Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First)
Chapter 6: That a True Sacrifice Is Offered in the Mass, Proved from the First Testimony of Scripture and from the Priesthood of Melchisedech
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book V: On the Sacrifice of the Mass (First Book). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now at length we must come to the arguments for the truth. And first we shall bring forward the testimonies of the Scriptures; then of the ancient Fathers; lastly the reasons. And of the divine writings the first place will be held by the figures of the Old Testament; the second, the prophecies of the Prophets; the third, the testimonies from the Gospel; the fourth, from the Acts of the Apostles; the fifth, from the epistles of blessed Paul.
Let the first testimony of Scripture, then, be that of Genesis 14: Melchisedech, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine: for he was the priest of the most high God. This passage David, Psalm 109, and Paul, Hebrews 7, so refer to Christ that they do not say Melchisedech merely bore a figure of Christ (which could have been said of Aaron too), but that Christ was a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and not according to the order of Aaron, as Paul openly writes.
Now there are two differences between those two priesthoods, from which two arguments can be drawn. The first and chief difference is placed in the external species of the sacrifice. For although all the sacrifices of the ancients agreed in the thing signified, since they signified the same crucified Christ, yet in the signs they were diverse: for the Aaronic sacrifices were bloody, and under the species of slain animals represented the death of Christ; the sacrifice of Melchisedech was unbloody, and under the species of bread and wine figured the body and blood of the same Christ. Wherefore if Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and not of Aaron, He had to institute an unbloody sacrifice, and under the species of bread and wine, as the Catholic Church rightly sings in the Vespers of the feast of the body of the Lord: “Christ the Lord, a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered bread and wine.” And if from the force of the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech it were not certainly gathered, as it is certainly gathered, that Christ had to sacrifice a host under the species of bread and wine; yet it would be gathered from the force of the type and figure. For Melchisedech in that ceremony of bread and wine was a most manifest figure, by the consent of the Fathers which we shall shortly bring forward, of Christ instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist in bread and wine. But Melchisedech offered bread and wine as priest of the most high God, and therefore truly sacrificed. Therefore Christ too in the institution of the Eucharist acted as a priest and truly sacrificed, otherwise He would not have exactly fulfilled that figure.
There is also another difference between the priesthood of Melchisedech and of Aaron; that the former was of one man only, who neither succeeded another nor had another succeed him; but the latter was of many, who by death succeeded one another. Which difference the Apostle pursues, Hebrews 7, where he says that Melchisedech was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life: and applying all these to Christ he says that He is a priest forever, who namely succeeded none, and to whom none ought to succeed, since He always lives, and since God swore that His priesthood is not to be changed or transferred to another, as befell the Levitical priesthood. For this Paul proves from those words of Psalm 109: The Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent: Thou art a priest forever, etc. And if the priesthood of Christ lasts to the consummation of the world (for this Scripture calls eternal in this place, as Anselm and Theophylact expound on chapter 5 to the Hebrews), certainly the rite of the sacrifice too ought to last; unless perhaps Christ has an idle priesthood. But the sacrifice of the cross was accomplished only once, nor can it be repeated any more, since Christ can now die no more: therefore there must be another sacrifice which is continually offered; for he cannot be called a priest who has no sacrifice which he may offer. It is necessary, therefore, to admit in the Church a true action of sacrificing, which is rendered to Christ the high priest through His ministers: which action certainly will be none, if the sacrifice of the Mass be taken away from the midst.
Moreover before the incarnation of Christ, because Christ was not yet really a priest (for the priesthood belongs to Christ as He is less than the Father, and therefore as He is man, not as He is God, as Augustine too notes on Psalm 109, on that, Thou art a priest forever), He could not of Himself offer sacrifice: yet that even at that time He might be called a priest, and might be Himself one and the same high priest from the beginning of the world to the end, in that way in which He could, He offered sacrifice, namely through types and figures. For as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of the sacrifice of the cross, and in all those victims the immaculate Lamb Himself was typically slain (whence in Apocalypse 13 the Lamb is said to be slain from the origin of the world), so all those priests were certain types of Christ, and in all who sacrificed, He Himself sacrificed. And if on account of the eternity of the priesthood Christ even before the Incarnation, in the way in which He could, exercised the priesthood, how much more after the Incarnation, when He was really called a priest by the Father, and a priest without a successor, ought He not to cease from the office of sacrificing until the consummation of the world? For to what purpose does His priesthood remain, if He is never henceforth to sacrifice?
To these arguments the adversaries try to answer. For Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 2, and Kemnitz in Part 2 of the Examination, pages 740 and 747, and others in what they call the Ecclesiastical exposition on Genesis, and Peter Martyr on chapter 5 of the first to the Corinthians, admit that Melchisedech was a priest and bore the type of Christ; but deny that bread and wine were offered by him to God in sacrifice. And thence they gather that the priesthood of Christ does not consist in the oblation of bread and wine, and yet is according to the order of Melchisedech: and that the eternity of the same priesthood of Christ too is not placed in this, that until the consummation of the world a sacrifice under the species of bread and wine be offered to the Lord in the Church.
To refute this solution accurately, we shall first weigh the text of Genesis. Secondly we shall adduce the consent of the Fathers, who expressly write that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God, and place the eternity of the priesthood of Christ, and its likeness to the priesthood of Melchisedech, in this, that in the Church a sacrifice is offered under the species of bread and wine. Thirdly we shall refute what they object on the contrary.
As to the first, these are the words of Scripture in the Vulgate edition: “But Melchisedech, king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine (for he was the priest of the most high God), blessed him, etc.” Genesis 14. Here first Kemnitz complains that in the Vulgate edition it is read, Melchisedech offered bread and wine, and adds that the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek edition have not the sacrificial word offered, but a word which simply signifies to bring out or bring forth, namely brought forth, in which way too Cyprian read. But we more truly complain of Kemnitz, that he so openly lies about our edition. For in no Latin edition is it ever read offered, but I see all constantly have bringing forth. Which word, however, although of itself it signifies nothing but to bring forth or bring, yet according to the exigency of the place is often used for the bringing of a host to immolation, as in Judges 6, where twice is had the same word which we see in this place in Genesis, and it openly signifies the bringing of a host. Which we see too in the word which properly signifies to bring, and yet everywhere in Scripture is restricted to sacrifice, so as to be the same as to offer, as is clear from Genesis 4, where the sacrifice of Cain and Abel is described.
There follows in the cited sentence: bread and wine. Here Calvin and Kemnitz contend that the bread and wine were brought forth for the refreshment of Abraham and his companions, who, wearied, were returning from the battle. But we do not deny that they were given as food to Abraham and his companions, but say that they were first offered and consecrated to God, and then given to men, that they might partake of the sacrifice.
For first there was no cause why Melchisedech should offer bodily refreshment to Abraham. For, as Scripture there has, Abraham returned from the battle with immense spoil, in which too were those things which pertain to food, as is there said: nay at the end of the chapter it is added that the soldiers of Abraham took food before Melchisedech met them. What need, then, was there of bread and wine for those who abounded in spoils and a little before had eaten and drunk?
Moreover, since Scripture in so many places describes to us the priesthood of Melchisedech as distinct from the Aaronic and as most like the priesthood of Christ, it ought certainly somewhere to have delivered what the sacrifice of Melchisedech was. Since the priesthood is ordered to sacrifice, and the sacrifice being unknown it is necessary that the priesthood too be unknown. But nowhere is mention made of a sacrifice which Melchisedech offered, except in this place: it is necessary, therefore, by bread and wine to understand not profane foods, but sanctified ones, and first offered to God.
Finally this is most efficaciously proved from the following words; for Scripture subjoins: For he was the priest of the most high God. Which reason, rendered by the Holy Spirit Himself, why Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, altogether compels us to understand that the bread and wine were brought forth for sacrifice.
But Kemnitz meets us, and again accuses the Latin edition, that it set down a causal particle instead of a conjunctive; for in the Hebrew it is not causal, but the conjunctive and. Wherefore he himself, following Calvin, renders it thus: And he was the priest of the most high God, and he blessed him, etc. And so he distinguishes the actions of Melchisedech himself as king and priest, so that the bringing of bread and wine pertains to the munificence of the king, but the blessing to the priesthood. But in vain does Kemnitz tear the Vulgate edition. For although word for word it is not in the Hebrew, For he was the priest, but, And he was the priest: yet that conjunctive particle among the Hebrews very frequently holds the place of the causal, and ought to be rendered by for, if the sentence is to be expressed in an elegant Latin phrase, which St. Jerome is wont to do. Examples are at hand: Genesis 20, Behold thou shalt die for the woman thou hast taken, for she hath a husband. In the Hebrew it was, and she hath a husband. Genesis 30, I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me. In the Hebrew it is copulative, I have learned by experience, and the Lord hath blessed me. Isaiah 64, Thou art angry, and we have sinned, that is, Thou art angry, because we have sinned; where most openly the copulative is set for the causal.
Then the adversaries disturb the whole distinction of the sentence, that they may accommodate the words of Scripture to their opinion; which, if it were lawful, we could wrongly interpret the whole of Scripture. For in the Hebrew copy, after those words, And he was the priest of the most high God, is found the accent which the Hebrews call soph pasuq, which indicates that the period is there ended. Wherefore that, And he was the priest, cannot be joined with the following, and he blessed, but ought to be annexed to those preceding, He brought forth bread and wine. The same distinction too we find in the Chaldean, and Greek, and Latin text. And this true and common interpunction and distinction of the sentence being laid down, even if no causal particle were present, the sentence of itself would cry out that the bread and wine were brought forth for sacrifice. For to what purpose would there be joined to those words, He brought forth bread and wine, those, And he was the priest of God, unless that we might understand that the bread and wine were brought forth by Melchisedech the priest to be offered to God?
Moreover the adversaries do not rightly say that Melchisedech blessed Abraham as a priest, and therefore ill interpret the Scripture when they render it thus: He was a priest, and he blessed him, or (as Calvin has) Since he was a priest of God, he blessed Abraham. For Abraham too was a priest, as is clear from the very many sacrifices which he offered: therefore Melchisedech blessed Abraham not as a priest, or because he was a priest, but because he was a greater priest, or because he was absolutely greater, since he was both king and priest. For it is not the office of a priest alone to bless, but of everyone who is greater. For Solomon the king, who was not a priest, blessed the people, 3 Kings 8, and David did the same, 2 Kings 6, and before them Joshua had done the same, chapters 8 and 22, though he was not a priest, but a political prince. And Jacob, Genesis 48, prays the Angel to bless the sons of Joseph. Wherefore blessed Paul, Hebrews 7, from the fact that Melchisedech blessed Abraham, does not gather (as according to Calvin and Kemnitz he ought) that Melchisedech was a priest of God, but that he was greater than Abraham: for the less, as he there says, is without controversy blessed by the greater.
Let there now be added, that we may come to the second point, the consent of the ancient Fathers, which certainly ought of itself alone to suffice to confound the rashness of these new interpreters. And first the whole Church testifies this in the Canon of the Mass, when it says: “Upon which do Thou vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance, and to hold accepted, as Thou didst vouchsafe to hold accepted the gifts of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy high priest Melchisedech offered to Thee, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate host.” Which part of the Canon Ambrose expressly mentions, Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapter 6: from which it is clear that this opinion is most ancient and public, of the whole Church.
But moreover we shall adduce the testimonies of the several Fathers, Greek and Latin, in order of time. Clement of Alexandria, Book 4 of the Stromata, not far from the end: “Melchisedech,” he says, “king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave wine and sanctified bread as nourishment, in a type of the Eucharist.” Observe here that not profane bread for the refreshment of the belly, as the adversaries will, but sanctified bread was given by Melchisedech. And you see that the bread and wine are given by Melchisedech as priest of the most high God, and therefore were offered before to God, and so sanctified. Finally that the bread and wine of the priest Melchisedech is a type of the Eucharist: from which it follows that the priesthood of Christ is called according to the order of Melchisedech because it consists in the species of bread and wine.
