to find fault with it. For in the former place after saying, “according to the power of an endless life” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
… vii. 19 ,) and “If that first [covenant] had been faultless.” ( Heb. viii. 7 .) How? “As pertaining to the conscience.” For the sacrifices did not put away the defilement from the soul, but still were concerned with the body: “after the law of a carnal commandment.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 19
… tabernacle, and of the Covenant, and of the promise, and that the difference is great, since those are temporal, but these eternal, those “near to vanishing away,” these permanent, those powerless, these perfect, those figures, these reality, for (he says) “not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.” (
7:17
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.10
… days of my life, to contemplate the beauty of the Lord.” For we shall then contemplate God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, when the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, so as no longer to make intercession for us, as our Mediator and Priest, Son of God and Son of man;
7:18
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… But listen attentively. He did not say “for the evil,” nor, “for the viciousness,” but “for the weakness and unprofitableness [thereof],” yea and in other places also he shows the weakness; as when he says “In that it was weak through the flesh.” ( Rom. viii. 3 .) [The law] itself then is not weak, but we.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 14
… But this did not profit the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered them: “Which was established upon better promises.” Having raised them up by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before that it was “weak and unprofitable.” (See
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 21.33
… “There is a setting aside of the former commandment because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof: for the law brought nothing to perfection;” and the Lord says by the prophet: “And I gave them commands that were not good, and ordinances, whereby they could not live”
7:19
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
By the arrival of the “perfect things.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… Let them contemplate then the grace which is through the Son, and let them acknowledge the witness which He gives even from His works, that He is other than things originated, and alone the very Son in the Father and the Father in Him. And the Law was spoken by Angels, and perfected no one
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… And as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said, ‘The Law is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’ ( Rom. vii. 14, 12 ); and soon after, ‘What the Law could not do, in that it was weak’ ( ib. viii. 3 ), but wrote to the Hebrews, ‘The Law has made no one perfect’ (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… And besides, even if it had been listened to, it would not have made one perfect and virtuous. But as yet he does not say this here, but that it had no strength: and with good reason. For written precepts were there set down, Do this and Do not that, being enjoined only, and not giving power within. But “the Hope” is not such.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 14
… For in the former place after saying, “according to the power of an endless life” ( Heb. vii. 16 ), he then said that “there is a disannulling of the commandment going before” ( Heb. vii. 18 ); and then after that, he set forth something great, saying, “by which we draw nigh unto God.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15
There is too something else which he indicates, when he says this, “which [was] a figure for the time then present,” that is, became the Type. “In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” Thou seest now what is [the meaning of] “The Law made nothing perfect,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 19
… vii. 16 .) And “Thou art a Priest for ever.” ( c. v. 6 .) Behold the continuance of the Priest. And concerning the Covenant, That (he says) is old (for “that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”— c. viii. 13 ), but this is new; and has remission of sins, while that [has] nothing of the kind: for (he says) “the Law made nothing perfect.” (
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 21.29
… And in this way, though it is said of the Mosaic law that “the law brought nothing to perfection,”
7:20
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
[5.] ( Ver. 20 ) “And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath.” Thou seest that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here. Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much [hereon], how that God swore; and swore for the sake of [our] fuller assurance.
7:21
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.14
… He received not the High-Priesthood from bodily succession, nor was He anointed with oil prepared by man , but before all ages by the Father; and He so far excels the others as with an oath He is made Priest: For they are priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him that said, The Lord sware, and will not repent
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 6.2
… also in like manner took part with them in blood (not in that He was in the beginning, being the Word and God, and being in the form of God, and equal with God, but in that He emptied Himself in the form of the servant, and offered an oblation and sacrifice for us), He, I say, became a High Priest many generations later, after the order of Melchisedech
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
“And inasmuch as not without an oath.” What is “And inasmuch as not without an oath”? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). “For those priests were made without an oath,” (
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… Long ago the divine Moses exclaimed “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me.” And the divine David cries “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek.” This prophecy is confirmed by the divine Apostle.
7:22
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.13
… but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.11
79. In the next place, He is the Mediator of a better covenant. But where there is testamentary disposition, the death of the testator must first come to pass,
7:23
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.62
… As for the words and charges to Joshua which he puts into the angel’s mouth, let them be treated with silent respect, as referring perhaps to a greater and higher object than those who are many priests:
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). “For those priests were made without an oath,” ( ver. 21, 22 ) “but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant.”
7:24
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 10.14
14. For that He is Jesus the Jews allow, but not further that He is Christ. Therefore saith the Apostle, Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? But Christ is a High Priest, whose priesthood passes not to another
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.50
… For such a High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily (as those high priests) to offer up sacrifice, first for His own sins, and then for the people’s: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.”
7:25
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 30
XIV. Ninthly, they allege, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for us.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there [under the Law] indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was [High Priest] (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but “He” saves “to the uttermost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 20.7
… “Now have I known that the Lord hath saved his Christ” ( ver. 6 ). Now hath it been shown to me in prophecy, that the Lord will raise up His Christ again. “He will hear Him from His holy heaven.” He will hear Him not from earth only, where He prayed to be glorified; but from heaven also, where interceding for us at the Right Hand of the Father,
7:26
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 22
… it is the part of ingratitude or of pride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another’s death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.11
80. Furthermore, we are taught how He is made “higher than the heavens.” “Unspotted,” saith the Scripture,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
… He has summed up what was said before, “in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin.” ( c. iv. 15 .) “For” (he says) “such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless.” “Harmless”: what is it? Without wickedness: that which another
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.19
… “For such a High Priest,” it says, “became us, righteous, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins.”
7:27
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 Homilies on the Psalms 53.13
… Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for Me ; that is, by offering to God the Father, Who refused the legal sacrifices, the acceptable offering of the body which He received. Of which offering the holy Apostle thus speaks: For this He did once for all when He offered Himself up
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 21.9
… who, having run through the whole gamut of violence, at last tyrannize over even piety; who, instead of gaining credit for their office by their character, need for their character the credit of their office, thus subverting the due relation between them; who ought to offer more sacrifices for themselves than for the ignorances of the people;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
[8.] Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 17
… Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the Holy Place every year with blood of others, for then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world. But now, once,
7:28
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13
“For this He did,” he says. “This”; what? “For” (he says) “it is of necessity that this [Man] have somewhat also to offer” ( c. viii. 3 ); not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). “For the Law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity.” (
7:1
Conveniently at the end of the preceding chapter, the Apostle introduced the mention of Melchizedek, so that he might transition to him and explain his priesthood as a type of Christ: for he had said of him in chapter V, 11: "Of whom we have much to say." He therefore undertakes here to set forth and unfold that great, subtle and allegorical discourse concerning Melchizedek, so as to show in what respects Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, and from this to demonstrate the dignity and excellence of Christ and of Christ's priesthood before the legal and Aaronic priesthood. King of Salem. — "Salem," says St. Jerome, in epistle 126 to Evagrius, is not Jerusalem, but a town near Scythopolis (which is called by another name Shechem, or Sichima, where Jacob fed his flocks, and Dinah was seized and violated, as the same Jerome says in the Hebrew Places), in which is shown the palace of Melchizedek, from the magnitude of the ruins of the ancient work showing its magnificence. Near this Salem also St. John the Baptist baptized in Aenon, John chapter III, 23. But Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Apollinarius, Eustathius, whom St. Jerome cites there, Josephus also, book VII of the Wars, chapter XVIII, and throughout the Hebrews, and many of the more recent ancient Fathers, such as Abulensis, Pererius, Ribera, and especially Andreas Masius, an exact investigator of cities and the Holy Land, in chapter X of Joshua, teach that this Salem is Jerusalem. Whence also the Chaldean paraphrase in Genesis chapter XIV, verse 18, translates, "and Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem." Indeed Josephus in the place cited relates that Jerusalem was founded by Melchizedek, from whom it was called Salem, then by others Jebus, and finally from Salem and Jebus it was called Jerusalem, as I said in Galatians IV, 26. Wherefore that palace of Melchizedek, which Jerome says was shown in Shechem, was not founded by Melchizedek, but was marked with his name, or by Jeroboam, or by some other of the later kings, it is probable. And this, as it seems, for this reason, namely that they might claim Melchizedek for themselves, as if he had not been in Salem, but in Shechem, where they themselves reigned. For thus seven cities of Greece contend over the birthplace of Homer, and each claims him for itself, and contends that he was its citizen. This second opinion better corresponds to the allegory of Christ. For it is fitting that in Jerusalem Melchizedek was king and priest, so that he might foreshadow Christ about to reign in the same city from the wood, and to sacrifice himself on the altar of the cross for the redemption of the whole world. You will say: Abraham pursued his enemies as far as Dan, which was afterwards called Caesarea: but this is near Shechem, not near Jerusalem. I answer: Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the kings, was returning to the valley of Mamre, where he dwelt; from there he was not far from Jerusalem, to which, although somewhat more remote, he wished to go, both that he might give thanks to God for the victory obtained, and this in Jerusalem, where the true God was worshipped, whereas in the rest of Canaan idols were worshipped; and also moved by the fame of Melchizedek, who was king and priest of the Most High God, at that time most celebrated. But Melchizedek, hearing of Abraham's arrival, went out to meet him for the sake of goodwill and honor. Again, in Salem, namely in Jerusalem, reigned Solomon, who was a type of Christ, and from Salem or Salom, that is peace, Solomon was called, that is, peaceful. Whence also the Arab and Turkish kings call their Emperors Solymans or Selyms from Solomon, and from Salem or Salom they call the Turks themselves Musulmans, as if to say, saved, to whom is peace and salvation. For when Mahomet propagated his dogma, he ordered by the sword to be killed all those unwilling to embrace this symbol of his: Alla illa Alla, Mehammed rassul Alla, (which the Mahometans even now cry out with loud voices), that is, There is no God but God, and Mahomet is his Apostle. Whoever therefore embraced this was called a Musulman, that is, freed from the sword and the danger of death, which Mahomet threatened to those who resisted. Priest of the Most High God. — hupsistou, that is, of the Most High. He cites the words of Genesis XIV, verse 18, where although Calvin and the Novations translate the Hebrew cohen as "prince," as if to say, Melchizedek was a prince of the Most High God; yet it is clear that it should be translated "priest," not "prince," from Paul here, and he is [priest] of the Most High God, that is, dedicated and consecrated to God, which befits a priest not a prince. Again, from the fact that he offered bread and wine in sacrifice, in which he was a type of Christ. Hence Psalm CIX says the Father to Christ: "Thou art (not a prince, but) a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."
7:2
"To whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all" (of the spoils, which he had taken from the five kings that were slain). — Abraham, although he was a priest, and had often sacrificed, nevertheless acknowledged Melchisedech to be his priest and pontiff, wherefore he gave him tithes as to one superior to himself and his pontiff. Who is interpreted king of justice. — For Melchisedech in Hebrew is composed of melech, that is, king: whence with the addition of iod not affixed, but paragogic, it becomes melchi, so that the composition may be more elegant, and sedec, that is, of justice, as if to say, the just king or most just king. Whence Josephus writes thus of him: "He was the first founder of Jerusalem, a dynast of the Canaanites, who in his native language was called the Just, for indeed he was such." Whence it is clear that Melchisedech was the proper name of that king, not however a common name of the kings of that city: just as Abimelech was a common name of the kings of Palestine in the time of Abraham, Pharao of the kings of Egypt, and afterwards Ptolemy.
7:3
From the fact that Melchisedech is here said to be apator kai ametor, that is, without father and without mother, some thought that Melchisedech was the Holy Spirit: for he was produced not by generation, but by spiration, and therefore is not a son having a father, but is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus the Author of the Questions of the New and Old Testament, Question CIX, which is found in vol. IV of the works of St. Augustine, understood it. But from this dogma and other similar ones it is clear that this book is not by St. Augustine, but by an author suspected of heresy. The Melchisedechians held nearly the same view, who taught that Melchisedech was a certain power of God, greater than Christ, from the fact that Christ is called "priest according to the order of Melchisedech," as if Christ were the advocate of men, but Melchisedech of angels before the Father. Thus Epiphanius relates it, lib. II, heresy 55. Secondly, Origen and Didymus, as St. Jerome testifies, cited in his epistle to Evagrius, thought that Melchisedech was an angel. But both these opinions are erroneous. For from those things which are narrated here and in Genesis XIV about Melchisedech, it is clear that he was a true man. Thirdly, the Samaritans, as Epiphanius testifies, and certain Hebrews, as St. Jerome testifies above, whom Lyra, Abulensis and others follow, were of the opinion that Melchisedech was Shem, the son of Noah: for Shem indeed, and even Noah himself, lived and reached the time of Abraham, it is certain: for Abraham was born 292 years after the flood, and Noah lived 350 years after the flood; for in the six hundredth year of Noah the flood occurred: and Noah lived 950 years, therefore he survived the flood 350 years, and consequently lived 58 years with Abraham. Similarly Shem lived 502 years after the flood; for at the time of the flood he was nearly 100 years old; and he lived in all 600 years, therefore he survived Abraham by 35 years. For Abraham died at the age of 175 years, in the year 467 after the flood. If you say, it is falsely said of Shem that he is without father and mother; for he had a father, Noah, and he is expressly named in the Scriptures: they answer: Shem under the name Shem is said in Scripture to have a father, namely Noah, but not under the name Melchisedech: because in Genesis, where his genealogy is woven, he is not called Melchisedech, but Shem. But this is too thin, subtle and frigid: for Holy Scripture understands and cares for the man and person, not the name. Add to this, not Shem, but Ham possessed Jerusalem and all Canaan. For this was called so by the Canaanites, its inhabitants; who were born from Chanaan, the son of Ham: but Shem and his descendants dwelt beyond the Euphrates, in the East, as Josephus teaches, lib. I of the Antiquities, cap. VII. Fourthly, a certain more recent writer thinks that Melchisedech was Enoch, who was taken up into paradise, and therefore it is said here of him that he does not have an end of days: for Enoch did not die, but lives still in paradise. But this is plainly a new and unheard of opinion, unknown to all the Fathers and Interpreters, and repugnant to Holy Scripture, which narrates that Enoch was taken up into paradise, so that at the end of the world he might return to fight against Antichrist, and give penance to the nations. See Our Salian in the Preface to vol. V of the Annals, where he refutes this opinion with many and strong arguments. I answer therefore, and say with Josephus, St. Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, cap. IX; Epiphanius, heresy 31; Theodoret, in Genesis, Question LXIII, and other Fathers cited at verse 1; that Melchisedech was one of the rulers of the Canaanites, namely the king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and was descended from them; yet he is said to be without father and mother, not as if he lacked them, but because his father, mother and genealogy are not described in the Scriptures; and because in Genesis cap. XIV, Scripture introduces him suddenly, without first setting forth his lineage and genealogy, nor indicating his birth or death, indeed with no mention of him anywhere else, either before or after his deeds, so that from his very history itself, as if fallen from Olympus and received into Olympus, Melchisedech appears. For this is what the Greek word agenealogetos signifies, namely, one whose genealogy is not recounted, not one who lacks lineage and family: for genealogein is the same as to recount and describe genealogy. Whence the Apostle, explaining this plainly at verse VI, says: "Whose generation is not to be counted." Hence also the Syriac translator renders it clearly here: whose father and mother are not written in the generations, neither the beginning of his days, nor the end of his life. Thus we call a man a son of the earth who is unknown, of obscure family and unknown descent. For when Scripture in the Old Testament is accustomed to recount the family, father and mother of others, especially of illustrious men, it did not do the same for Melchisedech; and this not without cause and mystery, which the Apostle explains here. Epiphanius, heresy 55 and 67, from tradition, but uncertain as it appears, writes that the father of Melchisedech was named Heracla, and his mother Astaroth or Asteria. You may ask, by what mystery, or for what reason does Scripture pass over in silence the name of the father and mother of Melchisedech? The Jews answer that this is done for the sake of propriety, because, they say, Melchisedech was born of fornication and a harlot. But this is an incredible invention of theirs. For how would such a one have been raised to a kingdom and priesthood? I answer therefore that, according to the letter, this reason can be given: that Scripture traces almost only the history and lineage of the Jews down to Christ, so that it might be evident that he was born from Abraham, Judah and David, as God himself had promised them. Whence Scripture does not enumerate the births of all the Jews: for it does not name the parents of Elijah, Daniel, the three youths and others: but Scripture neglects the genealogy of the Gentiles, and scarcely cares for it. But Melchisedech was a Gentile; not a Jew. In like manner Job, although he was a most famous man, indeed a king, his father, mother and genealogy are not recounted. Secondly, Melchisedech is said to be without genealogy, not absolutely, but with respect to his priesthood: because Melchisedech did not enter upon the priesthood by hereditary right, nor by succession of the flesh (as neither did Christ), indeed perhaps not even from the teaching or example of his parents; because he was descended from the Gentiles, namely the Canaanites, who at that time were of the most corrupt morals, and most impious toward God, and worshippers not of God, but of idols; but especially his own priesthood, in which offering bread and wine he was a type of Christ, Melchisedech received not from father or mother, but from God alone, so that with respect to this priesthood it can rightly be said that he is without father, mother and genealogy, because he himself first entered upon it, and began it. But the allegorical cause, and the principal one of this silence, is that in this way Melchisedech might be a type of Christ, and this in two ways. First, so that, while his father and mother are passed over in silence, this very thing might signify Christ, who on earth as man is apator, that is, without a father, in heaven as God and the Son of God, ametor, that is without a mother. Thus Chrysostom and Theophylactus here, Nazianzen, oration 38 at the beginning, and Ambrose, epistle 82. Secondly, so that, while his father and mother are passed over in silence, he might appear from his own kind and lineage not to be mortal, but immortal and eternal: not that Melchisedech was truly such, but that he might be introduced and appear in Scripture as such not for his own sake, but that he might be a type of the eternity of Christ. Whence it follows: "Having neither beginning, nor end of days;" so that without father and mother pertains to the same thing, and all these things signify and inculcate nothing other than the eternity of Christ. For the Apostle often inculcates this in what follows, so that by it he might prefer Christ to the Aaronic priests, who were mortal, and in turn died. Such therefore does Scripture propose Melchisedech to us, as if he had suddenly descended from heaven and appeared on earth, and soon withdrew himself to heaven and his throne, namely with no mention made of his parents, birth, or death: so that in this way he might be a type of Christ, our heavenly and eternal pontiff. Neither having beginning of days, nor end of life, — namely in Scripture, that is to say, Scripture makes no mention of when Melchisedech was born and died, as it does make mention of the nativity and death of Aaron; and this for this purpose, that Melchisedech, to whom these words apply only thinly and meagerly, might foreshadow Christ, who truly and really has neither beginning nor end of days, but is eternal. Whence the Apostle, explaining this, adds: "Remaineth a priest for ever," namely Melchisedech, the antitype of Christ; because assuredly in Scripture no mention is made of his death, and consequently of the end of the priesthood of Melchisedech. Thus Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Oecumenius. Secondly, because no successor of his priesthood is read to have existed, as Aaron had Eleazar. Thus Theodoretus. But assimilated to the Son of God, remaineth a priest for ever. — The Syriac version renders it, but in the likeness of the Son of God his pontificate remaineth, that is, for ever, that is to say, Since Melchisedech is introduced in Scripture as having neither beginning nor end of days, but as it were a constant and perpetual priest, by this very fact he bears the likeness and type of Christ, who in reality has neither beginning nor end of days, but remaineth a priest for ever, as I have explained in the preceding verse. Thus Chrysostom with his followers. That all these things may be gathered into one, It is asked, in what respects was Melchisedech a type of Christ? I answer: First, in his name and the etymology of the name. For Melchisedech is the same as king of justice, that is, most just. For Christ alone is the true king of justice: for Christ as God, by essence is king of justice, nay justice itself; but Christ as man, is lord and ruler of justice, inasmuch as by perfect justice he satisfied God for all the sins of men, and has been constituted the avenger of justice, so that as a most equitable, wisest and most powerful judge, he judges the world in all justice. Secondly, in his office and state. For Melchisedech was king of Salem, that is, of peace: thus Christ is a peaceful king, who made peace between God and men, and who reigned in Salem or Jerusalem from the wood, and in the heavenly Jerusalem, where peace is most true, he shall reign with his own for ever. Thirdly, in his generation. For as Melchisedech is introduced, so Christ truly is without father on earth, without mother in heaven. St. Ignatius adds, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, that Melchisedech without a wife remained ever a virgin: thus Christ is the spouse of virgins, nay of virginity itself. Fourthly, in his age and duration. For as Melchisedech is set forth, so Christ in reality is wholly lacking in all beginning and end of time. Fifthly, in his priesthood and pontificate. For as Melchisedech was both king and priest or pontiff, so also is Christ. Again, as Melchisedech is not read to have been consecrated with oil, as Aaron was, and was principally priest of the Gentiles, but secondarily of the Hebrews: for he offered sacrifice for Abraham, the father of the Hebrews; so also Christ, as Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylactus note. Sixthly, as Melchisedech is introduced as the first priest of his kind, and likewise the last; for no one is read to have succeeded him: so also Christ has a new and eternal priesthood, both because no other succeeds him, and because he continually offers to the Father from heaven the sacrifice of his passion for us, through the eternal commemoration, praise and thanksgiving of it: and thus its fruit and merit always endures and operates; and finally most properly, because in his Church Christ through his ministers, namely through priests instituted by him, perpetually offers and shall offer for ever, that is, until the end of the world (for thus "for ever" is taken, Levit. XXV, 46; Exod. XV, 18, and elsewhere), the sacrifice of the Mass, as the Council of Trent explains, sess. XXII, cap. I and II; for according to the former reasons even the conception, nativity, temptation, flight, hunger, thirst and other sufferings of Christ would be called eternal, because Christ offers them to the Father in heaven for ever: in which manner, however, no one speaks. Again, thus the sacrifice of Noah would be called eternal, because its fruit, namely the prohibition of the flood, lasts for ever. Wherefore rightly the Council of Trent, in the place cited, proves from this passage of the Apostle that the Mass is a sacrifice. And it proves thus: The priesthood of Christ was not extinguished by His death, but endures forever, as the Apostle here says; therefore also the sacrifice of Christ endures forever and will endure: but this cannot be the sacrifice of the cross, because that has long since passed and ceased: therefore this sacrifice of Christ, enduring forever, is that of the Eucharist and the Mass: for no other can be given or imagined here. Again, both Christ the priest and Christ's Church and commonwealth cannot exist without public worship of God and a sacrifice properly so called, which it may offer to God on appointed days. For every Church and commonwealth has always had such worship and sacrifice, both before the flood and after it, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, even those ignorant of the true God; but in the Christian Church no other sacrifice can be found than that of the Eucharist: therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice, which Christ always offers and will offer even to the end of the world. It must be noted that in the Mass Christ is the principal offerer, both because He instituted the sacrifice of the Mass, and because in heaven He offers to His Father our Masses which we celebrate, in act and in very deed. For He is our mediator and advocate, who pleads our cause before God and intercedes for us; and also because by His omnipotence in each Mass He works and perfects the transubstantiation of bread and wine into His body and blood, in which the essence of our sacrifice consists. Seventh, Melchisedech was a type of Christ in the blessing and tithing of Abraham, because just as Melchisedech the high priest was greater than Abraham, who was nevertheless also a priest and pontiff (for Melchisedech, as it were more worthy than Abraham, blessed him and received tithes from him): so Christ is greater than Aaron, who, lying hidden in the loins of his father Abraham, was tacitly and virtually blessed by Melchisedech when he blessed Abraham, and gave him tithes as to one greater, so that it might be signified that by Christ, whose type Melchisedech was, blessing would truly and efficaciously be given. And this is what the Apostle chiefly aims at here, namely to demonstrate that the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ are far more excellent than the priesthood and sacrifice of Levi or Aaron, in which the Hebrews had been brought up, and therefore could scarcely be torn away from it. Eighth finally, and most perfectly, Melchisedech was a type of Christ in the victim, because namely he offered bread and wine, just as Christ likewise offered and offers these in the Eucharist: for this is the rite or order of the sacrifice of Melchisedech, according to which Christ is said to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. For the order, rite and species of priesthood and sacrifice depends properly and essentially on the very thing offered, or on the victim, which in a certain manner and way is offered to God and immolated, such as here is bread and wine, as all the Fathers teach, and the whole Church, by the common consent of all ages. On which more at verse 27.
7:4
For "you behold" in Greek it is theoreite, that is, contemplate, speculate upon the allegory, expound contemplatively and allegorically the mysteries which lie hidden in the literal and historical account of Melchisedech and his person. For up to this point the Apostle has set forth the very external letter and historical narrative concerning Melchisedech: now, having set this forth, wishing to expound its allegory, he exhorts the Hebrews that they behold and contemplate with him, with the sublime eyes of the mind, the inmost and sublime allegorical senses concerning Christ and Christ's ministers which lie hidden therein. Thus Chrysostom. Note "tithes": Abraham therefore did not give gifts, as Cajetan wished (for gifts are given not only to laymen, but also to equals, indeed even to inferiors), but he gave sacerdotal tithes to Melchisedech as to a priest and pontiff. Secondly, for "of the chief things" in Greek it is ton akrothinion; akrothinia, says Theophylactus, are the chief and best spoils; hence the first fruits of spoils which were offered to the gods are called by Herodotus and others akrothinia, as it were ta akra thinos, that is, the summits of a heap, because first fruits are wont to be taken from the summit of a heap; or, as Erasmus says, choice spoils taken from leaders are called akrothinia, as it were from touching the highest things: for akrothinazo, according to Hesychius, is the same as to touch the highest part. Abraham the patriarch. — The word "patriarch" carries emphasis. For patriarch is the same as prince of fathers, or one from whom many fathers with their families descend. Thus Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons are called the twelve patriarchs, because these were the heads and parents of the 12 tribes of Israel: hence the name patriarch was attributed to anyone who is the parent and head of a great family. Thus David, Acts II, 29, is called a patriarch. Hence in the Church are called Patriarchs the first and most eminent Prelates, to whom are subject Bishops, Archbishops and Metropolitans; such Patriarchs are the Roman Pontiff, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene and the Constantinopolitan. By this word the Apostle meets a tacit objection. For the Hebrews would have said: Granted that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedech as to one greater than himself, what is this to Aaron? Is Aaron therefore, and his priesthood, less than Melchisedech's? For although Aaron was the son of Abraham, yet he was chosen by God in a singular manner and elevated to a new priesthood of the whole people, and consequently Aaron the high priest appears to have been greater than Abraham his father, just as the son of some Christian, when he is made a Bishop or Pontiff, by that very fact becomes greater than his parent. The Apostle here refutes this by the word "patriarch," as if to say: Abraham, the first and great patriarch, and therefore the parent of all patriarchs and priests, and consequently of Aaron himself and his descendants, by giving tithes to Melchisedech, by that very act acknowledged himself to be less than Melchisedech; therefore much more ought Aaron and all other sons of Abraham to acknowledge the same: for Abraham was far more worthy than Aaron and all his descendants. For he was a patriarch by excellence, a patriarch, I say, not only as regards natural generation, but also as regards priesthood. For just as Abraham was the father and patriarch of his whole family and of all the twelve tribes: so also he was their high priest and pontiff; for the heads of families were their priests. For the right of priesthood at that time devolved upon posterity through carnal generation, namely upon the firstborn and upon the heads of families; and consequently all the priesthood of the Hebrews descended from Abraham and his priesthood, and each of the sons of Jacob could be priests of their tribes; but in order that from all one people might be formed, and one Church, God ordained that one family, namely that of Levi and Aaron, should exercise this priesthood in place of all the others. Therefore the priesthood of Abraham and Aaron was the same: and accordingly Aaron's priesthood (which is to be carefully noted) descended from the priesthood of Abraham, just as Aaron descended from Abraham, and consequently was less than it. For Aaron was high priest in the family of Abraham, and therefore was high priest of one family of Abraham only, namely that of Jacob, or the twelve tribes. For Abraham and Isaac had other sons besides Jacob (from whom the twelve tribes descended), of whom Aaron was not the high priest, but Abraham himself was. The matter stands otherwise in the priesthood of Christ and of Christians: for that does not descend from parents through carnal generation, but is spiritual, and proceeds immediately from Christ himself. Whence if the son of someone becomes a Pontiff, by that very fact he is constituted by Christ a head, Prelate and prince, not only of his own family and parents, but of all the faithful without exception.
7:5
For not all the sons of Levi received the priesthood, but Aaron alone and his posterity: the remaining sons of Levi became Levites, and served the priests, just as our deacons now serve them. They have a commandment to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brethren: although these themselves (namely the brethren, as is clear from the Greek) came forth from the loins of Abraham. — He proves that he who gives tithes is lesser than he who receives them, namely that Abraham is lesser than Melchisedech; he proves this, I say, by the example of the Aaronic priests, as if to say: God commanded all the Jews, even the Levites, Num. XVIII, 26, to give tithes to the Aaronic priests, wishing by this means to honor and prefer the priests, and to subject the rest of the Jews to them, although the Jews were the priests' brethren, being born from the same Abraham and Jacob. If therefore the Jews, although brethren, are subject to their brethren, namely the priests, by this very fact that they are bound by law to give them tithes: therefore likewise Abraham, giving tithes to Melchisedech, by this very fact confessed himself to be lesser than him, and by this very fact subjected himself to him. Note the Hebraism: To come forth from the loins of someone is the same as to be begotten by him. For in the loins is the origin of seed: for from the loins two arteries descend, through which the matter of seed is carried to the parts destined for generation, where it is formed, perfected, and becomes prolific seed; hence the loins are the origin and seat of concupiscence, and therefore in Scripture we are commanded to gird up the loins, that is to subdue concupiscence, as St. Gregory teaches, homil. 13 in Evangelia.
7:6
That is, Melchisedech, whose race and genealogy is not reckoned among the Hebrews, the sons of Abraham, that is, who was not descended from the Hebrews, he took tithes from Abraham. Thus the Syriac, Anselm, and the Greeks. The Apostle adds this to signify that Melchisedech, just as he had a different race from Aaron and Abraham, so also had a different priesthood, and one greater than the Aaronic, inasmuch as Abraham, in whose loins Aaron was contained, gave him tithes as to a more worthy pontiff. The Apostle here begins to gather together seven arguments, by which he proves that Melchisedech, who was a type of Christ, and consequently Christ himself, was greater than the Aaronic priests. The first is this verse, namely: He who receives tithes is greater than he who gives them; but Melchisedech received, Abraham gave him tithes: therefore Melchisedech is greater than Abraham. Note that Abraham honored Melchisedech in this way, and gave him tithes, although it did not pertain to him and his jurisdiction, the cause seems to have been the great dignity, authority, fame, and virtue of Melchisedech; inasmuch as he alone among the impious Canaanites was the public priest of the true God, and likewise a most just king. The second and more important cause was that Melchisedech was a type of Christ; the Holy Spirit therefore moved Abraham to honor Melchisedech, so that the Jews, the posterity of Abraham, might know that they ought to honor Christ before Aaron, whose type they knew Melchisedech to be from David, Psalm CIX, where he says: "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." And Abraham seems to have known this, inasmuch as he was a prophet and familiar with God, and for this reason seems to have honored Melchisedech so reverently and earnestly, because by the prophetic spirit he foresaw that he was a type of Christ, so that he seems to have wished to honor and venerate not so much Melchisedech as Christ represented in Melchisedech. And he blessed him who had the promises. — As if to say: Melchisedech blessed Abraham, as one lesser, to whom nevertheless God had promised such great goods, and in him all nations were to be blessed, Genesis cap. XII.
