Opuscula 10.2–10.11

Again the same people say, “If he was not God, how is he fatherless, motherless?” In this, it seems, they no longer call Melchizedek Son, but perhaps Father. And they say, “We do not call him Father, but the Son according to God the Word, before he became flesh or was born of Mary.” And how is God the Word fatherless, you vain-minded? Learn exactly that blessed Paul says all those things were said of the incarnate one. For he says, “He of whom these things are said belonged to another tribe; for it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah.” “But tell us,” they say, “how is Christ, who sprang from Judah, fatherless and motherless after the order of Melchizedek?” not knowing what they say. For Paul did not set down the order with reference to being fatherless, but only to the priesthood. That is why he does not say, “You are fatherless, motherless after the order of Melchizedek,” but, “You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek.” What is “after the order”? That is, after the likeness, and not according to law only. For the tribe of Levi was appointed to be priests according to law; but Melchizedek, not according to law but according to the order of prophecy, showing the things of Christ. That is why he says, “You are a priest for ever,” not after the order of Levi, nor after the order of Aaron, who were of the same tribe, but after the order of Melchizedek, who was a priest without the law.

But again they say to us, “If Melchizedek is a man, how does he remain a priest perpetually?” This too they ask from an extract, running past most of the chapter. For it says, “Made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” Likeness and substance are not the same: the one is a type, the other the truth. Just as the prophet Jonah was made like Christ and remains a prophet in the three-day burial, and as Moses was made like him in leading the people and remains a leader perpetually, so Melchizedek too was made like him in the priesthood of the nations, and remains a priest for ever. That is why it says, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” “But let it be granted,” they say, “that Melchizedek was a man made like Christ; show how he is fatherless and motherless, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God; show the likeness in these, so that we may know that Melchizedek is a man and not Christ himself.” By asking in return in this way, they range themselves not against us but against the divine Scripture. It was enough for them to believe the apostle, who said he was made like the Son of God. So when they say, “Show us the likeness in the names, so that we may believe,” they seem to disbelieve what Paul says; as though, if we lacked such a demonstration, they would stand away from the faith, or will stand away, as indeed they have. Since, then, many names can be found in the true Scripture whose explanation is hard for most to find, will the church on this account stand away from the faith handed down and be led by their suspicions? Far from it! Yet we will not keep silent without discernment on this account, but will show, as far as we can, the likeness in the things mentioned.