St. Cyprian, Book 2, letter 3 to Caecilius, after he had cited those words of the Psalm, Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, thus subjoins: “Which order surely is this, coming from and descending from that sacrifice, that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered this same which Melchisedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely His own body and blood?” Here you plainly see that Melchisedech offered bread and wine to God in sacrifice, and that on account of the imitation of this sacrifice the priesthood of Christ and of the Christians is called according to the order of Melchisedech. The same Cyprian, or whoever was the author, in the sermon on the Lord's Supper, not far from the beginning: “The Sacraments signified of old from the time of Melchisedech come forth, and, the sons of Abraham doing his works, the high priest brings forth bread and wine: This is, He says, my body.” And below the same author places the eternity of the priesthood of Christ in this, that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is continually offered: “Perpetual is this sacrifice, and an ever-abiding holocaust.” And above he had said that religion would perish if the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were consumed by eating, because no victim would remain, without which religion cannot be.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 5 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 3: “And truly,” he says, “the outcome of the oracle is admirable to him who contemplates it, how our Savior Jesus, who is the Christ of God, by the rite of Melchisedech himself, accomplishes through His ministers those things which pertain to the exercising of the priesthood among men. For as he, who was priest of the nations, is nowhere seen to have performed bodily sacrifices, but by wine alone and bread, when he blessed Abraham himself: so truly first the Savior Himself, our Lord, then those who proceeded from Him, priests through all nations, discharging the spiritual office of the priesthood according to the Ecclesiastical sanctions, by wine and bread represent the mysteries of His body and saving blood; which mysteries indeed Melchisedech, so long before, had known by the Divine Spirit, and had used the images of things to come.” And here you see Melchisedech using in his sacrifice bread and wine alone; and both Christ and His ministers throughout the whole world offering a sacrifice under the species of bread and wine, and in this way perpetuating (so to speak) the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech.
St. Ambrose, Book 5 on the Sacraments, chapter 1: “We have known,” he says, “that a figure of these Sacraments preceded in the times of Abraham, when holy Melchisedech offered a sacrifice.” And below: “We said that the chalice and bread are placed on the altar; into the chalice is put wine: and what else? water. But thou sayest to me: How then did Melchisedech offer bread and wine? What does the mixture of water mean?” See like things Book 4 on the Sacraments, chapters 3 and 6, and on those to be initiated in the mysteries, chapter 8. The same, or whoever was the author, on chapter 5 to the Hebrews, expounding that, Thou art a priest forever, etc.: “It is established that the victims of cattle perished, which were of the order of Aaron: but they preferred the institution of Melchisedech, which is celebrated in the whole world in the distribution of the Sacraments.”
St. Epiphanius, heresy 55, which is of the Melchisedechians, teaches that the Aaronic priesthood was transferred by Christ to the priesthood of Melchisedech: “Which indeed,” he says, “now flourishes in the Church from Christ and up to now, since no longer is a seed chosen according to succession, but a form according to virtue is sought.”
St. Jerome, in his letter to Marcella that she migrate to Bethlehem: “Return,” he says, “to Genesis, and thou wilt find Melchisedech, king of Salem, the prince of this city, who even then in a type of Christ offered bread and wine, and dedicated the Christian mystery in the blood and body of the Savior.” And in his letter to Evagrius concerning Melchisedech, he writes, according to the opinion of the most ancient Fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius both of Caesarea and of Emesa, Apollinaris, and Eustathius, that the order of Melchisedech consists in this, that he did not immolate bloody victims, but by bread and wine, a simple and pure sacrifice, dedicated the Sacrament of Christ. The same, in his Questions on Genesis, explaining chapter 14: “Our mystery,” he says, “is signified in the word 'order,' by no means through Aaron by immolating irrational victims, but by offering bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.” The same, in his commentary on Matthew 22 at the end, says that Melchisedech offered bread and wine for Abraham, and on chapter 26 says that Melchisedech, priest of the most high God, by offering bread and wine prefigured the mystery of the Eucharist.
St. John Chrysostom, homily 35 on Genesis: “Seeing the type,” he says, “consider, I pray, the truth also.” And homily 36: “After Melchisedech too, king of Salem, brought bread and wine (for he was the priest of the most high God), Abraham received from him the offerings.”
St. Augustine, letter 95 to Pope Innocent, which he writes in his own name and that of many other Bishops: “Melchisedech,” he says, “by bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lord's table, knew how to figure His eternal priesthood.” Here in most open and fewest words Augustine teaches that the oblation of Melchisedech was a figure of the Eucharist, and that the eternity of the priesthood of Christ consists in offering the Eucharist. And Book 16 of the City of God, chapter 22, speaking of the oblation of Melchisedech: “There,” he says, “first appeared the sacrifice which now is offered to God by the Christians in the whole world, etc.” And Book 17, chapter 17, and Book 18, chapter 35, and on Psalm 109, he most clearly says that the priesthood of Christ is perpetual according to the order of Melchisedech, which now flourishes in the Church in the oblation which is made at the altar. Which same he pursues more fully in Book 1 against the adversary of the law and the prophets, chapter 20, where among other things he speaks thus: “There, indeed, this too was said: The Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent, Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. They who read know what Melchisedech brought forth when he blessed Abraham; and are now partakers of it: they see such a sacrifice now offered to God in the whole world. But the oath of God is the rebuke of the unbelieving; and that God will not repent is a signification that He will not change this priesthood, since He changed the priesthood according to the order of Aaron.” Finally, sermon 11 on the saints, which is the fourth on the Innocents, treating of the relics of the Martyrs which rest under the altars: “What more reverent,” he says, “what more honorable, can be said, than to rest under that altar on which the sacrifice is celebrated to God, on which hosts are offered, on which the Lord is priest, as it is written: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech?”
Theodoret, in his commentary on Psalm 109: “We find,” he says, “that Melchisedech was both priest and king, and offered to God not sacrifices lacking reason, but bread and wine.” And below: “A priest now is Christ too, not Himself offering anything, but He is called the head of those who offer, since He calls His body the Church.” And above he had already said that Christ began the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech at the last Supper, when He consecrated bread and wine. See the same, question 63 on Genesis.
St. Leo I, sermon 2 on the anniversary of his assumption to the Pontificate: “Thou art,” he says, “a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, that is, not according to the order of Aaron, whose priesthood, running through the propagation of his seed, was of a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament: but according to the order of Melchisedech, in whom the form of the eternal Pontiff preceded. Finally, when the Sacrament of this divine priesthood comes even to human functions, it runs not by the path of generations, nor is that chosen which flesh and blood created; but, the privilege of the fathers ceasing, and the order of families passed over, the Church receives as rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared.”
Eusebius of Emesa, or whoever was the author, sermon 5 on the Pasch: “Melchisedech,” he says, “by the oblation of bread and wine figured this sacrifice of Christ (namely that which is celebrated in the Eucharist).” And before he had said that this oblation would be perpetual in the Church.
Arnobius, on Psalm 109: “Christ,” he says, “through the mystery of bread and wine, was made a priest forever.”
Eucherius, Book 2, chapter 18 on Genesis: “Melchisedech, priest of the most high God, offering bread and wine in sacrifice.” And below: “Without any priestly genealogy, Christ arose a man from men, inasmuch as not from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah; from which tribe He received nothing of the priestly precept, surely on account of the mystery of the Sacrament, which it was commanded the Christians should celebrate, that not according to Aaron we should offer the victims of cattle, but the oblation of bread and wine, that is, the Sacrament of His body and blood, in sacrifice.”
Primasius, in his commentary on chapter 5 of the epistle to the Hebrews: “Why He is said to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and not according to the order of Aaron, there are diverse causes: and the first indeed is, that Melchisedech was not a priest according to the legal mandates, but according to the dignity of a certain singular priesthood, offering bread to God, not the blood of brute animals: in whose order of priesthood Christ was made a priest, not temporal, but eternal; nor offering the legal victims, but after his likeness bread and wine, namely His flesh and blood.” And below: “Whence it is clear that the sacrifice of cattle has perished, which was of the order of Aaron, and that rather that has remained which was of the order of Melchisedech, because Christ confirmed it and taught the Church to hold it.”
Cassiodorus, on Psalm 109: “Which order,” he says, “the most just King Melchisedech instituted by a mystic likeness, when he offered to the Lord the fruit of bread and wine. For it is established that the victims of cattle have perished, which were of the order of Aaron, and that rather the institution of Melchisedech has remained, which is celebrated in the whole world in the distribution of the Sacraments.”
Remigius of Auxerre and Euthymius Zigabenus write not unlike things on the same Psalm 109.
John Damascene, Book 4 on the faith, chapter 14: “That table of Melchisedech foreshadowed this mystic one, just as that priest too bore before him the figure and image of the true Pontiff Christ.”
Oecumenius, in his commentary on chapter 5 of the epistle to the Hebrews: “Melchisedech,” he says, “was the first who offered a host without blood, bread, I say, and wine.” And below: “He said forever, not with respect to that host and oblation which was made once by God: but looking to the priests of our time, through whom Christ both sacrifices and is sacrificed, and who delivered to them in that mystic banquet and supper the formula of this priesthood.”
Theophylact, on chapter 5 to the Hebrews, explaining that, Thou art a priest forever, etc.: “It is most openly established that this was said of Christ. For He alone, like Melchisedech, sacrificed unto His death by bread and wine.” And below: “He said forever, because the oblation is daily offered, is perpetually offered, through the ministers of God, having Christ the Lord both as Pontiff and as sacrifice, who for our sake sanctifies, breaks, and bestows Himself.”
Anselm, on chapter 5 to the Hebrews: “Thou art a priest,” he says, “that is, giving sacred things through Thyself and through Thine, forever, that is, as long as the age shall last, because the priesthood of Christ shall not pass away, that another may succeed, as the Levitical passed away.”
To these testimonies, which it is a wonder if they do not suffice to repress the audacity of these new men, let there be added also the testimonies of the ancient Hebrews, which are recited in Bereshith Rabbah. For among others are had these words of Rabbi Samuel on chapter 14 of Genesis: “He delivered the act of the priesthood: for he himself was sacrificing bread and wine to the holy and blessed God.” In the same place Rabbi Phinehas on chapter 28 of Numbers: “In the time of the Messiah all sacrifices shall cease, but the sacrifice of bread and wine shall not cease; thus it is said, Genesis 14, And Melchisedech, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine. For Melchisedech, that is, King Messiah, shall except from the ceasing of sacrifices the sacrifice of bread and wine, as it is said, Psalm 110, Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.”
It remains that we see what the adversaries object against our argument and for their solution. First, then, Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 2, objects thus: “They wrongly draw to bread and wine those words, And he was the priest of the most high God; which Paul refers to the blessing. For Hebrews 7 he gathers his excellence, because the less is blessed by the greater.”
I answer: It is false that those words, And he was the priest of the most high God, are referred by Paul to the blessing: for Paul does not even cite those words, but only briefly and in his own words writes that Melchisedech, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; which are most true, but it does not thence follow that those words, And he was the priest of the most high God, in the text of Moses ought to be joined with the following, And he blessed, and not rather with the preceding, He brought forth bread and wine. And what the Apostle subjoins, that the less is blessed by the greater, does not prove that Melchisedech was a priest of God, but a priest greater than Abraham, as we deduced above.
Secondly Calvin in the same place objects thus: “But if the oblation of Melchisedech were a figure of the sacrifice of the Mass, would the Apostle, I pray, who sifts even the smallest things, have forgotten a matter so serious and grave?”