7:7
"Of a better" (in Greek kreittonos, that is, greater, more worthy, more excellent). — This is the second argument by which he proves that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham, and consequently than Aaron, as if to say: Melchisedech, who was a type of Christ, blessed Abraham and all his progeny, and consequently also the Levites and the Aaronic priests: therefore both he himself and Christ, whom he represented, was more worthy and more excellent than them. The consequence is proved, because by the confession of all, he who blesses is greater than he who is blessed. You will object: The Bishop of Ostia consecrates the Pope, yet he is nevertheless lesser than him; Suffragans consecrate an Archbishop, yet they are nevertheless lesser than him: therefore he who blesses is not always greater; nor is he who is blessed always lesser. St. Thomas responds in two ways: First, that the Bishop and suffragans do not consecrate the Pope or the Archbishop; but they consecrate this man, namely Peter or Paul, so that he may be Pope or Archbishop: for while they are consecrating him, he is not yet Pope or Archbishop; and consequently he is not yet greater than those consecrating him, but rather lesser, inasmuch as he receives from them the papal or archiepiscopal consecration. Second, he responds that the Bishop of Ostia and the Suffragans consecrate and bless in this way not by their own virtue, dignity and authority, but by God's: for in this blessing each of them holds the place of God, who has instituted that these blessings be made in this manner and through such persons (for they cannot conveniently be done otherwise), and he conducts himself as a minister and vicar of God, who is greater than he who is blessed, whoever and however great he may be. You will object a second time: The priest in the Mass often blesses the body of Christ with the sign of the cross, yet he is far lesser than it. I answer that these blessings are nothing other than the formations of the sign of the cross over the body of Christ, which are not applied so that we bless Christ himself, but so that by these as it were ceremonies we represent the cross of Christ, and through it and Christ himself crucified, as it were our victim, we tacitly ask and beseech God that he himself bless us. Thus therefore we bless Christ not in himself, but insofar as he is our victim. For through these blessings we ask that Christ, blessed in himself, may become for us a saving and blessed victim. Add that the priest, insofar as he bears the person of Christ sacrificing, is in a certain way greater than Christ himself sacrificed: for in every sacrifice the priest is greater than his victim which he offers.
7:8
"Here," namely in Judaism, among our Levites, of whom I spoke in verse 5, the Aaronic priests, who are mortal and die, receive tithes. "But there," namely in the history and deed of Melchisedech, of whom I spoke in verse 6, "it is witnessed," namely by Scripture, that he liveth, namely he who receives the tithes, namely Melchisedech; he liveth, I say, forever, not in reality, but symbolically and allegorically, because namely his death is not narrated in Scripture, so that by this very thing he may represent Christ, who in reality is a priest forever. Note: For "it is witnessed" in Greek there is marturoumenos, which because it is of the middle voice, can be translated both passively as "witnessed," and actively as "witnessing." Here however it is more aptly translated with the Syriac and Greek as "witnessed," and thus it is very probable that our Interpreter translated it thus, so that from "witnessed" it became corrupted into "it is witnessed." For if you read "witnessed," then the antithesis as well as the meaning will be very brief and very clear, needing no supplement; in this way: "And here (in the law) indeed mortal men (the Aaronic priests) receive tithes, but there (in the tithing of Abraham, supply received tithes) witnessed (that is, he of whom Scripture testifies) because (that) he liveth," namely Melchisedech, who is introduced in Scripture as always living, so that he may signify Christ the priest living forever. This is the third argument by which the Apostle proves that Melchisedech and consequently Christ is greater than Abraham and Aaron, as if to say: The Aaronic priests are mortal, but Melchisedech is set forth as immortal, because namely he is a type of Christ, who is an eternal priest: therefore both Christ and Melchisedech is more worthy than the Aaronic priests.
7:9
"Levi" (any Levitical priest), "who receiveth tithes" (was accustomed to receive them in the Old Testament), "hath paid tithes," that is, paid tithes. For just as in verses 6 and 7 dekatosai, that is, "to tithe," the Apostle used for "to receive tithes": so here dedekatotai he uses for "to pay tithes," or "to give tithes," as if to say: When Abraham, and in Abraham himself the hidden Levi and any Levitical priest (to whom nevertheless belongs the right of tithes in the old law) paid tithes to Melchisedech himself, because he was a type of Christ, as if confessing that he and his priesthood was lesser than the priesthood of Melchisedech and Christ, indeed that he was not so much a priest in their respect, inasmuch as it belongs to a priest to receive tithes, as a layman, to whom it belongs to give tithes.
7:10
The word "for" gives the reason for that softening by which he said, "so to speak," as Erasmus says, that is to say the Apostle: I said in a certain way that Levi was tithed in Abraham, for he was not yet born, so that he could be tithed properly and in himself, but still lay hidden in the loins of Abraham; and thus he was tithed not properly, but in a certain way in him. But it seems rather that the word "for" gives the reason why he said that Levi was tithed in Abraham himself, that is to say, Abraham, recognizing that Melchizedek was greater than himself, and a type of Christ, gave him tithes and received blessing from him, so as to profess that he and all his descendants, and consequently the Levites and the Aaronic priests to be born from him, were lesser than Melchizedek and subject to Christ: for Abraham conducted himself with Melchizedek just as a prince who on behalf of himself and his entire posterity renders and offers obedience to a king. For Abraham was a prince of the whole people, the author of the Jewish race, father and patriarch, as he said in verse 4, and the whole nation was reckoned to lie in virtue in his loins, and through him to subject itself to Melchizedek, and to Christ himself, and consequently the Levitical priests were reckoned likewise to subject themselves both to Melchizedek and to Christ, and in their regard they professed themselves not to be priests, but laymen. So much does the Apostle inculcate this excellence of the priesthood of Christ, that he transfers the Hebrews, accustomed to and confident in Aaronic sacrifices, to Christ the pontiff; and teaches them to fix all their hope in Christ, and to suffer any adversities for him, inasmuch as he promises them and bestows greater goods than Aaron, and who acts our cause in good faith before God, and who knows how to sympathize with, succor, and prepare victory and eternal crown in heaven not only for the fallen, but also for those tempted and suffering persecution. Note: To be in the loins of Abraham is the same as to be in the seminal or generative power of Abraham, which originally resides in the loins, in which, as I said, is the first origin of seed. For Abraham through this power begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Levi, from whom Aaron and the legal priests were descended. And, so to speak, — hōs epos eipein, that is, as if to speak, namely so that in one word new and subtle I may touch and embrace the knot of the matter. For it could seem unusual and absurd, that which he says here and adds, namely that Levites not yet born were tithed in Abraham; therefore the Apostle softens his statement with this phrase, in the way we are accustomed to soften our discourse when we wish to say something new, keen, unusual and unheard of. Thus Theophylactus. You will object: Christ also was in the loins of Abraham in this manner, because He descended from him and was begotten of him; therefore Christ also gave tithes to Melchisedech Himself while in Abraham. I answer by denying the antecedent. For those alone are said to be in the loins of Abraham and to be tithed, who through the power of generation, by natural generation of male and female, were sown forth and begotten from him, or (which follows from this) who, as St. Augustine says, descended from Abraham not only according to bodily substance, but also according to carnal concupiscence, as Levi, Aaron and others descended: but Christ was not sown forth in this manner, and consequently was not in the loins of Abraham according to generative power and carnal concupiscence, but only according to bodily substance, or matter, which He drew from Abraham: because the conception and generation of Christ was not human, but far higher, namely divine, from the Holy Spirit. In like manner, if anyone now descended from Adam not through natural generation of male and female, but through divine operation, namely one who would be formed by God from the flesh, blood, or rib of some man descending from Adam, as Eve was formed, such a one would not contract original sin. For which reason also Christ, by virtue of His conception, which was made from the Holy Spirit, did not contract original sin; because the transmission of original sin embraces only those who naturally, or by natural generation, descend from Adam. For these alone are reckoned to be proper and natural sons of Adam, and consequently Adam's will is reckoned to have been their will: hence the law of original sin is this: All and only those who descend from Adam through natural generation as natural sons contract original sin. In the same manner therefore here Christ, and whosoever else descended from Abraham, not through natural generation, but through miraculous formation, for example from a virgin, by the power of the Holy Spirit, would not be reckoned a son of Abraham, begotten of him properly and naturally; and consequently Abraham would not be reckoned to have wished or been able to pay tithes for him. Thus St. Augustine, lib. X On Genesis literally, cap. XX, and from him St. Thomas, III part. Question XXXI, art. 8, and the Scholastics there. Note secondly, from the fact that the Apostle says Levi was in the loins of Abraham, Tertullian, lib. On the Soul, cap. XXVII and following, was of the opinion that the soul of Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and consequently that the soul of any man is not immediately created by God, but is from transmission, that is transmitted, proceeds and is propagated from the soul of the parent through its seminal power, by which it begets a son, just as the light of the air is transmitted and propagated from the light of the sun. But Tertullian rests on a false foundation: he thought the soul of man to be corporeal, indeed to have its own sex, so that the soul of a man is distinguished from the soul of a woman by sex, just as the body is. His reasoning therefore was this: The soul of man is corporeal, and man is begotten from man, just as a horse from a horse, an ox from an ox; but the soul of an ox and horse is transmitted and propagated from the soul of the generating ox and horse, and therefore is drawn forth from the potentiality of matter, namely from equine and bovine seed: therefore also the soul of man is transmitted from the soul of the parent. But the major proposition is false. For the soul of man is spiritual and immaterial, whereas the soul of a horse is material, and is drawn forth from the potentiality of matter, and depends on it so that when the equine body perishes the soul also perishes. St. Augustine also, although he did not doubt that the human soul is incorporeal and immaterial, nevertheless doubted, and remained in this doubt until the end of his life, whether the soul of man was from the transmission of the parent, or rather was created by God. This is evident from book I and II, which he wrote late, On the Origin of the Soul, and lib. II. Retractions, cap. XLV and LVI. The reason which compelled St. Augustine into this doubt was this, because St. Augustine did not see how the soul of a son could contract original sin from the parent, if it did not descend from and was not transmitted by the parent. Hence here was the Achilles heel of the Pelagians: the soul of Levi is not from traducianism, but is created by God; therefore it cannot contract original sin from a parent. But Pope Zosimus condemned this consequence, and the whole Church: for in order that the soul contract this sin, it suffices that it be the soul of a man, who by natural generation and seminal virtue descends from Adam. For by this very fact he is reckoned a son of Adam, and consequently is reckoned to have been in Adam, to have willed and done what Adam willed and did, when he ate the forbidden fruit. Whence St. Jerome and other later writers attack and condemn this opinion about the traducianism of the soul: and so it is now certain from the consensus of the whole Church, that the human soul is not traduced from a parent, but is immediately created from nothing by God, who by infusing it creates it, and by creating infuses it into the human body. Secondly, the Master of the Sentences, book II, distinction 30, from the fact that Levi is said to have been in the loins of Abraham, and from similar sentences and phrases, thought that individual sons of Abraham drew from Abraham himself, and in like manner individual men from Adam himself, as the first parent of all, a particle of flesh, which truly, properly, and the same in number was in Adam. For he thinks otherwise there would not be sons of Adam, unless they have in themselves some particle of Adam's substance plainly the same and individual; indeed he thinks this sole particle is of the substance of the man begotten: so that this particle is not increased by foods, but multiplies in itself and grows into a great human body. Whence he judges that foods are not converted into the substance of man, but only nourish it, and soon flow away from man himself, or are excreted, so that nothing of the food remains in man that could rise again; and consequently he thinks that only that flesh will rise again, which was in Adam, and which individual men drew from Adam. But this is a monstrous opinion, and so in all Philosophy and Theology it is like a monster, which experience alone most clearly refutes and convicts of falsehood. For we experience that the bodies of men, equally as those of other animals, are nourished and increased by the taking of foods, and conversely, when foods are withdrawn, nourishment and increase likewise cease immediately. I say therefore, that Levi was in the loins of Abraham and any man was in the loins of his father, not according to the soul, but according to the body, because namely by the virtue of the seed of Abraham the body of Levi was formed and organized, and thus through the force of the seed infused into the organized body was the soul infused from natural exigency by God. For the body of man, while thus organized, by this very fact becomes a human body, and demands a human soul as its form: which because the parent cannot give through seed, or by another cause and natural virtue, hence God, supplying the defect of parent and nature in His manner, as the first and universal cause, produces such a soul as such a body demands; and by producing it infuses and unites it to the body: whereby it comes to pass that not only the body, but the whole man thus begotten is reckoned to be the son not of God, but of his father, inasmuch as it was made by him, so that the son receives not only the body properly from himself as from a father, but also the soul from God through this natural exigency of the body formed and organized from the paternal seed, which I have mentioned. And in this sense Genesis XLVI, verses 26 and 27, seventy souls (that is, animated offspring) are said to have gone forth from the loins of Jacob. More on this question may be seen among the Physicists in the books On Generation, and in the books On the Soul.
7:11
For "consummation" in Greek is teleiosis, that is, perfection, as if to say: If the old Aaronic priesthood had the power of perfecting, that is, of justifying men, saving them and leading them to eternal life, which is the ultimate end and supreme perfection of man; if the Levitical priesthood could make a man perfect, just and blessed, especially with the law of Moses added to it, which was given with it, and which the Jews boast of so greatly, as if they were justified by it and its observance: what need was there for another priest to arise, namely Christ, whose priesthood is not according to the order of Aaron, but of Melchizedek? For when God promised Christ in Psalm CIX, saying: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek," and already in fact exhibited him as succeeding the Aaronic priests, by this very fact he declared that something was lacking to them, which was to be supplied through Christ, namely that they could not perfect and sanctify man, but this was to be expected from Christ. Note first: The Apostle interjects mention of the law, saying: "For the people received the law under him," both because the order, rite, victims, ministers and all the perfection of the priesthood had to be sought and prescribed by the law; and because the Jews had confidence in the law equally as in the priesthood; and finally because the law and priesthood are necessarily connected: and as the law is, so the priesthood ought to be; and as the priesthood is, so the law ought to be, namely suited to such a people and such a time. And this is what the Apostle says here: "For the people received the law under him" (ep' aute, that is, in it, that is, in the time of the priesthood itself), because when the people received the law through Moses on Sinai, they likewise received the priesthood there. For on Sinai Aaron was constituted priest by God, and his sons, who were to teach the people the law and the worship of God, the sacrifices and expiations prescribed by the law. Whence from this connection of the law and priesthood, the Apostle tacitly contends here that a change of both the law and the old priesthood had to be made, and was made through Christ and the new law, namely the Gospel. Hence he clearly adds, saying: "For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law be made also." This is the fourth argument by which the Apostle proves that the priesthood of Melchizedek and of Christ was more noble and worthy than the Aaronic. He proves it thus: After the Aaronic priesthood, Christ arose from God as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek; therefore the former priesthood, namely the Aaronic, was imperfect and insufficient, and therefore ought to yield to the priesthood of Christ succeeding it, as far more perfect. For the Aaronic was carnal and temporal, but Christ's is spiritual and eternal. Thus Theophylactus and others.
7:12
By law here, understand not the natural law (the decalogue): for this binds Christians equally as Jews; but the positive and Mosaic law, namely the ceremonial and judicial. This is a difficulty. For the Hebrews would have said: Even if Christ introduced a new priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, as God promised in Psalm CIX, he ought not, however, to have introduced a new law, abrogating the law given to Moses by God. The Apostle answers that the latter follows from the former: for when the priesthood is changed, it is necessary that the law be changed also, and therefore Christ, when he changed the old priesthood into a new one, ought likewise to have changed the old law into a new one. The reason for this saying is that which I have already given in the preceding verse, namely that the priesthood is proportioned to the law, and is inseparably connected with it: for there cannot be a priesthood without certain laws, precepts, ceremonies, promises and penalties suited to it and prescribed by law. Thus Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus. St. Thomas offers another reason: when the priesthood is changed, he says, it is necessary that the law be changed also, because when the end is changed, it is necessary that the means be changed also: but the law of Moses, being divine, is ordained as a means to divine government, as to its end: but this divine government is made and designated through the priesthood: therefore, when the priesthood and divine government are changed, it is necessary that the law be changed also. Hence that saying of Jeremiah XXXI: "I will make a new covenant with you."
7:13
For "was present" in Greek is proseschken, that is, "stood by," "presided." Thus "was present" is the same as, he stood by constantly in the manner of those ministering, as is clear in chapter X, verse 11. He proves what he said in verse 11, that Christ was another priest from Aaron and the Aaronic priests. He proves it thus: all Aaronic priests had to be descended from the tribe of Levi: but Christ was not from Levi, but was born of Judah: therefore Christ could not be a Levitical priest, or according to the order and rite of Aaron; but was altogether different from it, indeed contrary to it, and consequently by his new priesthood excluded the old Aaronic priesthood, and likewise by his new law excluded the old one, which had established the priesthood in Levi, but had excluded the tribe of Judah from the priesthood. For Christ, since he was not from Levi, but from Judah, entered upon the priesthood, and propagated it to his successors not by hereditary succession, but by election.
7:14
Namely Jesus Christ. Hence it is evident that it is a Jewish fabrication and insipid delirium, that which Suidas relates, under the word Jesus Christ, from Theodosus the Jew: namely that Christ, because he was descended on his mother's side from the tribe of Levi, and because he was born without a father, from the Virgin Mother alone, was adopted by the Jews and drawn among the Aaronic priests. This history a certain rash and ignorant person recently published and spread here in Belgium. For the Apostle directly refutes this here, who teaches here that Christ could not have been a Levitic priest, from the fact that he was descended from Judah. Wherefore the Blessed Virgin, mother of Christ, was born from the tribe of Judah, because her father Joachim was from the tribe of Judah. You will say: The mother of the Blessed Virgin was from the tribe of Levi, for she was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, who was the wife of Zacharias the priest; therefore through his grandmother Christ could be reckoned of the tribe of Levi, and become a Levitic priest. I answer: The antecedent is uncertain, and would lack foundation, indeed it is denied by Ribera and many others: for Elizabeth could have been a kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin from the fact that Elizabeth's mother was descended from the tribe of Judah, and was a kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin, as St. Ambrose teaches, book III on Luke, at the beginning; not however from the fact that the mother of the Virgin was descended from the line of Levi and from the family of Elizabeth. For priests could take a wife from the tribe of Judah, as being royal. Just as Aaron took a wife Aminadab, sister of Naasson (who was a leader of the tribe of Judah), from whom all priests were born. Second, even if the antecedent were true, nevertheless the consequence is false: for those could not be priests who descended from the maternal line, but only those who descended from the paternal line from Levi. For families, especially Levitic families, were reckoned and constituted through males, not through females: for a woman was not capable of the priesthood, as she was not of inheritance or kingdom. Although therefore in the Maccabees descended from Levi the scepter of David and Judah could consist and be preserved, from the fact that the Maccabees descended through their mother from Judah and David, nevertheless this could not happen in the priesthood. For since the mother was not capable of the priesthood, the right of priesthood could not be derived through her to the son. Note third: That Christ was born from the tribe of Judah was established among the Jews, first, from the tables of genealogies, which they themselves wrote and preserved most carefully. Second, from the genealogy of Christ, which St. Matthew wove, chapter I, and St. Luke, chapter III. Third, Jacob himself had tacitly foretold this, XLIX, 10; for although there he expressly only predicts that Jacob, that the scepter shall not depart from Judah, until Christ come, nevertheless because he assigns this blessing of Christ to be born from him to Judah alone, hence by this very fact he implicitly presignifies that Christ was to be born from Judah alone. And so the Jews always understood this prophecy of Jacob, whose common saying was this: From Judah shall Christ be born. Finally, that Christ was to be born, and was born from Judah, is evident from the fact that Christ was born from David: for David was from the line and tribe of Judah. Now it was established among all that Christ was promised to David, and that Christ was to be born from David from II Kings chapter VII, verses 12 and 13. In which tribe (that is, from which tribe) Moses said nothing about priests, — that is to say, Moses instituting the priesthood by the command of God, chose Levi, not Judah, and by this very fact excluded Judah from his priesthood.
7:15
He proved that Christ is another priest different from the Aaronic priests, and that he succeeded them, and consequently abolished them, from the fact that Christ was born from Judah, not from Levi, from whom all Aaronic priests ought to descend. Here secondly, he proves the same thing, from the fact that Christ, Psalm CIX, is called a priest not according to the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedech.
7:16
He calls "a carnal commandment" the Mosaic law, concerning the circumcision and lustration of the flesh, because it purified and sanctified not the soul, but the flesh alone from a certain uncleanness and irregularity that was legal and political in the opinion of men; and this through carnal ceremonies, namely washings, sacrifices, incense and other things that touched the flesh alone, not the fibres of the spirit, as Theodoret notes. And consequently he calls "carnal" the law, that is, temporary, because it died with the flesh: for the ceremonies and lustrations of the carnal law were occupied with the flesh, and that being taken away and dying, they ceased, were finished, and ended with man. To this he opposes a commandment, that is, the law of Christ, which is "according to the power of an indissoluble life," that is, which gives and bestows eternal life both of grace and of glory. And this is what he adds in verse 25: "Wherefore he is able also to save for ever," as if to say, The priests of Aaron were carnal, temporal and mortal: but Christ by the power and virtue of the Father was made a priest living for ever, eternal, immortal, and who bestows upon us the spiritual life of grace, and through it the eternal life of glory: therefore Christ far excels the Aaronical priests. You will object: In Leviticus VI, 18 and 20, and elsewhere often, the sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus are said to be offered with an everlasting rite: therefore those sacrifices are as eternal as the sacrifice of Christ is eternal. I answer: I deny the consequence, for in Leviticus eternity is not signified absolutely, but only relatively, namely that they would last always, that is, for the whole time of the law, or as long as the old law would last, until the Messiah comes, who would introduce a new and eternal priesthood absolutely. This is evident both from other things, and from the fact that after these Levitical sacrifices to be offered with an everlasting rite, the Lord promised to David another priesthood of Christ absolutely eternal, saying in Psalm CIX: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." By which he sufficiently signifies that the Aaronical priesthood would be eternal only until Christ, and was to be abolished through Christ; but the sacrifice of Christ was to last until the end of the world.
7:17
Not as if Christ had the priesthood formally of the same nature, or instituted by Melchisedech. For it is evident that the priesthood of Christ was far more excellent, of a higher order and origin, than that of Melchisedech. Hence note: For "according to the order" in Hebrew it is al dibrat, that is, according to the matter, custom, rite, type, analogy, likeness (as Paul translated it, verse 15) of Melchisedech, as if to say, Christ is a priest in a most excellent kind of eternal priesthood, of which Melchisedech was the singular type and likeness. This sense is evident from this verse and the preceding. Note, that Christ is called a priest according to the order and type of Melchisedech for many reasons, and I have said so at verse 3; but the principal and proper cause and likeness is in the victim, because, just as Melchisedech first offered bread and wine to God in thanksgiving for Abraham's victory, then distributed those things offered to God to Abraham's soldiers to be drunk, that is, to be partaken of and eaten: so also Christ, at the Last Supper, offered bread and wine by consecrating them and transubstantiating them into the Eucharistic sacrifice, and then distributed them to the Apostles to be drunk, and similarly commanded them to be offered and drunk. For the rite, reason and likeness of priesthood is properly to be considered, and properly consists in the very function of priesthood itself, that is, in the very oblation of the victim and sacrifice, such as here are bread and wine: for the other circumstances are merely accidental, nor do they pertain to the reason and proper species, and order of sacrifice and priesthood. Hence it is evidently demonstrated that the Mass is a sacrifice, because Christ declared himself to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedech (whom David foretold and promised would be such, Psalm CIX) in no other place than at the Supper, in which he offered himself under the species of bread and wine, and commanded us to offer the same in the Mass in like manner: for the sacrifice of the cross, being bloody, was not according to the order of Melchisedech, but rather of Aaron, who immolated oxen and sheep to God by slaying them. For that Melchisedech offered nothing other than bread and wine, just as Christ did at the Supper, is evident both from Genesis XIV, 18, and because Scripture nowhere else records that he immolated oxen, sheep, or anything else: so that, unless you gather the order of Melchisedech's priesthood and his sacrifice and oblation of victim, the rite and species, from Genesis XIV, 18, you cannot gather them anywhere else. But if anyone rashly admits this, and asserts that they cannot be gathered anywhere, I would infer: Therefore in vain does David say, and is it proposed to us, that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, when we can nowhere find, divine, or understand this order. On this matter more things are to be said at Genesis XIV. This is the common opinion and exposition of the Fathers and of all antiquity, indeed also of the ancient Rabbis. On which see Bellarmine, book I On the Mass, chapter VI. You will object: Why then does Paul here pass over and omit this principal likeness in the victim of the sacrifice of Melchisedech and Christ? I answer: Because this was outside the scope of the Apostle. For the Apostle cites that Psalm CIX: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech," only to this end, that from it he might prove and demonstrate to the Hebrews that the priesthood of Christ is different, has succeeded and abolished the priesthood of Aaron. But he proves it thus: David, 400 years after the institution of the priesthood of Aaron, promises another priest, namely Christ, who shall be a perpetual priest according to the order of Melchisedech, which Melchisedech preceded the law and priesthood of Aaron by 400 years: therefore by this very fact David signifies that the former priesthood of Aaron, being temporary, carnal and weak, is to be abolished by the later priesthood of Christ, being eternal, spiritual and most efficacious for abolishing sins, for obtaining for us grace, glory and eternal life. But for this it was not necessary for the Apostle to explain what the victim of Melchisedech was, which he knew was sufficiently known and manifest to the Hebrews from Genesis. Add, that the Apostle here only urges those things by which Melchisedech, and consequently Christ, excels the priests of Aaron, which is especially the symbolic eternity in Melchisedech, true and proper in Christ: but the mention of Melchisedech's victim was altogether irrelevant and useless to these points, because in this respect Melchisedech was not nobler, but rather less than the priests of Aaron. For they offered living animals, namely oxen and sheep, while he offered only dry bread; but animals are far superior to bread. Finally, the Apostle passed over this because many rude and weak Hebrews were not yet capable of so great a mystery and secret of the Eucharist, as is shown from Paul at chapter V, verses 11 and 12.
7:18
In verse 12 the Apostle proved that the old law was abolished, from the fact that the old priesthood was abolished by the new priesthood of Christ; but the law is connected with the priesthood: therefore, when the old priesthood was abolished and changed, it was necessary that the old law be abolished and changed into the new law of Christ. Now lest anyone wonder and say: What was the reason why God abrogated the law once instituted by himself? Paul answers here, as if to say: Do you wish to know the reason for the abolished law and priesthood? why there was made "a reprobation of the former commandment," that is, an abrogation of the old law? The reason is the weakness and uselessness of that law, because that law could not expiate sins, save and make men blessed.
7:19
That is, the law could perfect no one, that is, justify and lead to blessedness, which is the highest perfection of man. For the law was occupied only in external matters, concerning the justice of the flesh and external cleanliness, which made us pure and holy before men, but not before God. If anyone had touched a dead body or something unclean, the law commanded him to wash; if anyone had committed murder and a true crime, the law commanded him to be put to death: but the law did not purge and expiate the sin itself, and the soul itself. Note: ouden is put for oudeis, that is, "nothing" is put for "no one": for the masculine is used with the neuter, because the neuter gender more fully signifies complete universality, as Theophylactus says. Thus in John VI, 37, it is said: "All (that is, every man) that the Father giveth to me, shall come to me." Thus in Matthew, the final chapter, Christ commands the Gospel to be preached to every creature, that is, to every man. But the introduction of a better hope (supply, is made, or was made through Christ) by which we draw near to God,—as if to say: Through Christ there entered, and, as the Syrian translates it, al, that is "ascended," "a better," that is, a greater and more excellent hope of justice and salvation, because Christ introduced new sacrifices, Sacraments, laws and promises of the New Testament, by which we hope to obtain the grace of God here and in the future glory and blessedness, and thus to draw as near as possible to God, and to ascend to him in the Holy of Holies, that is in heaven itself. The Apostle so often inculcates evangelical hope, that the Hebrews, being almost despondent in afflicted matters, might raise up their spirit through consideration of so many and such great goods which the Gospel promises, and which we hope to obtain through Christ.
7:20
This sentence depends on verse 22, where the Apostle completes it saying: "In so much Jesus was made the surety of a better testament," as if to say: Inasmuch as this matter, namely that Christ became a priest, was not accomplished without an oath, in so much Jesus is a more excellent priest, lawgiver and mediator than Moses and Aaron were. This is the fifth argument proving the excellence of Christ before Moses and Aaron, and it is of this kind: The law, testament and priesthood of Christ, but not the old law of Moses and Aaron, was promised by God with an oath, and this so that both the priesthood of Christ and our reconciliation, and all goods promised and to be bestowed through Christ, might be more certain and firm; therefore, inasmuch as the priesthood of Christ was confirmed by oath, David saying: "The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest," etc., in so much the priesthood of Christ is more excellent than the Aaronic priesthood.
7:21
As if to say: God gave the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants without an oath, as if it were a matter of lesser importance and temporary, which God did not deign to confirm by oath. These words explain the antithesis and the force of the argument latent in what preceded: "And inasmuch as it was not without an oath." The Greek words indicate the same thing more clearly, which have, hoi men gar, that is, for those (the Aaronic priests) indeed were made priests without an oath: but Christ with an oath, as if the matter and business of Christ the pontiff, namely the reconciliation and salvation of men, were of great importance, and although difficult, yet most certainly to be believed and hoped for by men; for this reason the Lord swore saying: "Thou art a priest for ever." Thus Theophylactus. Hence it is clear that these words and the following ones up to verse 22 are to be interrupted and included in a parenthesis.
7:22
"Testament" and the Greek diatheke are the same as the Hebrew berit, that is, a covenant and pact, namely one entered into between God and men through Christ, as I said in 1 Corinthians, chapter XI, verse 25. Secondly, "sponsor," or surety, here is the same as mediator, who interposes his faith, promises and pledges the goods which are promised in this new covenant of God with men, to be ratified and certainly to be delivered. For since Christ and the new Testament promise to men on the part of God resurrection and heavenly rewards, divine things, and which we do not yet see, and are far removed from us, and therefore are believed and hoped for by men with difficulty: for this reason Christ acted as surety for them, as if he had said: I wish to be held as worthless, unless in the name of my Father I pledge, that what is to be given to my faithful from heaven and heavenly glory, be ratified, certain and firm; and the earnest of this his pledge, by which Christ wonderfully confirmed our hope, he gave to us when he himself rose again and ascended into heaven, by this very act as it were opening and showing us the way to heaven, and demonstrating that he holds the keys of heaven and is the lord of heaven. Thus Anselm.
7:23
This is the sixth argument demonstrating that Christ surpasses the Aaronic priests, and it is as follows: The Aaronic priests were mortal, and one succeeded another after death in the priesthood: but Christ is immortal, for although he died, yet immediately as conqueror of death he rose to a glorious and immortal life: therefore Christ surpasses the Aaronic priests. Thus from Chrysostom through Theophylactus, whence the Apostle adds:
7:24
"He (Christ) indeed, because he remaineth forever, an everlasting" (aparabaton, that is, which cannot pass away or be successively transferred to another) "priesthood hath," — that is to say, Christ has no successor, as Aaron had, because he himself always lives as our priest and mediator unto eternity. You will say: St. Peter succeeded Christ in the pontificate, as Eleazar succeeded Aaron. I answer, this is false, for Eleazar did not succeed Aaron as an equal, but in an equal, indeed in the same degree and dignity of pontificate: for Eleazar as pontiff was of equal dignity with Aaron as pontiff, but St. Peter succeeded Christ, not as an equal, but as a vicar and minister: just as in war, in the absence of the captain, a lieutenant succeeds him in the field. Christ therefore alone is and remains our eternal high priest, who administers this priesthood of his on earth through the Roman Pontiffs, as his vicars and stewards: therefore the Roman Pontiffs take nothing away from the glory and honor of Christ the priest, but rather they illustrate and promote his priesthood, since they profess themselves to be only his administrators, servants and vicars, to this end that they may propagate the glory of Christ everywhere.
7:25
In Greek, eis to panteles, which Vatablus and Erasmus translate as "to perfection, perfectly, fully": but Our translator, the Syrian and the Greek Fathers translate better as "forever." For Paul wishes to teach that Christ, as an eternal priest, is able to save his faithful not only in this life, but also in the future, and to confer upon them eternal salvation, whereas the Aaronic priests obtained only temporal salvation of this life for theirs. Note: "Coming" (for thus it should be read with the Romans, Greek and Syrian, not "he coming") he calls the faithful, who through the faith and obedience which they render to Christ, come to God the Father and his grace and friendship. Always living to make intercession for us. — Hence it is clear that Christ in heaven intercedes and prays for us, and this is proper to Christ, that as priest he prays for us: for other Saints, even those who were priests in this life, pray for us in heaven, not as priests, but as private Saints and friends of God: for they no longer exercise the priesthood in the heavens. See what is said in Romans VIII, 34.