Paul calls Melchizedek fatherless and motherless according to the following word, “without genealogy.” Since it is not stated in the genealogy of what father or what mother he was, or when he was born or when he died, for this reason he has neither beginning of days nor end. For he could not have a genealogy, being descended from the nations that were left over, as Scripture makes plain from his dwelling place. In this he was made like the Son of God, since the Lord Jesus Christ had no father on earth and had no mother in heaven. And since we have said that by design it is not stated in the divine Scripture when Melchizedek was born or when he died, and for this reason it says he had neither beginning of days nor end of life, they seek the likeness in this word too, saying, “If this is said of Melchizedek, tell us also of Christ how he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, so that we may know the likeness in this too. For we know that the one born of Mary both had a beginning and died and rose according to the Scriptures.” We say to this: “Do you believe the Gospel, that the Word became flesh, not changed into a man but taking man into himself?” They say, “Yes, we believe this.” “If, then, you believe, know that Christ neither is nor is understood to be a mere man, since he never existed on one side alone and was united afterward. It is clear that God the Word first worked in a manner worthy of God, as it is written, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy one born of you will be called Son of God.’ Hence we understand that Christ has neither beginning of days nor end of life. For if the Word without beginning became the beginning of the incarnation, it is clear that Christ is without beginning because of the union from the womb. So Melchizedek too is likened to him in this, his birth and his death being passed over by design, to foreshow the mysteries of Christ.” [5] And again they say, “Did the Lord take our body or not?” “Yes, ours; but he did not take it as something divided. For he did not cause it to exist beforehand and then unite himself with it, but made the union indivisible from the womb, as we said before.” At once they say, “Why then do you count his years?” “Years are counted not from a nature taken on one side, but from the birth of the man who came to be. For Scripture did not say that a mere man was born, as you say, God the Word, but Christ, who is God and man together, the undivided and indivisible Son of God. So he had a beginning of the birth of the dispensation, but has no beginning of nature, because of the union from the womb. For to what, tell me, will you assign a beginning? To a mere body? But the Lord's body never existed as mere body, according to the word of the Gospel that says to Joseph, ‘Do not fear to take Mary your wife; for what is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.’ Or will you assign a beginning to the Christ who was born? See, he is the Word himself made flesh, as has been shown in the Gospels. So you can assign to Christ neither division nor beginning, as has been shown.” “Let it be granted,” they say, “that Christ has no beginning because of the union; does the union have no beginning?” “It both has and has not, because the one without beginning became the beginning of the union; and for this reason I said it both has and has not. But it is more reverent to say that it has not. For whatever is united hypostatically, even if it is understood from two, yet what is united to the nature of the stronger is both understood and named as that. Just as a river formed from rain and mingled with the sea is no longer called a river but sea, having taken its beginning from there and ending there. If the bodily power, as superior, had worked upon the Word and so the union came about, let it be understood to have a beginning according to the nature of the body. But if God the Word worked in a manner worthy of God according to the Gospel, it is clear that the holy body has been ennobled toward that nature; for in him it pleased the whole fullness of the Godhead to dwell bodily. And if the whole fullness, clearly nothing of the Godhead is left that the holy body of Christ does not have; whether you speak of being without beginning, or Godhead, or immortality, or almighty power, or authority, or might, or immortal wisdom, it has all; for it pleased the whole fullness of the Godhead to dwell in him bodily. That is why Paul says, ‘From now on we know no one according to the flesh; even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.’ For we have known that in him it pleased the whole fullness of the Godhead to dwell bodily, and we have been filled in him. He did not say ‘in them’ but ‘in him’; for he is the fullness of him who fills all in all. So, then, Christ is understood as having neither beginning of days nor end of life.”

Again they say, “If Melchizedek is a man, how does he remain a priest perpetually?” This is to be understood in two ways, not only of him but of all the saints. First, that it is stated in Scripture, “perpetually,” and that they remain with God perpetually: Isaiah the prophet remains a prophet perpetually, both in Scripture and with God. Likewise the apostles remain perpetually; otherwise, with what hope did they die daily for Christ? And all who served as priests to Christ remain perpetually. So holy Melchizedek too, having served as priest to God, remains perpetually, according to the word of the Lord, who says that all live to him. They take Melchizedek into theology according to this word, thinking it befits him as God: “See how great this man is, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils.” And what has this to do with the dignity of Godhead? Do you wish to see a greater lowliness of Abraham? When he took the cave for Sarah's burial, he bowed down to the sellers. Shall we then deify them too, because the patriarch bowed down to them? Far from it! See how great their folly is, that they define God by size, and by such smallness! For he did not say, “See how great is he who made heaven and earth and the sea, who knows the mind of human beings in their voluntary movements, who assigned what is due to all, appointing it to appear fittingly not at once but in its own time.” Nor did he say, “He who weighed out in measure the falls of rain and snow, the frosts of winter and the blasts of summer heat, so as not to destroy the world.” Nor did he say, “He who preserves justice in compassion and can have mercy on the sinner without pretence, who is everywhere undivided and remains in the Father without confusion; the creator of good things and the discerning knower of all, who bound the strong man in weakness and plundered the goods of the cunning serpent in foolishness, who brought life out of death and made plain what was hidden.” The apostle said nothing like this about Melchizedek, but, “See,” he says, “how great this man is, to whom Abraham gave a tenth!” If he were God, would Paul have confined the incomprehensible power within a measure of size, and that in nothing wonderful, but in the tithes of Abraham, which the priests under the law also receive? When, then, reading, you find something written about Melchizedek, remember the apostle: “He of whom these things are said belonged to another tribe,” and you will never go astray. And when you hear from the Melchizedekians that he is called God, remember the apostolic word, that he is of another race, that is, of the Canaanites. For it is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ sprang from Judah. Follow the faith of Paul, and do not assign what was declared prophetically to the one through whom it was declared, nor again attribute to the types themselves what happened in types. Of what tribe was Melchizedek, that you think the things said belong to him? Erring in this way, you would surely think the lamb slain as a type was God, saying, “If it was not God, how did its blood drive away the destroying angel?” Perhaps you will deify the bronze serpent too, supposing these things and saying, “If it was not God, how did it heal those bitten by serpents?” But we will say the apostle's word: “He of whom these things are said belonged to another tribe.” For each of these worked the power not through itself but through the Christ interpreted in them; so too Melchizedek, even if he was called king of righteousness and king of peace, was not so by nature, but by interpretation, according to Scripture. For he of whom these things are said belonged to another tribe.