I answer: The cause why the Apostle did not mention the sacrifice of bread and wine is, in the first place, most well known: namely because it did not make for his purpose. For the Apostle wished from Melchisedech to show the excellence of Christ above the Levitical priests: for the Hebrews to whom he writes greatly exalted themselves on account of the Aaronic priesthood. And so blessed Paul brings forward that Melchisedech, according to whose order Christ was Pontiff, blessed Abraham, and in him Aaron, and therefore was greater than Aaron. Likewise that he received tithes from Abraham, and in him from Aaron, who was then in the loins of Abraham, and by this was greater than Aaron; for the high priest receives tithes from the inferior priests. Finally that Melchisedech was in a certain way eternal, since neither his birth nor his death is described in the Scriptures: all which pertain to the excellence of Christ, and therefore had to be commemorated. But that he offered bread and wine does not clearly make for the excellence either of Melchisedech or of Christ Himself, and therefore it is no wonder if it was omitted.
There is added moreover that the Apostle on purpose omitted the oblation of bread and wine, lest he be compelled to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, which was too high to be grasped by them then. For thus Paul himself says, chapter 5: Of whom (Melchisedech) we have great things to say, and hard to be intelligibly uttered, because you are become weak to hear. And indeed, since the Apostle plainly expounded all things which are said of Melchisedech in Genesis, except the oblation of bread and wine, it does not seem able to be denied that by the discourse unable to be intelligibly uttered, for which the Hebrews were not fit, the mystery of the Eucharist ought to be understood.
Add that the ancient Greeks, as Jerome reports in his letter to Evagrius, said that Paul omitted a certain Sacrament of Melchisedech, and called this the discourse unable to be intelligibly uttered, because he wrote to unbelieving Jews: and it is established that a Sacrament which could not be revealed to unbelievers was scarcely other than that of the Eucharist.
Nor does it stand against these that Chrysostom and Theophylact, in the argument of this epistle, will have it written to believing Jews. For it was written to both, or certainly so written to the believers that it ought to be communicated by them even with the unbelievers: for therefore in a great part of the epistle the Apostle labors much to prove that Christ is the Son of God and the one teacher of the whole world.
Kemnitz, in the cited place, page 750, after he tried wrongly to make out from the Hebrew text that Melchisedech did not offer to God a sacrifice of bread and wine (which have been refuted above), adds that even if it were established that Melchisedech offered to God the aforesaid sacrifice, yet it could not thence be made out that Christ offered a similar sacrifice. Which he proves by a twofold argument.
The first is of this kind, which will be third in the order of arguments: “Dogmas are not to be fabricated from figures, unless the figures be clearly explained in the Scriptures. Now David explains indeed that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ, when he says, Psalm 110: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech; but he does not explain in what that likeness between Melchisedech and Christ consists: but the Apostle, Hebrews 5 and 7, explains in what it consists, and says many things, but does not touch on the oblation of bread and wine. It is not therefore to be affirmed that Melchisedech bore the type of Christ when he offered bread and wine to God in sacrifice.”
I answer: Dogmas can be fabricated from figures, when from the Scriptures understood according to the common consent of the Fathers the explanation is gathered. For it is not necessary that Scripture always speak most openly, but it is enough if it so speak that, following the common interpretation of the Fathers, we attain its meaning: otherwise very few, and almost no, dogmas would be certain in the Church. Now Scripture in Psalm 109, or according to the Hebrew 110, testifies that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, which same the Apostle to the Hebrews often repeats: but in what that order of Melchisedech consists, Scripture does not openly explain. For Paul, as we said, does not treat what the order of Melchisedech was, but only shows the excellence of Christ above Aaron. But although Scripture does not openly say in what the order of Melchisedech and the figure of Christ's priesthood consists, yet it so insinuates and indicates it that all the Fathers with the highest consent fell into the same exposition, as we showed above.
And moreover reason manifestly teaches that this is the true exposition. For if Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, then He ought to agree with Melchisedech in the priesthood, that is, in that which is proper to the priesthood of Melchisedech: but there is nothing proper to that priesthood except the form of such a sacrifice. For that Melchisedech blessed, and that he received tithes, is not proper to that priesthood, but common also with the Levitical priesthood. That Melchisedech was not anointed with sensible oil, nor succeeded another, nor another succeeded him, is not proper to Melchisedech, but common with Abel and with some others. Finally, that his genealogy is not written, and thence he is a type of the eternity of the priesthood of Christ, besides being something extrinsic to the priesthood, is not proper to Melchisedech, but common with Job, Elijah, and others, who were both priests and whose genealogy is not described, as Epiphanius shows, heresy 55. But to offer bread and wine is proper to Melchisedech, and pertains most of all to the priesthood, since it is his proper act. No doubt, therefore, remains concerning the explanation of this figure; although among prudent Christians even without this reasoning the authority of so many Fathers ought to have sufficed, since none can be brought forward on the contrary who denies it.
The fourth argument, which is the second of Kemnitz, fights against this very solution. Thus, then, he speaks: “The type of the priesthood of Melchisedech consists in those things which it has not common with the Aaronic priesthood, but in which Melchisedech and Aaron are distinguished. But the sacrifice of bread and wine was daily in the Aaronic priesthood, Exodus 29, Numbers 28.”
I answer first: In the Aaronic priesthood there was indeed a sacrifice of bread and wine, but as a certain part, and as it were a seasoning, of another sacrifice; not as a principal sacrifice: for in those same places of Scripture lambs or calves are bidden to be offered, and together with them fine flour and a libation. But Melchisedech offered bread and wine by themselves in sacrifice. Then the loaves which were offered in the Aaronic sacrifice with animals, as we said, were always sprinkled with oil, and for the most part were made thence into cakes. But the sacrifice of Melchisedech was simple bread. Finally it could also be said that the difference between those priesthoods was this, that Aaron offered sacrifices of all kinds, that is, both bloody and unbloody. But Melchisedech used only the unbloody, pure, and simple sacrifice, as we taught from Jerome, Eusebius, and all the Fathers above cited.
But against this solution is the fifth argument. For if the priesthood of Melchisedech differs from the Aaronic in this, that in it nothing bloody was sacrificed, it follows that Christ cannot be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, since the chief sacrifice of Christ was bloody, namely the sacrifice of the cross.
I answer: The sacrifice of the cross, if considered in itself, is neither according to the order of Aaron nor according to the order of Melchisedech. That it is not according to the order of Aaron ought to be most certain to the faithful: for Christ was not a priest according to the order of Aaron, as the Apostle openly teaches to the Hebrews 7, and it is also most manifestly clear, because He was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Judah. How then would a priest not according to the order of Aaron have offered an Aaronic sacrifice? Then the sacrifice of the cross is the most perfect of all sacrifices, and more excellent even than the sacrifice of the Mass, as far as they are distinguished. But who would bear it said that the Aaronic sacrifice is more excellent than all sacrifices, and even than the Mass itself, which is according to the order of Melchisedech? Moreover the Apostle to the Hebrews 7 in express words teaches that the Aaronic sacrifice was imperfect, and could not consummate those who were sanctified. But the sacrifice of the cross was most perfect, and consummated forever those who are sanctified, as is said in the same place: therefore the sacrifice of the cross cannot pertain to the order of Aaron. Finally the Aaronic sacrifice necessarily requires two conditions: one, that it be bloody; the other, that it be typical or representative. But the sacrifice of the cross, although it was bloody, yet was not typical: for there was no need of types where the very truth was present.
From which reason it is gathered too that the sacrifice of the cross, if considered in itself, was not according to the order of Melchisedech. For the sacrifice of Melchisedech was typical, but unbloody: whence it agreed with the Aaronic in this, that each was typical; nay, a type or figure of the same thing, that is, of the Passion of Christ; but they differed in the species of the types, that the Aaronic type was bloody, and in the form of animals, but that of Melchisedech was unbloody, and in the form of bread. From which it follows that by reason of the sacrifice of the cross Christ is a priest neither according to the order of Melchisedech nor according to the order of Aaron, because He did not offer Himself on the cross under the form of bread, nor under the form of a lamb or calf, but under His own human form. From which again it follows that Christ cannot be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, as nevertheless He is everywhere called in the Scriptures, unless He instituted or offered a sacrifice under the form of bread: just as He cannot be called a priest according to the order of Aaron, because He did not institute a sacrifice of Himself under the form of a calf or lamb, or of any other bloody type according to the Aaronic rite. For the paschal lamb, as we shall say, He did not offer according to the Aaronic rite; nor did He institute it, but rather abrogated it.
You will say: If Christ offered a bloody sacrifice, even though He did not offer it according to the order of Melchisedech, yet that He offered such a sacrifice hinders Christ from being able to be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, since it is proper to this order to have no bloody sacrifice.
I answer: Christ is called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, not in any way whatever, but forever, that is, with respect to that sacrifice which was to last forever, that is, to be perpetually frequented, the legal sacrifices being abrogated: and which was to be the proper sacrifice of the Christian religion. And because Christ did not institute or offer a sacrifice to be perpetually celebrated, and proper to His religion, except an unbloody one, therefore He is truly and properly a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. Where, however, this is to be observed, that although Christ was not a priest according to the order of Melchisedech by reason of the sacrifice of the cross, but only by reason of the sacrifice of the Eucharist: yet the sacrifice of the cross can be called according to the order of Melchisedech by reason of the very priest Christ, by whom it was offered: for He absolutely was a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. Wherefore the Apostle to the Hebrews 5 calls Christ, even on the very cross, a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.
The sixth argument Matthias Illyricus takes, in his Apology for the Confession of Antwerp, chapter 23, from the unlikeness of the sacrifice of Melchisedech and of our Mass. For Melchisedech, if he offered anything, offered bread and wine. But in the Eucharist bread and wine do not remain, but only the accidents, as the Catholics themselves teach.
I answer: The sacrifice of the Mass is truly according to the order of Melchisedech, both because it is unbloody (for this was proper to the sacrifice of Melchisedech), and also because the Mass represents Christ under the species of bread and wine, as the sacrifice of Melchisedech too represented Him, and so in the external symbol they plainly agree. And that the interior substance is diverse does not matter, because, as we showed above, the signification or representation is in the accidents, not in the substance. I add that the substance of the sacrifice of the Mass necessarily had to be diverse from the sacrifice of Melchisedech, since that ought to be more excellent and more divine in which the very truth is with the symbol, than that in which the symbol only is contained.
The seventh argument they take from the Fathers. For Peter Martyr, on chapter 5 of the first to the Corinthians, proves that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine to God, because Rabbi Solomon on chapter 14 of Genesis, and Ambrose in the books on the Sacraments, and Augustine in the Questions of the Old and New Testament, say that bread and wine were given by Melchisedech to Abraham. To the same opinion Kemnitz cites, in the cited place, Josephus and Chrysostom.
But these passages effect nothing at all. For first Rabbi Solomon is not only a Hebrew, and by no means to be compared with so many holy Fathers whom we cited, but even a most open enemy of the Christian religion. Moreover he himself in the same place indicates, as Peter Martyr too confesses, that that oblation of Melchisedech signified that it would sometime come to pass that in Jerusalem a sacrifice of bread and wine be offered. But how could that oblation signify a future sacrifice, if it was only a profane banquet, and not rather a sacred banquet, namely from the partaking of a thing first offered to God? And so Rabbi Solomon, although he says that bread and wine were brought forth by Melchisedech for the refreshment of Abraham and his companions, yet does not deny, nay hints, that they were first offered to God. Which the more ancient Rabbis most openly teach, as we have already shown.
St. Ambrose is wholly ours, as was demonstrated above, and therefore perhaps Peter Martyr, being cautious in such matters, was unwilling to note a definite book and chapter.
