Original Douay–Rheims AnnotationsGenesis 14
English College of Douai–Rheims
Read Genesis 14 in the BibleGenesis 14:19
Blessed him.
Calvin (in cap. 7. v. 9. Heb.) Musculus (locis com. c. de Missa Papist.) and some other Protestants, to avoid the connexion of Melchisedech's Priesthood and bringing forth of bread and wine, will needs have these words, He was a Priest, referred only to that which followeth, he blessed Abraham. [1] [2] And some English translaters for this purpose have corrupted the text, by changing And into Therefore, saying thus: And he was a Priest of the most High God, therefore he blessed him. Which is also a false gloss. For Melchisedech did not bless Abram because he was a Priest, for Abram was also a Priest, but because he was a greater Priest than Abram; which S. Paul urgeth saying: [3] [4] Without all contradiction that which is less, is blessed of the better, concluding thereupon that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham. Again, other Superiors that are not Priests may bless their inferiors. As Josue and Salomon blessed the people, and parents bless their children. [5]
- 1 Heretical translation.
- 2 Bible 1579.
- 3 The greater blesseth the less.
- 4 Heb. 7.
- 5 Iosue 8. & 22. 3. Reg. 8.
Genesis 14:20
Gave tithes.
This is another prerogative of Melchisedech, ◦ that Abram payed tithes to him, which S. Paul likwise explicateth (Heb. 7.) and proveth thereby that Christ's Priesthood is greater than the Levitical. Moreover this paying of tithes by Abraham sheweth the antiquity of this tradition, being practised in Abraham's time, that the spiritual Superiors received tithes of their inferiors.
- ◦ Calvin contemneth all the ancient fathers. in ca. 9. Heb.
Original Douay–Rheims Annotations — English College of Douai–Rheims. CC0 1.0
Genesis 14:18
Melchisedech.
S. Hierom being earnestly requested by Evagrius to give his judgement touching Melchisedech [1] [2], whom a nameless author had endeavoured to prove to be the Holy Ghost, plainly confuteth that error: as also another error of Origen and Didymus saying, he was an Angel. Likewise S. Epiphanius (heresi 55. and 76.) relateth and condemneth a third error, of some that thought him to be the Son of God. These two Fathers, and S. Augustine (li. de heresibus her. 34.) and diverse others whom S. Hierome allegeth, prove evidently, that he was a very man, a Priest and a King, yea the High Priest (at least of that country) Superior to Abraham, and a figure of Christ. Besides these heresies, the same S. Hierome relateth two probable opinions. [3] The Jews' Rabbins generally hold that Melchisedech was Sem the son of Noe, from whom Abraham and all the Hebrews descended. Which they seem rather to affirm, as loath to confess that any man of another Nation than their own, should have been greater and more excellent than Abraham in spiritual causes, than for any reason they do or can allege. Yet many, escpecially later writers, as Liranus, Tostatus, Genebrardus, and others, do embrace this opinion as most probable. Though S. Hierome seemeth only to have added the Hebrew's opinion (as he saith) because he would intimate all to his friend, when he had first cited graver Authors, S. Ireneus, Hyppolytus, Eusebius Cesariensis, Eusebius Emissenus, Apolinarius, and Eustathius, all agreeably affirming that Melchisedech was a Chananite [4], King of Salem, which was afterwards called Jerusalem. To this opinion agreeth Philo Judæus, continually speaking of him as of a stranger to the Jews' Nation. Josephus also a Jew writeth plainly (li. 7. de bello Iudaico. c. 18.) that he was of Chanaan, and Prince of the Chananites. Also S. Dionysius Ariopagita (Cælest. Hier. c. 9.) S. Epiphanius (her. 55. & 67.) Theodoretus (q. 63. in Gen) and Suidas, are of the same mind, and many other Christian Doctors. Who confirm their assertion by that S. Paul saith to the Hebrews [5]: He whose generation is not numbered among them, took tithes of Abraham. [6] For what else can S. Paul mean, but that Melchisedech's kindred & people, was diverse from the kindred and people of the Jews? Which he could not say of Sem, from whom Abraham & all Jews descended: as it cannot be said, that Adam and Noe are of diverse generation from any people that now liveth, because we all come of them. Of this difficulty (not pertaining to any controversy of our time) the studious may see more in F. Pererius his commentary upon this 14. chap. of Genesis. disp. 3.