For I too would have liked to ask these deceivers: why did the prophets or the apostles not proclaim him to be God? If they were moved by envy or fear, would they not have made known the one born of Mary to all without envy or fear? And if they did not know, then they were children compared with you, and you more perfect than they, since what escaped them has been revealed to you. But what do these clever people say? “Do not be surprised that the apostles did not know this mystery, since even to Paul it appeared hard to explain, when he said, ‘About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain.’” O the boastfulness! Thinking themselves wiser than the apostles, they understand neither what they say nor what they affirm. For if they believe at all that the word about Melchizedek is long and hard to explain, let them say in what respect it is hard to explain: in ours, or in theirs? We say that Melchizedek is interpreted as referring to our Lord Jesus Christ, and the word is long for us and hard to explain, just as the apostle says; but they say he is God by nature. And if he is God by nature, how is he hard to explain? God is universally believed to be beyond interpretation, but types are interpreted. Therefore let us see for whom holy Paul bears witness when he says, “About whom we have much to say, and it is hard to explain.” If for them, as having spoken of Melchizedek as God, let them interpret their God, as having understood him to be God by nature; but if not, we in the Lord will interpret, as far as we can, the things of Melchizedek as types, according to the purpose of holy Paul, and let them stop blaspheming. First, Jerusalem was called Jebus; hence we know that Melchizedek was from the seven nations that were destroyed, for he was a Jebusite. Later, after the nations were driven out and the people settled, God allotted it to the priests, for the sacrifices to be brought there from every place of the Jews; hence too, after he gave rest from the enemies, he renamed the city Salem, which is peace. And Jerusalem is interpreted “vision of peace.” For this reason Melchizedek is interpreted in Paul and in Scripture as king of peace; for he reigned in it before, as if one were to say, king of Selge; and Selge is interpreted purity. Is not the ruler of Selge, then, fittingly interpreted ruler of purity, according to the name of the city? Yet he is not ruler of purity by nature, but by interpretation of the name. But Christ is by nature ruler of purity. Do they understand, then, that Melchizedek too is called king of peace by interpretation of a name? If this is the heavenly Jerusalem where he reigned, let its ruler also be king of peace by nature; but if it was a type of the Jerusalem above, it is plain that he too was named king of peace typically, because of the city's name. And “king of righteousness” is the interpretation of his own name, that is, Melchizedek, in the Canaanite tongue, as we have learned from those who know it, as if one were to say Ambrosius, that is, immortal. What then? Since many people are called Ambrosius, are they therefore immortal by nature, according to the name? Not at all. How many are called Eugenius, though they are slaves! How many are called Athanasius, though they are mortal! How many Polychronius, and they become short-lived! How many Democrates, and they ruled no one! And the titles are found not to fit the facts.