7:26
Namely, He who always living, always intercedes for us, and therefore, He who is holy, innocent, etc., so that thus He might save us forever. Note "it was fitting," that is, says Primasius: We were not worthy, nor did we merit to have such a high priest, but it was necessary for us to have one who would be holy, etc. Holy. — Hosios, that is, pure and free from all stain, that is holy: for purity is holiness, as I said in I Corinthians VII, 24. Whence Theophylactus: "hosios," he says, "is he who omits nothing of those things which he ought to do, namely, one who is upright in morals and perfect in all his acts." Secondly and better, hosios is the same as pious toward God, fearing and worshipping God, devoted to God, sacred and holy, and by that very piety and sanctity worthy of reverence and veneration. Innocent. — Akakos, that is, lacking malice and harm, that is, innocent, who harms no one, wishes evil to no one, but strives to benefit all and to do good to all. Hence Chrysostom and Oecumenius translate akakos as "free from guile," one who knows not how to deceive, knows not how to trick. For fraud and guile equally as a mind eager to harm are properly called malice, in Greek kakia; and akakos is he who lacks that. Thus Cicero, in the Tusculan Disputations IV, and in book III of On the Ends: "Virtue," he says, "has as its contrary viciousness: for thus I prefer to say malice, which the Greeks call kakian. For malice is the name of a certain particular vice, viciousness of all." Undefiled. — Note here that a high priest ought to be throughout holy and whole, namely, that he be "holy," that is pious toward God, "innocent" toward his neighbor, "undefiled" toward himself. For "undefiled" in Greek is amiantos, that is, incorruptible, immaculate, unharmed, inviolable. From this indeed the stone is called amiantus (to which Paul seems to allude here), because it is not harmed by fire, and because from it, being flexible, they weave cloths and sails, which when thrown into fire do indeed burn, but come out from it more splendid, as Dioscorides teaches, book V, chapter LXIII, and Pliny, book XXXVI, chapter XIX. Such is purity, and especially chastity, which can be corrupted neither by the fire of concupiscence nor by bodily fire; but both in mind and in body it remains unharmed and incorrupt amid all fires. Whence in Isaiah chapter XLIII, verse 2, God through Christ promises this very thing to every pure and holy Christian, saying: "When thou shalt walk in the fire, thou shalt not be burnt, and the flame shall not burn in thee, because I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour." Where Leo Castrius from St. Athanasius: "Just as," he says, "from the amiantus stone cloths are made inviolable by fire, so the Blessed Virgin brought forth the Lamb, whose glorious fleece has become for us a garment of immortality, clothed in which we cannot be burned by fire, nor shut in by waters, nor by any other thing, but through all torments we pass unharmed to incorruptibility and immortality." Indeed, thus literally the angel protected the three pure and chaste Hebrew boys from the fire of Babylon with his garment as it were of amiantus, the angel, I say, like unto the Son of God, and a type of Christ, Daniel III, 92. Thus St. John, St. Vincent, St. Cecilia, Lucy, Agnes and very many others remained unharmed in the flames, protected by Christ, and by no less a miracle, though tempted everywhere by the fire of lust, they did not burn, but rather from their spouse Christ they obtained an angel as the guardian and perpetual avenger of their virginity; and so much so, which is to be noted and remembered, that although we read of many holy virgins condemned by tyrants and pagan magistrates to brothels, yet we read that none of them was violated, but all by God's aid miraculously escaped the hands of pimps, and remained inviolate virgins. Such even now are very many priests, religious, and others who live angelically in the flesh, and amid the fires of concupiscence and temptations of the flesh, like amiantus they endure, and shine more brightly. Our High Priest Christ therefore is amiantus, and He wishes His priests especially to be amiantus, and demands from them angelic purity and chastity, because incorruptibility makes one near to God: but priests ought to draw near to God for the people. Segregated (not only from sins, but also) from sinners, (and) made higher than the heavens, — so that He might be far removed not only from sinners, but from all men and surpass all angels and the Blessed, both in place and in grace and glory, "for He ascended above all the heavens," Ephesians IV, 10. Secondly, St. Anselm explains all these things thus also: "Holy" inwardly, "innocent" in his hands, "undefiled" in his body, "segregated from sinners," that is free from all sin, and set apart from the flock of sinners, and consequently separated from the flock of other priests, among whom there is none without sin; and "made higher than the heavens," so that He might minister at the altar on high. Or, "made higher than the heavens," that is, raised above all heavenly creatures, so that His greatness or sublimity so transcends the greatness of the first angels, that no comparison can be made between Him and the angels according to greatness and excellence. Thus far Anselm.
7:27
"Who does not have the necessity of offering victims daily, as the priests (of Leviticus) do, first for their own sins, then for the people's: this" (namely, to offer not for his own, but for the people's sins) "he did once, by offering himself." — This is the seventh argument proving that Christ excels the Aaronic priests, and it is as follows: The Aaronic priests offer victims for sins both their own and the people's, and this frequently, indeed daily: But Christ offers not for his own, but for others' sins, namely those of the whole world, and this once only, and by one oblation he expiated all the sins of all men: therefore Christ is more noble and efficacious than the Aaronic priests. Beza infers from this and objects to us: Therefore Christ's sacrifice is unique: therefore the daily sacrifice of the Mass ought to be abolished, as repugnant to Christ's unique sacrifice. I answer: Christ's sacrifice is unique as expiatory, redemptive and satisfactory for all sins, namely the sacrifice of the cross: for by it Christ offered a price sufficient for the faults and debts of all sinners, which were ever committed, or shall be committed hereafter. But the Mass is a sacrifice not redemptive and satisfactory, but applicatory of the redemption and satisfaction of Christ accomplished on the cross. For in the Mass we do not offer a new price for sins, but we apply to ourselves the original price and ransom of the cross: just as we apply that same price to ourselves through baptism, and other Sacraments, and through good works. I answer secondly: The sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the cross, first, representatively, as an image is the same as the thing of which it is an image: for the Mass represents the sacrifice of the cross. Secondly, really: for both in the Mass and on the cross the same is the principal priest offering, namely Christ; the same also in both places is the victim and sacrifice, namely the body of Christ, the same indeed in reality, although as to manner it is different: for in the Mass it is bloodless, whereas on the cross it was bloody; but the bloodless sacrifice in the Mass signifies and represents the bloody sacrifice on the cross. Thus the Council of Trent, session XXII, chapter 1.
7:28
"For the law constituted men priests" (in Greek archiereis, that is, pontiffs of sacred things and princes of priests) "having infirmity," — that is, mortal, wretched and sinners, and who are not able by their sacrifices to expiate sins. But the word of the oath, which is after the law, (constituted) a Son perfected forever, — namely, a priest through a pontiff constituted; for this must be repeated from the antithesis of the preceding sentence. Note: "The word of the oath" is the oath, by which Psalm CIX, "the Lord swore" to Christ: "Thou art a priest forever;" it is evident from verse 17. Secondly, this oath was given through David, after the law was given to Moses and Aaron, so that it might be signified that the old priesthood would cease and give way to the new priesthood of Christ, who would perfect those things which were lacking in the old. Thirdly, for "perfected" in Greek it is teteleiomenon, that is, consummated (as our translator rendered it, chapter II, verse 10), and this forever, so that namely Christ is consummated forever, both in grace and holiness, so that he can never sin: both in life and glory, so that he is immortal, impassible and glorious; both in priesthood and sacrifice, so that he has no need to offer many victims, but by one victim and sacrifice he expiated all men; and paid the price for all the sins of all men. For the Apostle opposes these perfections and consumations of Christ to the infirmity of the priests of old. Note: Each word of the Apostle here contains an efficacious antithesis of Christ and the Aaronic priests. Christ was made pontiff with the oath of God, the Aaronic priests without an oath; Christ after the law, as if about to succeed it and fulfill it, undertook the priesthood, the Aaronic priests with the law; Christ is a son, they servants; Christ remains forever, they are temporal and succeed one another; Christ is consummated in grace, glory and blessedness, they are subject to the infirmity of death, hardships and sin. Thus St. Chrysostom.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
7:1
Supra apostolus, V cap., probavit Christum esse sacerdotem. In VI autem capite interposuit quaedam ad praeparandos animos auditorum; hic redit ad suum propositum. Intendit enim probare excellentiam sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum. Et circa hoc facit duo primo enim ostendit excellentiam sacerdotii Christi ad sacerdotium veteris testamenti; secundo ostendit quod fideles debent sacerdoti Christo reverenter subdi. Et hoc in medio decimi capitis, ibi habentes itaque, fratres, fiduciam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim ostendit praerogativam sacerdotii Christi super leviticum ex parte personae ipsius sacerdotis; secundo ex parte ministerii, VIII cap. ibi capitulum autem. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ostendit existentiam sacerdotii Christi ex promissione divina; secundo ostendit necessitatem sacerdotii eius, ibi talis enim decebat. Promissionem vero ostendit per illud Ps. CIX, 5: iuravit dominus, et non poenitebit eum, et cetera. Unde tria ostendit ad propositum suum probandum. Primo illud quod dicitur secundum ordinem Melchisedech; secundo illud quod dicitur iuravit, ibi et quantum est non sine iureiurando; tertio illud quod dicitur tu es sacerdos, ibi et alii quidem plures. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ostendit similitudinem Christi ad Melchisedech; secundo ex hac similitudine praefert sacerdotium Christi levitico, ibi intuemini autem. Circa primum duo facit quia primo describit conditiones Melchisedech; secundo ostendit, quomodo conveniunt Christo, ibi primum quidem. Describit autem Melchisedech primo ex nomine, cum dicit hic autem Melchisedech. Sic enim nominat eum Scriptura, Gen. XIV, v. 18, ubi habetur historia, quam apostolus hic supponit. Et secundum Glossam, Hebraei dicunt ipsum fuisse Sem primogenitum Noe, et tunc quando Abraham habuit victoriam, erat annorum 390, alias 309. Et occurrit Abrahae nepoti suo. Secundo describit eum a dignitate. Erat enim rex et sacerdos. Quantum ad primum dicitur rex Salem. Et secundum aliquos, Salem dicitur Ierusalem. Sed contra est Hieronymus in quadam epistola, quia, ut ipse dicit, non poterat esse quod ei occurreret a Ierusalem, quod probat ex situ. Alii autem dicunt, quod Salem dicitur ille locus, de quo dicitur Io. III, 23, quod iuxta illum Ioannes baptizabat, et moenia illius loci erant adhuc tempore Hieronymi. Quantum ad secundum dicit sacerdos Dei summi. Antiquitus enim ille, qui inter filios erat antiquior, erat sacerdos. Sed verum est, quod tempore Abrahae multum invaluerat cultus idolorum. Et ideo ne credant, quod esset sacerdos idolorum, additur Dei summi, scilicet per essentiam, non per participationem, vel nuncupationem. Deus enim est creator omnium eorum, qui dicuntur dii, sive per participationem, sive per errorem. Ps. XCIV, 3: rex magnus super omnes deos. Is. LXI, 6: vos sacerdotes domini vocabimini, et cetera. Tertio describit eum ab officio, ibi qui obviavit, et cetera. Sacerdos enim medius est inter Deum et populum. Debet enim aliquid populo conferre, scilicet spiritualia, et aliquid ab eo accipere, scilicet temporalia. I Cor. IX, v. 11: si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, non magnum est si carnalia vestra metamus. Primo ergo debet exhibere confortationem per bona monita. Unde dicitur Gen. XIV, quod quatuor reges vicerunt quinque reges, et captivum duxerunt Lot nepotem Abrahae. Isti quatuor reges sunt quatuor vitia principalia, opposita quatuor cardinalibus virtutibus, quae captivum detinent affectum nepotem rationis, victis quinque sensibus corporis. Qui enim superat et liberat affectum, debet confortari a sacerdote. Is. XXI, 14: occurrentes sitienti ferte aquam; et Is. XXXV, 3: confortate manus dissolutas, et cetera. Secundo sacerdos debet confortare per sacramentorum administrationem benedicendo. Unde benedixit ei. Ps. CXVII, 25: benediximus vobis in nomine domini. Hoc autem fit impendendo sacramenta, per quae confortatur homo in gratia. Num. VI, 27: invocabunt nomen meum super filios Israel, et ego benedicam eis, nam Deus benedicit auctoritate, sed sacerdos ministerio. Et decimas, scilicet ad sustentationem, divisit, scilicet Abraham, id est, divisit, scilicet Abraham, id est, recte distribuit. Sed contra: quia, ut patet Num. c. XVIII, ex lege est datio decimarum, non ergo sunt ante legem. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod caeremonialia veteris testamenti sunt quaedam determinationes praeceptorum iuris naturalis et praeceptorum moralium. Et ideo quantum ad hoc, quod habebant de iure naturali, servabantur ante legem tantum pro voto observantium, et sine aliquo praecepto. Quod enim aliquid offeratur Deo in recognitionem creationis et dominii, hoc est naturale; sed quod offeratur vitulus et hoedus, hoc est caeremoniale. Similiter de iure naturali est, quod ministri servientes Deo, sustententur a populo, sicut enim patet Gen. XLVII, 22, hoc servabatur etiam apud gentiles. Unde sacerdotes, quia pascebantur de horreis publicis, non sunt compulsi vendere possessiones suas; et ideo fuerunt ante legem. Sed determinatio huius partis est per legem. Lev. XXVII, 30: omnes decimae domini sunt. Et in huius signum Iacob ante legem, in loco in quo postea fuit aedificatum templum, vovit se daturum decimas. Et hoc specialiter, quia ad hoc Dei cultus proprie exhibetur, ut significetur, quod homo quicquid habet, a Deo accepit: et totam perfectionem suam ab ipso expectat. Numerus enim denarius est perfectus, quia consurgit ex partibus suis aliquotis: quia unum, duo, tria, quatuor faciunt decem. Usque etiam ad ipsum ascendit numerus, et omnes alii non sunt nisi quaedam repetitio et additio super denarium. Omnes ergo sunt imperfecti usque dum pervenitur ad ipsum. Et similiter a Deo est omnis perfectio. Ut ergo significaret, quod a Deo est complementum omnis perfectionis, ideo dedit decimas. Deinde cum dicit primum quidem, ostendit similitudinem Christi et Melchisedech. Et circa hoc facit duo primo enim inducit similitudinem quantum ad conditionem personae; secundo quantum ad sacerdotium, ibi assimilatus autem filio Dei. Prima in duas quia primo ponit similitudinem quantum ad ea, quae in Scriptura commemorantur; secundo quantum ad ea quae in ipsa tacentur, ibi sine patre. In Scriptura autem duo dicuntur de ipso. Primum quidem, nomen, scilicet Melchisedech, qui interpretatur rex iustitiae: et significat Christum, qui fuit rex. Ier. XXIII, 5: et regnabit rex, et sapiens erit, et faciet iudicium et iustitiam in terra. Nec solum dicitur iustus, sed etiam rex iustitiae: quia factus est nobis sapientia et iustitia, I Cor. I, 30. Aliud quod dicitur de ipso, est conditio.
7:2
Unde dicitur rex Salem, quod est rex pacis. Hoc autem convenit Christo. Ipse enim est pax nostra, Eph. II, 14; Ps. LXXI, 7: orietur in diebus eius iustitia et abundantia pacis. Et in hoc docet apostolus uti interpretatione nominum in praedicationibus. Et bene coniungit iustitiam et pacem, quia nullus facit pacem, qui non servat iustitiam. Is. XXXII, 17: erit opus iustitiae, pax. In mundo isto gubernantur in iustitia, sed in futuro in pace. Is. XXXII, 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis. Deinde cum dicit sine patre, ponit similitudinem quantum ad ea, quae tacentur de ipso, quia in Scriptura non fit mentio de patre, vel matre eius, nec de genealogia ipsius. Unde ex hoc aliqui antiqui assumpserunt materiam erroris: ut quia solus Deus est sine principio et sine fine, dicerent istum Melchisedech fuisse filium Dei. Istud autem damnatum est sicut haereticum. Unde sciendum est, quod in veteri testamento, quandocumque fit mentio de aliqua solemni persona, narrantur pater et mater, et tempus nativitatis et mortis, sicut de Isaac et multis aliis. Hic autem subito introducitur Melchisedech, nulla penitus facta mentione de generatione sua, et pertinentibus ad ipsam. Et hoc utique rationabiliter. Inquantum enim dicitur sine patre, significatur nativitas Christi de virgine, quae fuit sine patre. Matth. I, 20: quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est. Illud autem, quod est proprium Dei, non debet attribui creaturae. Solius vero Dei patris est esse patrem Christi. Ergo in nativitate illius, qui ipsum praefigurabat, non debuit fieri mentio de patre carnali. Item quantum ad generationem aeternam dicit sine matre. Et hoc ne intelligas istam generationem esse materialem, sicut mater dat materiam genito, sed est spiritualis; sicut splendor a sole. Supra I, 3: qui cum sit splendor, et cetera. Item quando fit generatio a patre et matre, non totum est a patre, sed materia administratur a matre. Ad excludendum ergo imperfectionem a Christo, et ad designandum, quod totum quod habet, est a patre, non fit aliqua mentio de matre. Unde versus est sine matre Deus, est sine patre caro. Ps. CIX, 4: ex utero ante Luciferum genui te, scilicet ego solus. Sine genealogia. Et duplici de causa non ponitur genealogia eius in Scriptura: una ad designandum, quod generatio Christi est ineffabilis. Is. LIII, 8: generationem eius quis enarrabit? Alia ad designandum, quod Christus, qui introducitur ut sacerdos, non pertinet ad genus leviticum, nec ad genealogiam veteris legis. Et haec est intentio apostoli. Unde subdit neque initium dierum habens, neque finem vitae. Hoc autem dicit, non quia Christus non sit natus in tempore neque mortuus, sed propter aeternam eius generationem, in qua natus est sine initio cuiuscumque temporis. Unde Io. I, 1: in principio erat verbum, id est, tempore quocumque dato ante erat verbum, ut exponit Basilius. Est enim ante omnes dies, quia per ipsum factus est mundus, cum quo incoeperunt dies. Item nec finem vitae: verum est quantum ad divinitatem, quae est aeterna. Quantum etiam ad humanitatem, iam non habet finem vitae, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur, Rom. VI, 9. Et infra XIII, 8: Christus Iesus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula.
7:3
Deinde cum dicit assimilatus autem filio Dei, etc., ostendit similitudinem quantum ad sacerdotium. Sciendum est tamen, quod solet dici, quod posteriora assimilantur prioribus, et non e converso. Et ideo ne credatur, quod sacerdotium Christi sit posterius sacerdotio Melchisedech, hoc removet apostolus, quia et si Christus inquantum homo natus sit post eum et ex tempore, tamen inquantum Deus et filius Dei est ab aeterno. Et ideo Melchisedech secundum omnia ista assimilatus est illi, qui est filius Dei, et hoc inquantum manet sacerdos in perpetuum, quod potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo, quia non fit mentio de fine sacerdotii eius, nec successore ipsius. Os. XII, 10: in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. Item est sacerdos in perpetuum, quia figuratum eius, scilicet sacerdotium Christi, in perpetuum est. Unde et in Scriptura pluries repetitur, ritu perpetuo. Ex. XXVII, 21: cultus perpetuus erit. Lev. c. XXIV, 3: cultu, rituque perpetuo, quia illud quod figurabatur per istud, perpetuum erat. Per hoc enim apostolus continuat sequentia ad praecedentia.
7:4
Supra ostendit apostolus quomodo Melchisedech assimilatus est filio Dei, hic ostendit praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad sacerdotium leviticum. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim excitat attentionem; secundo ostendit propositum, ibi et quidem de filiis. Excitat autem ipsos, quia grandia et maxima dicturus erat. Prov. VIII, 6: audite me, quia de rebus magnis locutura sum. Et ideo dicit intuemini, id est diligenter considerate, quantus, id est, quam magnae dignitatis sit hic cui Abraham patriarcha decimas solvit, et hoc de praecipuis. Mal. I, 14: maledictus dolosus, qui habet in grege suo masculum: et votum faciens, immolat domino debile. Dicitur autem Abraham patriarcha, id est, princeps patrum, non quia non habuerit patrem, sed quia sibi facta est promissio de paternitate gentium. Gen. XVII, 4: eris pater multarum gentium. Eccli. XLIV, 20: Abraham magnus pater multitudinis gentium. Rom. c. IV, 17: patrem multarum gentium posui te ante Deum cui credidisti.
7:5
Deinde cum dicit et quidem de filiis, ostendit praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad leviticum. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit propositum; secundo ex hoc concludit intentum, scilicet quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur sacerdotio levitico, ibi si ergo consummatio. Iterum prima in duas quia primo ostendit propositum; secundo removet quamdam responsionem, ibi et ut ita dictum. Prima iterum in duas. Primo ostendit praeeminentiam quantum ad id, in quo ipse usus est sacerdotio suo; secundo quantum ad conditionem sacerdotii, ibi et hic quidem decimas. Ad sacerdotem vero duo pertinent, ut dictum est supra, scilicet accipere, et benedicere. Duo ergo facit quia primo ostendit excellentiam quantum ad acceptionem decimarum; secundo quantum ad benedictionem, ibi et hunc qui habebat. Circa primum adhuc duo facit quia primo ostendit de quibus competit accipere decimas; secundo quomodo hoc excellentius faciebat Melchisedech, ibi cuius autem generatio. Dicit ergo et quidem accipientes sacerdotium de filiis levi. In hoc ostendit quibus competit accipere decimas, quia sacerdotibus. Sciendum est autem, quod illi de tribu levi erant deputati divino cultui. Inter ipsos autem soli illi de stirpe Aaron erant sacerdotes. Ex. XXVIII, 1: applica Aaron, et cetera. Et isti quia per Aaron erant de tribu levi, sumebant decimas. Sed contra. Ergo secundum hoc soli sacerdotes accipiebant decimas, quod est contra illud Num. XVIII, 21: filiis levi dedi omnes decimas Israelis, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Levitae non accipiebant eas, nisi quia ministrabant sacerdotibus. Et ita non propter se, sed propter sacerdotes dabantur eis. Item, Levitae accipiebant decimas decimatas, sic Num. XVIII, v. 26. Et ita soli sacerdotes accipiebant, et non solvebant. Secundo ostendit quo iure accipiebant, quia ex mandato legis. Unde dicit mandatum habent decimas sumere. Contra. Si hoc est mandatum legis, cum servare mandata legis modo sit peccatum, videtur illicitum modo dare, vel accipere decimas. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod in lege fuerunt quaedam pure caeremonialia, sicut circumcisio, immolare agnum, et huiusmodi. Et ista quia erant figurativa tantum, non licet modo servare. Erant enim figura futuri. Unde qui modo servaret significaret Christum adhuc futurum. Quaedam vero erant pure moralia, et ista modo servanda sunt, et de talibus fuit datio decimarum, sicut supra dictum est. Unde decimatio et in lege data est, et in novo testamento. Matth. X, 10: dignus est operarius cibo suo. Lc. X, 7: dignus est operarius mercede sua. Sed determinatio talis portionis modo est ab Ecclesia, sicut et in veteri testamento fuit ex lege. Alia vero fuerunt partim caeremonialia, et partim moralia, sicut iudicialia: et ista quantum ad id quod caeremonialia sunt, non licet servare; sed quantum ad morale, debent, tamen non est necesse in propria forma servari. Alia obiectio: quia si esset mandatum, et adhuc est, ergo peccat qui non accipit, et peccant ubi non accipiuntur. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod aliqui dicunt quod nulli licet abrenunciare iuri accipiendarum decimarum, sed bene licet dimittere usum accipiendi propter scandalum, et hoc exemplo apostoli, qui sumptus non accipiebat ab aliquibus. Et sic dicunt mandatum esse, quod iuri non renuntient. Melius tamen dici potest, quod non est intelligendum quod eis praeceptum sit sumere, sed pro se habent introductum hoc mandatum, quod accipere possint, et alii teneantur reddere. Tertio ostendit a quibus accipiebant, quia a populo, scilicet a fratribus suis secundum legem, quamquam ipsi, Levitae, exierint de lumbis Abrahae. Quia enim aliquis posset dicere, quod sicut Melchisedech accepit decimas ab Abraham, ita Levitae a filiis eius, ergo non praefertur illud sacerdotium isti. Ideo hoc excludit, et dicit quod ipsimet Levitae erant de semine Abrahae, et sic erant inferiores eo cui decimas solverunt, scilicet Abraham. Deinde cum dicit cuius autem, ostendit quomodo excellentius conveniebat Melchisedech accipere decimas, quia nec ipse erat de genere Abraham; unde generatio eius non annumeratur cum eis, scilicet Levitis. Item ex mandato legis licebat eis sumere decimas, et sic eorum sacerdotium erat subiectum observantiis legis. Sed ille non ex mandato cuiuscumque legis, sed per se sumpsit decimas. Ideo sacerdotium eius erat figura sacerdotii Christi, quod non est subditum legi. Item ipsi accipiebant a populo infimo, scilicet a fratribus, ille autem a summo, scilicet ab Abraham.
7:6
Deinde cum dicit et hunc qui habebat, etc., ostendit excellentiam eius ex parte benedictionis, et est sua ratio talis: Gen. XIV, v. 19, dicitur, quod Melchisedech benedixit Abrahae; sed maior est qui benedicit, illo cui benedicitur: ergo, et cetera. Et ideo dicit, quod Melchisedech ipse benedixit Abraham, qui habebat repromissionem. Contra infra XI, 39: non acceperunt repromissionem, et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non accepit Abraham repromissionem, id est, rem promissam, quia non fuit eam consecutus, habuit tamen ipsam in fide et spe, et ad ipsum specialiter facta est repromissio.
7:7
Deinde cum dicit sine ulla autem contradictione, quod minus est a meliore benedicitur, ponit maiorem suae rationis. Sed hic sunt tres obiectiones. Prima est de hoc quod dicit quod minor a maiore benedicitur. Et ex isto loco pauperes Lugdunenses dicunt quod quicumque iustus maior est peccatore, et sic iustus laicus non benedicitur a malo sacerdote, sed e converso. Unde volunt, quod omnis iustus est sacerdos, et nullus peccator est sacerdos. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod iste error nimis perniciosus est: quia si bonitas ministri requiratur ad collationem sacramenti, in quo est ipsa salus, sequitur quod nullus sit certus suae salutis, nec sciret se recte baptizatum, quia non potest scire, si sacerdos sit iustus. Nullus etiam poterit esse minister, quia nemo scit utrum odio, vel amore dignus sit, Eccle. IX, 1. Et ideo dicendum est quod aliquis potest aliquid facere dupliciter: aut auctoritate propria, aut auctoritate alterius. Quando autem auctoritate propria, tunc requiritur quod sit iustus. Sacerdos autem tantum est minister. Unde non agit nisi in virtute Christi. I Cor. c. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi, et dispensatores ministeriorum Dei. Et ideo non nocet sive bonus, sive malus fuerit; quia Christus est, qui in ipso benedicit, et sic sine ulla contradictione, qui benedicit, maior est. Secunda obiectio est, quia cum Christus sit maior omni sacerdote, quomodo potest corpus Christi a sacerdote consecrari? Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod sacerdos benedicit materiam, non autem corpus Christi. Item non agit auctoritate propria, sed auctoritate Christi, qui, inquantum Deus, maior est corpore suo. Item tertia obiectio est, quia non videtur verum, quod maior benedicat semper minorem, quia Papa consecratur ab episcopo, et archiepiscopus a suffraganeo, qui tamen sunt minores. Respondeo. Dicendum est: nec episcopus consecrat Papam, nec suffraganei archiepiscopum, sed hunc hominem, ut sit Papa, vel archiepiscopus. Item facit hoc ut minister Dei, qui maior est, quam Papa. Deinde cum dicit et hic quidem, etc., ostendit praeeminentiam sacerdotii ex parte sacerdotis ex conditione ipsius. Et facit talem rationem: illud est excellentius, quod non corrumpitur, sed in sacerdotio levitico homines morientes, id est, per mortem succedentes, accipiunt decimas, sed ibi, id est, in sacerdotio Melchisedech, contestatur, Scriptura, quia vivit, id est, non facit mentionem de morte eius: non quia non mortuus sit, sed quia significat sacerdotium, quod manet in aeternum. Christus enim resurgens a mortuis, iam non moritur, Rom. VI, 9, et Apoc. I, 18: fui mortuus, et ecce sum vivus, et cetera.
7:9
Consequenter cum dicit et, ut ita dictum sit, etc., respondet cuidam obiectioni. Posset enim dici: verum est quod Melchisedech maior est quam Abraham, qui ei dedit decimas, sed levi maior est quam Melchisedech. Et ideo dicit apostolus, quod hoc non valet, quia, ut ita dictum sit, per Abraham, id est, mediante Abraham, et levi decimatus est, ab eo supple, qui decimas accepit, id est, a Melchisedech. Et sic adhuc est ipse maior quam levi. Sed contra. Si alicuius episcopi pater dat decimas, non tamen propter hoc oportet quod episcopus sit minor illo, qui decimas recipit. Ergo nec similiter in proposito. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non est simile, quia tota dignitas illius generis etiam sacerdotum, erat ex Abraham; non autem sic est de episcopo, quia tota dignitas eius ex Christo est, non ex patre suo.
7:10
Deinde cum dicit adhuc enim in lumbis, etc., manifestat quod dixerat, et dicit, quod levi adhuc erat in lumbis patris Abraham quando dedit decimas Melchisedech, qui occurrit sibi, et sic Abraham decimato, decimatus est etiam levi. Sed contra: quia sic etiam erat Christus in lumbis eius, sicut et levi. Matth. I, 1: filii David, filii Abraham. Et ideo si propter hoc maior est Melchisedech quam levi, quia levi fuit decimatus, non videtur ratio quare Christus non fuerit decimatus: et sic adhuc Melchisedech maior Christo erit. Et eadem difficultas est de peccato originali: quia, ut dicitur Rom. V, 12: in quo omnes peccaverunt, id est, in Adam, et ideo videtur quod Christus, qui eodem modo fuit in ipso sicut nos, ipsum peccatum originale contraxerit. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod totum hoc intelligitur in his, qui in Abraham sive in Adam fuerunt, secundum rationem seminalem et corpulentam substantiam, quo modo Christus non fuit ibi, sed tantum secundum corpulentam substantiam: Christus enim fuit conceptus quo ad corpus de materia purissima et sanctissima beatae virginis: ut habetur declaratum tertio sententiarum, tertia distinctione.
7:11
Supra probavit apostolus praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad leviticum, hic ab eodem concludit excellentiam sacerdotii Christi, respectu sacerdotii levitici. Sicut etiam supra dictum est, a principio huius septimi capitis, apostolus per tria probat ex auctoritate Psalmistae propositum suum. Primo per illud secundum ordinem Melchisedech, probavit ergo praeeminentiam Melchisedech ad levi. Et ideo secundum ordinem sacerdotii Melchisedech, probat praeeminentiam Christi ad sacerdotium leviticum. Unde facit hic magnam vim de isto verbo, secundum ordinem. Et facit duas rationes, quarum una concludit quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur sacerdotio levitico. Secunda, quod etiam evacuat illud, et illam ponit ibi et amplius adhuc manifestum est, et cetera. In prima ratione, quae est conditionalis, ponit duo antecedentia, et per consequens duo consequentia, ibi quid adhuc, et cetera. Et ratio sua talis est: si sacerdotium leviticum fuisset perfectum, per cuius ministerium erat administratio legis, non fuisset necessarium quod surgeret alius sacerdos secundum alium ordinem, per quem etiam alia lex ministraretur, sicut per leviticum lex vetus. Sed surgit alius sacerdos secundum alium ordinem, scilicet secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ergo illud imperfectum erat. Sicut ergo surgit aliud sacerdotium, ita necesse est surgere aliam legem. In ista ratione manifestum est quod sunt duo antecedentia, unum pertinens ad sacerdotium, aliud ad legem. Dicit ergo, quantum ad primum antecedens, quod si esset consummatio per sacerdotium leviticum. Quantum vero ad secundum dicit, quod si per sacerdotium lex administraretur, quod probat, quia sub ipso, id est, per eius administrationem, populus legem accepit, non quod sacerdotium praecederet legem, sed magis e converso. Unde istud secundum antecedens ponit ibi, cum dicit sub ipso enim, et cetera. Mal. II, 7: labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem de ore eius requirent. Facit autem mentionem specialiter de sacerdotio, ut transferat se ad legem, quae per officium sacerdotale administrabatur: non enim, ut dicit Glossa, potest esse sacerdos sine testamento et lege et praeceptis. Sacerdotium vero non consummabat, id est, perficiebat. Tota enim perfectio sua erat per legem quam administrabat. Sed, ut iam dicetur, nullum ad perfectum adduxit lex, quia nec ad perfectionem iustitiae. Matth. V, v. 20: nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plusquam Scribarum, et cetera. Item non dabat consummationem patriae, quia non introducebat in vitam. Et in huius signum ipse legislator non potuit intrare terram promissionis. Deut. ult. Has autem duas perfectiones habemus per Christum. Is. X, 22: consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Rom. c. IX, 28: verbum consummans et abbrevians in aequitate. Haec sunt ergo antecedentia. Consequentia vero ponit, cum dicit quid adhuc, et cetera. Et hoc quantum ad primum, quasi dicat: si illud fuisset consummatum et perfectum, quid adhuc fuit necessarium surgere alium, et cetera. Id est, non dixisset secundum ordinem Melchisedech, sed secundum ordinem Aaron, quod quia non fecit, ergo erat imperfectum. Haec est tota prima ratio, per quam patet, quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur levitico. Secunda ratio probat quod etiam ipsum evacuat, quia perfectum evacuat imperfectum. I Cor. XIII, 10: cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Ergo sacerdotium Christi evacuat sacerdotium leviticum. Est ergo primum consequens, quod sacerdotium Christi evacuat sacerdotium leviticum. Secundum consequens est quod etiam evacuatur lex quae per illud administrabatur.