The passage cited from Augustine is neither Augustine's nor makes for the adversaries, but for us. For the author of those Questions has many errors, which are refuted by Augustine, and first of all in that very question 109 which Martyr adduces for himself, that author contends that Melchisedech was the Holy Spirit, which error Jerome expressly refutes in his letter to Evagrius concerning Melchisedech. But what that author, whoever he was, writes of the oblation of Melchisedech, makes for us against the adversaries: for he says that Melchisedech offered to Abraham the Eucharist of the body and blood of the Lord. From which we understand that to that author it was not a common and profane banquet which Melchisedech exhibited to Abraham, but a sacred type of the Eucharist, which now the adversaries pertinaciously deny.
Moreover Josephus, whom Kemnitz cites, writes that that bread was given to Abraham, which we do not deny, but he does not deny that it was first offered to God, which we affirm.
Finally Chrysostom is ours, as was demonstrated above.
The eighth argument attacks the other part of our reasoning, drawn from the eternity of the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech. And the argument is this: Although Christ is a priest forever, He has no need to offer daily through ministers; therefore that reasoning does not conclude. The antecedent Kemnitz proves in Part 2 of the Examination, page 742, where he demonstrates from the Apostle, Hebrews 7 and 9, negatively and affirmatively, as he says, in what way Christ is or is not a priest forever. And first he says that He is not a priest forever because He often offers Himself; for this Paul expressly repeats more than once. Then he adds that for five causes Christ is called a priest forever. The first is, because He lives forever. The second, because the power of His one oblation lasts and is efficacious forever. The third, because He always intercedes in heaven for us. The fourth, because through Him as a priest we have access to the Father. The fifth, because He can save forever, and does save, those who through Him come to God.
I answer: As to the negative part of this argument, when Paul says that there was no need for Christ to offer Himself often, he most openly speaks of the bloody oblation, which was most sufficient, nay of infinite price and value: the other oblations were repeated, and are repeated, because they are of finite value. But that for the eternal priesthood of Christ it is necessary that He offer often through Himself or through His ministers, not indeed in a bloody manner, but in some other way, the same Paul teaches, Hebrews 8, as St. Thomas in his commentary excellently expounds. For when the Apostle had said that Christ is the Pontiff and minister of the holies and of the tabernacle which God pitched and not man, that is, that He is the Pontiff of the Church, not of the Synagogue, he subjoins: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and hosts; wherefore it is necessary that He also have something to offer. Where you see Paul by a necessary consequence gather that Christ, if He is truly Pontiff, ought to have something to offer, and consequently ought to offer, because every Pontiff is appointed to offer. Wherefore according to Paul's opinion Christ is not a Pontiff forever unless He assiduously offer something, nor is it enough that He once bloodily offered Himself. The same Apostle afterward subjoins, declaring that the victim which Christ now assiduously offers is not something earthly, as sheep and oxen, but something heavenly, namely the most sacred Eucharist: If then He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are those who offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Of which words this is the meaning: If the host to be immolated were on earth, that is, if it were something earthly and mortal, as sheep and oxen, etc., Christ would not be a Priest, because there would be no necessity of a new priesthood, since without Him quite enough men, according to the law, assiduously offer such earthly gifts. Then Paul goes on, and shows that Christ is the Pontiff of a better Testament than the ancient was, from which it follows that better hosts are now offered than those ancient ones were.
And hence too it can be perceived that those five causes which Kemnitz brought forward do not sufficiently show why Christ is called a priest forever. That first, because He lives forever, is not sufficient. For eternal life is indeed required in him who is to have an eternal priesthood, but it does not suffice: otherwise all the Levitical priests after the resurrection would be called priests forever, because they had the priesthood and will live forever. It is required, therefore, that the living one exercise the priesthood forever. Just as one cannot rightly be said to have been king for thirty years, if he neither reigned nor could reign except for one day. Which especially has place in the opinion of the adversaries, who think that the priesthood, or the Ecclesiastical ministry, is a mere office. Finally this blessed Paul most openly requires, as we showed, when he says that Christ, if He is Pontiff, ought to have something to offer. But Paul, Hebrews 7, where he sets down that cause of Kemnitz, when he says, But Christ, because He continueth forever, hath an everlasting priesthood, does not therefore prove that Christ is an eternal priest only because He continues forever: but proves from the fact that He continues forever that He can perpetually exercise the priesthood, and there is no need that anyone succeed Him; as in the Levitical priesthood there was need of a continual succession, because none of them could perpetually minister, since they were prevented by death from continuing.
The second cause, that the power of the oblation of the cross is perpetual, likewise is not sufficient. For that shows that the effect of the sacrifice of the cross is perpetual, and therefore that improperly the sacrifice itself too can be called perpetual. Yet a sacrifice which was made once is not properly called eternal, nor is a priesthood called eternal when there is not continual sacrificing: otherwise the priesthood and sacrifice of Noe could be called eternal, because (as is gathered from chapter 8 of Genesis) the effect of the sacrifice offered by Noe after the flood always remains and will remain: for he obtained that a flood of water should not again come upon the earth. By like reasoning the nativity of Christ from His mother, His passion, and death could be called eternal, and Christ could be said always to be born, to suffer, and to die, because the effect of all these always remains.
The third reason, that Christ always intercedes in heaven for us, either does not prove that He is a priest, or proves that He now offers through ministers. For if the adversaries will have that Christ intercedes by prayer alone, they do not thence have that He is properly a priest. For any man, however lay, can intercede for another by prayer. But if they contend that He intercedes as a priest, that is, by the mediation of the oblation of a victim, then it is necessary that Christ always offer; and therefore that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which is continually offered by Christ to God through human ministry.
They will say that Christ offers Himself in heaven, while He assiduously represents His passion to the Father, and by it reconciles us. For this Calvin seems to hold, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 18, § 2, where he says that there is no longer any priesthood on earth, since it has been translated into heaven, Christ existing there a priest forever.
I answer: Either they will have the oblation which is made in heaven to be a true and properly so-called sacrifice, or only improperly and figuratively. If the first, very many things will follow against the adversaries, and some of them even against the truth. First, that the Christian religion and law is no longer on earth, but has been translated into heaven: for the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the law too be made, Hebrews 7. Secondly, that in heaven there is not the bare truth, but also shadows and figures and ceremonies: for all sacrifices properly so called ought to be representative of the sacrifice of the cross, and certain ceremonies of religion. Thirdly, the adversaries will have to grant that the oblation of Christ is repeated often, which they by no means wish to grant. If the second, then it will be necessary to confess either that a true sacrifice of Christ is offered on earth, which we contend, or certainly that Christ is not truly and properly a priest, which is most absurd and against manifest Scriptures. And that this follows is clear, because he cannot be truly and properly a priest who cannot offer a true and proper sacrifice.
The fourth reason of Kemnitz is similar to the former: for it is the same that Christ as a priest intercedes for us, which was the third reason, and that we through the priest Christ have access to the Father, which was the fourth.
The fifth reason, that He can save forever, proves that He is a Savior, not that He is a priest. Nor is this reason unlike the second and third; and therefore it is refuted in the same way. Wherefore Kemnitz did not prove that Christ can be called an eternal Priest without the oblation of a victim through the ministers of the Church. And here it is to be added that we by no means deny that the priesthood of Christ absolutely will be eternal by reason of its effect, inasmuch as the power of His oblation consummates forever those who are sanctified, as from the Apostle St. Thomas teaches, Part 3, question 22, article 5. And because Christ, in whom the highest priestly dignity always resides, truly continues forever, and always immolates to God a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: yet by reason of the priestly office properly so called, and according to the prophecy of Psalm 109, we think the priesthood of Christ is called eternal, not because it will last for infinite time, but because no priesthood will ever succeed it. For David did not only say, Thou art a priest forever, but added, according to the order of Melchisedech, that is, as we demonstrated from the Fathers, Thou art a priest forever, offering through Thy ministers in Thy Church the sacrifice of Thy body and blood under the species of bread and wine. But the sacrifice under the species of bread and wine will not last for infinite time, and yet will last forever, because it will always last so long as a sacrifice properly so called will be necessary, that is, until the consummation of the world. For the Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent, that is, He will never change this priesthood for another priesthood, as He changed the priesthood according to the order of Aaron for the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. In Missa verum sacrificium