Since we have interpreted the names as far as we can, come, as far as possible, let us interpret the events too. Just as Abraham, arming himself with his own three hundred and eighteen household servants, routed the foreigners in the time of Melchizedek, so in the time of Christ his true household, the three hundred and eighteen patriarchs, armed in apostolic fashion in the city of Nicaea, routed the heresies. See a fitting interpretation. Then Melchizedek brought out bread and wine for the refreshment of those returning from the war. So too Christ, the great high priest, gives to those returning to him from the spiritual war bread and wine sanctified, saying, “Take, eat of it, all of you.” And again Abraham gives tithes from the spoils to the priest of God; and those who emulate his faith offer Christ the firstfruits. For the five senses, dedicated to him in a twofold way, I mean spiritually and particularly, are a kind of tithes of the parts of our nature, which was once taken captive by the foreigners according to the story mentioned. Have you understood from what has been said how the word is long and hard to explain, as holy Paul the apostle said before? Do not, then, call the types the truth, nor, on hearing “fatherless and motherless” because he is without genealogy, reckon him for this reason Son of God by nature. Or have you not read all that the divine Scripture tells in his story about the types: about Lot, Abraham's nephew, about these kings, the names both of the men and of the places, plainly showing both Melchizedek and the city of Salem? None of these is interpreted of itself as referring to the Lord's incarnation. For if the names are nature, they are no longer interpretation; and if interpretation, no longer nature. How then is the word long and hard to explain? But know what is written, that these things happened to them as types, and were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.

And it is necessary to ask them this too: how did God the Word, having no flesh then, act as priest? And for whom did he act as priest? If you say for the world, where is the victim? For you have heard that without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. And who are the heralds and witnesses of the priesthood? If they say that he is the Word himself, but became a type of things to come, then is the fleshless one found to be a type of the one who would become flesh, or rather was he a type of himself? Where he himself is present, it is not called a type but the truth. And if it was the truth then, what shall we say of the incarnation? And how does Scripture say that this mystery was not made known to other generations as it has now been revealed to the holy apostles and prophets? For then neither prophets nor apostles cried out about this. But what do they say again? “If he was not God, how was he a priest before the law?” We say to them: priesthood is so called because a man in the flesh offers sacrifices to God; without flesh no one is called a priest. Just as Abel sacrificed to God before the law and for this reason has been shown a priest, and as Jacob sacrificed to him and has been shown a priest, as all these sacrificed before the law, so Melchizedek too was a priest before the law. But they say, “The divine Scripture did not call these priests.” The divine Scripture does not speak superfluously, as you demand. And if you seek the difference of the matter at all, Melchizedek did not sacrifice but was only named a priest. These, then, who sacrificed, are more firmly priests than he who was named, since to sacrifice belongs to priesthood more than to bear the title. We have set out such a difference against their untimely talk; but we in the Lord hold both him and them alike as priests of God.