7:12
Et istud ponit cum dicit quod translato enim sacerdotio, necesse est, ut legis translatio fiat. Erat enim lex sub administratione sacerdotii; ergo mutato sacerdotio, necesse est quod lex mutetur. Et huius ratio est, quia mutato fine, necesse est quod mutentur ea quae sunt ad finem, sicut qui mutat propositum eundi per aquam, mutat propositum quaerendi navem. Omnis autem lex ordinatur ad conversationem humanam secundum aliquod regimen. Unde secundum philosophum in politicis, mutata conversatione, necesse est mutari legem. Sicut autem lex humana ordinatur ad regimen humanum, ita spiritualis et divina ad regimen divinum. Hoc autem regimen designatur per sacerdotium. Translato ergo sacerdotio, necesse est transferri legem. Signanter autem loquitur, quia non dicit: sacerdote translato. Lex enim non respicit personam sacerdotis. Unde mortuo sacerdote, non mutatur lex, nisi forte sit illa introducta propter personam eius; sed mutato sacerdotio mutatur totus modus, et ordo regiminis. Et de ista mutatione habetur Ier. III: feriam domui Israel, et domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi cum patribus vestris, et cetera. Rom. VIII, 2: lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Lex enim vetus dicitur lex peccati et mortis, per occasionem acceptam, quia scilicet gratiam non conferebat ex opere operato; sicut sacramenta novae legis. Sed obiicit hic Manichaeus: si lex vetus fuit data per divinam providentiam, cum illa sit immutabilis, etiam ipsa lex esset immutabilis, et per consequens non debuit mutari. Cum ergo mutata sit, ergo non est data per divinam providentiam. Respondeo. Dicendum est, secundum quod dicit Augustinus contra Faustum, sicut sapiens dispensator una et eadem dispositione et providentia secundum diversitatem temporum et personarum dat alia et alia praecepta: sicut et alia hyeme, alia aestate, alia pueris, alia senibus, alia perfectis, alia imperfectis, et tamen est eadem providentia, ita divina providentia immobili permanente, mutata est lex propter mutationem temporum; quia ante adventum debuerunt dari praecepta, quae figurarent venturum, sed post adventum, quae significent venisse. Item data sunt illis praecepta sicut pueris: in novo vero sicut perfectis. Unde lex dicitur paedagogus, quod est proprie puerorum. Unde si in lege dicitur aliquid, quod sonet perpetuitatem, hoc est ratione figurati. Item Glossa dicit hic quod ista translatio sacerdotii fuit figurata I Reg. II, quando sacerdotium fuit translatum ad Samuelem, qui non fuit de tribu levi. Contra: quia Samuel non fuit sacerdos, immo magis hoc fuit figuratum in translatione sacerdotii Abiathar ad Sadoch, qui etiam erat Levita. Et dicendum est, quod licet Samuel non esset sacerdos, tamen aliquid sacerdotale egit; quia et sacrificium obtulit, et reges unxit, scilicet Saul et David. Et quantum ad hoc, translatum est ad ipsum sacerdotium. Et sic dicitur in Ps. XCVIII, 6: Moyses et Aaron in sacerdotibus eius, et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen eius. Item contra illud quod dicit Glossa quod non erat de tribu levitica, quia Helcana qui fuit pater eius, et ipse numeratur inter filios levi. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Samuel quantum ad aliquid fuit de tribu Iuda, et hoc quantum ad matrem; sed quantum ad patrem de tribu levi, non tamen de Aaron; sed quantum ad locum, fuit de monte Ephraim. Licet enim undecim tribus habuerint certas provincias, non tamen tribus levi; sed inter ipsas accepit possessionem, et sic habitabat in monte Ephraim. Deinde cum dicit in quo enim, etc., manifestat quod dixit, et primo quod sacerdotium sit translatum; secundo hoc exponit, ibi manifestum est enim. Dicit ergo: dictum est, quod translatum est sacerdotium, quia ille cui dixit propheta tu es sacerdos, est de alia tribu, scilicet de Iuda, non de levi; sicut patet Matth. I.
7:13
De qua tribu nullus praesto fuit altari, id est, altaris ministerio, scilicet de Iuda. Sed contra: rex Ozias ingressus est templum, ut poneret incensum, II Par. XXVI, 16. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod licite nullus praesto fuit altari, vel etiam nullus impune. Ipse enim Ozias graviter fuit punitus, quia usque ad mortem fuit leprosus. Et si dicas contra illud quod dicitur nullus, quod beata virgo fuit de tribu et stirpe Aaron, quia erat cognata Elisabeth, quae fuit de filiabus Aaron, Lc. I, 5, respondeo: dicendum est quod inter stirpes, sacerdotalis et regia erant praeclariores, unde et frequenter coniunctae fuerunt per matrimonium, sicut patet de primo summo sacerdote, qui accepit uxorem filiam Aminadab sororem Naasson, qui fuit dux in tribu Iuda, Ex. VI, 23. Et etiam IV Reg. XI, 2 et II Par. XXII, 11, Ioiada sacerdos duxit in uxorem Iosabeth filiam regis Ioram. Unde potuit esse, quod aliqua parte Elisabeth esset de tribu Iuda. Deinde cum dicit manifestum est, exponit quod dixit, dicens quod manifestum est, quod dominus ortus est de tribu Iuda, Apoc. V, 5: vicit leo de tribu Iuda, et cetera. In qua nihil, et cetera.
7:14
Lex enim mandavit nullum assumi ad ministerium tabernaculi, nisi tantum de tribu levi; unde in tribu Iuda nihil de sacerdotibus locutus est Moyses.
7:15
Deinde cum dicit et amplius adhuc, et cetera. Quia superius posuit unam rationem ad probandum quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur levitico, et ipsum evacuat, et ideo hic ponit aliam, in qua ostendit rationem evacuationis, et transmutationis illius; et utitur quadam conditionali in qua primo ponit duo antecedentia; secundo duo consequentia, ibi reprobatio. Circa primum duo facit quia primo ponit illa antecedentia; secundo manifestat quod dixit, ibi contestatur enim. Ratio sua talis: si novus sacerdos surgit, hoc non erit secundum legem carnalis mandati, sed secundum legem vitae aeternae et insolubilis. Et huius ratio est quia primus fuit secundum legem illam, oportet ergo quod novus sit secundum aliam legem, si tamen surgit aliquis novus. Sed dicendum est, quod surgit alius novus. In maiori ergo sunt duo, quorum unum pertinet ad vetus testamentum, scilicet quod est mandatum carnale, et hoc quia habebat quasdam observantias carnales, sicut circumcisionem, et purificationes carnales. Item quia promittebat poenas et praemia carnalia. Is. c. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis. Infra IX, 10: iustitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis. Et istud antecedens ponit, cum dicit amplius manifestum est, et cetera. Et patet, quod pertinet ad novum testamentum, quod non dispensatur per carnalia, sed consistit in spiritualibus. Est enim secundum spiritualem virtutem, per quam generatur in nobis vita perpetua. Et hoc quia promittuntur in ipso bona et poenae perpetuae. Infra IX, 11: Christus assistens pontifex, et cetera. Matth. XXV, 46: tunc ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, iusti vero in vitam aeternam. Item non consistit in carnalibus observantiis, sed in spiritualibus. Io. VI, 64: verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.
7:16
Et dicit, quod est secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis. Consequenter cum dicit contestatur enim, etc., manifestat quod dixerat, et facit vim in hoc, quod dicit in aeternum, quia si sacerdotium est aeternum, manifestum est quod dicit perpetuitatem.
7:18
Deinde cum dicit reprobatio quidem fit, etc., ponit duo consequentia. Et primo de evacuatione veteris testamenti; secundo de institutione novi, ibi introductio vero. Primum est quod vetus testamentum fuit per legem carnalis mandati et introducitur aliud: ergo primum mutatur. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod fit prioris mandati reprobatio. Sed contra: non reprobatur nisi malum. Is. VII, 15: ut sciat reprobare malum. Illud autem mandatum non est malum. Rom. VII, v. 13: lex quidem sancta, et mandatum sanctum, et iustum, et bonum. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod non erat malum secundum se, sed ut inconveniens tempori. Non enim servanda sunt in novo sacerdotio, quae fuerunt in antiquo. Ps. XXXIX, v. 6 s.: holocaustum et pro peccato non postulasti, tunc dixi: ecce venio. Et ideo dicitur, quod illud reprobatur; et hoc propter infirmitatem et inutilitatem. Illud autem dicitur infirmum, quod non potest exequi effectum suum: proprius autem effectus legis et sacerdotii est iustificare. Hoc autem non lex potuit facere. Rom. VIII, 3: nam quod erat impossibile legi, in quo infirmabatur secundum carnem. Gal. IV, 9: quomodo convertimini iterum ad infirma et egena elementa, quibus denuo vultis servire? Item, inutile dicitur quod non valet ad finem consequendum. Hoc autem non potest lex, quia non adducebat ad beatitudinem, quae finis est hominis. Sed tamen suo tempore fuit utilis, inquantum disponebat ad fidem. Infra c. XI, 13: iuxta fidem omnes defuncti sunt, non acceptis repromissionibus. Quare autem sit infirmum et inutile, ostendit cum dicit nil enim ad perfectum, nec scilicet iustitiae, nec patriae, adduxit. Unde erat imperfecta, sed perfecta fuit per Christum.
7:19
Consequenter cum dicit introductio vero, ponit consequens secundum ex secundo antecedente, dicens introductio vero melioris spei, supple: fit per novum sacerdotem, per quam proximamus ad Deum. Si enim novus surgit, est secundum virtutem vitae indissolubilis: hoc est antecedens; et introductio melioris, etc.: et hoc est consequens. I Pet. I, 3: regeneravit nos in spem vivam per resurrectionem Iesu. Item per ipsum proximamus Deo. Per peccatum enim disiungimur ab ipso. Is. LIX, 2: iniquitates vestrae diviserunt inter vos et Deum vestrum, et peccata vestra absconderunt faciem eius a vobis. Hic est ergo ille, qui hoc removet, quod facit nos approximare Deo; hic autem est ille novus sacerdos, scilicet Christus, qui tollit peccata mundi, Io. I, 29. Iustificati ergo ex fide pacem habeamus ad Deum per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, per quem accessum habemus in gratiam istam Rom. V, v. 1 s.
7:21
Supra apostolus ex una parte auctoritatis Psalmistae probavit, quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur levitico, et ipsum evacuat, hic idem probat ex aliis duabus partibus et primo ex hoc, quod dicit iuravit dominus; secundo ex hoc quod dicit tu es sacerdos, ibi et alii quidem plures, et cetera. Facit autem primo talem rationem: illud quod instituitur sine iuramento, minus validum est, quam quod instituitur cum iuramento; sacerdotium autem Christi institutum est cum iuramento, sicut patet, quia dicit iuravit dominus. Sacerdotium vero Aaron, non, sicut patet Ex. XXVIII, 1: applica ad te Aaron, et cetera. Ergo, et cetera. Quantum ad maiorem dicit et quantum est, supple quod, non sine iureiurando, alii quidem sine iureiurando sacerdotes facti sunt; hic autem, et cetera. Omnia ista ponuntur ad probandum, quod sacerdotium Christi sit firmius, quia supra dictum est omnis promissio, facta in veteri testamento per iuramentum, signum est consilii divini immobilis. Et ideo, quia ad David et ad Abraham facta fuit ista promissio de Christo cum iuramento, specialiter dicitur Christus filius ipsorum. Istud autem iuramentum designat aeternitatem potestatis Christi. Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius, potestas aeterna. Lc. I, 33: et regni eius non erit finis. Intantum melioris, etc., quia sacerdotium est firmius, quod patet, quia per iuramentum ordinatum est, ideo oportet aliquid melius et firmius per ipsum haberi. Unde potest legi praecedens littera suspensive usque huc: quod, inquantum est non sine iuramento, intantum melioris, et cetera. Sciendum est autem quod sacerdos est medius inter Deum et populum. Deut. V, 5: ego medius et sequester fui. Et ideo, quia sequester est mediator, sacerdos debet Deum et populum ad concordiam reducere. Et hoc fit, quasi per pactum de bonis temporalibus, in quibus non conquiescebat affectus nisi carnalium, secundum illud Ps. XV: quid enim mihi est in caelo, et cetera.
7:22
Et ideo oportuit, ut superveniret alius sacerdos, qui esset sponsor, id est promissor melioris testamenti, et melioris pacti, quia de bonis spiritualibus et stabilibus. Et hic est Iesus. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi, et cetera. Matth. IV, v. 17: poenitentiam agite, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum.
7:23
Deinde cum dicit et alii quidem plures, etc., utitur alia clausula posita in auctoritate tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit quare haec clausula in aeternum apponitur; secundo ex hoc ostendit sacerdotium Christi esse maioris efficaciae, quam sacerdotium veteris testamenti, ibi unde et salvare. Ostendit autem, quod iste sit verus sacerdos, quia alii prohibebantur morte permanere, quia omnes necessitatem habebant moriendi. Unde Aaron mortuo, successit Eleazar, sicut patet Num. XX, 26, et sic deinceps. Sicut autem videmus in naturalibus, quae sunt signa spiritualium, quod incorruptibilia non multiplicantur sub eadem specie, unde non est nisi unus sol: ita in spiritualibus in veteri testamento, quod fuit imperfectum, multiplicati fuerunt sacerdotes. Et hoc fuit signum quod illud sacerdotium erat corruptibile, quia incorruptibilia non multiplicantur eadem specie, ut dictum est, sed iste sacerdos, scilicet Christus, est immortalis. Manet enim in aeternum, sicut verbum patris aeternum, ex cuius aeternitate redundat etiam aeternitas in corpus eius, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, Rom. VI, v. 9.
7:24
Et idcirco ex eo quod manet in aeternum, habet sacerdotium sempiternum. Et ideo solus Christus est verus sacerdos, alii autem ministri eius. I Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi. Deinde cum dicit unde et salvare, etc., ostendit efficaciam eius. Et circa hoc duo facit, quia primo ostendit efficaciam eius; secundo modum ipsius efficaciae, ibi accedens, et cetera. Efficacia eius est, quia causa est semper potentior suo effectu, et ideo causa temporalis non potest producere effectum aeternum. Sacerdotium vero Christi est aeternum, non autem leviticum, ut est probatum. Ergo Christus potest salvare in perpetuum. Hoc autem non posset fieri, nisi haberet virtutem divinam. Is. XLV, 17: salvatus est Israel in domino salute aeterna. Modus autem est quia accedens, et cetera. Et describit istum modum a tribus, scilicet ab excellentia virtutis, naturae et pietatis. Virtutis quidem, quia accedit per semetipsum. Sed contra. Accedens ad aliquem, distat ab ipso, Christus autem non distat a Deo. Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod apostolus in verbis istis ostendit duplicem naturam, scilicet humanam, secundum quam convenit ei accedere, quia in ipsa distat a Deo; non autem accedit a statu culpae ad statum gratiae, sed per contemplationem intellectus et affectus, et adeptionem gloriae. Et naturam divinam, per hoc quod dicit eum per semetipsum accedere ad Deum. Si enim esset purus homo, non posset per se accedere. Io. VI, v. 44: nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater qui misit me traxerit eum. Et ideo cum apostolus dicit quod per semetipsum accedit, ostendit virtutem eius. Is. LXIII, 1: gradiens in multitudine fortitudinis suae. Ergo accedit inquantum homo, sed per semetipsum inquantum Deus. Excellentiam vero naturae ostendit inquantum dicit semper vivens. Aliter enim sacerdotium eius finiretur. Apoc. I, 18: fui mortuus, et ecce sum vivens in saecula saeculorum.
7:25
Excellentiam pietatis ostendit, quia dicit ad interpellandum pro nobis, quia licet sit ita potens, ita altus, tamen cum hoc est pius, quia interpellat pro nobis. I Io. II, 1: advocatum habemus apud patrem Iesum Christum, et cetera. Interpellat autem pro nobis, primo humanitatem suam, quam pro nobis assumpsit, repraesentando. Item sanctissimae animae suae desiderium, quod de salute nostra habuit exprimendo, cum quo interpellat pro nobis. Alia littera habet: accedentes per ipsum, et tunc designantur illi quos salvat, quia accedentes per fidem eius ad Deum. Rom. V, v. 1 s.: iustificati igitur ex fide, pacem habeamus ad Deum per dominum Iesum Christum, per quem accessum habemus.
7:26
Deinde cum dicit talis enim decebat, etc., ostendit ex excellentia Christi excellentiam eius sacerdotii. Et circa hoc facit duo. Primo enim ostendit, quod ei conveniunt perfectiones conditionum, quae requirebantur ad sacerdotium veteris legis; secundo ostendit, quod sibi desunt imperfectiones eius, ibi qui non habet necessitatem. Ponit autem quatuor conditiones de ipso, quae debent esse in sacerdote legali. Primo quod sit sanctus Lev. XXI, 6: incensum enim domini et panes Dei sui offerunt, et ideo sancti erunt. Hanc autem perfecte habuit Christus. Sanctitas enim importat puritatem consecratam Deo. Christus autem a principio conceptionis suae Deo consecratus fuit. Lc. I, 35: quod enim ex te nascetur, sanctum vocabitur. Matth. I, 20: quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est, et Dan. IX, 24: ungatur sanctus sanctorum. Secundo quod sit innocens. Lev. XXII, 9: custodiant praecepta mea, ut non subiaceant peccato. Proprie autem dicitur innocentia puritas ad proximum. Ps. XXIII, 4: innocens manibus, et cetera. Christus autem summe innocens fuit, utpote qui peccatum non fecit. Ps. XXV, 1: ego in innocentia mea ingressus sum. Tertio quod esset impollutus, et hoc quo ad se. Lev. XXI, 17: homo de semine tuo, qui habuerit maculam, non offerat panes Dei sui. De Christo autem dicitur in figura. Ex. c. XII, 5: erit autem agnus sine macula, et cetera. Quarto quod non commisceretur cum coinquinatis. Lev. XXI, 15: non commisceat stirpem generis sui, vulgo gentis suae. Christus autem fuit perfectissime a peccatoribus segregatus. Ps. I, 1: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et cetera. Quod quidem verum est quantum ad similitudinem vitae. Sap. c. II, 15: dissimilis est aliis vita illius. Non tamen quantum ad conversationem, quia cum hominibus conversatus est, Bar. III, 38. Et hoc propter illorum conversationem. Matth. c. IX, 11: quare cum peccatoribus manducat magister vester? Et intantum segregatus est, quod etiam factus est excelsior caelis, id est, super omnem caelestem creaturam, sublimata est humana natura in ipso. Supra I, 3: sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis, et cetera. Ergo iste est sacerdos valde sufficiens. Consequenter cum dicit qui non habet, etc., removet ab eo, quod erat imperfectionis in sacerdote legali. Hoc autem erat, quia ille indigebat sacrificio expiationis, ut patet Lev. XVI, 5: immolabit vitulum pro se, et hircum pro populo. Ergo orabat pro se. Item, non tantum semel orabat pro se, sed frequenter. Et huius ratio est, quia lex instituit homines sacerdotes habentes infirmitatem. Sap. IX, 5: homo infirmus et exigui temporis, et cetera.
7:28
Sed sermo, divinus, qui post legem est, interposito iureiurando, constituit filium, qui nullam de istis imperfectionibus habet, sed omnino perfectum, in aeternum, scilicet sacerdotem duraturum. Non enim obtulit pro peccatis suis, sed tantum pro nostris. Is. LIII, 5: vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras. Item nec frequenter pro nobis, sed tantum semel. I Pet. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est. Unica enim eius oblatio sufficit ad exhaurienda peccata totius generis humani.
7:1
1. Hic enim Melchisedech. Post longam digressionem redit Apostolus ad id, quod dicturum se promiserat de Melchisedech, tamquam Christi typo, scilicet eo loco cap. 5.: De quo nobis grandis sermo etc. Redit autem non abrupte, sed molli et artificioso quodam flexu orationis, cujus initium est ab ea parte superioris cap.: Incedentem usque ad interiora velaminis etc. Ubi percommode mentionem injicit Christi Pontificis secundum ordinem MeJchisedech. Vocula enim non tam probantis est, quam exsequentis institutum. Erasmus primum hanc partem, quasi sit imperfecta, supplet hoc modo: Nam hic erat Melchisedech etc. Sed nihil opus est supplemento; pendet enim oratio, et longa periodo decurrens tandem finitur in ea parte: manet Sacerdos in psrpetuum. Quod ad historiam attinet, de Melchisedech brevis exstat narratio Gen. 14., quam fere totam hoc capite divinus Apostolus allegorice in Christum interpretatur. Qua occasione quaeritur, quis ille Melchisedech fuerit. Nam variae de eo olim ferebantur sententiae. Quidam ex iis. quae ab Apostolo dicuntur: sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia, neque initium dierum, neque finem vitae habens, in eam opinionem inducti sunt, ut dicerent, Melchisedech non hominem fuisse, sed aliquid majus homine, videlicet aut angehim, sicut existimaveront Origenes et Didymus, Hieronymo teste in Epist. 126., quae est ad Euagrium; aut Spiritum sanctum, ut sensit Hierax apud Epiphanium, quod et multis probare nititur auctor operis quaest. vet. et novi test. q. 109., quem suspicor eum esse, cujus meminit Hieronymus in eadem Epist.; aut Filium Dei, cujus opinionis post Epiphanium meminit B. Thomas in commentario; aut magnam quandam Dei virtutem, sicut aliis quibusdam visum est, Epiphanio et Augustino referentibus. Quodipsum de Theodoto quodam haeretico narrant Tertullianus sub finem libri de praescript. et Theodoretus lib. 2. fabul. haeret. Sed hae non tam opiniones sunt, quam errores sacris literis aperte contrarii; ut quae de Melchisedech non aliter, quam de bomiue, loquantur. Describitur enim Melchisedech rex cujusdam civitatis inter homines, idemque?acerdos Dei altissimi. Est autem omnis sacerdos Deo, cui supplicat et sacrificium offeit, inferior. Impium igitur est, Melchisedech aut Spiritum sanctum dicere, aut Filium Dei. Sed nec angelis, utpote substantiis incorporeis, competit externum offerre sacrificium, quod est ofiScium sacerdotum. Ex quibus etiam refelluntur, qui Melchisedech dixerunt esse Dei virtutem quandam, sive creatam intellexerint virtutem, id est, angelicam, sive increatam, quae utique non est alia a Deo. De his omnibus, si libet, Epiphanium consule, singula exactius persequentem. Quomodo autem ea, quae Paulus in sequentibus de Melchisedech dicit, recte et sane de homine intelligatur, illic explicabitnr. Cum igitur constet, Melchisedech hominem fuisse, non tamen inter doctores convenit, quis homo fuerit. Vetus Hebraeorum traditio est, eodem Hieronymo, tam in dicta Epist. ad Euagrium, quam in tradit. Hebr. referente, Melchisedech fuisse Sem, filium Noe. Vixit enim ille eexcentis annis, ex quo certa supputatione colligitur, eum non modo tunc, quando Abraham a caede regum reversus est, adhuc in vivis fuisse, nt benedicere ei potuerit; vemm etiam ipsi Abrahae supervixisse triginta quinque annis; quemadmodum eodem loco, deducta ratione temporum, colligit Hieronymus, interim tacite, ut videtur, hanc Hebraeorum traditionem approbans. Hieronymi verba transscripsit in suum commentarium auctor innominatus expositinnis hujus Epistolae apud Ambrosium. Secuti sunt eandem opinionem, partim ut simpliciter veram, partim ut probabilem, comphires in Genesim scribentes, ut Liranus, Abulensis. Cajetanus, Eugubinus et alii. Item Rupertus scribens in cap. 1. Matthaei et Genebrardus in Chronico. Sed hanc sententiam et Epiphanius olim, et hodie inter alios F. Ribera bene refutarunt. Nam primum nulla ratione consequens est, si probetur, quod in veritate Hebraica dubitationem non habet, Sem vixisse tempore Abrahae, atque ei supervixisse, idcirco fuisse eundem cum Melchisedech. Quod enim addunt, Sem primogenitum fuisse, eoque nomine sacerdotem, nec constat, nec verisimile est, primogenitis sacerdotium jure debitum aliquando fuisse; quamvis et hoc, ut multa alia, tradant Hebraei. Certe ex hac ipsa Epist. cap. 11., ubi dicitur: Fide plurimam hostiam Abelj quam Cain, obtulit Deo, satis liquet, jus sacerdotii non fuisse primogenitis peculiare. Id quod aliis etiam argumentis ostendemus infra ad illud cap. 12. de Esau: Qui propter unam escam vendidit primO' genita sua, Sed etsi demus, veram esse traditionem, non tamen eam rem propositam confirmat, cum alii tam multi temporibus Abrahae fuerint primogeniti. Jam vero nec caetera, quae de Melchisedech dicuntur, in Sem, Noe filium, satis congruunt; imo quaedam etiam repugnant. Nam describitur hoc loco Melchisedech, ut dictum est, sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia, nec initium habens dierum, nec tinem. At in Genesi Sem commemoratur et patrem habens, et matrem, et proavos usque ad Adam, et posteritatem amplissimam, et quando natus, et quamdiu vixerit, et quando mortuus. Frivolum est autem, quod huic argumento respondent, nihil istorum in Scriptura narrari de Sem sub nomine Melchisedech, de quo Apostolus loquitur. Neque enim Apostolus tantum agit de nomine, sed de persona, licet etiam ex nomlue petat allegoriam. Praeterea Sem fuisse regem Salem in terra Chanaan, quod de Melchisedech Sciiptura affirmat, nullo modo fit verisimile. Fuit enim Sem unus et praecipuus trium patriarcharum, ex quibus post Noe genus humanum propagatum est. Quare vir, tanti generis parens, si rex futurus erat, non unius cujuspiam civitatis angustia dominium ejus et potestas erat coarctauda. Neque regnum inter Chananaeos, alieni generis homines, id est, posteros Cham, accipere vel potuit, vel etiam debuit, ut bene ratiocinatur Procopius scribens in Gen. 15., sed inter suos potius, a quibus ut patriarcha colebatur. Atqui istis in possessionem obvenit regio orientalis ultra flumen Euphratem sita, et a regione, quam Chananaei tenebant, admodum dissita, quemadmodum patet legenti Scripturam Genes. 10. et Josephum lib. 1. Ant. Jud. cap. 7. An autem etiam ex illis Apostoli verbis infra positis: Cujus autem generatio non annU' meratur in eis etc, sumi possit argumentum ad opinionem Hebraeorum refellendam, dicemus, quum ad eum locum ventum erit. Nunc addo, si quidquam de genere Melchisedech pronuntiare licet, de quo magni mysterii causa tacuit Scriptura, prorsus apparere ex loco regni, fuisse eum ex posteris Chanaan, filii Cham; quae fuit imprimis multorum veterum sententia, quos recenset Hieronymus in epist. ad Evagrium, ut Hippolyti, Irenaei, Eusebii Caesariensis et Eraesoni, nec non Apollinarii et Eustachii. Atque his adjunge Josephum lib. 1. Ant. cap. 11. et lib. 7. de bello Jud. cap. 18., Egesippum quoque lib. 3. de excidio Hierosol. cap. 9. et Theodoretum quaest. 63. in Genes. Quibus omnibus subscribunt in hujus epist. comm. Oecumenius, Sasboldus et Ribera. Bex Salem. Salem, cujus rex fuit Melchisedech, urbem fuisse terrae Chanaan, ex historia Genesis perspicuum est; sed quaenam fuerit, dubitatur. Hieronymus in epist. saepe citata refert, eosdem auctores, qui Me^chisedech hominem fuisse Chananaeum dixerunt, etiam hoc addidisse, quod rex fuerit urbis Hierosolymae, quae primum Salem, postea Jebus, ad extremum Hierusalom appellata sit. Id ipsum tradunt Josephus locis ante memoratis, et Chaldaeus interpres Gen. 14., et alii ex Hebraeis, quos, Hieronymo teste, sequuntur omn^^s nostri, id est, ecclesiastici scriptores. Huc facit, quod ipsa Hierusalem, etiam postquam hoc nomen accepit, et in sedem regni Israelitici instituta fuit, legatur appellata fuisse Salem. Nam pro eo, quod in Psfihno 75. dicitur: Et factus est in pace locus ejus. Hebraice legitur in Salem, id est, in Hierusalem. Hanc enim significari, declarat alterum ejusdem versiculi membrum: Et habitatio ejus in Sion. Attamen haec sententia Hieronymo non placet. Existimat enim ille, Salem, in qua regnavit Melchisedech, eam esse, de qua Scriptura loquitur Gen. 33., quae alio nomine Sichem dicta est, metropolis postea Samaritarum, pertinens ad sortem tribus Ephraim. Hanc enim et tempore Salvatoris apud Joan. 3. unius vocalis mutatione Salim, et sua adhuc aetate Salem vocatam fuisse, et monstrari solitum eo loco palatium Melchisedech, ex magnitudine ruinarum veteris operis ostendens magnificentiam. Non posse autem Hierusalem intelligi, probat ex situ loci, quoniam Abrahae a caede hostium revertenti, quos persecutus est usque Dan, quae hodie, inquit, Pameas appellatur, non via de Hierusalem, sed de oppido metropoleos Sichem in itinere fuit. Sed hae rationes, propter quas ab omnium aliorum sententia discedit Hieronymus, quantum valeant, vide apud Riberam, qui rem totam accurate tractat. Qui tamen non omnino forte satisfaciet argumento de itinere. Certe quod de ruinis palatii Melchisedech post tot saeculorum mutationes suo adhuc tempore exstantibus narrat, haud facile adducor, ut credam, praesertim quoniam et ipse Hieronymus alibi fabulae fidem derogare videtur. Nam in libro de locis Hebraicis refert, eam urbem solo aequatara fuisse, et sale serainatam ab Abimelech rege. Hoc. quippe de Sichima legitur Judic. 9. Pro illa priore opinione etiam hoc facit, quod in libro Josue inter alios reges a Josue victos coraraeraoratur rex Jerusalem; de rege alterius Salem ibi non legitur; ergo illa altera Salem non habebat regem. Numerantur enim omnes reges per Josue debellati; nec dubium, quin et rex Salem illius fuisset victus, et consequenter connumeratus aliis, si quis fuisset.