Bringing forth.
Seeing the Royal Prophet David, and S. Paul say Christ is a Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedech [1] [2], we demand of Protestants, if Christ fulfilled not Melchisedech's figurative Sacrifice offered in bread and wine, by offering his own body and blood at his last supper in forms of bread & wine, and by instituting the same to be offered by his Priests till the end of the world, what other figurative sacrifice of Melchisedech they can find performed by Christ, by which it may appear that he is a Priest for ever according to that Order? Calvin (li. 4. Instit. c. 18. para. 2.) Kemnisius (par. 2. exam. pag. 740. & 747.) Peter Martyr (in 1. Cor. 5.) and most English Protestants grant that Melchisedech was a Priest, [3] and that the peculiar function of a Priest if to offer Sacrifice; wherefore they having no sacrifice will have only Ministers and no Priests: but they deny that Melchisedech offered Sacrifice in bread and wine. Whereupon we join issue with them to prove that he did, and that by this place amongst others of holy Scripture.
Kemnisius complaineth that the Latin text hath Obtulit, for Protulit, Offered, for Brought forth. And to disprove the same, he allegeth the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and S. Cyprian. But Catholics more justly complain of him for lying. For all Latin Editions have Proferens, bringing forth. [1] The question therefore in controversy is, to what end and use Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine? Calvin and Kemnisius say it was only to refresh or feed Abraham and his men, and not for sacrifice. Which their bare saying is without reason, for that there was store of victuals in the prey (v. 11.) and they had eaten thereof [2]. Moreover the Hebrew word Hotsi, brought forth, is a word pertaining to Sacrifice, as in the 6. chap. of Judges. (v. 18. and 19) and importeth that the bread and wine were first offered in Sacrifice, and then doubtless they did participate: thought they wanted not other sufficient corporal food. Again, the words following For he was the Priest of God most High, can have no other sense, [3] but that he did the function of a Priest in the bread and wine which he brought, otherwise if the only cause of bringing that provision had been to relieve the camp with victuals, the reason would rather have been yielded, because he was a bountiful King, a liberal Prince, a special friend to Abraham, as indeed he was: But none of these reasons or the like fitted this purpose so well, nor touched the cause of bringing forth bread and wine, as to signify that he was Priest, whose office is to offer Sacrifice.
Here again some Protestants take exception against the Latin text, that the causual conjunction Enim, for, is not agreeable to the Hebrew, but should be the copulative Et, and, which is a mere wrangling. ◦ For the learned know well enough that the Hebrew particle is better expressed in such places by Enim, or quia, for, or because, than by Et. And so the English Bible printed in the year of our Lord 1552. readeth: Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the most Highest God. The latter Editions also in like places have not the copulative And, but some other word as the sense requireth Gen. 20, v. 3. Thou art but a dead man, for the woman's sake which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife: Where the Hebrew phrase is, And she is married to a husband, Gen. 30. v. 27. they read thus: For I have proved that the Lord hath blessed men for thy sake, where precisely construing the Hebrew they should say, I divined (or conjectured) and the Lord blessed me for thy sake. Likewise Esay 64. v. 5. they read: But Lo, thou hast been angry, for we offended, the Hebrew is thus: Lo thou art angry, and we have sinned. In the same place they translate, Yet shall we be saved, which the Hebrew expresseth by the copulative, And we shall be saved. So when they think it convenient, they translate the Hebrew particle, for, that, yet, which strictly signifieth And.