offerri, probatur ex primo testimonio Scriptura et ex sacer¬ dotio Melchisedech. Nunc tandem ad argumenta pro veritate veniendum est. Ac primum afferemus te¬ stimonia Scripturarum. Tum veterum Pa¬ trum. Postremo rationes. Ac ex divinis lit¬ teris primum locum obtinebunt, figura) Testamenti veteris. Secundum, vaticinia Prophetarum. Tertium, testimonia ex Evan- gelio. Quartum, ex Actis Apostolorum. Quin¬ tum, ex epistolis B. Pauli. Primum igitur testimonium Scriptura) sit illud Genes, xiv : Melchisedech rex Salem protulit panem et vinum : erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi (1). Hunc locum ad Christum ita referunt David Psal. cix. et Paulus Hebr. vii. ut non dicant Melchisedechum figuram tantum Christi gessisse, quod enim de Aa~ rone dici potuisset, sed Christum sacerdo¬ tem fuisse secundum ordinem Melchisedech, et non secundum ordinem Aaronis, ut aper¬ te scribit Paulus. Porro differentia) duse sunt inter duo illa sacerdotia, ex quibus duo argumenta peti possunt. Prima et potissima differentia po¬ sita est in externa specie sacrificii. Nam e- tiamsi omnia sacrificia veterum convenie¬ bant in re significata, cum eumdem Christum crucifixum significarent : tamen in signis diversa erant : Sacrificia enim Aaronica cruenta erant, et sub specie animantium oc¬ cisorum, Christi mortem repra)sentabant : Melchisedechi sacrificium incruentum fuit, et sub specie panis, et vini ejusdem Christi corpus, et sanguinem figuravit. Quare si Christus sacerdos est secundum ordinem Melchisedech, et non Aaronis, sacrificium instituere debuit incruentum, et sub specie panis et vini, ut Ecclesia Catholica recte ca¬ nit in vesperis festi corporis Domini : « Sa¬ cerdos in aiternum Christus Dominus secun¬ dum ordinem Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulit. » Quod si ex vi sacerdotii secundum ordinem Melchisedech non certo colligere- retur, ut certo colligitur, Christum sacrifi¬ care debuisse hostiam in specie panis et (1) Gen. XIV, 18. LIBE a Y. 310 vini ; id tamen colligeretur ex vi typi et fi¬ gura}. Fuit enim Melchisedech in illa cserc- monia panis et vini, figura manifestissima, consensu Patrum, quem paulo post affere¬ mus, Christi Sacramentum Eucharistiae in¬ stituentis in pane et vino. Sed Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulit, ut sacerdos Dei al- tissimi, ac proinde vere sacrificavit. Igitur, et Christus in institutione Eucharistia}, ut sacerdos egit, et vere sacrificavit, alioqui non exacte figuram illam implevisset. Est etiam alia differentia inter sacerdotium Melchisedechi et Aaronis ; quod illud fuit unius tantum hominis, qui nec successit al¬ teri, et cui non successit alter; istud autem fuit multorum, qui per mortem sibi invicem succedebant. Quam differentiam Apostolus persequitur Hebr. yii. ubi dicit Melchisede- chum fuisse sine patre, sine matre, sine ge¬ nealogia, neque initium dierum, neque fi¬ nem vita; habentem : et illa omnia ad Chri¬ stum applicans dicit eum esse sacerdotem in aeternum, qui nimirum nullis successerit, et cui nullus debeat succedere, cum semper vi¬ vat, etcumjuraveritDeus, sacerdotium ipsius non esse mutandum, aut transferendum, in a- liud, ut sacerdotio Lcvitico contigit. Id enim Paulus probat exiliis verbis Psal. cix : Jura¬ vit Dominus , et non pcenitebit eum , tu es sa¬ cerdos in se ternum etc. (1). Quod si sacerdo¬ tium Christi durat usque ad mundi consum¬ mationem (id enim Scriptura aeternum vocat hoc loco, ut exponunt Anselmus et Theophi- lactus in cap. v ad Hebr.) certe, et sacrificii ritus durare debet; nisi forte otiosum habet Christus sacerdotium. At sacrificium crucis semel tantum peractum est, nec repeti am¬ plius potest, cum Christus mori jam nequeat : ergo aliud sacrificium esse opportet, quod jugiter offeratur ; nec enim sacerdos dici pot¬ est, qui nullum habet sacrificium quod of¬ ferat. Admittere igitur necesse est in Ecclesia veram sacrificandi actionem, qua} Christo summo sacerdoti per ministros suos tribua¬ tur : qualis certe actio nulla erit, si Missae sacrificium auferatur e medio. Praeterea ante Christi incarnationem, quia Christus reipsa nondum erat sacerdos ( sa¬ cerdotium enim Christo convenit, ut minor est Patre, et proinde ut homo est, non ut Deus est, ut Augustinus etiam notat in Psal. cix. in illud : Tues sacerdos in aeternum) non poterat per se sacrificium offerre : tamen ut etiam eo tempore sacerdos dici posset, et esset ipse unus ab initio mundi, usque ad finem summus sacerdos ; eo modo quo po¬ terat, sacrificium offerebat, nimirum per ty¬ pos, et figuras. Ut enim omnia sacrificia ve¬ tera figura} erant sacrificii crucis, et in om¬ nibus illis victimis ipse immaculatus agnus typice mactabatur; undo in Apocal. cap. xm. dicitur agnus occisus ab origine mundi : sic omnes illi sacerdotes, typi quidam Christi erant, et in omnibus sacrificantibus, ipse sa¬ crificabat. Quo si propter sacerdotii aeterni¬ tatem, Christus etiam ante Incarnationem ^o modo, quo poterat, sacerdotio fungebatur, quanto magis post Incarnationem, quando reipsa a Patre sacerdos appellatus est, et sa¬ cerdos sine successore, non debet usque ad mundi consummationem ab officio sacrifi¬ candi cessare? quorsum enim sacerdotium illius manet, si nunquam deinceps sacrifi¬ care debet? Ad haec argumenta adversarii respondere conantur. Siquidem Calvinus lib. iv. Insti- tut. cap. 18. §. 2. et Kemnitius in 2. par. Exarn. pag. 740. et 747. et alii in exposi¬ tione, quam vocant, Ecclesiasticam in ge¬ nesim, et Petrus Martyr in cap. v. i, ad Cor. admittunt Melchisedech sacerdotem fuisse, et Christi typum gessisse; sed negant panem et vinum ab eo in sacrificium Deo fuisse o- blat i. Et inde colligunt, sacerdotium Chri¬ sti non consistere in oblatione panis et vini, et tamen esse secundum ordinem Melchisc- dech : aeternitatem quoque ejusdem sacer¬ dotii Christi, non in eo positam esse, quod usque ad mundi consummationem in Eccle¬ sia sacrificium in specie panis, et vini Do¬ mino offeratur. Quam solutionem ut accurate refellamus, nos primo expendemus textum Geneseos. Secundo adducemus consensum Patrum, qui diserte scribunt Melchisedech obtulisse Deo panem et vinum, et in eo ponunt affernita- tem sacerdotii Christi, et similitudinem ad sacerdotium Melchisedech, quod in Ecclesia sacrificium offeratur in specie panis et vi¬ ni. Tertio refellemus quae ipsi contra obji¬ ciunt. Quod ad primum attinet, ham sunt verba Scriptura} in editione vulgata : « At vero Melchisedech Rex Salem proferens panem et vinum (erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi) benedixit ei etc. » Genes, xiv. Hic primum (1) Psal. CIX. 4. CAPUT VI. 341 queritur Kemnitius in vulgata editione legi : Melchisedech obtulit panem et vinum , et ad¬ dit editionem Hebraeam, Chaldaeam, et Graecam non habere verbum sacrifiqatorium, obtulit , sed verbum quod simpliciter signifi¬ cat educere, vel depromere, nimirum, pro¬ tuli t, quomodo etiam legisse Cyprianum. At nos verius querimur de Kemnitio, quod tam aperte de nostra editione mentiatur. Nec enim in ulla editione Latina legi unquam, obtulit , sed constanter video omnes habere proferens. Quod tamen verbum licet ex se nihil aliud significet, nisi proferre, seu ad¬ ducere, tamen pro loci exigentia saepe usur¬ patur pro adductione hostiae ad immolatio¬ nem, ut Jud. vi. ubi bis habetur idem ver¬ bum quod hoc loco in Genesi cerni¬ mus, et aperte significat adductionem ho¬ stiae. Quod enin videmus in verbo quod proprie adducere significat, et tamen passim in Scriptura restringitur ad sacrificium, ut idem sit quod offerre, ut patet Genes, iv. ubi describitur sacrificium Cain et Abel. Sequitur in sententia citata : panem et vi¬ num. Hic Calvinus et Kemnitius contendunt panem et vinum prolata fuisse in refectio¬ nem Abrahae, et sociorum ejus, qui fatigati, revertebantur ex praelio. At nos non nega¬ mus data illa in cibum Abrahae, et sociis, sed dicimus prius fuisse Deo oblata, et conse¬ crata, et tum data hominibus, ut de sacrifi¬ cio participarent. Nam in primis nulla erat causa cur corpo¬ ralem refectionem praeberet Melchisedech Abrahae. Nam ut Scriptura ibidem habet, rediit Abraham ex praelio cum ingenti praeda, in qua etiam erant ea, quae ad cibum perti¬ nent, ut illic dicitur : imo in fine capitis additur, milites Abrahae cibum sumpsisse, an¬ tequam eis occurreret Melchisedech. Quid igitur opus erat pane et vino iis, qui spoliis abundabant, et paulo ante comederant et biberant ? Praeterea cum scriptura tot in locis de¬ scribat nobis sacerdotium Melchisedech, ut distinctum ab Aaronico, et ut simillimum sa¬ cerdotio Christi, debuit profecto alicubi tra¬ dere, quale fuerit sacrificium Melchisedech. Siquidem ad sacrificium ordinatur sacer¬ dotium, et sacrificio ignorato necesse est et¬ iam sacerdotium ignorari. Nusquam autem fit mentio sacrificii, quod obtulerit Melchi¬ sedech, nisi hoc loco : oportet . igitur per panem et vinum, non profanos cibos, sed sanctificatos, et Deo prius oblatos intelli- gere. Denique hic probatur efficasissime ex ver¬ bis sequentibus ;. subjungit enim Scriptura : Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. Quae ratio ab ipso Spiritu sancto reddita, cur Melchi¬ sedech panem et vinum protulerit, omnino cogit, ut intelligamus panem, et vinum pro¬ lata fuisse ad sacrificium. Sed occurrit Kemnitius, et rursus editio¬ nem Latinam accusat, quod posuerit parti¬ culam causalem pro conjunctiva ; non enim in Hebraeo est causalis, sed i conjunctiva. Quare sic ipse vertit, Calvinum secutus : Erat autem sacerdos Dei altissimi , et benedi¬ xit ei etc. Et sic distinguit actiones ipsius Melchisedech regis, et sacerdotis, ut addu¬ ctio panis, et vini ad munificentiam regis pertineat, benedictio autem ad sacerdotium. At frustra Kemnitius vulgatam editionem lacerat. Licet enim ad verbum non sit in Hebraeo : Erat enim sacerdos , sed : Et erat sacerdos : tamen illa particula conjunctiva apud Hebraeos frequentissime locum obtinet causalis, et verti debet per, enim , si senten¬ tia eleganter Latina phrasi exprimenda sit, quod S. Hieronymus facere solet. Exempla sunt ad manus Genes, xx. En morieris propter mulierem, quam tulisti , habet enim virum. In Hebraeo erat et ipsa habet vi¬ rum. Genes, xxx. Experimento didici , quia benedixerit mihi Dominus. In Hebraeo est co¬ pulativa : Experimento didici, et benedixit mihi Dominus. Isai. lxiv. Tu iratus es , et pec¬ cavimus (1), id est : Tu iratus es, quia pec- cauimus ; ubi apertissime ponitur 1 pro >15, copulativa pro causali. Deinde perturbant adversarii totam dis¬ tinctionem orationis, ut ad suam sententiam verba Scripturae accommodent ; quod si li¬ ceret, possemus totam Scripturam perpe¬ ram interpretari. Nam in Hebraeo codice, post illa verba : Et erat sacerdos Dei altissi¬ mi, invenitur accentus, quem Hebraei vocant soph pasuch, qui indicat ibi terminari perio¬ dum. Quare non potest illud : Et erat sacer¬ dos , conjungi cum sequentibus, et benedixit , sed debet superioribus illis annecti : Protulit panem et vinum. Eamdem quoque distinctio¬ nem invenimus in Chaldaeo, et Graeco, et Latino textu. Posita autem