Sacerdos Dei summi. Mirum, quosdam pro sacerdote vertere Pontificem, quum hic Graece non sit dp)(t£p£U(;, id est Pontifex, princeps sacerdottim, quod supra legebatur cap. 3. et 5. et in fine sexti; sed nomen simplex ispsuc, id est sacerdos. Quod et legitur apud LXX. tam Gen. 14., quam Psalm. 109. Non quidem negamus, Melchisedech pontificem fuisse, qua de re aliquid in sequentibus dicetur; sed id Graeca vox hujus loci non significat. Facessant autem, qui dubitant, rectene flieronymus, et ante eum LXX., vocem Hebraeam jpj^ (Clio- Ticnj interpretati sint: sacerdotetn. Quamvis enim alicubi pro principo sumatur, ut 2 Reg. 8., ubi nos legimus: Filii David sacerdotes erant, id est principes, longe tamen usitatius sacerdotem significat. Cum vero additur ei vocabulum Dei, vel, ut in Genesi, Dei altissimi, sive, ut in Hebraeo, Deo altissimo, tum profecto ea adjectio prorsus omnem tollit ambiguitatem, ut non aliter, quam pro sacerdote, accipi possit. Nobis certe fidem indubitatam hujus interpretationis facere debet auctoritas praesentis Epistolae, cum adjuncto testimonio Davidis, quod nu11'is interpretum tam Hebraeorum, quam Christianorum, aliter ausuF est vertere, quam hoc modo: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Deum summumy sive altisHmum, sive excelsum (haec enim eadem sunt interpreti), vocat tam Moses, quam Paulus Deum in excelsis habitantem, quae passim in Scripturis est notatio veri Dei; quomodo et nos dicimus in oratione Dominica: Pater noster, qui es in coelis; nimirum ut ex summitate loci summa dignitas habitantis atque regnantis intelligatur. Additum est autem a Mose hoc epithetum ad discrimen falsorum Deorum, quorum eo temporemulti per orbem erant sacerdotes.
Qui obviavit Abrahae regresso a caede regum. Begresso, Graece: revertenti. Atque ita postulat verbum obviandi sive occurrendi. Unde illud: Venienti OC" currite morbo. Narratur haec Abrahae victoria Gen. 14.
Et benedixit ei. Id est, bene precatus est ei, videlicet ut Dei sacerdos. Pertinet enim ad officiam sacerdotis benedicere populo, Num. 6. Porro verba, quibus Melchisedech Abrahae benedixit, haec erant: Benedictus Abraham Deo exceJso, qui creavit coelum et terram, id est Deus excelsus, cueli terraeque creator, benefaciat Abrahae. Nam quod sequitur: Et benedictus Deus excelsus, quo protegente hustes in manibus tuis sunt, benedictio laudis est et gratiarum actio ad Deum.
7:2
2. Cui et decimas omnium divisit Abraham. Omnium scilicet spoliorum, quae ceperat ex illa regum pmfligatione. Ostendit Apostolus, Melchisedech etiam Abrahae opinione sacerdotem fuisse, nec qualemcumque, sed quem ille se majorem agnosceret. Id enim probat oblatio decimarum. Ubi rursus explodendum est quorundam Rabbinorum commentum, qui mysterium nobis in Melchisedech significatum obscurare conantes, sensum Scripturae Gen. pervertunt, ut in illis verbis: Et dedit ei decimas ex omnibus, non Abraham ipsi Melchisedech, sed Melchisedech Abrahae dedisse decimas intelligatur, eo quod Melchisedech res suas, ab hostibus ablatas, opera Abrahae recepisset. Sic enim illi fabulantur. Sed quam vane atque inepte, subsequens Scripturae narratio plane commonstrat, ubi cum juramento profitetur Abraham, se de universa praeda ab hostibus recepta nihil accepturum, a filo subtegminis usque ad corrigiam caligae. Nam quod ajunt, etiam Melchisedech ab hostibus spoliatum fuisse, quam nihil habeat coloris, facile perspiciet, qui totius historiae seriem et locorum situm consideraverlt. Ac sane alioquin et ipse Melchisedech cum aliis quinque regibus injuriam passis adversus hostes profectus fuisset. Fatetur quidem Hieronymus in illa epist. ad Rvagrium, utrumque intelligi posse, et juxta Hebraioum, et juxta LXX. interpretes, quod et Melchisedech acceperit decimas spoliorum, et Abrahae dederit decimas substantiae suae; non tamen liberum facit utruravis intelligere; tantum sermonis amphiboliam significare voluit. Nam continuo Bubjuugit, Apostolum in epist. ad Hobraeos alterum sensum apertissime definivisse. Jam nec illud recipiendum, quod Cajetanus in Genesim scribens et alii nonnulli decimas interpretantur non decimam partem, sed munera quaedam bouoris gratia ab Abraham sacerdoti Melchisedech oblata. Nusquam enim in Scri- [turis invenitur haec decimarum significatio. Manifeste etiam repugnat Apostolus, qui Scripturam hanc ad Christi sacerdotium applicans, de decimis proprie dictis eam in consequentibus exponit, quales nimirum Levitici sacerdotes sectmdum legem apopulo accipiebant. Quod si decimarum nomine munera tantum honoraria significarentur, nihil ea res faceret ad Apostoli institutum. Unde S. Thomas 2. sec. q. 87. art. 1. ad 3., loquens de proprie dictis decimis, ait, quod Abraham prophetico instiRctu dedit decimas Melchisedech, sacerdoti Dei summi; et quod similiter Jacob Genes. 28. vovit, decimas se daturum, in divinum videlicet cultum, ad sacrificiorum consummationem.
Primum quidem qui interpretatur rex justitiae. Verbum interpretatur i^assive positum est ab interprete, ut et alibi interdum. Erasmus vertit: ex interpre^ tatione dicitur. Incipit Apostolus, ea, quae de Melchisedech adduxit ex historia Genesis, ad eum accommodare, cujus gratia haec dixerat, id est ad Christum, Dei Filium, cujus typum gessit Melchisedech. Orditur autem ab interpretatione nominum. Ex qua re obiter disce divinarum Scripturarum excellentiam, ut in quibus saepe etiam nomina propria, seu personarum, seu locoram, non vacent a mysteriis. Primum, inquit, Melchisedech ipso nomine magnae cujusdam rei figuram praetulit; idem enim valet, quod rex ju stitiae, id est rex justus, phrasi Hebiaea, sicut exponit Hieronymus ad Evagrium, et ante eum Josephas lib. 1. Antiq. cap. 11. Quod quam vere in Christum competat, in parte sequenti exponemus. Quidam Hebraice periti nomen hoc ita interpretandum censent: rex meus justitiae^ propter jod medium, quod primam personam significat. Sed illi non attenderunt, apud Hebraeos usitatissimum esse, ut in medio compositionis duorum nominum jod interponatur, non ad significandum aliquid, sed euphoniae gratia duntaxat, ut observare est in his et similibus: Abimelech, Adonisedech, Abisag etc. Admonet hoc loco Cajetanus, Melchisedech non fuisse nomen proprium illius viri, sed commune regibus illius civitatis; sicat Caesaris nomen commune fuit Romanis imperatoribus, et Pharao regibus Aegypti. Docet hoc idem, scribens in Psalmum 109., ubi insuper addit, ejusdem civitatis reges pari ratione fuisse vocatos Adonisedech, quasi dominos justitiae seu dominos justos. His enim titulis a justitia sumptis populum illum suos reges ornasse. Nam de Adonisedech, quod rex Jerusalem fuerit, legitur Josue 10. Similiter opinantur Abulensis in comment. super Genes. et Masius super Josue. Sed hujus opinionis, ut apud veteres nullum est vestigium, ita nec probabilitas ulla; nisi dicatur, etiam aliorum regum nomina tam multa, quao in libro Josue et alibi coramemorantur, communia fuisse, non propria. Quod nemo dixerit.
Deinde autem et rex Salem, quod est rex pacis. Id est rex pacificus. Non solum, inquit, in nomine proprio, verum etiam in nomine civitatis regni sui, magnum aliquid de Christo, cujus erat figam, significavit. Vere enim et excellentissimo quodam modo Christus est rex justitiae et rex pacis. Rex justitiae, tum quia justissimum exercet imperium, juxta versiculum Psalmi 44. supra citatum cap. 1.: Virga aequitatis virga regni tui; dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem; tum etiam, quia justitiae nobis auctor est, non qua justi modo reputemur, ut haeretici volunt, sed qua secundum veritatem justi nominemur et simus. Rex autem pacis vel propter felicem ac prosperum regni sui statum, quem pacis nomine solent Hebraei significare; qua quidem ratione potissimum per Salomonem, ipso etiam nomine, praefiguratus est; vel quia pacificator noster est, reconcilians nos Deo et angelis ejus, et ex utroque populo, Judaeu et gentili, faciens unum, ut late docet Apostolus Ephes. 2. et alibi. Ad utrumque Christi elogium pertinent hae Scripturae: Zach. 9.: Ecce rex tuus veniet tibi justuSj et Salvator; Rom. 14.: Regnum Dei justitia, et pax et gaudium in Spiritu sancto: 1 Cor. 1.: Qui factus est nobis justitia, et sanctificatio, et redemptio. Jam quaeri posset, an ex ista nominum Hebraicorum interpretatione recte coUigatur, Epistolam hanc non esse Bcriptam Hebraice, nisi res ea satis esset a nobis in prolegomenis hujus Epistolae disputata.
7:3
3. Sine patre, sine matre. Graece: aTcaxop, d^yjTOjp, quod Erasmus vertit: ignoti patris, ignptae matris. Sed ea versio nec Calvino probatur. Non enim dicere vult Apostohis, obscuris aut ignotis parentibus ortum esse Melchisedech; sed nec patrem habuisse, nec matrem. Quod eo sensu dictum est, quia Scriptura divina sic eum introducit, ut nec patris ejus, nec matris uUam faciat mentionem. Igitur sine patre, sine matre, videlicet in Scripturis. Quod autem a quibusdam traditum refert Epiphanius, patrem ejus Eraclam vocatum, matrem Astaroth sive Asteriam, commentitium puto. Quamquam, etsi verum sit, nihil obstat Apostolico sensui jam explicato. Multo minus illud recipimus, quod ex Judaeis nonnulli fabulantur, idcirco de parentibus Melchisedech nihil scripsisse Mosem, quod ex fornicario concubitu natus esset. Tale etiam est, quod ait Eustachius Antiochenus, ideo genus Melchisedech taceri, quia majores ejus indigni erant, qui cum viro tantae virtutis nominarentur. Veram rationem nos docet Apostolus, scilicet id tacitum ac praetermissum fuisse mysterii causa, de quo paulo post. Quamvis et ex consuetudineScripturae sacrae ratio reddi potest, ut quae non soleat eorum scribere genealogias, de quibus obiter sc velut in transitu loquitur; ut nec eorum, qui ad genus Abrahae non pertinerent, velut Job et regum alienigenarum.
Sine genealogia. Graece aYsvsaAoyT^- Toc. Erasmus: ignoti generis; quod jam rejecimus. AHirectius: sine genere, quomodo dictum est: sine patre, sine matre. Verum optime noster interpres: sine ge~ nealogia. Nam Graecum ita fere sonat, quasi dicas: non genealogizatus, id est, cujus genealogia nusquam in Scripturis texitur, cujus genus nusquam recensetur. Deductum est vocabulum a verbo Ysvsa- AoysTv, id est, geaus alicujus recensere. Cujus verbi participio mox utitur ipse Apostolup, ubi nos habemus: Cujus autem generatio non annumeratur in eis. Porro Syrus interpres hanc partem cum praecedente ita connectit: Cujus nec pater, nec mater scribuntur in generationibus seu genealogiis. Sed in Graeco manifeste asyndeton est, eam conjunctionem respuens. At dicet aliquis: Quorsum addidit: sine genealogia, cum jam dixisset: sine patre, sine matre? Quae pars genealogiam satis videbatur exclusisse. Kesponderi potest, ea parte removeri genus, a quo Melchisedech descendit, id est majures, non autem genus, cujus ipse princeps fuit, id est, posteros ac nepotes. Proinde hujus generis gratia additum esse: sine genealogia. Nam utroque modo genus accipi, constat, etiam apud Gra^cos, ut et generationem apud Hebraeos. Unde est illud Gen. 5.: Hic est liber generationis Adam, et cap. 10.: Hae generationes filiorum Noe, et cap. 11.: Hae generationes Thare; cum posteros eorum vellet recensere. Sic quidem Hieronymus hanc partem intellexit, quando eam interpretatur: sine nuptiis, lib. 1. contra Jovinianum. Per nuptias enim genus in posteros propagatur. Unde et martyr Ignatius in Epistola ad Philadelphios Melchisedech recenset inter Sanctos, qui coelibem vitam duxerunt. Favet etiam hic sensus mysterio. Nam sicut parte praecedente significatur aeternitas Christi sine principio: ita hae parte significatur ejusdem aeternitas sine fine. Quod si tamen hoc minus placet propter illud, quod infra dicit: Cujus autem generatio etc, ubi genus prioris modi videtur intelligi: licebit hac parte simul utrumque genus complecti, ut sen- 8US sit: Cujus nec pater, nec mater, nec omnino majores aut posteri scripti leguntur.
Neque initium dierum, neque finem vitae habens. Videlicet in Scripturis, ut dictum est. Nam Scriptura de Melchisedech loquens, nec, quando natus sit, refert, nec, quando mortuus. Imo nativitatis et mortis ejus omnino non meminit. Quod vero Tertullianus sub finem libri de praescript. hanc partem TiapacppaaTtxuig ita reddit: Cujus neque initium, neque finis comprehensus sit aut comprehendi possit, ad rem per Melchisedech adumbratam, id est ad Christum, proprie pertinet.
Assimilatus autem Filio Dei, manet sacerdos in perpetuum, Absolvitur hic periodus inchoata ab initio capitis. Melchisedech assimilatum Filio Dei nonnulli intelligunt, quod, praeter omnia jam enumerata, etiam vitaet actionibus suis Christum Dei Filium expresserit. Atqui verisimilius est, Apostolum ad superiora respicere; quasi dicat, in illis omnibub eum gessisse figuram et similitudinem Filii Dei. Refelluntur hac parte, qui Melchisedech dixerunt esse Filium Dei. Nam quomodo, si esset Dei Filius, assimilatus diceretur Filio Dei. Quod sequitur: Manet sacerdos in perpetuum, similem cum superioribus sensum habet. Sicut enim patris, ac matris, ac generis expers dicitur Melchisedech, et nec initium vitae, nec finem habere, quia nihil horum scriptum est: ita manere dicitur sacerdos in perpetuum sive in aeternum (haec enim Apostolo sunt eadem), quia de fine sacerdotii ejus nihil scriptum invenitur. Hic jam quaerendum, quo pacto, quae de Melchisedech dicta sunt ab eo loco: sine patre etc, applicanda sint ad Christum Dei Filium. Nam quomodo Christus sine patre, sine matre,. qui et Patrem habet ab aeterno secundum naturam divinam, et Matrem accepit in tempore secundum naturam humanam? Quomodo, inquam, sine patre, quem ipsum hic nominat Filium Dei? Item quomodo sine genealogia cum longa serie cam describant Matthaeus et Lucas; nec secundum naturam superiorem genealogia careat, qui patrem habet? Multi respondent, Christum esse sine patre, sine matre, quod patre care?t secundum naturam humanam, matre secundum divinam. Item sine genealogia, quod nec divina ejus generatio mente comprehendi possit, nec humana per naturam cognosci. At vero Apostolum haec spectasse, non est verisimile. Neque enim significat, Melchisedech fuisse typum Christi peculiariter in eo, quod est sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia; sed in eo, quod nec initium dierum habet, nec finem vitae; per hoc enim aeternitas manifeste significatur. Ut autem Scriptura Melchisedech introduceret, nec initium, nec finem vitae habentem, oportuit patrem ejus, et matrem, et genus taceri. Nam si horum quidquam proditum fuisset, jam hoc ipso diceretur, eum non esse principii et finis expertem. Sentit igitur Apostolus, per haec omnia silentio suppressa, quatenus serviunt aeternitati significandae, Melchisedech praetulisse in se figuram Christi aeterni. Notandum obiter adversus Arianos Apostolicum dogma, Filium Dei non habere principium, ex quo coeperit esse; licet principium, et, ut Graeci loquuntur hoc loco, causam habeat, a qua sit genitus, ipsum,scilicet Patrem.
7:4
4. Intuemini autem, quantus sit hic. Attentionem excitat, quumdicit: Intue^ mini. Quamvis enim Graecum verbum, aeque ut Latinum, ambigui sit modi, contextus tamen sermonis imperativum magis postulat. Unde Erasmus vertit: con~ siderate. Observant eliam Sasboldus et Galenus, Graecum ^swpelv scholasticum esse verbum, Theologis accommodatum, qui Scripturas allegorice tractant. Quomodo Dionysius et Chrysostomus eo vocabulo utuntur. Nam et in universum scientiae, quae in nuda veritatis contemplatione versantur, theoreticae dicuntur, id est contemplativae. Quasi ergo dicit Apostolus: Hic mecum exercete theoriam vestram allegoricam, et considerate, quantus sit MelchisedecL, videlicet in typo ct significatione; ut qui ipsi etiam Abrahamo videatur praelatus. Hoc enim est, quod sequitur:
Cui et decimas dedit de praecipuis Abraham Patriarcha. Krasmus et Ilentenius vertunt: de spoliis, Theophylacti interpres: de primitiis; quomodo etiam legit Augustinus lib. 10. de Gen. ad literam cap. 19. Graeca vox dxpo^ivia significat praecipua, quae sive ex frugibus, sive ex spoliie Deo solent offerri; tametsi nonnulli putant, ad ea proprie pertinere, quae propter liberationem e periculo quopiam ofieruntur. Cum autem in Genesi legatur Abraham dedisse decimas ex omnibus, quod et hic paulo acie dixit Apostolus, nunc dicit: ex praecipuis, explicandi simul et ampliticandi causa. Non enim sensus est, Abraham selegisse praecipua, quae habebat in spoliis, et ex iis praecipuis decimam partem dedisse Melchisedech (nam hoc pacto non omnium spoliorum decimas dedisset), sed pro decim*s elegisse ex spoliis praecipua et praestantissima, quae daret. Id enim et postea in lege praeceptum fuit, pro decimis meliora seligenda esse, Num. 18. Nam etsi legi satisfaceret, qui daret decimam secundum justam aestimationem, tamen pietatis erat, ac proroptae vohintatis, meliora dare; praesertim quia cavendum omnino erat, ne deteriora darentur. Hoc enim injustitiae ac defraudationis crimen fuisset. Medium autem, quod neque excederet, neque deficeret, exacte invenire difficile erat. Abraham vero, qui ante legem fuit, qua animi liberalitate decimas dedit, lege non astrictus, eadem pro decimis obtulit ac dedit praestantiora. Sensum hunc indicavit Syrus interpres, quando vertit: decimas et primitias, exegetice conjunctionem accipiens, quasi dicat: Decimas, quae essent prima seu praecipua. Porro epitheton patriarcha manifestam emphasim habet in Graeco, tum propter articulum appositum, tum quia a nomine separatum, et post sententiam quasi completam studiose adjunctum. Sic enim dicitur: Cui et decimas Abraham dedit ex praecipuis, ille patriarcha. Nomen patriarchae, si etymon spectes, sonat aut patrem principew., hoc est, eum, qui non quomodocumque pater est, sed princeps alicujus familiae seu cognationis ex se genitae; aut patrum principem, id est, eum, ex quo patres orti sunt. Quae duae interpretationes etsi parum differant, posterior tamen magis videtur consentanea Scripturis. Nam 1 Par. 8., ubi noster textus habet: Hi patriarchae et cognationum principes, qui habitaverunt in Jerusalem, in Hebraeo legitur: Hi capita patrum, generationibus suis capita. Sed et in praecedentibus ejusdem loci haec appellatio saepe repetitur, qua videlicet capita patrum dicuntur, qui familiarum sunt principes. Unde et hoc loco pro patriarcha Syrus interpres posuit: caput patrum. Cum igitur Isaac et Jacob, et hujus duodecim filii vocantur patriarchae, ut Act. 7., item David Act. 2., eadem istius vocabuli significatio retinenda est. Omnes enim hi propagatione generis multorum patrum principes et capita facti sunt. Sed Abrahae prae aliis illud nomen adscribitur, quoniam inter patres, quorum nomine Judaei gloriantur, Abraham supremus est, idemque praecipuus. Itaque sensus Apostoli est: Perpendite, quantus sit ille, cui, tamquam Dei Sacerdoti, magnus ille patriarches Abraham decimas liberaliter obtulit, ipsaque decimarum oblatione minorem se illo professus est; atque hinc colligite, etiam sacerdotss vestros Leviticos, ex Abraham progenitos, eodem Melchisedech inferiorcL esse; et proinde sacerdotium Christi, cujus typum gessit Melchisedech, sacerdotio Levitico h)nge praecellsre. Huc enim tendit Apostoli disputatio, quemadmodum sequentia docent.
7:5
5. Et quidem de filiis Levi sacerdotium accipientes. Hoc est: Et ii quidem, qui ex filiis Levi sacerdotio funguntur. Ita loqv.itar, quia non omnes Levitae sacerdotes erant, sed ex iis soli filii Aaron. Quare praeter Apostoli mentem est, quod Erasmus, liac iii parte etiam a Calvino reprehensus, plano textu relicto, coacta quadam paraphrasi vertit: Qui, quod sint de numero filiorum Levi, sacerdotii functionem sumunt; quasi causa significetur. Quod non voluit Apostolus.
Mandatum habent decimas sumere a populo secundum legem. Decimas su~ mere, unum in Graeco verbum est cltzqdexaxouv, id est decimare. Quod et simpliciter SsxaTOUv dicitur, ut hic infra semel et iterum. Quare ad verbum e Graeco vertendam esset: decimare populum. Sed interpretes sensum optime reddiderunt. Legitur idem vocabulum Matth. 23. et Luc. 11.: Vae vobis, qui decimatis mentam etc. Verum ibi non significat: accipere decimas, sed dare; sicut et Luc. 18.: Decimas do omnium, quae possideOj et apud LXX. Deut. 14.: Decimam decimabis de omnibus fructibus etc. Licebit consulere Jansenium in cap. 84. Conc. evangel., de voce tam Graeca, quam Hebraica, quae nunc active, nunc passive sumitur. Lex, cujus meminit Apostolus, habetur Num. 18.: Filiis Levi, ait Dominus, dedi omnes decimas Israelis in possessionem pro ministerio, quo serviunt mihi in tabernaculo foederis. Et infra: Legitimum sempiternum erit in generationibus vestris. Ubi primum quaeritur, quomodo dicat Apostolus, sacerdotes habere mandatum accipiendi decimas a populo, cum lex non praecipiat accipere, sed dare. Respondent B. Thomas et Sasboldus, mandatum intelligi populo datum, sed pro sacerdotibus constitutum; ut sensus sit: Mandatum habent, quo populo praecipitur decimas ipsis dare; ex quo consequens fit, eos habere potestatem accipiendi decimas a populo. Verum simplicius est, si dicamus, mandatum sumi generaliter pro constitutione legis, sive praecipientis, sive concedentis ac potestatem facientis, sive tantum permittentis. Sic Act. 15. dicunt Apostoli: Quidam ex nobis exeuntes turbaverunt vos, quibus non mandavimuSy id est, quibus a nobis non est facta potestas. Et Marc. 10. Pharisaelts dicentibus: Moses permisit libellum repudii scribere et dimiltere, respondens Jesus, ait: Ad duritiam cordis vestri scripsit vobis praeceptum istud, id est, constitutionem permissivam. Ergo sensus Apostoli est, Sacerdoteshabere decretum legis, quo detur eis potestas accipiendi a populo decimas. Unde ex hoc loco non habetur, sacerdotes praecepto teneri ad accipiendum,. sive exigendum decimas, aut alia jura sibi a populo debita. Quamquam non negamus, revera teneri, quatenus interest Ecclesiae et successorum. Alioqui tempore et loco dissimulandum esse jus hujusmodi, seu vitandi scandali, seu promovendi Evangelii causa, praeclare suo exemplo nos docuit Paulus 1 Cor. 9. Alia quaestio est, cur mandatum decimarum peculiaritpr assignet sacerdotibus, cum non soli sacerdotes, sed in universum Levitae, secundum legem Num. 18. supra citatam, decimas acciperent. Hujus duplicem adfert rationem B. Thomas, utrarcque in verbis ipsius legis satis evidenter fundatam. Una ratio est, quia Levitae non accipiebant decimas, nisi in quantum erant sacerdotum ministri, atcjue ita non propter ipsos, sed propter sacerdotes dabantur eis decimae. Altera ratio, quia Levitae decimas accipiebant decimandas, ut qui decimam decimae solvere debebant sacerdotibus. Itaque soli sacerdotes sic accipiebant, ut non solverent. Nam quod lex statuit, ut Levitae decimam partem decimae dent Aaroni sacordoti, non ad solum pontificem putandum est pertinere, quod sentit Liranus, sed in Aarone posteritas ejus, quae tota sacerdotalis erat, intelligenda venit; quemadmodum post S. Thomam Cajetanus intellexit in commentario Num., et anto utrumque B Hieronymus, exponens illud Ezech. 45.: lit hae sunt primitiae, quas toUetis. Imo et Josephus lib. 4. antiq. Jud. cap. 4. Qui sane, cum sacerdos Leviticus fuerit, usum hujus legis ignoraro non potuit. Sed quoniam Apostolus loquitur de decimis, quas sacerdotes accipiebant non a Levitis, sed a populo, propterea magis placet ratio priori loco allata. Id estj a fratrihm suis. Exponi-t, quem dixerit populum, quasi dicat: Non a populo diversae gentis aut generis, sed a fratribus suis, id est, hominibus ex eodem Patriarcha progenitis. Hos enim Scriptura passim fratres appellat. Cur adjecerit hanc partem, mox apparebit.
Quamquam et ipsi exierint de lumbis Abrahae. Et ipsi, non est in Graeco. Verbum exierint in Latino dubium, quo releratur, ad sacerdotes, an ad fratres. Sed Graeca manifest^ referunt ad fratres. Sic enim habent: id est, fratres suos (scilicet decimant), licet egres- 808 e lumbis Abraham. Hebraea phrasi de lumbis alicajus egredi dicuntur qui ex eo secundum carnem nascuntur, ut Genes. 35.: Reges de lumbis tuis egredientur, et 2 Par. 6.: Filius tuus, qui egredietur de lumbis tuis. Locutio similis illi, qua dicuntur Gen. 46. egressae de femore Jacob sexaginta sex animae. Quarum quidem locutionum ratio potius ab honestate petenda, qua, quod verecundum est, tegitur, ut facit Hieronymus in epist. 22., quae est ad Eustoch. cap. 5., quam a causis physicis, quas hic nonnulli proferunt. Nam et Syius interpres hoc loco, et iterum paulo post, non lumbos, sed femur transtulit. Porro difficultatem hic facit adversativa conjunctio quamquam. Non enim apparet, quem usum habeat. Graeci putant, urgeri sacerdotii dignitatem, quod, qui eo funguntur, altiores sunt propriis fratribus, eundem secum progenitorem habentibus. Alii Graecam particulam xaiTicp non adversative accipiunt, sed aetiologice; quasi dicat Apostolus: a fratribus suis, utpote egressis, perinde ut ipsi, e lumbis Abrahae. Qui sensus clarus est, et ab Erasmo redditus in paraphrasi; prior tamen videtur melior.
7:6
6. Cujus autem generatio non annumeratur in eis, decimas sumpsit ah Abraham. Graeca sic sonant: Qui autem non est genealogizatus ex eis etc. Sjrus ita vertit: Qui non est scriptus in genealogiis ipsurum. Graeci verbi significationem jam ante exposuimus, tractantes illud: sine genealogia. Quod autem in Graeco est: ex eis, Sasboldus exponit: inter eos, \\i conveniat cum vulgata versione. Potest etiam sic intelligi: ex eis, id est, ex eorum majoribus, ut sit sensus: Ille vero, qui nusquam in genealogiis illius populi recensetur tamquam ex ipsorum patribus ortus, accepit decimas ab Abraham. Hic innuitur Melchisedech non prorsus caruisse genere. Qui enim dicit, genus ejus non recenseri inler illos aut ex illis, tacite significat, eum aliunde genus habere. Nunc argumentationem Apostolicam explicemus. Sacerdotes, inquit, Levitici decimas accipiunt a fratribus, id est, Abrahae posteris; nec ultra se jus eorum et dignitasextendit. AtMelchisedech, quamvis alienigena, ab Abraham, Patriarcha ac totius generis auctore, decimas accepit. Item illi decimas accipiunt legis beneficio; idque non, nisi probent genus suum; atqui nihil tale Abraham a Melchisedech requisivit, ut ei decimas daret; sed ultro obtulit, solam in eo dignitatem reveritus. Ex quibus omnibus facile est ratiocinando colligere, quanto fuerit major Levitis Melchisedech, majusque sacerdotium hujus sacerdotioaliorum. Quod si Melchisedech tjpus fuit et figura Christi, sicut ostensum est supra: quanto jam oportet, ipsum Christum ejusque sacerdotium Levitis et Levitico sacerdotio praecellere.
Et hunc, qui hahehat repromissiones, benedixit. Commode subnectit alterum argumentum, a benedictione sumptum, quo doceat, Melchisedech fuisse Abrahamo majorem. Sicut enim sacerdoti competit jus accipiendi decimas, ita et officium benedicendi. Quasi ergo dicit: Adhuc intuemini, quantus sit hic, qui Abrahae benedixit, viro tanto, qui promissiones haberet. Est enim epitasis in illa notatione: qui habebat repromissiones. Nam significatur eximia quaedam dignitas Abrahae, quem unum ex omnibus elegisset Deus, cui magnificas illas faceret promissiones, quas in Genesi legimus. Jam enim dictum erat ei a Domino Gen. 12.: Faciam te in gentem magnam, et benedicam tibij et magnificabo nomen tuum, erisque benedictus; item: In te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae; et cap. 13.: Omnem terram, quan^ conspicis, tibi dabo et semini tuo usque in sempiternum • faciamque semen tuum sicut pulverem terrae etc.