Now let us also see the original in this place. [1] In the Hebrew it is thus: Vmalchi Tsedec Melec Salem Hotsi Lechem Vaiaiin. Vehv Cohen Leel Elion. Vaie Vare Chehv, &c. In English word for word thus: And Melchisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine. And he the Priest to God most High. And he blessed him, &c. Where albeit the causual word, For, is not expressed, yet these words, And he the Priest, further declaring that besides the office and dignity of a King (which was said before) Melchisedech was also a Priest, must needs signify that he did something about the bread and wine belonging to a Priest's office [2]. And what that something was, perhaps the University of Cambridge will testify, whose late Professour of Divinity teacheth plainly, that Melchisedech offered Sacrifice, and was therein a figure of Christ ( Pag. 6. Reprehen.) [3] Sacerdotes (saith he) ij vere & proprie sunt, qui sacrificia faciunt; qualis fuit. Aaron, & Aaronis filii, & Melchisedechus, & quem illi adumbrabant, Christus. Priests truly and properly are they, that offer sacrifices, such as was Aaron, and the sons of Aaron, and Melchisedech, and Christ, whom they prefigured. If then both Aaron & Melchisedech were truly & properly Priests, because they offered sacrifices (according to this Professor's definition) and both were figures of Christ, it must needs be granted that as Christ fulfilled the figure of Aaron's bloody sacrifices, in offering himself upon the Cross; so he also fulfilled the figure as well of unbloody sacrifices of Aaron, as escpecially of Melchisedech's Sacrifice, in some other besides that on the Cross, seeing the Prophet David and S. Paul say, Christ is a Priest (not according to Aaron's Order, for that was to have an end, but) For ever according to the Order of Melchisedech [4]. And what other Sacrifice did our Saviour offer to remain perpetual, but of his own body & blood in unbloody manner, under the forms of bread and wine, with commandment of his Apostles and Priests to do the same till the end of the world? Let the indifferent Reader weigh it well: And whosoever is not very proud will for his better instruction or confirmation, esteem, the uniform judgement of many, ancient, goodly, and learned Fathers, writing upon this place. We will only recite their words without other deduction, for brevity sake.
S. Clemens Alexandrinus, li. 4. Strom. versus finem, writeth thus: Melchisedech King of Salem, Priest of God most High, gave wine & bread sanctified nutriment in type of the Eucharist. ◦ S. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Cæcilium: Christ is Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedech, which Order is this coming from that Sacrifice, and thence descending, that Melchisedech was Priest of God most High, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a Priest of God most High, than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same which Melchisedech had offered, bread and wine, to wit, his own body and blood. And a little after: That therefore in Genesis, the blessing might be rightly celebrated about Abraham by Melchisedech the Priest, the image of Christ's Sacrifice consisting in bread and wine went before, which thing our Lord perfecting and performing, offered bread and the chalice mixt with wine, and he that is the plentitude, fulfilled the verity of the prefigured image.
Eusebius Cesariensis li. 5. Demonst. Evang. c. 3. Even as he who was Priest of Nations was never seen to offer corporal sacrifices, but only bread & wine, when he blessed Abraham; so first our Lord & Saviour himself, then Priests that come from him, exercising the spiritual office of Priesthood in all Nations, after the Ecclesiastical ordinances, do represent the mysteries of his body and healthful blood, in bread and wine: which mysteries Melchisedech knew so long before by divine spirit, and used as representations of things to come. S. Ambrose li. 5. de Sacramen. c. 1. We know the figure of the Sacraments went before, in Abraham's time, when Melchisedech offered Sacrifice. Idem in cap. 5. Heb. It is clear that oblations of cattle are vanished, which were in Aaron's Order, but Melchisedech's institution remaineth, which is celebrated all the world over in administration of the Sacraments. S. Hierome Epist. ad Marcellam ut migret Bethleem: Have recourse to Genesis, and you shall find Melchisedech, King of Salem, Prince of this city, who even then in figure of Christ offered bread and wine, and dedicated the Christian mystery in our Saviour's body and blood. Idem Epist. ad Evagrium: Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the Sacrament of Christ in bread and wine, a simple and pure sacrifice. Idem Quest. in Gen. c. 14. Our mystery if signified in the word of Order, not by Aaron in immolating brute victims, but in offering bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus, Idem in c. 26. Matthei: Melchisedech the Priest of God most High, by offering bread and wine, prefigured the Mystery of the Eucharist. S. Chrysostom ho. 35. in Gen. Seeing the figure, think also I pray thee of the verity. Ho. 36. After that Melchisedech King of Salem brought bread and wine (for he was Priest of God most High) Abraham received his oblations. S. Augustine Epist. 95. Melchisedech bringing forth the Sacrament (or mystery) of our Lord's table, knew how to figurate his eternal Priesthood. Idem li. 16. c. 22. civit. There first appeared that Sacrifice, which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole world. Idem li. 17. c. 17. li. 18. c. 35. and upon the Psalm 109. li. 1. contra advers. Leg. & Prophet. c. 20. Ser. 4. de Sanctis Innocentibus. But it is bootless or needless to cite more places, or more Authors: for whosoever will not submit their judgements to these, would not, it is like, believe, if their own Masters should rise again and warn them, lest they be damned for their incredulity. ◦