hac, vera, et com- (1) Gen. XX, 3; XXX, 27 ; Isai. LXIV, 5. LIBER Y. muni interpunctione, et distinctione oratio¬ nis : etiamsi nulla adesset causalis particula, per se clamaret oratio, panem et vinum pro¬ lata fuisse ad sacrificium. Quorsum enim cum illis verbis : Protulit panem et vinum , conjungerentur illa : Et erat sacerdos Dei , nisi ut intelligercmus panem, et vinum a Melchisedech sacerdote prolatum, ut offer¬ retur Deo ? Preeterea non recte adversarii dicunt, Mel¬ chisedech ut sacerdotem, benedixisse Abra¬ hse, etproinde male ita interpretantur Scri¬ pturam, cum sic reddunt : Erat sacerdos, et benedixit ei, vel (ut habet Calvinus) Cum sa¬ cerdos esset Dei . benedixit A brahse. Nam etiam Abraham sacerdos erat, ut patet ex plurimis sacrificiis, quse obtulit : non igitur Melchise¬ dech ut sacerdos, vel quia sacerdos erat, be¬ nedixit Abrahse, sed quia major sacerdos, vel quia absolute major erat, cum et rex, et sacerdos esset. Non enim est solius sacer¬ dotis benedicere ; sed omnis majoris. Nam Salomon rex, qui sacerdos non erat, bene¬ dixit populo III Regum vm. et idem fecit David, II Reg. vi. et antea idem fecerat Jo- sue cap. vm. et xxii. cum nec ipse sacerdos esset, sed princeps politicus. Et Jacob Gcn. xlviii. precatur Angelum, ut benedicat filiis Joseph. Quare B. Paulus Hebr. vi. ex eo, quod Melchisedech benedixit Abrahse, non colligit, ut secundum Calvinum, et Kemni- t-ium debuisset, Melchisedech sacerdotem fuisse, sed Abrahamo majorem fuisse : mi¬ nor enim, ut ipse ibidem dicit, sine contro¬ versia a majore benedicitur. Accedat nunc, ut ad secundum veniamus, consensus veterum Patrum, qui certe vel so¬ lus sufficere deberet, ut confunderet novo¬ rum istorum interpretum temeritatem. Ac primum tota Ecclesia in Canone Missas id testatur, cum ait : « Supra qme propitio, ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, et accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahse, et quod tibi obtu¬ lit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech san¬ ctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam » . Cujus partis Canonis meminit expresse Am¬ brosius lib. iv. de Sacramentis cap. vi. ex quo perspicuum est, esse antiquissimam, et publicam totius Ecclesiae istam sententiam. Sed praeterea adducemus testimonia sin¬ gulorum Patrum Graecorum, et Latinorum ordine temporis. Clemens Alexandrinus lib. iv. Stromatum, non procul a fine : «Melchi¬ sedech, inquit, rex Sailem sacerdos Dei al- tissimi , qui vinum, et panem sanctifica- tum dedit nutrimentum in typum Euchari¬ stiae ». Observa hoc loco, panem non pro¬ fanum in refectionem ventris, ut adversa¬ rii volunt, sed sanctificatum datum esse a Melchisedech. Adhaec vides panem, et vinum dari a Melchisedech, ut sacerdote Dei altis- simi, proinde oblatum antea fuisse Deo, et eo modo sanctificatum. Denique panem, et vinum sacerdotis Melchisedech typum esse Eucharistia! : ex quo sequitur, sacerdotium Christi ideo vocari secundum ordinem Mel¬ chisedech, quia in specie panis, et vini con¬ sistit. S. Cyprianus lib. n. epistol. 3. ad Caeci¬ lium, postquam illa verba Psalmi citaverat : Tu es sacerdos in seternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech , ita subjungit : « Qui ordo uti¬ que hic est de sacrificio illo veniens, et inde descendens, quod Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi, fuit, quod panem, et vinum ob¬ tulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam dominus noster Jesus Christus ? qui sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod Mel¬ chisedech obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus, et sanguinem ? » Ilie perspicue vides, Melchisedech obtulisse Deo panem, et vinum in sacrificium, et propter hujus sacrificii imitationem, sacerdotium Christi, et Christianorum, vocari secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Idem Cyprianus, vel quicumquc fuit auctor, in serm. de coma Domini, non procul ab initio: «Significata, inquit, olim a tempore Melchisedech pro¬ deunt Sacramenta, et filiis Abrahse facien¬ tibus opera ejus summus Sacerdos panem profert, et vinum : Hoc est, inquit, corpus meum. » Et infra idem auctor aeternitatem sacerdotii Christi ponit ineo, quod jugiter sa¬ crificium Eucharistia! offertur : « Perpes, inquit, est hoc sacrificium, et semper per¬ manens holocaustum. » Et superius dixerat interituram esse religionem, si corpus Domi¬ ni in Eucharistia manducando consumere¬ tur, quia nulla superesset victima, sine qua religio esse non potest. Eusebius Caesariensis in v. lib. demonstr. Evangel. cap. 3. « Et sane, inquit, oraculi exitus admirabilis ei , qui contempletur , quemadmodum Salvator noster Jesgs, qui est Christus Dei, ipsius Melchisedech ritu, ea qute ad sacerdotium in hominibus gerendum spectant, per suos ministros perficiat. Nam CAPUT VI. quemadmonum ille, qui sacerdos gentium erat, nusquam videtur sacrificiis corporali¬ bus functus; sed vino solo et pane, dum ipsi Abraham benedixit : ita sane primus ipse Salvator, ae Dominus noster, deinde qui ab eo profecti sunt sacerdotes, in omnibus gen¬ tibus spirituale secundum Ecclesiasticas san¬ ci iones sacerdotii munus obeuntes, vino ac pane corporis illius, et salutaris sanguinis mysteria repraesentant ; quae sane mysteria Melchisedech tanto ante Spiritu divino cog¬ noverat, et rerum futurarum imaginibus usus fuerat. » Et hic vides Melchisedech in sacrificio solo pane, et vino usum : et tum Christum, tum ejus Ministros toto orbe ter¬ rarum in specie panis et vini sacrificium offerre, et hoc modo perpetuari, (ut sic lo¬ quar) sacerdotium Christi secundum ordi¬ nem Melchisedech. S. Ambrosius lib. v. de Sacrament. cap. I : <( Cognovimus, inquit, Sacramentorum isto¬ rum figuram Abrabee temporibus praecessisse, quando obtulit sacrificium S. Melchisedech.» Et infra : «Diximus quod inaltari constituatur caiix et panis ; in calice mittitur vinum : ct quid aliud? aqua. Sed tu mihi dicis : Quo¬ modo ergo Melchisedech panem, et vinum obtulit ? quid sibi vult admixtio aquae ?►» Vide similia lib. iv. de Sacrament. cap. 3. et 6. et de initiandis myster. cap. 8. Idem seu quicumque fuit auhtor, in cap. v. ad Hebr. exponens illud :\Tu es sacerdos in veternum, ete. « Constat, [inquit, pecudum victimas periis- se, quae fuerunt in ordine Aaron : sed mal¬ uere Melchisedech institutum, quod toto orbe terrarum in Sacramentorum erogatione ce¬ lebratur. » S. Epiphanius haeres, 55. qua est Melchi- sedechianorum, docet sacerdotium Aaroni- eum translatum esse per Christum ad sacer¬ dotium Melchisedech : « Quod sane, inquit, nunc viget in Ecclesia a Christo et hucusque, dum non amplius semen secundum successio¬ nem eligitur, sed forma juxta virtutem quae¬ ritur. » S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Marccllam ut migret Bethlehem : « Recurre, inquit, ad Genesim et Melchisedech regem Salem, hu¬ jus principem invenies civitatis, qui jam tunc in typo Christi panem et vinum obtu¬ lit, et mysterium Christianum in Salvatoris sanguine et corpore dedicavit. » Et in epist. ad Evagrium de Melchisedech, scribit ex sententia, antiquissimorum Patrum, Ircnaei, Hippolvthi, Eusebii tum Caesariensis, tum 0,10 (Ji o Emisseni, Apollinarii, ct Eustachii, ordinem Melchisedech in eo consistere, quod ipse non immolaverit cruentas victimas, sed pa¬ ne, et vino simplici , puroque sacrificio Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum. Idem in quaestionibus in Genesim, explicans cap. 14. : « Mysterium, inquit, nostrum in verbo or¬ dinis significatur, nequaquam per Aaron ir¬ rationalibus victimis immolandis sed obla¬ to pane et vino, id est, corpore ct sanguine Domini Jesu. » Idem in commentario Matth. 22. in fine dicit, Melchiscdechum pro Abra- hamo obtulisse panem et vinum, ct cap. 26. dicit Melchiscdechum sacerdotem Dei sum¬ mi panem, et vinum offerendo praefigurasse mysterium Eucharistiae. S. Joannes Chrvsostomus hom. 35. in Ge- V nes. : « Videns typum, inquit, cogita, oro, et veritatem. » Et hom. 36. « Postquam, inquit, et Melchisedech rex Salem panem, et vinum attulit (erat, enim sacerdos Dei altissimi), ab illo Abraham accepit oblata. » S. Augustinus epist. 95. ad Innocentium Papam, quam scribit nomine suo, et alio¬ rum multorum Episcoporum : « Melchise¬ dech , inquit, prolato Sacramento mensae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus sacerdotium figurare. » Hic apertissimis, et paucissimis verbis Augustinus docet oblationem Melchi¬ sedech figuram fuisse Eucharistiae, et in Eu¬ charistia offerenda consistere aeternitatem sacerdotii Christi. Et lib. xvi. de Civitate Dei cap. 22. loquens de oblatione Melchisedech : « Ibi, inquit, primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc a Christianis offertur Deo, toto orbe terrarum etc. » Et lib. xvn. cap. 17. et lib. xviii. cap. 35. ct in Ps. cix. clarissi¬ me dicit, sacerdotium Christi perpetuum se¬ cundum ordinem Melchisedech esse, id quod nunc in Ecclesia viget in oblatione, quae ad altare fit. Quod idem fusius persequitur in lib i. contra advers. leg. et prophet. cap. 20 ubi inter alia sic loquitur : « Ibi, quippe, et hoc dictum est : Juravit Dominus , et non pernitebit eum, tu es sacerdos in se ternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Noverunt qui legunt, quid protulerit Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham ; et jam sunt participes ejus : vident tale sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum. Dei autem juratio, incredulorum est increpatio ; et quod Deum non pcenitebit, significatio est, quia hoc sacerdotium non mutabit, mutavit quip¬ pe sacerdotium secundum ordinem Aaron. » Denique serm. 11. de sanctis, qui est quar_ 314 LIBER V. tus de innocentibus, tractans de reliquiis- Martyrum, quse sud altaribus requiescunt : « Quid reverentius, inquit, quid honorabilius, dici potest, quam sub illa ara requiescere, in qua Deo sacrificium celebratur, in qua offeruntur hostia!, in qua Dominus est sa¬ cerdos, sicut scriptum est : Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchise - dech ? » Thcodoretus in commentar. Psal.. cix. «In¬ venimus, inquit, Melchisedcch sacerdotem, et Regem esse, et offerentem Deo non sa¬ crificia ratione carentia, sed panem et vi¬ num. )> Et infra : Sacerdos nunc et Christus non ipse aliquid offerens, sed vocatur caput eorum, qui offerunt, quandoquidem corpus suum Ecclesiam vocat ». Et supra jam di¬ xerat Christum exorsum esse sacerdotium secundum ordinem Melchisedech in ccena novissima, quando panem, et vinum conse¬ cravit. Vide eumdem queest. 