7:7
7. Sine ulla autem contradictione, quod minus est, a meliore benedicitur. Contradictione, id est controversia. Sic enim eandem vocem Graecam vertit capite superiori. Et quod habemus: a meliore, alii vertunt: a majore, vel: ab eo, quod majus est. Minus enim dicitur respectu majoris. Interpres Theophylacti transtulit: a potiori. Graecus comparativus xpciTTOVOc; ad haec omnia facile patet. IUud obiter admoneo, quamvis dictio minus etiam in Graeco sit neutri generis, obliquum tamen meliore etiam in Graeco posse ad utrumque genus accommodari, neutrum scilicet et masculinum. Ac forte rectius masculinum intelligitur. Nam etsi non solum personae, sed et res benedicuntur, benedicere tamen proprie fcolius personae est. Itaque malim: a meliore, vel: a majore: quam cum Erasmo: ab eo, quod majus est. Porro peispicua est Apostoli argumentatio. Minor est, qui benedicitur, major, qui benedicit; atqui Melchisedech benedixit Abrahae; ergo est eo major. Ex qua conckisione quid uberius colligi velit, jam supra diximus, et ipse paulo pojt aperiet. Sed dicet aliquis: Quomcdo sine con troversia verum est, id, quod minus est, a majore benedici; quum et homines Deo benedicant, et minores majoribus saepe fausta precentur, quod est benedicere? Respondeo, praeter eam benedictionem, qua Deus benedicere dicitur creaturis, quando eis benefacit, duplex esse benedictionis genus in Scripturis. Est enim benedictio laudis et gratiarum actionis, qua homines Deum benedicere dicuntur. Est et benedictio bonae iraprecationis, qua scilicet Gall. £stii Comm. Tom. UI. homines hominibus ea, quae bona sunt et salutaria, precantur a Deo. Sed hoc secundum genus rarsum duplex est. Alia namque tMZ^ttris est benedictio, ad quam sufficit animus favens et benevolus; alia solennis, ad quam requiritur vei officium publicum, vel auctoritas. Priori modo non solum majores minoribus, verum etiam aequales aequalibus et minores majoribus benedicunt. Imo et pueri Hebraeoium hoc genere benedictionis erga Christum. usi sunt, quando ei acclamaverunt: Hosanna • et Simeon senex erga Mariani et Joseph, quando eis benedixit, Luc. 2., et secundum quosdam eiiam erga puerum Jesum. Posteriori modo priuium quidem sacerdotes, tamquam ministri et vicarii Dei, benedicunt populi), sicut eis praeceptum fuit Num. 6., praescripta etiam verborumformula, quam sequerentur. Unde et ratam eorum benedictionem se habiturum, Dominus ibidem pollicetur, dicens: Jnvocabuntque nomen 7neum super filios Israel, et ego bene' dicam eis. Item Christus, omnium sacerdotum summus, hoc modo benedixit parvulis, Marci 10., et discipulis suis, Luc. 24. Deinde perfinent huc benedictioRes, quibus Isaac et Jacob filiis benedixisse leguntur Gen. 27. et 48.; necnon ea benedictio, qua Salomon benedixisse legitur omni Ecclesiae Israel, id est populo ad dedicationem templi congregato. Juxta hunc posteriorem modum extra controversiam est, id, quod mirms est, a majore benedici; licet contingat, eum, qui vel officio, vel auctoritate major est, ut benedicere possit, aliis partibus esse minorem, ut sanctitate vel potentia saeculari. Quod autem hoc modo Melchisedech benedixerit Abrahae, manifestum est ex historia, tum qliia describitur sacerdos Dei altissimi, tum quia decimas ei dedifc Abraham. Quod vero objicitur a nonnulHs, Romanum Pontificem consecrari ab Episcopo Ostiensi, et Archiepiscopum ab Episcopis suffraganeis, et corpus Domini a sacerdote; ac proinde, quod majus est, a minore benedici etiam bolenni benedictione, quae ex officio fiat: bene Jiluit E. Thomas in comment. Respondet enim, proprie nec Episcopum consecrare Papam, nec suffraganeos Archiepiscopum, sed Lunc hominem, ut sit Papa vel Archiepiscopus. Similiter nec sacerdotem benedicere corpus Christi, sed materiam, id est panem, ut ex eo fiat corpus Christi. Movetur hic et alia quaestio, quomodo Melchisedech benedixit Abrahae, et ab eo decimas accepit tamquam Dei sacerdos, atque hac ratione ostenditur eo major, quum et ipse Abraham faerit Dei sacerdos, idemque minime subjectus Melchisedech, sed ex diverso geuerc ac gente? Sacerdotem eoim fuisse constat, non quidem ex eo, quia primogenitus fuit (haec enim parum certa et firma nobis videtur probatio), sed quia Scriptura Gen. 15. et ex ea Canon Missae testantur, eum obtulisse Deo sacrificium. Quod utique proprium munus est sacerdotis. Unde et S. Thomas 3. q. 31. art. 2. non dubitat affirmare, Abraham fuisse sacerdotem. Respondet Abulensis, scribens in Gen., Abraham non fuisse ex officio sacerdotem potius, quam alios; sed cum lege non prohiberetur, licuisse tunc ei, sicut et aliis promiscue, sacrificia offerre. Sed haec sententia potestatem sacrificandi sub lege naturae nimium laxat. Sacerdos enim, etiam ex ipsa naturae lege, pro populo constituitur; non autem quivis ex populo. Magis verisimile est, hujusmodi potestatem ad principes familiarum aut civitatam pertinuisse, atque eos vel per se id muneris obivisse, sicut fecerunt Noe et Abraham; vel certos aliquos designasse, quorum illud esset officium. Potius ergo dicendum videtur, Abraham, nt Prophetam, agnovisse in IMelchisedech panem et vinum offerente singularem quandam figuram Christi sacerdotis, quem nec in se, nec in aliis sacerdotibus agnosceret; et huc causa veneratum fuisse eum oblatione decimarum et acceptione benedictionis tamquam se majorem. Nam et inferior sacerdos a superiore benedictionem accipit, ut presbyter ab Episcopo; et usus fidelium habet, ut benedictionem petant ab Episcopo vel sacerdote, tametsi non suo. Non enim ad hunc actum jurisdictio necessaria est. Sic igitur et decimas obtulit honoris causa, non debiti; et quidem ut minor, non tamen ut subjectus. His accedit, quod Melchisedech non depingitur nobis quaUscumque sacerdos, sed pontifex, sive (ut in Canone Missae recitatur) summus sacerdos. Neque enim Christus vocaretur secundum ordinem Melchisedech pontifex seu princepB sacerdotum, Graece apx^sp^'o(^, ut habetur in fine capitis praecedentis et alibi, si Melchisedech pontifex non fuisset. Ex quo apparet, eum ita fuisse sacerdotem, ut etiam aliis quibusdam sacerdotibus praeesset; quod non mirum, siquidem rex erat; item, fuisse nominatum ac celebrem sacerdotem, ad quem sacrificii causa multi aliunde confluerent; ut ob haec non immerito Abraham, qui sacerdos erat, non pontifex, nec nisi suae familiae sacerdos, illum velut se majorem ac digniorem honorandum putaverit.
7:8
8. Et hic quidem decimas morientes homines accipiunt. Hac parte praestantiam sacerdotis Melchisedech supra Leviticum asserit a perpetuitate. Jam enim dixerat, Melchisedech neque initium dierum, neque finem vitae habentem, manere sacerdotem iu perpetuum. Ex eo nunc collationem instituit cum Levitico sacerdotio. Et hic quidem, inquit, hoc est in lege constituta Num. 18., qui decimas accipiunt, homines mortales sunt, quorum morte jus ad alios transit.
Ibi autem contedatur, quia vivit. Multi Latiuorura supplent: contestatur Scriptura: tale quid enim videtur desiderari. Sed sciecdum, in Graeco esse participium |ULapTapo'j,u£VOC, pro quo verisimile est, interpretem vertisse: contestatus, vel: qui contestatur, sensu passivo. Sic enim et alibi verbis et participiis deponentibus utitur interdum, ut supra in hoc capite: qui interpretatur. Sic etiam accipienda lectio, quae est apud Augustinum lib. 10. de Genes. ad lit. cap. 19.: Ibi autem qui testificatur, se vi~ vere j id est qui testimonium habet suae vitae. Porro clarius id ipsum verterunt Erasmus et Hentenius: is, de quo testatum est, quod vivat. Syrus autem, addito nomine, sic reddidit: Is, de quo testata est Scriptura, quodvivat. Sentus igitur est: Ibi vero, id est in historia Genesis, decimas accepit is, cui testimonium perhibetur in Scriptura, quod vivat; quatenus scilicet introducitur vivens, nulla de morte ejus aut successore faota usquam mentione. Nam Aaronis, Eleazari et aliorum sacerdotum Leviticorum mortem et successores in Scriptura legimas; at de Melchisedech nihil ejusmodi; ut ipso silentio perpetuitas sacerdotii Christi, cujus ille typum gerebat, ostenderetur; quemadmodum expositura est illud superius: sine 'patre, sine matre, et quae sequuntur. Sunt, qui existiment, Apostolum respicere ad versum Psalmi: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Verum illic non Melchisedech, sed antitypon ejus Christus praenuutiatur sacerdos in aeternum.
7:9
9. Et, ut ita dictum sit, per Abraham, et Levi, qui decimas accepit, decimatus est. Pro accepit, in multis tam impressis, quam manuscriptis codicibus, et quorundara Latinorum commentariis legitur: accipit, praesenti tempore. Quae lectio consonat Graeco textui. Juxta quem etiam Augustinus loco supra citato legit ad hunc modum: Propter Abraham et Levi accipiens decimam, decimatus est. Ubi, quod habet: propter Abraham, Graeca quidem etiam admittunt; sed ut potius vertatur: ver Abraham, sicut habent omnes aliae interpretationes, sensus Apostoli plane requirit. Est autem haec extensio superiovis argumenti, quo conclusum erat, Melchisedech esse Abrahamo majorem, propteiea quod et decimas ab eo accepisset, et benedictionem impev- tiisset. Poterat enim quaeri: Quid hoc ad Levitas aut Leviticum sacerdotium tanto post institutum; maxime cum Levitici sa- cerdotes non solvant decimas, sed accipiant? Td quomodo ad Levitas pertineat, nunc docet: Quoniam, inquit, per Abraham etiam Levi, qui decimas accipit, decimatus est. Hoc est: Tn Abrahamo decimas dante sacerdoti Melchisedech etiam Levitica tribus, quae secundum legem accipit a fratribus, decimas dedit, et consequenter (quod Apostolus intelligendum reliquit) etiam benedictionem accepit. Nam et ipsa decimarum pensiono prcfitentur homines, se vicissim expetere et exsj>ectare benedictionem a sacerdote ut Dei raitiistro. Quoniam autem obscure minusque pvoprie dicitur, eum, qui non est, decimari per alium, ideo praemollit sermonem, inquiens: Vt ita dictum sit, sive: Ut ita dicam; quasi dicat: Quodam modo loquendi. Deinde, quo sensu dictum sit, explicat verbis subjunctis:
7:10
10. Adhuc enim in lumbis patris erat, quando obviavit ei Melchisedech. Dixi, inquit, Levi decimatum fuisse per Abraham, quia, quando Melchisedech obviam ivit Abiahae, et decimas ab co accepit, Levi cum tota sua posteritate adhuc erat in lumbis patris, id est proavi sui Abrahae; ut pvopterea cum eo et per eum decimatus jure censeri debeat. Nam sicut mysterii causa factum est, ut Abraham decimas daret Melchisedech: ita quoque, ejusdem mysterii ratione, non tantum pro se ipso dedit, ac dare se fortassis intellexit, sed et pro tota sua prosapia, quae in lumbis ipsius esset, in qua erant et Levitae; praesertim cum tota dignitas illius generis, ut ait S. Thomas, ex Abraham esset. Quo proinde decimato, tota generis massa decimata intelligituv. Jam si Levitae decimati sunt a Melchisedech, sunt igitur eo minores, et per consequens eorum sacerdotium inferius sacerdotio Melchisedech, ac multo magis sacerdotio Christi per sacerdotium Melchisedech praefigurato. Sed dices, hac ratione Christum quoque Melchisedech minovem ostendi. Nam sicut tvibus Levi decimata est in Abraham, sic et tribus Juda, ex qua ortus est Christus, ut infra dicitur. Etenim non minus Juda, quam Levi, in lumbis erat Abrahae, quando obviavit ei Melchisedech. Hunc nodum ita nonnulli soivuut, ut dicant, ab hac lege decimationis illum exceptum intellioi debere, cujus figura fuit ipse decimarum acceptor, id est Cbrislum. AUter, ac nostro judicio doctius, solvit Augustinus lib. 10. de Genes. ad iH. cap. 29. Kespondet enim, non ita Christum in lumbis Abrahae fuisse, Hicut Levi et caeteros Abrahae posteros. Nam, inquit, secundum rationem seminalem ibi fuit Levij qua ratione per concubitum ven-turus erat in matrem; secundum. quam rationem non ibi erat Christi caro. Et postpauca: Levi in lumbis fuit Abra^ hae secundum concupisctntiani carnalem; Christus autem secundum substantiam corporalem. Cum enim sit iji semine et visibilis corpuJentia, et invisibilis ratio, utrumque cucurrit ex Abraham, vel etiam ex ipso Adam, usque ad corpus Mariae, quia et ipsum eo modo conceptum et exortum est. Christus autem visibilem carnis substantiam de carne Virginis sumpsit; ratio vero conceptionis ejus non a semine virili, sed longe aliter ac desuper venit. Haec et plura eo loco Augustinus. Verum instabis adhuc, et quaeres, cur Christus ob id saltem non possit dici decimatus in Abraham, quia in lumbis ejus fuit secundum corporalem substantiam; quandoquidem hac ratione vere et proprie vocetur filius Abrahae Matth. 1., et semen ejus Gen. 22. et Gal. 3., sicut et filius David apud Evangelistas, et fructus ventris ejus Psalm. 131.? Ad hoc respondet quidam, Christum idcirco non esse decimatum in Abraham, sicut caeteros ejus filios, quia non sic omnino filius Abrahae fuit, ut caeteri; utpote qui non solum nati fuerint ex iis, quos Abraham per concubitum procreavit, verum etiam a proximis parentibus ipsi simili modo geniti; quod a Christo alienum est. Is enim etsi natus sit ex matre per concubitum procreata, non tamen ipse ex ea sic genitus est. Summa responsionis est, decimarum servitutem sequi naturalem modum nascendi, non supernaturalem; quia, qui hoc modo na.=;citur, sicut naturali lege nascendi superior est, ita et lege decimarum. Ita quidam non male. 8ed pleniorem ac profundiorem hujus objectionis solutionem, utpote sumptam ex mystica ratione decimationis, indicat Augustinus eodem loco, verbis sequentibus, ubi ait: Non autem et ille ibi decimatus est, cujus caro inde non fervorem vulneris, sed mattriam medicami' nis traxit. Nam cum ipsa derimatio ad praeflgurandam medicinam pertineat, illud in Abrahae carjie decimabatur, quod curabatur; ncn illud, unde curabatur, et quae sequuntur. Ex quibus intelligitur, sobos illos Abrahae posteros in eo decimatos luisse, et benedictionem accepisse, qui secundum carnalem concupiscentiam ex eo geniti, ideoque peccato ac maledicto obnoxii, decimatione egr.erunt contra culpam, et benedictione contra maledictionem. Ideo namque decimae sacerdoti offeruntur, ut ille pro peccatis offerentium deprecetur. Cum igitur Christus solam carnis substantiam ex Abraham traxerit, non etiam vitium carnis inde contraxerit, utique nec decimatus in Abraham dicendus est, nec benedictione donatus, nihilo magis, quam dicsndus sit in Adam praevaricatus, in cujus itidem lumbis secundum corporalem substantiam, non secundum carnalem concupiscentiam fuit. Hanc Augustini responsionem probant et explicant Hugo Victorinus lib. 2. de sacramentis, cap. 5., et Petrus Lombardus lib. 5. sent. dist. 3., et communiter sequuntur scholastici doctores. Sed priusquam progrediamur in commentario, removenda est quaedam haereticorum objectio, quam ex Apostolo de Melclusedecb disserente movent Catholicis adversus sacrificium Missae, quod in Ecclesia jugiter celebratur. Cum enim Catholica sit doctrina, sacrificium hocesse institutum a Christo in ultima coena, quando sub speciebus panis et vini corpus suum et sanguinem Deo Patri obtulit, tamquam sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, de quo legitur Gen. 14., quod protulit panem et vinum, nimirum sacrificii causa, propterea quod esset sacerdos Dei altissimi, gerens iu se typum Christi; totum hoc evertere nituntur hujusmodi argumento: Nimirum, quod si in illa oblatione Melchisedech mysterium aliquod erat pertinens ad Christi sacerdotium, nequaquam id hoc loco praetermisisset Apostolus, qui alia, iu quibus etiam minus erat momenti, inquit Calvinus, accurate adeo, ac propemodum scrupuloFe excutit. Ut hoc argumentum refellatur, quod est ab auctoritate negativum, tantum opus est, ut rationem reddamus, cur Apostolus oblationis illius mentionem omiserit hoc loco. Ubi primum respondoo, nos jam dudum ex Apostolo didicisse, non solum in verbis Scripturae, sed interdum etiam in silentio mjsterium subesse. Sicut ergo silentium Mosi de nativitate, morle, parentibus ac genere Melchisedech non caret mysterio: ita dicimus, silentium Pauli de pane et vino, a Melchisedech oblato, non carere juotissima ratione. Quare qui ex hoc Pauli silentio statuunt errorem suum, quo negant sacrificium Missae, non dissimiles sunt antiquis haereticis, qui ex memorato Mosi silentio colligebant, Melchisedech esse vel Dei Filium, vel Spiritum sanctum. Porro rationes, cur de sacrificio panis et vini tacuerit Apostolus, sunt duae. Prior et praecipua, qaia mentio illius sacrificii nihil faciebat ad Apostoli institutum. Quoniam enim Hebraei, ad quos scribit, quamvis jam fidem amplexi, tamenadhuc in pretio habebant sacerdotium Leviticum, et ab ejus ministerio per sacrificiapurgationem peccatorum exspectabant, studium Apostoli est, eos ab illo infirmo jamque inani sacerdotio revocare, atque ad Christi sacerdotium, et vim ejus agnoscendam adducere. Milita igitur praefatus in praecedentibus de excellentia personae Christi, tandem ad sacerdotium ejus descendit. Cujus dignitatem ut commendet, profert in medium sacerdotem Melchisedech tamquam typum Christi sacerdotis, ut cui dictum sit a Deo: I Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum
7:11
ordinem Melchisedech; atque ex iie, quae Scriptura de Melchisedech tradit, Christi sacerdotis eminentiam supra Leviticos sacerdotes ostendit. Huc ergo pertinebat, ut diceret, Melchisedech decimas accepisse ab Abraham, et ei benedixisse. Per hoc enim ostenditur major ipso Abraham, et Levi pronepote ejus ac tota Levitica tribu; sicut ex supeiioribus patet. Eodem spectat, quod nomen ipsius et nomen civitatis, in qua regnabat, interpretatur. Denique quod docet, quodammodo aeternum fuisse. Valent enim haec omnia ad demonstrandam excellentiam Christi supra sacerdotes Leviticos. Quod vero Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulisse legitur, tale non erat, ex quo posset argumentum probabile sumi praecellentiae ejus supra sacerdotes legis; tum quia, si res in se spectetur, non majus est offerre panem et vinum, quam sacrificare viva animalia; tum quoniam et Aaronici sacerdotes secundum legem offerebant quaedam ejusmodi. Non erat ergo, cur Apostolus de pane et vino a Melchisedech oblatis ingereret mentionem. Quin potius, ut eam rem silentio tegeret, altera ratio, quam promisi, suadebat. Etenim sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Domini, quod illa prisca oblatione panis et vmi praefiguratum est, mysterium erat sublimius et secretius, quam quod Apostolus judicaret literis committendum videlicet perventuris, ut erat verisimile, etiam ad Judaeos infideles, quos ad Phil. 3. canes appellat. Scriptum est autem: Nolite sanctum dare canibus, Matth. 7. Et alioqui constat, Ecclesiae primitivae proceres soUicite cavisse, ne mysteria Christianae religionis (inter quae hoc Eucharistiae sacramentum et sacrificium semper primum et maximum habitum fuit) infidelibus, et non initiatij proderentur. Unde toties est illud apud Augustinum, et alios veteres: Norunt fideles. Ob quam causam nec verba, quibus sacramenta perficiuntur, facile scripto proferebant, etiamsi scriberent ad fideles; ut constat ex Dionysio eccles. Hierarch. cap. 1. et ex lDn«)centio I. in epist. 1. decretali. Nec incommode Luc leiertur etiam ilLud, quod Apostolus cap. 5. dixit, grandem sermunem, et ad dicendam ininterpretabilem de Melchisedech sibi restare. Neque eniiu putandus est omnia mystica, quae de eo bunl, expo:?uisse. Verum haec satis ad diluendum argumentum, quod ex mysterio tacito petunt adversarii. Nam ad aliud quod attinet, quo ex ipso contextu liistoriac Geucsis ostendere conantur, iu eo, quod Melchisedech panem et Yinum obtulisse legitur, nullum sacrificii Christiani inysiermm latere, respondebitur infra suo loco.
11. Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat. Postquam de officio et persona Christi sacerdotis egit Apostolus, nunc propius ad institutum primarium accedit, ost,eusurus, adventu Christi, qui est sacerdos secundtim ordinem Melchisedech, abrcgatum esse sacerdotium Aaronicum, et cum eo legem Mosaicam. Consummatio, Graece Tc- ASicoaiCj id est perfectio. Hoc nomine vocat justificationem seu peccatorum remissionem, quod ea hominem perficiat apud Deum, id est amicum Dei et regui ejus haeredem constituat. Tta paulo post ait: mhil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex. Igitur hae sententiae, quibus perfectionem seu consuniraationcrn adimit sacerdotio et legi veteri, conveniunt cum illis, quibus alibi vim justificandi ab eadem lege remcvet, ut Rom. 3.: Ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro; et Gal. 2.: Si per legem justitia, ergo gratis Christus mortuus est. Caeterum quod ait: per sacerdutium Leviticum j id intellige potissimum de sacrificiis. Erat enim quaestio, num per sacrificia cultus Levitici vere et coram Deo remitterentur peccata. Qua de re ex professo disserit infra cap. 9. et 10.
Populus enim sub ipso legem accepit. Sub ipso, Graece Iti' auTig, quod interpres Syrus et alii nonnulli vertunt: in ipso j Theophylacti interpres modo: ad ipsum, modo: super ipso. Graeci tractatores ita videntur exponere, quasi idem valeat, quod per ipsum; faciunt enim hunc sensum: Populus eo sacerdotio usus est, ut per ipsum erudiretur in lege, et omnia legis instituta servaret. Verum nulla ratio est, cur ab eo, quod noster inter])res vertit, quodque etiam Erasmo placuit, recedamus. Utimtur enim Graeci praepositione £"1^ quum volunt significare eura, cujus tempore aliquid gestum est, nt Marc. 2.: Sub Abiathar principe sacerdotum; Luc. 3.: Sub principibus sacerdotum Anna et Caipha; Actor. 11. Sab Stephano; sub Claudio; 1 Tim. 6. Sub Pontio PHato. Ita quod hic dicitar Sub ipso, id est tempore ejus, scilicet sacerdotii Levitici, populus Hebraeus legem accepit. Simili*s, vel eadem potius erant sub priore testamento. Sed dices: Quomodo tempore ejus, cum lex prius data sit, quam institutum sacerdotium? Lex enim datalegitur Exod. 20. et sequentibus; sacerdotium aulem institutum cap. 28. et sequentibus. Respondeo, legis nomine non tantum couseri praecepta decah)gi, et caetera decalogo subjuncta, quae scribuntur in Exodo ante sacerdotii institutionem; sed omnia Dei praecepta, quae populo per Mosen data sunt; quorum multa habentur in Levitico, Numeris et Deut., tradita post institutum sacerdotium. Porro simul innuit Apostolus hac parenthesi connexionem quandam legis et sacerdotii. Nam sacerdotium stabiliendae legis causa fuit institutum; et qualis lex, tale sacerdotium. Oportet enim, ut sacerdotium legi, propter quam instituitur, respondeat. Denique sacerdotium per expiatoria sacrificia veluti redintegrat, quod contra legem fuit peccatum. Unde consequenter intelligi vult, ex abrogatione sacerdotii sequi iegis abrogationem; uti mox apparebit.
Quid adhuc necessarium fuit, secundum ordinem Melchisedech alium sur~ gere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici? Quod interpres vertit: adhuc, Graece fxi, Latinius dixeris: amplius, ultra, praeterea, postea. Quibus fere modis alii transtulerunt. Eadem admonitio est de illo: Noli adhuc aquam bibere, 1 Tim. 5. Tt.em pro verbo fait nihil legitur in Graeco; relinquitur autem intelligendum: fuit ant est. Totius periodi sensus est: Quod si, ut falso existimatis, perfectio hominum Deum colentium, id est justificatio, contingebat per sacerdotium Leviticum, sub quo et cum quo populus legem accepit: quid praeterea tuit opus, alium ac diversum exoriri sacerdotem, qui non secundum ordinem Aaron diceretur, sed secundum ordinen~ Melchisedech? Argumentatio potest sic explicari: Si Leviticum sacerdotium perficiebat, ergo frustra promissus fuit a Deo per Davidem alius sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech; hoc autem dici non potest; ergo vim perficiendi non habebat sacerdotium Leviticum, et proinde cessare debuit ac cedere sacerdotio perfectiori; non ipsum sohim, sed una cum lege sibi connexa. Hoc enim est, quod sequitur:
7:12
12. Translato enim sacerdotio, necesse estj ut et legis translatio fiat, Arbitratur Gaignaeus, enim pro autem vel atqui positum esse, tamquam sic ratiocinetur Apostolus: Si necesse fuit, alterius ordinis surgere sacerdotem; ergo transferendum est sacerdotium Aaronicum. Atqui translato sacerdotio, necesse est, et legem transferri; igitur, si necesse fuit, alium surgere sacerdotem, legem quoque transferri oportuit. Potuit tamen retineri significatio causalis, ut haec pars respiciat ad illam superiorem: Populus enim sub ipso legem accepit. Quasi dicat Apostolus: Ideo cum sacerdotio legem conjunxi, ut intelligatis, sacerdotium sine lege transferri non posse; sed *dum illud transfertur, necessarium esse, ut simul et ista transferatur. Est enim participium translato praesentis temporis in Graeco, ne quis imaginetur, prius transferri sacerdotium, deinde legem. Quamvis enim Christus, ex quo factus est homo, sacerdos faerit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, non tamen facta est veteris sacerdotii translatio, nisi quando Christus sacerdotio functus est in cruce; quo tempore simul facta est translatio legis. Sed quarepotius utitur vocabulo translationis, quam mutationis? Nimirum ut significet, non quomodocumque mutandum fuisse sacerdotium in aliud, sed transferendum ex una tribu ad aliam. Ex quo jam manifestius sequitur, una cum sacerdotio legem etiam transferri oportere, quia, lege manente, non poterat sacerdotium transferri ad aliam tribum. Porro translationem hujusmodi intelligi, declarant verba sequentia.
7:13
13. In quo enim haec dicuntur, de alia tribu est. In quo j Graece ecp' 6v, id est: in quem vel ad quem. Priori modo fere accipiunt interpretes, ut sensus sit: in quem, id est de quo, haec dicuntur. Sed cum illa verba: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum etc. (ad ea namque respicitur), non de aliquo, sed ad aliquem dicantur, nihil sane vetat, quo minus ita vertatur: Ad quem enim haec dicuntur. Explicat Apostolus hac parte emphasim vocabuli alium in eo, quod dixerat, necessarium fuisse, alium surgere sacerdotem. Ubi Graece est sxspov, id est alterum, diversum. Itaque docet, se alium intelligere plane diversum, ut qui de alia tribu sit. Cum enim Psalmus ille, qui incipit; Dixit Dominus Domino meo, consentientibus etiam Judaeorum magistris (ut ex Evangelio patet), scriptus sit de Christo, quem filium esse David iidem magistri profitebantur, consequens erat, eum, cui dicitur in eodem Psalmo: Tu es sacerdos etc., ad eandem ti'ibum cum Davide pertinere.
De qua nullus altari praesto fuit. Id est adslitit, accessit, ministravit, id est sacerdotio functus est. Ad unam enim tribum Leviticam, et ad unam stirpem Aaronicam jus sacerdotii spectabat; idque tam exacte fuit observatum, ut ne eo quidem tempore, quo populus ille externis regibus parebat, ulla ambitione quisquam apud eos obtinere potuerit sacerdotium, qui non esset de semine Aaron.
7:14
14. Manifestum est enim, quod ex Juda ortus sit Dominus noster. Hoc dicit manifestum esse, quia res eriit in confesso non solum fidelibus, qui credebant, Christum natum esse ex Virgine Mana, quam constabat esse dc tribu Juda; verum etiam Judaeis infidelibus, existimantibus, Jesum esse filium Joseph. Non enim ignorabant, Joseph esse de domo et familia David. Tn qua tribu nihil de sacerdotibus Moses locutus est. Graece: In quam tribum vel ad quam tribum, tametsi hic diversa est praepositio a superiore. N*'nnulli interpretantur: de qua tribu, quemadmodum etSyriaca tr^uslatio habet. Erasmus ita vertendum putavit: Quod ad hanc tribum pertineat. Alius quidam sic: Cujus tribus respectu. Verum et nihil hic obstare video, quo minus id, quod Graeca plane significant, retineatur, scilicet: ad quam tribum, quomodo vertit Hentenius. Moses enim Dei jussu sacerdotes ac sacerdotium instituens, non tribum Juda, sed tribum Levi allocutus est, quando praecepit Aaroni et filiis ejus, ut sacerdotio fungerentur. Adeo vero ad tribum Juda nihil attinebat res sacerdotalis, ut rex Ozias, quum officii illius partem sibi vellet usurpare, continuo fuerit a Deo punitus, 4 Reg. 14. Notandum, in Graeco et Syriaco non haberi: de sacerdotibus, sed: de sacerdotio; quod commodiorem efiSicit sensum. Nam legis translationem probat Apostolus ex translato sacerdotio. Porro sacerdotii translationem probat, quoniam is, cui dicitur: Tu es sacerdos etc, de aiia tribu est. Constat enim, Christum Dominum esse ex tribu Juda. Sed adversus hanc Apostoli prt>bationem objici potest, Christum non solum ex Juda, verum etiam ex ^ribu Levitica, quae sacerdotalis erat, genus duxisse; ideoque potuisse altari ministrare, non qua parte de tribu Juda orat, sed qua de tribu Levi; et proinde infirma ratione concludi sacerdotii translationem ad aliam tribum. Etenim multorum Patrum, tam Latinorum, quam Graecorum, celebrata sententia est, Christum, qui rex erat et sacerdos, ad utramque tribum pertinuisse, regiam et sacerdotalem. Sic inter alios sentiunt Hilarius can. 1. in Matth., Ambrosius sub initium lib. 3. in Lucam et lib. de benedict. patriarch. cap. 3. et 4., Augustinus lib. 2. de consensu Evang. cap. 2. et q. 61. inter 83., et eum secutus Beda super Luc. 1.; denique S. Thomas p. 3. q. 3L a. 2. ad 2. Item Graeci, Nazianzeuus in carmine do geneal. Christi, Epiphanius in haeresi Antidicomarianitarum, etEuthymiussuperLuc. 1. Etquidem Augustinus priori loco citato dicit, firmissime tenendum esse, carnem Christi ex utroque geuerc propagatam. Hujus sententiae praecipuum argumentum est, quia Maria, mater Domini, angelo teste, cognata fuit Elisabeth, quae erat de filiabus Aaron, Luc. 1. Nam quod Hilarius et Ambrosius scribunt, Nathan, qui apud Lucam ponitur in genealogia Salvatoris, fuisse de tribu Levi, manifeste falluntur, quum Lucas ipse de eo scribat: Qui fuit David. Est enim is, qui inter filios David ex Bethsabee procreatos numeratur, 2 Reg. 5. et Par. 3. Quamquam, etsi is esset Nathan Propheta, qui Davidem reprehendit, ut illi Patres putarunt, non tamen liqueret, sacerdotem fuisse. Nam extra tribum Leviticam multi fuerunt Prophetae. Longe minoris momenti est ea narratio, quam refert Suidas in verbo Jesus, ex confe.esione Theodosii cujusdam Judaei; videlicet Jesum a Leviticis sacerdotibus in ipsorum numerum aliquando adscriptum fuisse, quum probatum esset, ex tribubus Juda et Levi mixtum esse ejus genus. Hanc onira fr.bulam, sive a Judaeo, sive a quoquam alio confictam, docte refellit Hentenius adcalcem Euthymii in Evangelia a se conversi. Taceo delirium Fausti Manichaei, qui ex apocrypho quodam afiirmabat, matrem Domini B. Mariam non ex genere David, ne<(ue ex tribu Juda progenitam, sed ex tribu Levi; ut quae patrem habuisset sacerdotem q uendam nomine Joachim. Quod totum refert et ex Scripturis confutat Augustinus lib. 23. contra Faustum cap. 4. et 9. Caeterum ad objectionem respondeo primum, non constare, fueritne Christus aliqua parte de tribu Levi. Ita quidem opinati sunt Patres memorati; sed nullo certo argumento id ab eis docetur, nec doceri posse arbitramur. Nam ad illud, quod adfertur de cognatione B. Mariae curd Elizabeth (quo argumento motus fuit S. Augustinus ad illam vehementem adsevcrationem), non est difficilis responsio, fieri potuisse, ut Elizabeth, stirpis Aaronicae mulier, per matrem ad tribum Juda pertineret. Neque enim lege prohibeban tur mulieres nubere viris diversae tribus, nisi, sicut habetur Num. ultimo, per hujusmodi conjugium haereditas transitura esset ad aliam tribum, et possessionum secutura confusio. De ea re traditionem hanc referunt Driedo lib. 3. de dogm. cap. 5. p. 4., Jansenius cap. 3. iu Evang., €t Ribera in comment. hnjns loci. Ajunt, Mariam et Elizabeth filias fuisse duarum sororum de domo David, Annae scilicet et Ismeriae; quarum illa genuerit Mariam ex Joachim, viro ejusdem tribus ac familiae; haec autem juncta fuerit sacerdoti, atque ex eo susceperit Elizabeth. Quae res si ita habet, iit certe potuit, jam apparet, quomodo cognatae, imo consobrinae fuerint inter se Maria et Elizabeth, nec tamen in parentibus Mariae tribus Juda cum tribu Levi quoquo pacto fuerit commixta. Suggerit eandem responsionem etiam B. Thomas loco supra citato, licet in alteram opinionem, quae matrem B. Mariae adscribit stirpi Aaronicae, magis propendeat. Sane Chrysostomus, hunc locum Apostoli tractans, asserit, Christum nihil habuisse sacerdotii, videlicet Aaronici; quasi dicat, nuUa parte sui generis attigis.se genus sacerdotale. Quod et alii quidam sentiunt. Veruntamen neque id extra dubitationem est. Nam ut probabile sit, aut etiam constet, utrumque parentem B. Virginis fuisse de tribu Juda, fieri tamen potuit, ut quispiam ex ejus majoiibus, lege non prohibente, conjugem acciperet ex tribu Levi; praesertim cum inter tribum regiam et sacerdotalem satis usitata ac frequens fuisse videatur hujusmodi conjunctio. Quare, ut objectioni propositae plenius satisfiat, dicendum est, etiamsi Christus ad tribum Levi pertinuisset aliquo modo, juxta praedictorum Patrum opinionem, minime tamen per hoc enervari vim argumentationis Apostolicae. Non enim absolute poterat quisquam apud Israelitas censeri in aliqua tribu, nisi per patrem lineamque virilem, ne sortium ac possessionum, aut etiam dignitatum cujusque tribus permixtio fieret et confusio. Unde in genealogiis texendis viri soli nominabantur; mulierum tantum obiter et ex obliquo mentio fiebat. Id quod etiam observare est in utraque genealogia Salvatoris ab Evangelistis conscripta; necnon in omnibus aliis, quas Scripturae recensent. Tantum exceptio est in B. Virgine, quae quia non ex viro concepit et peperit, sed ex Spiritu S., non potest a Christi filii sui genealogia removeri, utpote qui non nisi per eam genus duxerit a majoribus, ita sane, ut mater Virgo matris simul et patris vices in ejus conceptione suppleret, quoniam et totam carnis Christi materiam praebuit, et vim generativam, quam in aliarum mulierum uteris exercet semen virile, sanguinibus suis purissimis inditam accepit a Spiritu sancto. Ex his orgo consequitur, Aaronicum sacerdotium ad Jesum, Mariae filium, ratione generis nullo modo pertinuisse, quoniam, etsi B. Maria vel matrem, vel aliquam superiorem progenitricem habuisset ex tribu sacerdotali, non ideo tamen ejus filius secundum legem aut altari assistere, aut sacerdotale quidquam sibi vendicare poluit. Quare, cum Scriptura per Davidem deferat ei sacerdotium, transfertur utique sacerdotii dignitas ad hominem alterius tribus.