I am amazed that they have not heard blessed Peter crying out plainly about them and saying, “There will be false teachers, who will bring in secretly destructive heresies.” He fittingly said “bring in secretly”; for they truly watch for opportunities, and as they find those they meet, so they make their answers: sometimes they openly call him God, sometimes they cunningly confess, “We name him priest of God, as the divine Scripture does.” If they believe the divine Scripture at all, let them say everything according to Scripture. First, Scripture does not call him God; neither let them say it. And let them confess this too, that he is made like the Son of God, not Son by nature; that he is by interpretation king of righteousness, not by nature; and that he of whom these things are said belonged to another tribe; and let them not pick out an ambiguous extract, so as to persuade the many by hypocrisy and ensnare the more childish. We, having received such a commandment in order from the Lord, are compelled to persuade those who go astray through ignorance; but they, when they see those trampled by them wishing to repent, overpower them with more persuasive arguments, always saying, “Even if Melchizedek is not God by nature, we have not sinned by deifying a man; for it is written, ‘I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High,’” not knowing that such double-mindedness plainly makes faith in Christ unstable, if they thus consider the Lord equal to all human beings, and no longer, as he is, Saviour, God, and Master; and it leads them to worship the creation instead of the Creator. Since, then, twisting about like a serpent, they squeeze those who wish to escape them, we too, having the command, “Be wise as serpents,” must imitate their mischief and undo such coils of theirs with versatile thoughts, saying, “Even if Melchizedek is God, we would not sin in this by holding and naming him a man; for it is written that there is no other name under heaven in which we must all be saved but the Lord Jesus Christ, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” Let them hear the apostle commanding not to accept second preachers of the Gospel. “For if one comes,” he says, “and preaches another Jesus whom we did not preach, or you receive another Spirit which you did not receive, or another gospel which you did not accept, you bear with it well.” If, then, he seals the things of the Gospel, what will happen to those who bring in heresies, or those who believe them? But what do they say to us? “Why does not everyone teach in the churches as you do here today?” Let them know that all who teach confirm the things of the apostles as firm, and no one yet innovates as though they had not yet been preached; and if anyone ever is caught having gone astray unwillingly, he certainly either turns back when rebuked, or, choosing falsehood, will be reckoned with those outside, which is likely to happen to these too. And in this one can test their folly, that they are more wicked than every heresy. For having been excommunicated and anathematized by the holy bishops, where they are unknown they communicate secretly and assemble, that is, as we said before, they dishonour the mystery and dispensation of Christ. And not only this, but if ever through their feigned devotion they manage to be received by bishops or visitors, they at once secretly slander the truly faithful and orthodox as evil-minded, and cause them to be hated or persecuted. But he who knows the thoughts of human beings overturns their cunning, and having exposed them, lets them fall into the pit they dug, as it is written.

But leaving aside their secret contributions of evil, let us return to the matter in hand, having fully refuted their false belief. For that name the prophets did not proclaim beforehand, the apostles did not teach, the martyrs did not confess, none of the patriarchs made him known as God, none of the holy fathers wrote it. Therefore come to your senses, O man, and know that the devil has made you think beyond measure, so that, sick by your will with his pride, you might also fall together with him in his fall. For how is it not by will? Having so great a cloud of witnesses to confirm the true faith, you have chosen and confessed what none of them confessed. If all of them were saved without that knowledge and that confession, be saved you too in imitation of them, and say with holy Paul, “I decided to know nothing else except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” But if you reckon that without such a confession you cannot be saved, clearly you hold all the saints as not saved, even if you do not say so with your mouth, playing the hypocrite with people; yet the sequence of the matter cries louder than your voice. Do you see into how many blasphemies and how many evils you have fallen through such false belief of yours, or rather complete unbelief? Learn how: Melchizedek did no signs, laid down no commandments, fixed no threats, did not die for us, did not give participation in the Holy Spirit. I do not know, then, what pledge of assurance you have for faith in him. And if you say, “He gave us all these when he became flesh,” you prove yourself even more guilty of false belief. For in the things in which the Lord made himself known to us through words and deeds, in these he also commanded us to believe. For Scripture said that he appeared to Abraham in a voice, giving him commandments, foretelling what would be, and promising benefits in the land of the Chaldeans, and at the oak of Mamre, and in very many other words and deeds, in no way obscurely; but Scripture has made nothing known either as Melchizedek or through Melchizedek. For this reason your faith has no substance, your opinion is obscure, and such knowledge of God is vain. Therefore, since the orthodox faith has been made plain through many witnesses, those who look elsewhere and, with or without reason, name Melchizedek Son of God by nature are plainly acting like Jews; because Jesus Christ, born of Mary, is himself the Son of the living God, and nothing is lacking to him, that we should seek the fullness elsewhere; for in him it pleased the whole fullness of the Godhead to dwell bodily, and we are all filled in him, who believe his words as the Son of God, by the good pleasure, power, and grace of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. To him be glory, might, and kingdom, now and always and for ever and ever. Amen.