63. in Genes. S. Leo I, serm. 2. de ^nniverserio assum¬ ptionis suse ad Pontificatum : « Tu es, in¬ quit, sacerdos in seternum secundum ordi¬ nem Melchisedech, hoc est, non secundum ordinem Aaron, cujus sacerdotium per pro¬ paginem sui seminis currens temporalis mi¬ nisterii fuit, et cum veteris Testamenti lege cessavit : sed secundum ordinem Melchise¬ dech, in quo aeterni Pontificis forma praeces¬ sit. Denique cum hujus divini sacerdotii Sa¬ cramentum etiam ad humanas pervenit func¬ tiones, non per generationum tramitem currit, nec quod caro etsanguis creavit, eligitur; sed cessante privilegio Patrum, et familiarum ordine praetermisso, eos rectores Ecclesia accipit, quos Spiritus sanctus praepara¬ vit. » Eusebius Emissemus, seu quicumque fuit auctor, serm. 5. de Paschate : « Melchise¬ dech, inquit, oblatione panis, et vini hoc (nimirum quod in Eucharistia celebratur) Christi sacrificium figuravit. » Et antea di¬ xerat, perpetuam esse futuram in Ecclesia hanc oblationem. Arnobius in Psal. cix. « Christus, inquit, per mysterium panis, et vini factus est sa¬ cerdos in aeternum. » Eucheriuslib.il. capl8. in Genes. : « Mel¬ chisedech, inquit, sacerdos Dei summi, pa¬ nem, et vinum in sacrificium offerens ». Et infra : « Sine aliqua sacerdotali genealogia, Christus homo extitit ex hominibus, utpote non ex tribu levi, sed ex tribu Juda; ex qua tribu nihil de sacerdotali praecepto accepit utique propter mysterium Sacramenti, quod Christianis celebrare praeceptum est, ut non secundum Aaron pecudum victimas, sed oblationem panis et vini, id est, corporis et v sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in sacrificium offeramus. » Primasius in connnent. cap. o. epistol. ad Ilebr. : « Quare secundum ordinem Melchi¬ sedech, et non secundum ordinem Aaron, dicatur existere sacerdos, diversae causae ex- istunt : et prima quidem est, quia Melchise¬ dech secundum legalia mandata non fuit sa¬ cerdos, sed secundum cujusdam singularis sacerdotii dignitatem, panem offerens Deo, non brutorum animalium sanguinem : iu cu¬ jus ordine sacerdotii Christus factus est sa¬ cerdos, non temporalis, sed aeternus ; nec efferens victimas legales, sed instar illius pa¬ nem et vinum, carnem videlicet, et sangui¬ nem suum. )) Et infra : « Unde patet sacrifi¬ cium pecudum periisse, quod fuit ordinis Aaron et illud manere potius, quod fuit or¬ dinis Melchisedech, quia Christus corrobora¬ vit, et Ecclesiam tenere docuit. » Cassiodorus in Psal. cix. « Quem ordinem, inquit, Melchisedech per Mysticam similitu¬ dinem justissimus Rex instituit, quando Do¬ mino panis, et vini fructus obtulit. Constat enim pecudum victimas periisSe, quae fue¬ runt ordinis Aaron, et Melchisedech mane¬ re potius institutum, quod toto orbe in Sa¬ cramentorum erogatione celebratur. » Remigius Antisiodorensis, et Euthymius Zigabenus in eumdem Psal. cix. non dissi¬ milia scribunt. Joannes Damascemus lib. iv. de fide cap. 14 : « Mensa illa (Melchisedech) mysticam hanc adumbrabat, quemadmodum et sacer¬ dos ille veri Pontificis Christi figuram, et imaginem prae se ferebat. » OEcumenius in comment. cap. v. epist. ad Ilebr. : « Melchisedech, inquit, fuit primus, qui hostiam sine sanguine, panem, inquam, et vinum obtulit. » Et infra : « Non ad ipsum, inquit, tantum, qua! a Deo semel facta est, hostiam et oblationem dixit, in affernum : sed ad nostri temporis sacerdotes inspiciens, per quos Christus, et sacrificat, et sacrifica¬ tur, quique eis in mystico illo convivio, ac ccena sacerdotii hujus tradidit formulam. » Theophy laetus in cap. v. ad Rebr. expli¬ cans illud : « Tu es Sacerdos in seternum, etc. : « Apertissime, inquit, de Christo dictum id esse constat. Ilie enim et solus* Melchise- :dech, in mortem illius pane et vino sacrifi- CAPUT VI. 315 cabat » . Et infra : « In aeternum dixit, quia quotidie offertur, in perpetuum offertur per Dei ministros oblatio, Christum Dominum , et Pontificem habens, et sacrificium, qui seipsum nostri ob gratiam sanctificat, fran¬ git, et tribuit » . Anselmus in cap v. ad Hebr. : « Tu es sa¬ cerdos, inquit, id est, sacra dans per te, et per tuos, in aeternum, id est, quandiu dura¬ bit saeculum, quia non transibit sacerdotium Christi, ut aliud succedat , sicut transivit Lcviticum». Ad haec testimonia, quae mirum est si non sufficiant ad novorum istorum hominum au¬ daciam comprimendam, accedant etiam te¬ stimonia veterum Hebraeorum, quae recitan¬ tur in Berescit Rabba. Nam inter alia ha¬ bentur haec verba R. Samuel in cap xiv. Genes. : « Actus sacerdotii tradidit : erat enim ipse sacrificans panem, et vinum Deo sancto, et benedicto ». Ibidem R. Phinees in cap. xxvm. Num.: «Tempore Messiae om¬ nia sacrificia cessabunt, sed sacrificium pa¬ nis, et vini non cessabit, sic dictum est Ge¬ nes. xiv. Et Melchisedech rex Salem protu¬ lit panem et vinum. Melchisedech enim , id est, Rex Mcssias excipiet a cessatione sa¬ crificiorum sacrificium panis et vini, sicut dicitur Psam cx. Tu es sacerdos in x ternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. » Superest , ut videamus quid adversarii contra nostrum argumentum, et pro sua so¬ lutione objiciant. Primo igitur Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 18. § 2. objicit sic : « Per¬ peram trahunt ad panem et vinum illa ver¬ ba : Et erat sacerdos Dei altissimi ; quae Paulus ad benedictionem refert. Nam Hebr. vii, colligit ejus praestantiam , quia minor benedicitur a majore. » Respondeo : Falsum est illa verba : Et erat sacerdos Dei altissimi , a Paulo ad bene¬ dictionem referri : illa enim verba Paulus ne * citat quidem, sed solum breviter, et verbis suis scribit, Melchisedech regem Salem sa¬ cerdotem Dei summi occurrisse Abrahae re¬ vertenti a caede regum, eique benedixisse ; quae verissima sunt, sed non inde sequitur, illa verba : Et erat sacerdos Dei altissimi, in textu Mosis conjungenda esse cum sequen¬ tibus : Et benedixit ; et non potius cum prae¬ cedentibus : Protulit panem et vinum. Quod autem Apostolus subjicit, minorem a ma¬ jore benedici, non probat Melchisedech sa¬ cerdotem Dei fuisse, sed sacerdotem Abra- hamo majorem, ut nos supra deduximus. Secundo Calvinus ibidem objicit hoc mo¬ do : « Quod si oblatio Melchisedech sacri¬ ficii missalis figura esset, an Apostolus, ob¬ secro, qui minima quaeque excutit , rem adeo seriam, et gravem fuisset oblitus ». Respondeo : Causa cur Apostolus non me- nimerit sacrificii panis et vini , primaria notissima est : quia videlicet id ad propo¬ situm ejus non faciebat. Volebat enim Apo¬ stolus ex Melchisedech ostendere Christi ex¬ cellentiam supra Leviticos sacerdotes : Hac- braei enim ad quos ipse scribit, valde se ef-*- ferebant ob sacerdotium Aaronicum, Itaque B. Paulus adducit in medium, quod Melchi¬ sedech, secundum cujus ordinem Christus Pontifex erat, benedixerit Abrahae, et in eo Aaroni, et proinde major fuerit Aarone. Item quod decimas acceperit ab Abrahamo, et in eo ab Aarone, qui tunc in lumbis Abra- hae erat, et per hoc major fuerit Aarone ; summus enim Pontifex ab inferioribus sacer¬ dotibus decimas accipit. Denique quod Melchisedech fuerit quodam modo aeternus, cum nec ortus, nec interi¬ tus ejus iu Scripturis describatur : quae om¬ nia ad excellentiam Christi pertinent , et ideo commemoranda fuerunt. Quod autem obtulerit panem et vinum, non perspicue ad excellentiam facit, neque Melchisedech, ne¬ que ipsius Christi, et idcirco non mirum, si fuerit omissum. Accedit praeterea quod Apostolus dedita opera omisit oblationem panis et vini, ne cogeretur explicare mysterium Eucharistiae, quod altius erat, quam ut ab illis capi tunc posset. Sic enim ipse Paulus dicit cap. 5 : De quo (Melchisedech) grandis nobis sermo , et ininterpretabilis ad dicendum , quoniam imbecilles facti estis ad audiendum. Et sane cum Apostolus omnia plane exposuerit, quae de Melchisedech dicuntur in Genesi, excepta oblatione panis et vini, non videtur posse negari, quin per sermonem inin¬ terpretabilem, cui non erant idonei He¬ braei, intelligi debeat mysterium Euchari¬ stiae. Adde, quod veteres Graeci , ut Hierony¬ mus refert in epistola ad Evagrium, dicebant Paulum omisisse quoddam Sacramentum Melchisedech , et hoc vocasse sermonem ininterpretabilem, quia scribebat Judaeis in¬ fidelibus : constat autem Sacramentum, quod non poterat infidelibus prodi, vix aliud fuisse quam Eucharistiae. Neque his repugnat quod Chrysostomus, 310 LIBER V. ot Thoopylactus in argumento lmjus epi¬ stola; volunt, eam scriptam esse Jucheis fide¬ libus. Nam scripta fuit utrisque, vel certe ita scripta fuit fidelibus, ut ab illis commu¬ nicari deberet etiam cum infidelibus : nam idcirco in magna parte epistola; multum Apostolus laborat, ut probet Christum esse Filium Dei, et unicum orbis terree doctorem. Kemnitius loc. citat, pag. 750. postquam ex textu Hebreeo perperam efficere conatus «st, Melchisedech non obtulisse Deo sacrifi¬ cium panis et vini, qua; supra refutata sunt ; addit, etiamsi constaret Melchisedech obtu¬ lisse Deo sacrificium praedictum, tamen non posse inde effici, Christum obtulisse simile sacrificium. Id quod probat duplici argu¬ mento. Primum est hujusmodi, quod erit ordine argumentorum tertium : « Ex figuris non sunt fabricanda dogmata, nisi in Scripturis figurae clare explicentur. Porro David ex¬ plicat quidem Melchisedech fuisse Christi figuram, cum dicit Psalm. cx. : Tu es sacer¬ dos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchi¬ sedech ;sed non explicat in quo consistat illa similitudo inter Melchisedech, et Chri¬ stum : Apostolus autem Ilebr. v. et vii. ex¬ plicat in quo consistat, et multa dicit, sed non attingit oblationem panis et vini. Non igitur affirmandum est Melchisedech typum Christi gessisse, cum panem, et vinum in sa¬ crificium obtulit Deo ». Respondeo : Ex figuris dogmata fabricari possunt, quando ex Scripturis juxta cum- niunem Patrum consensum intellectis colli¬ gitur explicatio. Non enim neccsse est, ut semper Scriptura apertissime loquatur, sed satis est, si ita loquatur, ut communem Pa¬ trum interpretationem secuti, sententiam ejus assequamur: alioqui paucissima, ac fe¬ re nulla essent dogmata certa in Ecclesia. Jam vero Scriptura in Psal. cix. vel secun¬ dum Hebr. cx. testatur Christum esse sa¬ cerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech, quod idem sa;pius repetit Apostolus ad He- breeos : in quo autem consistat iste ordo Mel¬ chisedech, Scriptura tfperte non explicat. Paulus enim, ut diximus, non tractat quis fuerit ordo Melchisedech, sed solum ostendit , excellentiam Christi supra Aaronem. Sed li¬ cet Scriptura non aperte dicat in quo consi¬ stat ordo Melchisedech, et figura sacerdotii Christi, tamen ita insinuat et indicat, ut Pa¬ tres omnes summo consensu in eamdem ex¬ positionem inciderint, ut supra ostendimus. Et prfeterca ratio manifeste docet, eam esse veram expositionem. Nam si Christus est sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchise- dech ; ergo debet in sacerdotio convenire cum Melchisedech, hoc est in eo, quod est proprium sacerdotii Melchisedech : nihil au¬ tem est proprium illius sacerdotii, nisi for¬ ma talis sacrificii. Nam quod Melchisedech benedixerit, et quod decimas acceperit, non est proprium illius sacerdotii, sed commune etiam cum sacerdotio Levitico. Quod Mel¬ chisedech non fuerit unctus oleo sensibili, nec successerit alteri, nec ei alius successe¬ rit, non est proprium Melchisedech sed com¬ mune cum Abel, et cum aliis nonnullis. Denique, quod non scribatur, ejus genealo¬ gia, et inde sit typus seternitatis sacerdotii, Christi, praeterquam quod est quid extrin- secum ad sacedotium , non est proprium Melchisedech, sed commune cum Job, Elia, et aliis, qui et sacerdotes erant, et non de¬ scribitur eorum genealogia, ut Epiphanius ostendit hseres. 