7:15
15. Et amplius adhuc manifestum est. Scilicet, legem transferendam atque mntandam esse. Hoc enim est, quod infert, quibusdam Interpositis, cum ait: i?6prohatio quidem fit praecedentis man~ dati. Nam instituit hic Apostolus novo argumento probare veteris legis abrogationem.
Si secundum similitudinem Melchisedech exsurgat alius sacerdos. Sciendom est, prolixitatem periodi sequentis cum parenthesi media, a paucis animadversam, fefellisse Erasmum et alios interpretes, imo et auctorem Syriacae translationis, ut in vertendo hoc loco minus assecuti fuerint mentem Apostoli. Unus vulgatus interpres, ut simplicius caeteris, ita et melius vertit; et quidem optime, si textus bene distinguatur. Nam, ut prae aliis docte et subtiliter 8. Thomas hunc locum expendit, tota oratio ab hoc initio usque ad illud exclusive: Et quantum est, non sine jurejurando, argumentatio conditionalis est, in qua sunt duo antecedentia et duo consequentia; iuterseritur autem totius antecedentis probalio, quum dicitur: Contestatur enim etc. Quae sententia si notis parentheticis intercludatur, erit contextus orationis Apostolicae multo clarior. Sed ad ipsius textus expositionem accingamur. Quod supra aliquoties dixit, Christum esse sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melcbisedecb, id nunc dicit secundum similitudinem Melcbisedecb. Ubi non est existimandum, voluisse Apostolum aliquid diversum dicere, sed potius alterum per alterum explicare. Nam et Syrus interpres similitudinem vertit, ubicumque nos baberans ordinem. Quid vero per ordi' nem seu similitudinem tam Propheta, quam Apostokis intelligant, paubj post exponemus.
7:16
16. Qui non secundum legem mandati carnalis factus est, sed secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis. Relativum qui, sunt, qui referant ad Melcbisedecb, ul et meminit Tbeopbylactus; idque non prorsus inepte. Nam ad Melcbisedecb facile possunt haec accom.modari. Verum probatio subjuncta satis ostendit referendum ad id, quod proxime praecedit, id est, ad alium sacerdotem juxta similitudinem Melchisedech surgentem, qui est Christus. Sed de partis biijus intellectu non parva difficultas est. Quidam non aliud significatum putant, quam novum sacerdotem Christum, non secundum legem Mosaicam factum esse sacerdotem (nam ea prohibet, sacerdotem fieri, qui non sit de semine Aaron), sed supra legem, virtute ac voluntate Dei, qui est auctor insolubilis vitae. Aiii vero sic exponunt, ut praecipue urgeant illam partem: mandati carnalis ', hoc nimirum sensu: Qui non sit creatus sacerdos secundum legem carnalem, id est, infirmam; vel juxta alios, secundum legem mandati carnalis, id est, in qua multa sunt mandata caeremoniarum corporalium, ad tempus correctionis imposita, sicut explicatur infra cap. 9., sed secundum virtutem seu potentiam vitae indissolubilis, hoc est, acc&pia a Patre potestate conferendi suis vitam aeternam. Ita fere Cbvysostomus et ejus sequaces. Favet etiam Syriaca versio, quae pluraliter lesrit: mandatorum carnalium. Tertia est interpretatio Tbcodoreti, qui legem mandati carnalis intelligit dictam propter carnalem successionem, cui juxta praescriptum legis alligatum erat sacerdutium vetus. Non enim Christus ita factus est sacerdos, ut vel ipse priori succederet, vel alium post se relinqueret; sed ex virtute divina, quae vitam ei praestat insolubilem, id est immortalem, ut successori non sit locus. Sensum hunc merito caeteris anteponit Galenus noster. Nam eum plane exigit consequentia sermcnis Apostolici. Atque eo spectat allegatio sacerdotii Melcbisedecb; quem dictum est neque initium dierum, neque finem vitae habentem, assimilatum autem Filio Dci, manere sacerdotem iu perpetuum. Spectat eodem probatio subsequens ex Scriptura: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Denique gratior hoc modo redditur antithesis inter legem mandati carnalis et virtutem vitae insolubilis; carnalis enim successio mortalitatis certissimum argumentum est. Ex bis postremo liquet, Apostolum sibi non esse contrarium, dum Rom. 7. legem esse docet spiritualem, hic vero eam appellat legem mandati carnalis. Nam quae, sensu jam explicato, lex erat mandati carnalis, eadem spiritualis erat, maxime quoad praecepta moralia, quia praecipiebat ea, quae obseivata redderent hominem spiritualem et justum.
7:17
17. Contestatur enim. Grnece: testatur enim, subaudi: Deus, per Davidem loquens ad Filium.
Quoniam tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ex uno i-*salmi versiculo duplex est probatio partis praecedentis. Si enim Christus est sacerdos in aeternum, non ergo successionarium, sed indissolubile habet sacerdotium. Quod idem consequitur ex eo, quod secundum ordinem Melchisedech sacerdos est. Nam in Melchisedech typum esse aeternitatis Christi, satis superque declaratum est in superioribus. Pro hujus versus explicatione, quam in hunc usque locum distulimus, duo sunt inquirenda: Q,uo sensu Christus appelletur sacerdos iti aeternum; et quo sensu secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ac prius quidem illud non ita difficile, quum ipsum Apostolum habeamu^^ expositorem. Jam enim dixit de Christo, eum factum sacerdotem secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis. Et infra expressius: Hic autem, inquit, eo quod maneat in aeternum, sempiternum habet sacerdotium. Unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes per semet ipsum ad Deum; semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis. Et iterum: Sermo autem jurisjurandi, qui post legem est, Filium in aeternum perfectum, scilicet: constituit. Huc etiam pertinet, quod dixit cap. 5., Christum Pontificem factum omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causam salutis aeternae; quodque cap. 9. dicit, eum per proprium sanguinem introivisse semel in Sancta, aeterna redemptione inventa; et cap. 10.: Vna, inquit, oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos. Ex quibus omnibus intelligitur, Christum vocaii sacerdotem in aeternum ratione personae, officii et effectus. Personae quidem ratione, quoniam ita sacerdos est, ut nec ipse cuiquam successerit, nec ipsi quisquam successurus sit. Semper enim vivit, nec futurum, ut aliquando transferatur ejus sacerdotium. Officii autem ratione, quia semper apud Patrem in coelis interpellat pro nobis. Est enim sacerdotis officium interpellare Deum pro salute eorum, quibus datus est sacerdos. Fungitur autem hoc officio Christus in aeternum, id est, usque in finem saeculi, donec omnes suos electos adduxerit ad salutem. Nec vero haec interpellatio est sine oblatione, quae et ipsa ad sacerdotis officium pertinet; nam continuo se ipsum hominem, et vulnerum signa, quao passus est, exhibet atque offert Patri pro salute electorum. Denique ratione ipsius effectus, quia per sacrificium, quod semel obtulit in cruce, factus est nobis causa redemptionis et sahitis aeternae. Qua ratione ipsum etiam crucis sacrificium vocari potest aeternum. llis addi poterat ratio sumpta ab officio sacrificandi, quia nimirum Christus Dominus non sohim interpellando causam electorum suorum etiamnum promovet apud Deum, verum etiam jugiter pro iis sacrificando. Sed illud agit continuo per se ipsum; hoc per ministros ac vicarios suos sacerdotes, quibus commisit offerendum in Ecclesia, usque ad saeculi consummationem, visibile sacrificium corporis et sanguinis sui sub speciebus panis et vini, quod tamen et ipse primus in ultima coena obtulit. Caeterum haec ratio ab Apostolo non est expressa, sed insinuata tantum in eo, quod subjunxit: Secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Hoc igitur nobis explicandum restat, quo sensu secundum ordinem Melchisedech Christus sacerdos appellatus sit. Ordinem iVpostolus similitudinem interpretatur, ut paulo ante vidimus. Vox Hebraea, quae in Psalmo habetur, proprie verbum significat; sed usurpatione generalis est, ut etiam rem, negotium, causam designet; interdum quoque morem, seu consuetudinem ac ritum. Hebraea sic habent: p-|rDbD ^HIDI-by (fi^ dibrathi Malchitsedec), quod verbotenus ita sonat: Super verbum meum Mel^hisedech. Sed testantur doctiseimi Hebraeorum, et Santes Pagninus, aliique ejus linguae periti, literam > (Jodj otiosam esse ae redundare; quod et multis nominibus contingit* ut addita sit euphoniae gratia duntaxat, praesertim cum Psalmi metris constent, si Hieronjmo credimus. Unde non habita ratione illius literulae, interpretes paene omnes ita transferunt: sesundum ordinem, juxta morem seu ri^ tum Mehhisedech. Quod enim Cajetanus in commentario Psalmorum legit aut vertit ex Hebraeo: Supra rem Melchisedech, et exponit: Supra «acerdotium Melchisedech, audacis cajusdam imperitiae videtur, ut qui sensum ingesserit a censu Apostoli et omnium interpretum alienum. Unus eorum, quos legi, Joannes Campensis > fjod) literae rationem habendam putavit. Sic enim habet ejus paraphrasis: Tu eris sacerdos in perpetuum juxta ritum a me praescriptum Melchisedech. Quae interpretatio mihi videtur magis aperte prodere mysterium in hoc versiculo contentum, quam si literam > neglectam ducamus. Significat enim ritum sive ordinem Dei voluntate constitutum atque praescriptum in Melchisedech sacerdote, quem rilum elucere oporteat in sacerdote, Christo. Verum quia neque LXX., quos Apostolus sequitur, neque Hieronjmus, neque alii interpretes pro illo > affixo quidquam reddiderunt, sed absolute verterunt: secundum ordinem Melchisedech, nos, ea translatione contenti, sensum dicamus, qui quidem brevis ac perspicuus est hujusmodi: Secundum ordinem sive similitudinem Melchisedech, hoc est, more ac ritu, qui sit similis illi, quem Melchisedech sacerdos observasse legitur. Quaeres, quis sit ille ritus a Melchisedech observatus, ad cujus similitudinem Christus dictus sit sacerdos. Rursum breviter ac plane respondeo, eum esse ritum, quo panem et vinum obtulit. Huic enim ritui simillimum est, quod Christus egit in ultima coena, quando sub panis et vini speciebus corpus suum obtulit et sanguinem. Ponv) sacerdotem Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulisse Deo in saorificium, atque in ea re typum gessisse Christi sacerdotis, qui ad illius sacrificii similitudinem obtulerit in coena corpus suum et sanguinem; idque significatum esse verbis Davidicis: Tu es sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech (qaod totum haeretici, quibus abominationi est Missae sacrificium, pernegant), asseveranter et magno consensu tradunt Patres atqu6 Ecclesiae doctores, tam Graeci, quam Latini, ut Cyprianus, Ambrosius, Hieronymus; Augustinus, Epiphanius, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus et alii, quos hio enumerare longum est, et non necessarium. Sententias eorum videre est apud eos, qui de controversiis scripserunt. Nos unius Cypriani martyris, antiquissimi, sanctissimique, verba adscripsisse contenti erimus. Is in epist. ad Cuecilium, quae num. est 63., postquam citasset Psalmi versiculum hic allegatum: Tu e% sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, ita subjunxit: Qui ordo utique hic est, de sacrificio illo veniens et inde descendens, quod Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod panem et vinum obtulitj quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacer^ dos Dei summi, quam Dominus noster Jesus Chtistus? qui saciificium Deo Patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem. Sic ille. Quibus non possum non addere B. Augustini locum ex lib. 16. de civit. cap. 22., ubi recitans historiam, quae exstat Genes. 14. de victoria Abrahae, haec addit: Tunc henedictm est a Melchisedech, qui erat sacerdos Dei excelsi, de quo in epist. ad Hebraeos multa et magna conscripta sunt. Ibi quippe primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc Deo a Christianis offertur toto orbe terrarum, impleturque illud, quod longe post hoc factum per Prophetnm dicitur ad Christum, qui fuerat adhuc venturus in carne: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech; non sciJicet secundum ordinem Anron, gui ordo fuerat auferendus, iUucesce7itibus rebus, quae illis umbris praenotabantur. Haec et alia plurima in eandem sententiam de sacerdotio Christi scc<mdum ordinem Melchisedech passim apud antiquos Ecclesiae Patres exstare, non ignorant sectariorum magistri, cum talia legantur etiam in commentariis eorum super hanc Epistolam; sed prae superbia et erroris obstinatione contemnunt. Unde quidam eorum: Mirum est, inquit, tot veteres Ecclesiae doctores hac opinione occupatos fuisse, ut in oblatione panis et vini insistereut. Et iterum: Unde hoc in mentem venit ecclesiasticis scriptoribus? Certe ut error errorem trahere solet, quum ipsi sacrificium in Christi coena, nullo ejus mandato, finxissent, adeoque coenam adulterassent addito sacrificio, colores postea hinc inde accersere conati sunt, quibus errorem suum fuearent. Arrisit haec panis et vini oblatio, et nullo judicio protinus arrepta est. Deinde addit: Hinc constituimus, veteres sibi finxisse sacrificium, de quo numquam Moses cogitaverat. Haec ille haeresiarches intolerabili contemptu antiquitatis. Qua in re tamen ipsam doctrinam Catholicam, quam insectatur, non mediocriter adjuvat, dum, rei convictus evidentia, fatetur, tot veteres Ecclesiae doctores, e quibus nuUum excipit, agnovisse sacrificium in coena Dominica, atque ejusdem sacrificii figuram in oblatione panis et vini, quam fecit Melchisedech. Sed finxerunt, inquit, de quo Moses numquam cogitaverat. Neque enim scribit, Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulisse Deo; sed potius Abrahae et comitibus ejus attulisse. Regium enim erat, lassos ex proelio et itinere reficere; caeterum benedictio ad munus sacerdotale pertinebat. Probare autem nititur ex textu, quia non dicitur Melchisedech obtulisse panem et vinum, sed protalisse, sicut etiam habet vulgata versio; tum quia in Hebraeo non legitur: ^at enim sacerdos Dei altissimi, quomoQv vulgatus transtulit, quasi ratio significetu. oi^lati sacrificii, quia erat sacerdos; sed copuktive: Et ipse sacerdos, Addunt alii, LXX. interptetes apposito casu expressisse, cui prolulerit. Sic enim habent: Protulit ipsi (scilicet Abrahae) panes et vinum; videlicet ut eum cum exercitu reversum ex proelio rsfocillaret; quomodo Josephus libro 1. Antiq. cap. 11. et Damascenus lib. 4. de fide orthod. cf^p. 14. id intellexerunt. Hae objectiones, quoniam versamur in explicatione illius partis: secundum ordinem Melchisedech, nobis refellendae sunt, acvera Scripturao intelligentia commoustrandn, vel eo, quod etiam ex Catholicis nonnuUi, quamvis de sacrificio coenae sentiant catholice, tamen historiam Melchisedech sacerdotis ita tractant, ut in ea nullus sacrificii Christiani typus appareat. Quod quidem ab illis fit parum catholice. Cum enim ex Scripturis certissime constet, etiam haereticorum consensu, Christum esse sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech, utique fatendum est, ipsum Melchisedech, ut sacerdotem, aliquid Deo obtulisso. Non enim aliter fingi potest Christus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, id est, ritum ac similitudinem Melchisedech, nisi Melchisedech aliquid obtulerit, in quo Christus ofterens sit ei similis. Si dicas, Melchisedech dici sacerdotem, quod aliorum sacerdotum more boves et pecudes mactare solitus sit: primum id extra Scripturam dicitur; deinde hac ratione non Christus, qui nihil tale fecit, sed Aaron potius erat dicendus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech; imo vero uterque, tam Melchisedech, quam Aaron, sacerdos secundum ordinem Abel, qui primus legitur cruentum ex pecude sacrificium obtulisse. Ac sane Christus in cruce quidem semet ipsum obtulit sacrificium cruentum Deo; sed nulla ibi ritus similitudo cum mactatione pecudum, ut ob id dici possit sacerdos secundum ordinem alicujus sacerdotis praecedentis, qui pecudes immolasset. Restat igitur, ut oblationem Melchisedech, quaenam fuerit, accipiamus ex Scriptura, et fateamur, quod ipsa suggerit, Melchisedech obtulisse Deo panem et vinum; et conpequenter similitudinem ritus, significati per ordinem in versu Davidico, constituamus in eo, quod supra diximus; ut, sicut Melchisedech panem et vinum in sacrificium obtulit Deo, sic Christus sub panis et vini speciebus obtalerit Patri in coena corpus suum et sanguinem. Sed ajunt, Christum ideo vocari sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech, quia rex est justitiae, et rex pacis, et aeternum habens sacerdotium, idque majus Levitico. Haec enim omnia de Christo fuerunt in Melchisedech praefigurata, quemadmodum ostendit Apostohis in praecedentibus. Respondeo, per haec bene quidem probari, Christum in his omnibus eignificatum fuisse per Melchisedech, velut per typum qnendam et figuram; id quod solum propositum fuit Apostolo; non autem Christum propter haec appellatum sacerdotem secundum ordinem ac similitudinem Melchisedech; sed propter aliud, quod Apostolus ideo non putavit explicandum hoc loco, quia grande mysterium erat, et ad probandum ipsius institutum non pertinebat; sicut superius ostendimus. Etenim longe aliud est, quempiam esse figuram Christi, ut fuerunt Abel, Isaac, David, Salomon; aliud vero, secundum iilius ordinem Christum esse sacerdotem. Quod de his dici non potest, quia vel non fuerunt sacerdotes, vel non tale sacrificium obtulerunt, cujus similitudo ritus conspiceretur in sacrificio Christi. At de Melchisedech secundum Scripturas 7itrumque novimus et confitemur; nempe eum in se ipso figuram Christi gessisse, quod etiam aliis est commune; et praeterea secundum ejus ordinem Christum esse sacerdotem, quod illi est proprium. Ut autem nemo Catholicus dubitet, hoc modo intelligi debere, quod dicitur Christus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, sciat, Patres Concilii Tridentini sess. 22. cap. 1. aperte docere, quod Christus, sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech se in aeternum constitutum declarans, corpus et sanguinem suum eub speciebus panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit. His ita declaratis, superest, ut ad haereticorum objecta respondeamus. Primum fatemu", Mosennonuti vocabulo offerendi. Neque enim verbum Hebraicum significat offerre, sed proferre vel adducere, sicut vertit Chaldaeus interpres. Quare non dicimus, Scripturae sensum esse: ProtxiHt, id est, obtulit Deo panem et vinum; sed protulit sive adduxit in eum usum, ut, quia sacerdos erat Dei excelsi, primum ofierret Deo in sacrificium gratiarum actionis pro tam insigni victoria Abrahae concessa, et parte cremata, juxta morem pacificorum, deinde reliquum sanctiticatum apponeret Abrahae et sociis ejus in epulum solenne. Erat enim consuetudo, tam apud Hebraeos, quam apud Ethnicos, ut, quae Deo sacrificata essent, epulo seu publico convivio mensis apposita consumerentur. De Hebraeis exempla sunt 1 Reg. 9. et 16., ubi Samuel hujusmodi convivium de victimis praeparasse legitur. Videatur lex Levitici 7. et Deut. 26. Ethnicos idem factitasse, non solum probant idolothyta, de quibus Act. 15. et in 1 Cor. 8. et 10. et alibi, unde est et illud Deut..32.: De quorum victimis comedebant adipes, et bibebant vinum libaminum; verum etiam multa, quae apud Homerum, Virgilium, aliosque profanos auctores de conviviis ejusmodi leguntur. Tale ergo fuit convivium, nomine panis et vini significatum, quo Melchisedech sacerdos Abraham Patriarcham excepit. Id quod etiam Clemens Alexandrinus, vetustissimns scriptor, intellexit, quum lib. 4. Strom. sub finem de Melchisedech ait: Qui sacerdos erat Dei altissimi; qui panem et vinum sanctificatum dedit cibum, in typum Ecclesiae. Quod et his versiculis eleganter expressit Prudentius praefatione in Psychomachiam: Adhuc recentem caede de fanta virum Donat sacerdos ferculis coelestibus; Dei sacerdos, rex et idein praepote^^- Patet igitur ex his, Hebraicur; "^erbum: protulit vel adduxit, oblp''^"^ ^®o factae prorsus nihil obstare, nt nec ea, quae Josephus et Damascenus, et si qui alii, de convivio scribunt. Non enim excludunt oblationem. Imo Damascenus etiam includit, quum addit eodem loco, mensr.m illam praefigurasse measam nostram mysticam, velut et sacerdos ille Christi, veri sacerdotis, figuram et imaginem prae se tulit. Quod vero ad LXX. translationem attinet, quamvis nec casus additus excludat oblationem prius factam Deo, tamen verius arbitror, additionemadulterinam esse. Nam et hodie multi, iique meliores codices non habent; nec apud Chrysostomum aliosque veteres, qui Genesim secundum LXX. versionem aut interpretati sunt, aut citaverunt, casus adscriptus invenitur. Jam quod objiciunt, in Hebraeo non haberi causalem particulam: Erat enim sacerdos, sed copulativam: non utique Hieronymusignoravitauctornostrae versionib, idemque citra controversiam Hebraicae linguae peritissimus. Cur igitur ita vertit? nisi quia noverat, in ea lingua frequens esse, ut copulativa conjunctio pro causali ponatur; et quod sententia clare ac diserte Latinis auribus reddi saepe non potest, nisi conjunctione et mutata in causalem. Sic idem HieronymuG in eodem lib. Gen. cap. 20. scripsit: En morieris propter mulierem, quam tu~ listi 'j habet enim virum-j et cap. 30.: Experimento didici, quia benedixerit mihi Deus. Cum in Hebraeo sit: Et ipsa habens virum; et benedixit mihi. Similiter in Psalm. 59. et 107. vertit ex Hebraeo: Da nobis auxilium in tribulatione. Vana est enim salus ab homine; cum utrobique legatur Hebraice: Et vana salus hominis; quemadmodum et LXX. transtulerunt. Interdum tamen idem Hieronymus conjunctionem retinuit, ubi mutari poterat in causalem; ut Gen. 22.: Nu7ic cognovi, quod timeas Dominum, et non pepercisti unigenito filio tuo propter me, id est, quia non pepercisti. Ad eundem modum exponit Theophylactus ilhid Lucae 1.: Benedicta tu inter mulieres, ct benedictus fructus ventris tui, id est, quia benedictus etc, eamque expositionem aliis etiam exemplis declarat. Cam ergo videret Hieronymus, etiam in hoc loco Genesis circumstantiam postulare sensum causalem, optime vertit: Erat enim. Nam nisi ratio seu causa significetur ejus, quod praecedit: proferens panem et vinum, non cohaerebit oratio. Quod enim dicunt adversarii, sic orationem esse distinguendam, ut illa pars: Et ipse sacerdos Dei excelsi, a praecedentibus sejuncta, referatur ad id, quod sequitur: Et benedixit ei, videlicet tamquam sacerdos, novitium est commentum. Non enim benedixit ei praecise, quia sacerdos; siquidem et Abraham sacerdos erat, sed quia major; sicut dictum est supra, quod minus est, a meliore benedici. Sacrificium autem oiferre propriissima functio est sacerdotis. Adde, quod adversariorum novitiam illam distinctionem respuunt Hebraei codices, in quibus post illa verba: Et ipse sacerdos Dei excelsi, habetur accentus, indicans, ibi terminari versum seu periodum; ut proinde pars ista sequentibus annecti minime debeat, sed ad superiora sit referenda. Quae quidem Hebraeorum codicum distinctio non temere perturbanda est, quod et vetus sit, et eadem inveniatur in Chaldaico textu. Sed haec plus satis pro Davidici versus explicatione. Nunc ad Apostohim revertamur.
7:18
18. Reprobatio quidem fit praecedentis mandati. Supra diximus, hanc partem inferri ex illo antecedente: Si secundum similitudinem Melchisedech etc. Verum nonnihil obstrepit Graeca conjunctio ixkv yap^ id est enim, ut Erasmus et alii verterunt; quae profecto non servit illationi. Respondere possumus, particulam yap in Graeco textu adscriptam fuisse a non intelligentibus, quod existimarent, hic esse novam periodum, quae contineret probationem superioris. Quam conjecturam probabilem facit, quod nec in textu Syriaco legatur causalis particula, nec in textu Ambrosiano, nec apud alios veteres Latinos. Quamquam et aliter ac facilius respondetur, t6 yap, etsi per 86 causale sit, additum tamen vocabulo /icv^ saepe non tam significare aliquid, quam ornare sermonem, ut promptum est ex Platone et aliis Graecis scriptoribus ostendere; ideoque vetustos interpretes Latinos et Syrum merito non habuisse ejus rationem. Simile accidit in Latina conjunctione enimvero. Beprohatio, Graece aOsTr^aic, id est abrogatio, quae scilicet oppouitar lcgislationi, quam Graeci vofxo^saiav vocant. Non ergo reprobatio fit praecedentis mandati, id est veteris legis, tamquam malae et a malo Deo profectae, sicut dixerunt Manichaei; sed abrogatio tamquam temporariae duntaxat, infirmae, inutilis et imperfectae. Quod sequentia declarant. Propter i^ifirmitatem ejus et inutili' tatem. Abrogatur lex vetus tamquam infirma, hoc est, impotens ad justificandum hominem, juxta quod dicitur Rom. 8.: Quod impossibile erat legi, in quo infirjnabatur per carnem, Deus Filium suum misit, ut justificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Quae infirmitas non solum erat legis moralis, quae praecepta, sed et caeremonialis, quae sacrificia complectitur. Id quod Apostolus tribus sequentibus capitibus ex professo docet. Item abrogatur tamquam inutilis; non quidem simpliciter et per omnia inutilis, quod absit opinari de lege a Deo lata; multae enim fuerunt legis utilitates; velut quod per legem cognitio peccati, Rom. 3.; quod lex paedagogus fueritad Christum, Galat. 3.; quod per legem abundante peccato superabundavit gratia, E,om. 5.; denique quod lex Prophetica fuerit, et Christi praefigurativa; videlicet umbram habens futurorum bonorum, sicut infra dicitur cap. 10. et ad Col. 1. Sed tamen inutilis fuitquoad cfiectum justificationis, quem nec per praecepta, nec per sacrificia praestare potuit. Hunc sensum probat, quod sequitur:
7:19
19. Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex. Graece et Syriace: ^ihil enim perfecit lex, id est, ad perfectionem adduxit. Perfectionem autem intellige veram justitiam, quae constituit hominem Deo gratum et acceptum ad vitam aeternam. Nec moveat neutrum genus niJdl, quasi de rebus loq^natur, non de persenis. Sonsus enim est,?iihil, id est nullum hominem, ut patet ex tota disputatione Apostoli. Sic Christus Joan. 6.: Omne, quod dat mihi Pater, ad me veniet. Quod continuo de persona exponit, cum subjicit: Et eum, qui venit ad me. non ejiciam foras. Item cap. 12.: Ego si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad me ipsum, id est, omnium gentium homines. Est enim neutrum genus aptissimum ad univeisitatem significandam.
hiiroductio vero melioris spei, per quam proximamus ad Deum. Ex superiori parte repetendum est verbum: Introductio vero fit melioris spei. Spes alibi pro re sperata pcnitur, id est pro objecto; hic vero pro causa spei posita videtur, ut sensus sit: Loco praecedentis mandati introducitur aliquid multo melius, nempe lex et sacerdotium Christi, spem nobis certissimam faciens appropinquandi ad Deum per veram justitiam. Finitur in hac parte periodus, cujus initium erat ab illis verbis: Si secundum similitudinem Melchisedech. Quo magis autem tota sententia dilueida fiat, et vis argumentationis Apostolicae perspiciatur, praeter illam partem: Contestatur enim etc, de qua superius monui, etiam istam proximam: Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex, convenit incladi parenthesi. Est igitur haec argumentatio: Secundum ordinem Melchisedech surgit alius sacerdos, quinon secundum legem mandali carnalis factus est, sed secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis; ergo reprobatio fit praecedentis mandati, introductio vero melioris spei. Ubi vides id, quod B. Thomas observavit, antecedens duabus partibus con.stare, quae antithesim inter se habeant; similiter et consequens, ita nt prior pars consequentis respondeat priori parti antecedentis, et posterior posteriori. Nam ex eo, quod surgat novus sacerdos, qui non secundum legem mandati carnalis factus sit, sequitur illius legis abolitio. Et ex eo, quod factus sit secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis, sequitur introductio melioris spei. Aliorum versiones et expositiones hic non commemoro. Plerique enim, decepti obscuritate sententiae, quam et prolixitas et interpositae probationes pariebant, totam periodum inepte dissolveiunt iu partes, et contortis suis interpretationibus vim textui fecerunt. Quod nominatim observare est in Erasmiana versione, quam alii quidam incaute secuti sunt.
7:20
20. Et quantum est non sine jurejurando. Alia nunc ratione probat, novum testamentum vetere praestantius esse, et proinde hoc abrogandum, ut illud succedat. Nec refert, an legem nominet, an testamentum. Conjuncta sunt enim haec duo et inseparabilia, ut altero nominato, alterum intelligatur. Lex enim non sine foedere seu testamento sancitur. Sumpta est haec ratio a jurejurando, quo interposito Christus novi testamenti spon- 8or factus est, uti statim ex eodem versu Davidico probat. Quod ad syntaxin attinet, haec pars prorsus separanda est a praecedente; secus, quam facit Erasmus, qui eam superiori sententiae connectit, addens quaedam et mutans pro arbitrio, praeter auctoris mentem. Ubi rursus obscuritatem Erasmo et aliis fecit subsequens parenthesis haud animadversa, post quam argumentatio hic inchoata absolvitur in illis verbis: In tantum melioris etc. Quemadmodum bene a B. l'homa fuit observatum. Respondent enim sibi mutuo in Graeco xaO^' oaov, in quanlamy et xaxa Tocoaxov, in tantum, ut ad intelligentiam clarius hoc loco vertendum fuerit: Et in quantum non sine jurejurando; idque sine verbo: est, quod iu Graeco non habetur, nec quidem subauditur. Supplenda est enim ex antegrsssis sententia, hoc modo: Et in quantum non sine jurejurando factus est sacerdos. Quod supplementum etiammanifeste suggerit parenthesis, quae tota subjungitur ad hujus partis declarationem:
Alii quidem sine jurejurando sacerdotes facti sunt Graece ol fxsv yap, nam illi quidem. Hanc enim expositionem «Qli. Estll Comm. Tom. m. conjunctionis, de qua supra, locus non postulat. Significantur sacerdotes Levitici, de quibus nusquam legitur, quod Deo jurante sacerdotes facti sunt. Hic video, quid objici possit, illud nimirum ex ve4;eri testamento sumptum, quod canit Ecclesia de confessore Pontifice: Ecce sacerdos magnus etc. Ideo jurejurando fecit illum Dominus crescere in plebem suam. Sed respondeo, ea nusquam scripta esse de Aarone aut quopiam ejus successore; sed sumpta esse ex Ecclesiastici cap. 44., ubi de Abraham Patriarcha dicitur: Ideo jurejurando dedit illi gloriam (alias semen) in gente sua, crescere illum f quasi terrae cumulum etc. Quae verba, sicut et alia quaedam ejusdem loci, nonnullis mutatis, Ecclesia accommodat ad Pontifices novi testamenti.
7:21
Hic autem cum jurejurando, per eum, qui dixit ad illum. Hic autem, id est Christus, sacerdos factus est cum jurejurando ejus, qui eum sacerdotem fecit, videlicet Dei Patris; qui dixit, vel, ut in Graeco, dicit ad eum: Jura" vit Dominus y et non poenittbit tum: Tu es sacerdos in aeterum. Graeci et Syri codices addunt: secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Sed quoniam ad id, quod nunc agit Apostolus, ea pars nihil confert, temere a quopiam adjecta videri potest. Porro non sentit Apostolus, totum versum, quem hic citat: Juravit Dominus etc., esse verba Dei Patris ad Christum; tantum enim illa pars: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, ex persona Patris dicitur. Verba autem praecedentia: Juravit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum, sunt Prophetae, testificantis. Deum Patrem cum jurejurando Filium constituisse sacerdotem, quando ei dixit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Unde sensus horum verborum Apostoli hoc pacto reddi potest: Per eum, qui dixit ad illum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Hoc enim cum jurejurando dictum esse, docet hemistychium praecedens: Juravit Dominus etc. Quaeritur, quando factum fuerit, quod eo versu Propheta factum affirmat, id est quando Deus hoc juraverit. Nam id a Propheta non est expressum. Respondeo, jusjurandum hoc non aliud videri, quam perpetuum et omnibus modi& irrevocabile Dei decretum, quo Christum vohiit esse sacerdotem. Ad quod signiiicandum etiam addidit: Ei non poenitebit eum, id est numquam illud more poenitentis retractabit. Quia vero non tale fuit decretum, quo Aaron a Deo sacerdos est constitutus, ideo dicitur ille cum suis posteris sine jurejurando factus sacerdos. Quamvis autem Christus non fuerit sacerdos, imo nec Christus ante incarnationem, decretum tamen illud^ juramenti nomine significatum, fuit ab aeterno. Huc usque parenthesis. Nunc sequitur reditio ad propositionem factam v. 20.
7:22
22. In tantum melioris testamenti sponsor factus est Jesus. Dicitur Jesus novi testamenti sponsor, seu fide ussor, id est exponente Theophylacto, mediator, siquidem ipse Apostolus infra, cap. mediatorem appellat, eo nimirum sensu, quia Christus, tamquam sacerdos inter homines et Deum medius suo ipsius sanguine, quem fudit in ara crucis, foedus hoc novum sanxit et confirmavit. Est autem haec Apostoli argumentatio: Christus cum jurejurando constitutus est a Deo sacerdos; Levitici sine jurejurando; ergo novum testamentum, cujus sponsor ac mediator est Christus, melius est atque praestantius vetere, cujas ministri fuerunt Levitici sacerdotes; et per consequens, hoc superveniente, illud cum sua lege est abrogandum. Valet collectio, quia juramentum adhiberi non solet, nisi ad ea, quae majoris sunt momonti, quaeque volumus omnino rata et firma esse atque perpetua. De vocabulo testamenti, quid signiScet, et cur introductura pro foedere seu pacto significando, dicemus infra in exposit. cap. 8. et 9. Unde etiam intelligetur, non recte quosdam Latinos interpretes in hacEpistola pro testamento substituere: foedus, cum vox Graeca 3ia{>7jxrj proprie testamentum significet, atque hoc significatum urgeat ipse Apostolus cap. 9.
7:23
23. Et alii quidem plures facti sunt sacerdotes. Graece: Et Uii quidem. Quod de testamento docuit ex illa parte versus Davidici: Juravit Dominus, id nunc docet de sacerdotio ex ea parte: in aetertium, videlicet sacerdotium Christi praestantius esse Levitico. Tametsi hanc rationem jam ante attigerat, ubi dixit: Qui non secundum legem man~ dati carnalis factus est, sed secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis. Contestatur enim etc. Verum plenius idem nunc explicat, ut alia quaedam opportune subjungat: Idcirco quod morte prohiherentur permanere. Lovitici sacerdotes, inquit, etiam summi, plures facti sunt, alius post alium, quia mortales erant, et morte finiebatur cujusque sacerdotium. Nani Aaroni in sacerdotio s.uccessit Eleazar, et Eleazaro Phinees, et ita deinceps.
7:24
24. Hic autem, eo quod maneat in aeternum, sempiternum habet sacerdo^ tium. Quum dicit: eo quod maneat in aeternum, respicit ad illud superius citatum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum. Unde apparet, supplendam esse sententiam: Hic autem, eo quod maneat sacerdos in aeternum etc. Ac ne quis dicat, fore hoc modo petitionem principii in hac Apostoli argumentatione, sciat pro isto: sempiternum, Graece esse dLTiapapaTOv, quasi dicas: intransihile, id est quod ad alium transire non potest; seu insuccessivum, scilicot quod successione non transfertur, sicut contingebat sacerdotio Levitico. Syrus interpres vertit: sacerdotium ejus non praeterit, aut non transit. Igitur Apostohis sic ratiocinatur: Aeternam praestantius est eo, quod subinde transfertur; atqui Christi sacerdotium, Davide teste, aeternum est, Leviticum nutem trauslatitium, ut probat Pontificum mors et successio; ergo sacerdotium Christi praestantius est Levitico. Rem pulchre declarat B. Thomas ex naturalibus, in quibus corruptibilium fit multiplicatio sub eadem specie, non autem incorruptibilium. Unde non est, nisi unus sol, una luna etc. Verum dicet aliquis, etiam Christum mortuum esse, et proinde finitum morte ejus sacerdotium. Respondeo, non ita mortuus est, ut sacerdotium ejus ad alios transiret, quemadmodum fiebat in sacerdotibus veteris testamenti; sed ut, paulo post ipse unus ct idem ad vitam resuscitatus, maneret sacerdos iu aeternum; nec id solum ratione personae, verum etiam officii et eflectus; sicut declaratum est supra. Sed objicit haereticus: Si (Jbristus idem perpetuo manet sacerdos, et si perpetuum habet sacerdotium, igitur vicarios vel successores in sacerdotio non habet. Respondeo, Ecclesiam Christi nuUosagnoscere Christi successores in sacerdotio seu Pontificatu. Nam successor is dicitur, qui in alicujus def uncti, id est amoti vel abeuntis, aut certe demortui locum, officium, potestatem surrogatus est. At Christus sacerdotio numquam defungitur; manet enim sacerdos in aeternum. Successorem igitur non habet. Nec ita quisquam Catholicus loquitur, si bene et circumspecte loqui velit. Caeterum vicarios ejus ac ministros, tum in disponsandis sacramentis, tum in reliquo officio sacerdotali, agnoscimus, Apostolo dicente: Sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, 1 Cor. 4. Per bos igitur Christus, qui semel obtulit se.met ipsum in cruce, offert adhuc quotidie in Ecclesia, pro ejusdem sacrificii commemoratione, corpus suum et sanguinem; sicut et per eos verbum praedicationis et sacramenta fidelibus erogat. Quare sacerdotium Christi permanens ac perpetuum non excludit alios sacerdotes, modo subordinatos. Si enim Deus, aeter nu3 ac supremus judex, habet suos vicarioB ac ministros judices, id est per quos Dei judicium exerceatur in terris, sicut dicitur Deut. 1. et 2 Par. 19., cur non et Christus, aeternus atque primarius sacerdos ac Pontifex noster, postquam receptu8 est in coelum, habeat vicarios suos sacerdotes, per quos visibile sacrificium ab ipso institutum ofi^eratur in Ecclesia militante super terram? Est autem obiter observandum hoc loco divinum Apostoli studium in scrutandis et excutiendis Scripturis. Nam in uno vevsu Davidico: Juravit Dominus et non poenitebit eum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, quinque partes, velut instituto suo servientes, expendit. Primum: Metchisedech; deinde illud: Tu es, videlicet dictum ad Christum de tribu Juda; tertio: >Sacejrc?os; quarto: Juravit; quinto: In aeternum. Quibus et sextum addere potuit: secundum ordinem, nisi hanc partem, ob rationes superius allatas, indiscussam relinquere maluisset. Ex qua re discimus Scripturae sacrae mirabilem in sensibus ac mysteriis foecunditatem, nec umquam deesse, quod eruatur, modo non desit scrutator idoneus.
7:25
25. Unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes ver semet ipsum ad Deu77L Multi vetusti, et probatae fidei codices legunt: accedentes, quibus adstipulantur Graeca cum suis commentatoribus. Neque enim in Graeco tam tacilis est uniuE in alterum mutatio, quam in Latino, videlicet propter articulum praepositum. Graecis etiam S^^ra ccnsonant; denique sensum haec lectio facit augustiorem, ut merito eam pro germana receperit editio Clementiua. Sciendum quoque, pro eo, quod nos habemus: in perpetuum, Graece legi: zl<z t6 TzavTcXkQ, quod Erasmus et Heutenius vertunt: ad plenum, Stapulensis: ad perfectum. Id enim proprie Graeca significant. Tametsi Syrus quoque interpres vertit: in aeternum. Usus est eadem voce Lucas Evangelii.'^'ui cap. 13., ubi tara vulgatus interpres, quam Erasmus verterunt: omnino. Nec omnino, inquiunt, poterat sursum respicere, sive erigere caput. Graeci coraraontatores locum hunc de perfecta salute exponunt, nominatim Theodoretas. Nam quod Chrysostomus, et eum secuti Tbeopbylactus et Oecumenius vocem Graecam sic interpretantur: non ad tempus tantum, sed etiam in futura vita, expositio est perfectae salutis. Atque eo modo etiam accipiendum, H* quod noster interpres et Syrus verterunt: inperpe.tuum aut m aeternum. Non enim erit perfecta salus, si non in perpetuum extendatur. Declarat enim Apostolus Lac parte, et e proximo colligit fructum aeterni sacerdotii Christi, tamquam dicat: Si Christus aeternum habet sacerdotium, potest igitur ad perfectam et aeternam salutem adducere eos, qui per ipsum, ut mediatorem, accedunt ad Deum. Ilic sensus partem: in perpetuum, jungit cum verbo: salvare, Quod si jungatur cum verbo: potest, sicut in loco Evangelii jam citato fecit interpres, etiam sic sensus erit non incommodus, scilicet Chri- Btum, eo quod maneat in aeternum, et sempiternum habeat sacerdotium, non tantum potuisse, quando mortalis erat, verum etiam nunc, et continua posse salvare per ipsum accedentes ad Deum, ut qui semper vivat (sicut sequitur) ad interpellandum pro nobis. Abutuntur hujus loci testimonio sectarii ad oppugnandam Sanctorum intercessionem. Nam si Christus potest accedentes per ipsum ad Deum perfecte salvare, quid opus est, ajunt, aliis intercessoribus, per quos ad Dcjum adducamur? Quibus responsum sit, Christum haud dubie posse et velle ad perfectam salutem adducere eos, qui per ipsum ad Deum accedunt, si tamen accedant legitime. Quod quidem faciunt, si ipsi etiam pro se orent, ac praeterea alios etiam comprecatores adhibeant, sive viventes adhuc in hoc saeculo, sive jam defunctos et cum Christo regnantes. Nam alios aliorum precibus apud Deum adjuvari, universa Scriptura clamat. Hoc autem uni mediatori Christo adeo non derogat, ut vis omnis et valor talium orationum ad meritum Christi mediatoris sint referenda, id qund apertissime profitetur Ecclesia Catholica, quum orationes suas omnes ita conchjdit: Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Semper vivens ad interpeUandum pro nobis. Giaece et Syriace: pro eis. Quod et in Latinis manuscriptis legitur non paucis. Reppondet ea lectio praecedenti verbo numeri pluralis: accedentes. Addit Apostolus hanc partem, ut explicet consequentiaTU superioris argumenti. Nam ex aeterno Christi sacerdotio propterea recte sequitur, eum in perpetuum salvare posse, quia non otiosum gerit sacerdotium. Est enim sacerdos semper vivens, ut semper agat sacerdotis officium, id est semper pro nobis apud Deum interpellet. Objiciet aliquis, id ipsum dici posse de sacerdotibus Leviticis. Nam Jeremias et Onias sacerdotes fuere, de quibus jam dudum mortuis scribitur 2 Mach. 16., eos assidue multamque orare pro populo Judaeorum et civitate sancta. Respondeo, eos non orasse ut sacerdotes, sed ut sanctos homines, seu potius ut sanctorum hominum animas, absque respectu sacerdotii, quod aliquando gesserant, aut sacrificii, quod obtulerant. Christus vero permanens sacerdos in perpetuum, ab officio sacerdotali numquam desistit. Nam et interpellat pro nobis ut sacerdos, et se ipsum, ut hostiam semel in ara crucis oblatam, exhibet Patri; et adhuc quotidie se ipsum offert et sacrificat in altari per ministros et vicarios suos, sacerdotes, sicut declaratum est supra. Sed quomodo Christus adhuc pro nobis interpellet Patrem, cui Pater omnia dedit in manus, cum praesertim humilitas orantis non deceat gloriam regnantis, quaeri potest. Ad quod B. Thomas in commentario respondet, Christum pro nobis interpellare, tum quia adsumptam pro nobis humanitatem Patri repraesentat, tum quia sanctissimae animae suae desiderium, quod pro salute nostra habuit, exprimit. Simili modo Gregorius hanc Christi interpellationem iuterprelatur lib. 1. moral. cap. 24. et lib. 22. cap. 13., necnon alii Patres; adeo ut Rupertus lib. 9. de divinis officiis, cap. 3., dicat, interpellationem illam omnium doctorum vera assertione non summissam esse postulationtm, sed ejus passionis, quae semel suscepta, semel pro nobis in gacrificium oblata est, aeternam commemorationem. Quin Apostolus ipse cap. 9. hujus epist. ita se ipsum exponere videtur, dum ait: Jesum introiisse in coelum, ut appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis, id est ut se ipsum, hominem pro nobis passum, Deo sistat ac repraesentet. Num igitur haec veram et proprie dictam Christi pro nobis orationem excludunt? Minime. Etonim si Christus etiamnum advocatus est noster, et mediator, 1 Joan. 2. et 1 Tim. 2., vere igitur adhuc orat et intercedit pro nobis. Hoc enim proprium est munas advocati et mediatoris. Deinde id satis per se probat Graecum verbum IvTuy/avciv, pro quo interpres hoc loco et Rom. 8. vertit: interpellare. Significat enim interpellationem, ^{nae fit cum oratione seu postulatione, quemadmodum ex aliis Scripturae locis facile est ostendere. Quod et Augustinus perspicue docet in epist. 59. ad Paul. q. 5., affirmans, apud Apostolum interpellare positum esse pro eo, qucd est postulare. Quare si Christus, quod negari non potest, proprie interpellat: utique proprie orat, sive sola mente id faciat, sive etiam voce conceptum mentis efformet atque exprimat. Quod sentire videtur B. Thomas, quum dicit, Christum animae suae sanctissimae desiderium, quod pro ealute nostra habuit, exprimere. Npm interni desiderii expressio potissimum fit voce. Nec vero quidquam horum infitiantur, qui interpellationem exponunt per humanitatis repraesentationem. Haec enim repraesentatio, cum adjunctum habeat nostrae salutis desiderium, sine oratione, saltem interna, non consistit. Quod si qui veterum negant, Christum nunc pro nobis orare, id de supplici ac summissa, ut Rupertus loquitur, oratione est accipiendum. Non enim Christo jam in gloriam Patris assumpto convenit illa supplicandi humilitas, qua usus est in diebus carnis suae mortalis, sicut dictum est supra cap. 5. Sed nec obstat ejus orationi, quod Pater omnia dedit ei in manus. Sequeretur enim, nec iu carne mortali positum orare debuisse. Nam de Christo adhuc mortali dictum illud esse, constat non Bemel, sed saepius, ut Matth. 11., Joan. 3. et 13. Cur autem non sequatur, Ambrosius docet lib. 5. in Lucam super illud cap. 6.: Exiit in montem orare. Nam etsi, inquit, posuerit omnia Pater in potestate Filii, Filius tamen, ut for^ mam hominis impleret, obsecrandum Patrem putat esse pro nobis, quia ad~ vocatus est noster. Orat igitur pro nobis ut homo, sacerdos, advocatus, qui cum Patre omnia potest, et omnia praestat, ut Deus. De hac quaestione nonnulla etiam diximus ad locum similem Rom. 8.
7:26
26. Talis enim decebat, ut nobis esset Pontifex. Ostendit, solum Jesum Christum fuisse, in quem convenirent qualitates ejus Pontificis, qui nos per se, ac propria sua oblatione Deo Patri reconciliatos, et in perpetuum salvos redderet, Quare quod ait: decebat, non sic accipiendum, quasi per alium potuerit idem ilhid officium praestari, tametsi minus decenter; sed quia per neminem alium omnino potuit. Non enim id, quod decet, ab eo, quod oportet, distinguere voluit Apostolus.
Sanctus, innocens, impollutus. San" ctus, Grap^ce ootog. Quo nomine, tam in sacris literis, quam profanis, significatur is, qui ob vitae puritatem aptus est ad divina. Qui pro sancto verterunt: pium, vim Graeci vocabuli non sunt assecuti. Innocens, Graece axaxoQ, hoc est expers malitiae seu peccati. Nam uno verbo dixit, quod Petrus pluribus 1 Epist. 2.: Qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus. Alibi quidem interdum axaxog dicitur, qui ob simplicitatem animi expositus est fraudibus malorum, ut Rom. ult.: Per dulces sermones et benedictiones seducunt corda innocentium. Sed ea sigoificatio minime quadrat huic loco. Denique impollutum vocat, id est nulla peccati sorde coinquinatum. Igitur haec tria: sanctus, innocens, impollutus, ratione magis, quam re differunt; quemadmodum et id, quod sequitur:
Segregatus a peccatoribus. Non ita segregatus a peccatoribus, ut aliquando fuerit unus ex illis; qui sensus impius est; sed nec eo sensu, quod cum peccatoribus olim conversatus, unnc eorum consuetudini subtractus sit. Quod etsi verum, non tamen ab Apostolo significatum est. Sed segregatum dixit a peccatoribus j hoc est, ab eovura moribus et vita longissime distanteui, ac nihil cum illis habentem commune. Nam certe alioqui ineptus foret, qui se propitiatorem pro peccatoribus interponeret. Probat hic locus, nullum purum hominem fuisse idoneum, cujus oblatione genus humanum Deo reconciliaretur; nullus enim purus a peccato. Quamquam Apostokis id proprie agit, ut ab hujus muneris dignitate Leviticos sacerdotes excludat, uti mox patebit. Verum iis exclusis, etiam reliqui homines exchiduntur.
Et excflsior coelis factus. Hoc est: Qui penetravit omnes coeL>s usque ad summum; qui secundum naturam assumptam supremum in rebus obtinet locum. Ex consequenti vult intelligi, Christum esse omni creatura, etiam angelica, superiorem. Unde, cum dicat, talem oportere nobis esse Pontificem, simul innuit, nec per angelos potuisse genus humanum propitiari Deo. Cur ex h^c parte non sequatur id, quod quidam sunt imaginati, Christum. elevatum esse si-pra convexa coelorum, diximus in explicatione similium Nec h>ngc petenda probatio, cum pauL» inferius in cap. sequenti legamus, Christum consedisse in dextera sedis magnitudinis in coelis; non extra aut supra coek)s,
7:27
27. Qui non habet necessitatem quotidie, quemadmodum sacerdotes. Graece: apyiapB.f.r;, Pontiffces, summi sacerdotes. IntelHgit Pontifices Aaronicos, atque ex comparatione non soli.rn docet, Christum iis esse majorem, sed etiam officium oblationis placatoriae. quod Christus egit, prorsus ab illis agi non potuisse.
Prius pro suis deJictis hostias offerre, deinde pro populi. Pro suis delictis, Graece: pro propriis peccatis. Praeceptum fuisse Pontifici, ut prius pro suis, deinde pro populi peccatis hostias offerret, vituli'm quidem pro se, hircum autem pro populo, legitur Levit. 9. et 16. Quod praeceptum nihil ad Christum Pontificem, in quo nullum fuit peccatum; sicut jam declaratam est. Rursus de quotidianis sacerdotum Leviticcrum sacrificiis praeceptum exstat Num. 28. Sed nec ilhid ad Christum sacerdotem pertinere, jam docet:
Hoc enim fecit semel, se ipsum offerendo. Ambigua distinctio non minus in Graeco, quam in Latino: fecit semel; au: semel se ipsum offerendo. Priorem elegerunt Erasmus et Hentenius, dum ita verterunt: Hoc enim fecit semel, cum semet ipsum obtulit. Eadem est distinctio Syri interpretis. Sic enim habet: Hoc enim fecit uno tempore in se ipso oblato. Caeterum Patres Tridentini sess. 22. cap. 1. posteriorem malle videntur, quum, ad hunc Apostoli locum respicientes, dicunt, Christum Dominum semel se ipsum in ara cracis Deo Patri obtulisse. Similiter infra dicitur cap. 9.: Sic et Christus semel pro peccatis mcrtuus est. Veruntam.en utrovis modo distinxeris, idem sensus tanderc resultat. Pronomen hoc non totum refert, quod praecessit; sed illud solum: offerre pro peccatis populi. Nam quomodo pro suis, quae non habuit? Itaque duo sunt, quae Apostolus urget in h)C discrimine Christi et sacerdotum Leviticorum: primum, qu('d non pro suis, sed tantum pro populi peccatis offerat Christus: alterum, quod semel, non quotidie. Tertium discrimen innuitur, quum dicit, ilh>s offerre hostias, scilicet pecudum, Christum offerre se ipsam. Hic h'tem Catholicis movent sectarii. Nam si Christus semel tantum pro peccatis nostris semet ipsum obtulit, neque igitur, inquiunt, obtulit in coena, neque quotidie offert per manus sacerdotum in missae sacrificio. Breviter respondeo, sermonem hic esse de oblatione, quae per se sit efficax ad tollenda peccata; cujusmodi sola est cruenta Christi oblatio in cruce. Sicut autem sacramenta novae legis ad hoc sunt instituta, ut per ea virtus sacrificii crucis ad nos derivetur: ita quoque de quotidiano missae sacrificio, quod Christus in ultima coena instituit, existimandum est, nempe sa^utarem virtutem sacrificii in cruce peracti per hoc incruentum et commemorativum sacrificium quotidie nobis applicari in remissionem peccatorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur, quemadmodum id optime declarat Synodus Tridentina loco supra citato. Verum hujus rei pleniorem explicationem servamus in cap. 9. et 10.
7:28
28. Lex enim homines constituit sacerdotes infirmitatem habentes. Consti^ tuitj praesentis temporis est, xa^iOTTjotv. Sacerdotes, iterum Graece: Pontifices. Explicat necessitatem, de qua dixerat, sacerdotibus esse necesse, ut prius pro suis dilictis hostias ofi^erant. Lex enim non praecipit, in sacerdotes seu Pontifices assumi homines a peccatis immunes; nam tales nec invenit, nec facit. Unde cogebatur admittere homines infirmitatem hahenteSf id est peccatis obnoxios. Constat enim ex praecedentibus, infirmitatem intelligi moralem, qua nimirum fit, "ut quis saepe labatur in peccatum, atque adeo peccatis carere non possit; sicut et accipitur supra cap. 5., ubi dixit, Pontificem ex hominibus assumi, qui condolere possit iis, qui ignorant et ervant; quoniam et ipse circumdatus sit infirmitate, ideoque etiam pro suis peccatis offerre debeat. Hanc infirmitatis acceptionem postulat etiam antithesis inter sacerdotes legis et Christum. Nam quod ad infirmitatem attinet corporalium defectuum, Christus ex infirwMate crucifixus esf, 2 Cor. 13. Infirmitas autem hoc loco significata prorsus a Christo removenda est.
Sermo autem jurisjurandi, qui post legem est, Filium in aeternum perfectum. Supple: constifuit Pontificem. Graecus articulus ir]Q, quem relativo noster interpres expressit, manifeste pertinet ad gemtiv um jurisjurandi, ut vertendum fuerit: Sermo autem jurisjU" randi, quod post legem est, vel potius: fuit. Sermonem jurisjurandi intelligit verbum seu decretum Dei significatum illo versu Psalmi: Juravit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum etc. Fuit autem hoc a Psahnista dictum multo post legem latam, ut significaretur legale sacerdotium, tamquam imperfectum, alio meliore superveniente cassandum. Leges enim priores posterioribus abrogantur, iis maxime, quae clausulas habent efficaciores, cujusmodi hic est jusjurandum. Minus recte se habet, quod Erasmus et alii quidam, textum Ambrosianum secuii, verterunt: supra legem, Id enim Graeca praepositione /xSTd perraro significatur; nec facile reperias exemplum in Sacris literis. Epitheton Filio adJitum: in aeternum perfectum, sive consummatum, docet, Filio adesse omnes illas perfectiones, quae In Pontifice Levitico desiderabantur; ac proinde etiam illam, de qua proxime, quod expers sit peccati. Quare Graeci hanc partem ita exponunt: Qui non nunc solum impeccabilis sit, sed talis semperfuturus. Verum magis placet aliorum generalis expositio, sub qua Graecorum etiam sensus comprehenditur; haec nimirum: Qui non solum ab Initio sanctus, innocens. et impollutus fuerit, atque a peccatoribus segregatus, sed et postea, devicta morte, sublatus in coelos, atque excelsior coelis factus, omnimodam semperque mansuram adeptus sit perfectionem. Hinc collige, Christum, etiam immortalem, et in sublimi coelo regnantem adhuc esse Pontificem nostrum ac Pontificis munus obire. Nam alioqui non consisteret antithesis, quam inter Leviticos Pontifices et Christum hac extrema pavte facit Apostolus. Sed quod munus obit? Interpellat pro nobis, et quodammodo se ipsum offert Deo Patri; sicut in superioribus dictum est. De quo et infra dicetur.
7:1
… M. blesses Abraham and receives the tithe from him; he is therefore superior to the patriarch and to the Levitical priesthood that issued from his loins; he is the type of the absolute superiority of the supreme priesthood of Christ over that of the ancient law (Heb. 7, 1-28).
Salem (Heb. Šālēm, Septuagint Σαλήμ)
SALEM (Heb. Šālēm, Septuagint Σαλήμ). - A Canaanite city, whose king was Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1-2) and which corresponds to Jerusalem, as the parallelism with "Zion" in Ps. 75 (76):3 shows. …
7:2
The Hebrew Malki-sedeq, transcribed by St. Jerome as Melchisedec (A. Vaccari [v. bibl.], p. 208), is explained by W. Gesenius and E. Kautzsch as "king of righteousness" (cf. Heb. 7, 2); by many moderns as: "my king is Sedeq," the name of a Canaanite deity, otherwise unknown (cf. 'adoni-sedeq, Josh. 10, 3; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Genesis, Bonn 1930, p. 221).
7:3
… Thus 1 Cor. 10:4 and Jude 9 ff. contain references to Jewish legends: cf. 2 Tim. 3:8; Mt. 23:35; Heb. 7:3, etc. Thus the liturgy wishes the soul eternal peace "with Lazarus who was once poor." A body of indications favors the parabolic interpretation, which is increasingly followed by …
M. is a type of the Messiah (Ps. 110 [109], 4), to whom the same name and that of the city apply most fittingly in the interpretation given by St. Paul (Heb. 7, 2). Like M., the Messiah is king and priest; of M. no genealogy is given (ἀγενεαλόγητος, Heb. 7, 3),
7:11
Aaron (Heb. 'Ahărān, of uncertain etymology)
In inaugurating his priesthood, Jesus Christ abrogated that of A., a figure without efficacy of its own, like the Mosaic law in which it was grafted (Heb. 7:11-23).
7:19
… declared righteous (Rom. 2:13; 10:5; Gal. 3:12); that it was the shadow of the future Christ (Col. 2:16), in whom it has found its own fulfillment (τέλος; Rom. 10:4). On the other hand, the L. is accused of having brought nothing to perfection (Hebr. 7:19); of being the provoker of God's wrath (Rom. 4:15), because it multiplies transgressions (Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20), awakening the moral conscience (Rom. 3:20) without offering …
7:24
… And in heaven he eternally continues his impetratory intercession with God for men: "always being alive, so as to be able to intercede in their favor" (Hebr. 7:24; cf. Io. 14:16; Rom. 8:34; I Io. 2:1-2).
… And therefore he is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through him: living always to intercede for us» (Hebr. 7, 24-25). Likewise the Church impetrates through the ministry of the priest delegated by it.
7:25
a) Contribution of the Head. — Christ the Redeemer made satisfaction for all our sins with a satisfaction that was condign, superabundant and infinite; he merited for us justification and all supernatural gifts; he prayed (John 17:6-26) and continues to pray for us (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1); he left to the Church, which he instituted, as means of holiness and eternal salvation: true faith, sacrifice, the Sacraments; he gave us (which is a new title for …
… Eucharist, Sacrifice and Sacrament; the second shows the Church triumphant gathered around Christ, who, showing the stigmata of the Passion, perpetually offers His merits and His satisfactions to God for men: "Semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis" (Heb. 7:25). The two parts are united by the symbolic bond of the dove. …
… Under the first aspect a theological discussion has arisen around a text of Heb. 7:25: «Unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum; semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis». …
… Some theologians affirm it, basing themselves on Io. 14, 16; I Io. 2, 1; Rom. 8, 39; Hebr. 7, 25.
… Theol., 3a, q. 22, a. 5), who thus explains the eternity of the Priesthood of Christ inasmuch as «virtus illius hostiae (Christi crucifici) semel oblatæ permanet in aeternum» (ibid., ad 2). d) The priestly function of Christ in heaven is exercised, according to the text of Heb. 7:25, through interpellatio, which theologians interpret in various senses. …
… To designate this activity of salvation, the liturgy employs the verb gubernare, which brings out the royal character, that is, the impulse it gives to souls so that they may reach the supernatural end (cf. Hebr. 9, 24; 7, 25; 4, 9). In her dignity as a new Eve, beside Christ, Mary reigns from on high over the redeemed. …
7:26
… faithful discipleship (Mt. 19, 21), discipleship being a conforming to the master's directives, or that inculcate voluntary service (Mt. 20, 26; Lc. 22, 26). The earthly life of Jesus Christ gave us a perfect example of poverty (II Cor. 8, 9), of chastity (Hebr. 7, 26), of obedience (Phil. 4, 8).
Holiness of Christ and of Mary
HOLINESS OF CHRIST AND OF MARY. - I. HISTORICAL SURVEY. - 1. Holiness of Christ. - The New Testament formally applies to Jesus the adjective "holy" (ἅγιος: Lk. 1:35; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; Heb. 7:26) and also the noun (ὁ ἅγιος): the demons recognized in him "the Holy One" par excellence (Mk. 1:24); the same title is given him by Rev. 3:7.
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.