55. At panem, et vinum of¬ ferre est proprium Melchisedech, et ad sacer" dotium maxime pertinet, cum sit proprius ejus actus. Nulla igitur dubitatio remanet de explicatione hujus figura; ; quamquam apud prudentes Christianos etiam sine hac ratio¬ cinatione sufficere debuisset tot Patrum au¬ ctoritas, cum nullus contra proferri possit, qui id neget. Quartum argumentum, quod est secun¬ dum Kemnitii, contra hanc ipsam solutio¬ nem pugnat. Sic igitur ille loquitur : « Typus sacerdotii Melchisedech consistit in his, qua; non communia habet cum sacerdotio Aaro- nico, sed in quibus discernuntur Melchise¬ dech et Aaron. Sed sacrificium panis, et vini quotidianum fuit in sacerdotio Aaronico, Exod. xxix. Num. xxvm ». Respondeo primum ; in sacerdotio Aaro¬ nico erat quidem sacrificium panis et vini, sed ut pars quiedam, et quasi condimentum» alterius sacrificii ; non autem ut sacrificium principale : nam in iisdem locis Scriptura; jubentur offerri agni, aut vituli, et simul cum eis simila, et libamentum. At Melchise¬ dech, panem, et vinum per se in sacrificium obtulit. Deinde panes, qui offerebantur in sacrificio Aaronico cum animalibus, ut dixi¬ mus , semper conspergebantur oleo, ct ut plurimum inde fiebant lagana. At sacrifi¬ cium Melchisedech erat simplex panis. De¬ nique posset etiam dici, differentiam inter sacerdotia illa hanc fuisse, quod Aaron offe- CAPUT VI. 317 rebat sacrificia omnium g enerum, id est, tam cruenta quam incruenta. At Melcliisedech utebatur solo incruento, puro, ac simplici sacrificio, ut ex Hieronymo, Eusebio, et om¬ nibus Patribus supra citatis docuimus. Sed contra hanc solutionem est quintum argumentum. Nam si Mclchisedechi sacer¬ dotium hoc differt ab Aaronico, quod in illo nihil cruenti sacrificabatur : sequitur Chri¬ stum non posse dici sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedcch, siquidem praecipuum Christi sacrificium cruentum fuit, nimirum sacrificium crucis. Respondeo : Sacrificium crucis, si per se consideretur , non est secundum ordinem Aaron, nec secundum ordinem Melchisedcch. Quod non sit secundum ordinem Aaron, cer¬ tissimum fidelibus esse debet : nam Chri¬ stus non erat sacerdos secundum ordinem Aaron , ut Apostolus aperte docet ad He¬ braeos vir. et patet etiam manifestissime, quia non erat de tribu Levi, sed de tribu Juda. Quomodo ergo sacerdos non secun¬ dum ordinem Aaron, sacrificium Aaronicum obtulisset ? Deinde sacrificium crucis est sa¬ crificium omnium perfectissimum, et ipso etiam sacrificio Missae praestantius, quatenus distinguuntur. At quis ferat, ut dicatur sa¬ crificium Aaronicum praestantius omnibus sacrificiis, et ipsa etiam Missa, quae est se¬ cundum ordinem Melchisedcch ? Praeterea Apostolus ad Hebr. vii. disertis verbis docet, sacrificium Aaronicum imperfectum fuisse, nec potuisse consummare sanctificatos. At crucis sacrificium perfectissimum fuit , et consummavit in perpetuum sanctificatos, ut ibidem dicitur : non igitur sacrificium cru¬ cis ad ordinem Aaronis pertinere potest. De¬ nique sacrificium Aaronicum duas conditio¬ nes necessario requirit : alteram ut sit cruen¬ tum, alteram ut sit typicum, seu repraesen- tativum. Sacrificium autem crucis , etsi cruentum fuit, tamen non fuit typicum : nec enim opus fuit typis, ubi ipsa veritas ade¬ rat. Ex qua ratione colligitur etiam non fuisse sacrificium crucis, si per se consideretur, secundum ordinem Melchisedcch. Nam sa¬ crificium Mclchisedechi fuit typicum , sed incruentum : unde conveniebat cum Aaro¬ nico, in eo, quod utrumque erat typicum ; imo ejusdem rei typus, seu figura, id est, passionis Christi ; sed differebant in specie typorum, quod typus Aaronicus erat cruen¬ tus, et in forma animalium, Mclchisedechi autem erat incruentus, et in forma panis. Ex quo sequitur ratione sacrificii crucis Chri¬ stum non esse sacerdotem, nec secundum ordinem Melchisedcch, nec secundum ordi¬ nem Aaron, quia non obtulit se in cruce sub forma panis, nec sub forma agni, aut vituli, sed sub ipsa sua humana forma. Ex quo rur¬ sum sequitur, Christum non posse dici sa¬ cerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedcch, ut tamen in Scripturis passiin dicitur, nisi sacrificium instituerit, vel obtulerit sub for¬ ma panis : quemadmodum non potest dici sacerdos secundum ordinem Aaron, quia non instituit sacrificium sui ipsius sub forma vituli, aut agni, aut alicujus alterius typi cruenti secundum ritum Aaronicum. Nam agnum paschalem, ut dicemus, non obtulit secundum ritum Aaronicum ; neque ipse in¬ stituit, sed potius abrogavit. Dices : Si Christus obtulit sacrificium cruentum, etiamsi non obtulerit illud jux¬ ta ordinem Melchisedecli , tamen ipsum obtulisse tale sacrificium impedit, quomi¬ nus possit Christus appellari sacerdos secun¬ dum ordinem Melchisedcch, cum proprium sit hujus ordinis non habere sacrificium ul¬ lum cruentum. Respondeo : Christus dicitur sacerdos se¬ cundum ordinem Melchisedcch, non quo¬ modocumque, sed in aeternum, id est, re¬ spectu ejus sacrificii, quod in aeternum du¬ raturum, id est, perpetuo frequentandum erat, abrogatis sacrificiis legalibus : et quod erat futurum proprium sacrificium Christia¬ nae religionis. Et quia Christus non instituit, neque obtulit sacrificium perpetuo celebran¬ dum, et proprium religionis suae, nisi in¬ cruentum, ideo vere ac proprie est sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedcch. Ubi ta¬ men illud est observandum, quod licet Chri¬ stus non fuerit saicerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedecli ratione sacrificii crucis, sed solum ratione sacrificii Eucharistiae : tamen sacrificium crucis dici potest secundum ordi¬ nem Melchisedcch ratione ipsius sacerdotis Christi, a quo offerebatur : ipse enim abso¬ lute sacerdos erat secundum ordinem Mcl- chisedech. Quare Apostolus ad Hebraeos v. etiam in ipsa cruce Christum sacerdotem vo¬ cat secundum ordinem Melchisedecli. Sextum argumentum sumit Matthias Illy¬ ricus in Apologia Confessionis Antuerpien- sis, cap. 23. a dissimilitudine sacrificii Mel- chiscdcch, et nostrae Missae. Melchisedcch enim, si quid obtulit, panem ct vinum obtu- 318 LIBER V. Iit. At in Eucharistia non manet panis, et vinum, secl sola accidentia, ut Catholici ipsi docent. Respondeo : Sacrificium Missa? est vere secundum ordinem Melchisedech, tum quia est incruentum ; id enim erat proprium sa¬ crificii Melchisedech, tum etiam quia Missa Christum repraesentat in specie panis et vi¬ ni, ut etiam illum repraesentabat sacrificium Melchisedech, atque ita in symbolo exte¬ riore plane conveniunt. Quod autem sub¬ stantia interior sit diversa, non refert, quia ut ostendimus supra, significatio, seu reprae¬ sentatio in accidentibus, non in substantia est. Addo, quod necessario substantia sacri¬ ficii Missa?, debuit esse diversa a sacrificio Melchisedech, cum illud praestantius, ac di¬ vinius esse debuerit, in quo ipsa veritas cum symbolo, quam illud, in quo solum symbo¬ lum continetur. Septimum argumentum sumunt ex Patri¬ bus. Nam Petrus Martyr in cap. v. primae ad Corinthios , probat Melchisedech non ob¬ tulisse Deo panem, et vinum, quia R. Salo¬ mon in cap. xiv. Genes, et Ambrosius in libris de Sacramentis, et Augustinus in quae¬ stionibus veteris, ac novi Testamenti, dicunt a Melchisedecho panem et vinum datum esse Abrahamo.In eamdem sententiam citat Kcm- nitius loco citato Josephum, et Chrysosto- mum. Sed haec loca nihil omnino efficiunt. Nam in primis R. Salomon non modo Hebraeus est, et nullo modo conferendus cum tot sanctis Patribus, quos citavimus, sed etiam apertis¬ simus hostis Christianae Religionis. Praeterea ipse ibidem indicat, ut etiam Petrus Martyr fatetur, oblationem illam Melchisedech signi¬ ficasse futurum aliquando, ut in Hierusalem offerretur sacrificium panis et vini. At quomodo sacrificium futurum significare poterat obla- tip illa, si erat tantum profanum convi¬ vium, et non potius convivium sacrum, ex participatione nimirum rei Deo prius obla¬ tae ? Itaque R. Sailomon , licet dicat panem , et vinum prolatum a Melchisedech in refe¬ ctionem Abraha? et sociorum fuisse, non tamen negat, imo subindicat prius Deo fuisse oblatum. Quod apertissime docent Rabini antiquiores, ut jam ostendinus. Samctus Ambrosius totus est noster, ut supra demonstratum est, et ideo fortasse Petrus Martyr, ut est in hujusmodi rebus cautus, certum librum et caput noluit anno¬ tare. Locus ex Augustino citatus, neque Augu¬ stini est, neque pro adversariis facit, sed pro nobis. Auctor enim illarum qutestionum multos habet errores, qui ab Augustino re¬ felluntur, et in primis in illa ipsa quaistione 109. quam pro se Martyr adducit, contendit ille auctor Melcbisede«hum esse Spiritum sanctum, quem errorem ex professo refellit Hieronymus in epistola ad Evagrium de Melchisedech. Quod autem ille auctor, qui- cumquc fuerit, de oblatione Melchisedech scribit, pro nobis facit contra adversarios : dicit enim Melchisedechum obtulisse Abra- hamo Eucharistiam corporis, et sanguinis Domini. Ex quo intclligimus, illi auctori non fuisse commune, et profanum convivium, quod exhibuit Melchisedech Abrahse, sed sacrum typum Eucharistia, quod nunc ad¬ versarii pertinaciter negant. Porro Josephus quem citat Kemnitius , scribit, panem illum datum Abralue, quod non negamus, sed non negat prius Deo fuisse oblatum, quod nos affirmamus. Denique Chrysostomus noster est, ut su¬ pra est demonstratum. Octavum argumentum oppugnat alteram partem nostra? rationis, ductam ab aeterni¬ tate sacerdotii secundum ordinem Melchisc- dech. Est autem argumentum tale : Ut Chri¬ stus si sacerdos in ceternum, non necessc habet quotidie per Ministros offerre; non igitur ratio illa concludit. Antecedens probat Kemnitius in 2. par. Examinis, pag. 742. ubi demon¬ strat ex Apostolo Hebr. vii. et ix negative, et affirmative, ut ipse loquitur, quemadmodum sit Christus, aut non sit sacerdos in alternum. Ac primum dicit non esse sacerdotem in aiternum, quia sa;pius offerat seipsum ; id enim expresse Paulus non semel repetit. Deinde addit ob quinque causas dici Chri¬ stum sacerdotem in ceternum. Prima est, quia vivat in aiternum. Secunda, quia virtus uni¬ ca; oblationis ejus in sempiternum duret, et efficax sit. Tertia, quia semper in coelo inter¬ cedat pro nobis. Quarta, quia per ipsum ut sacerdotem habeamus accessum ad Patrem. Quinta, quia in perpetuum salvare possit, et salvet qui per ipsum ad Deum accedunt. Respondeo : Quod attinet ad partem hujus argumenti negativam, cum Paulus dicit non fuisse opus, ut Christus saipius se offerret ; apertissime loquitur de cruenta oblatione, qua? sufficientissima, imo infiniti pretii, et valoris fuit : ceetersc oblationes repetebantur, et repetuntur, quia finiti sunt valoris. Quod CAPUT VI. 319 autem ad aeternum sacerdotium Christi ne- ccsse sit, ut saepius offerat per se, vel per suos ministros, non quidem cruente, sed ali¬ quo alio modo, idem Paulus docet, Hebr. vm. ut S. Thomas in commentario praeclare ex¬ ponit. Cum enim Apostolus dixisset, Chri¬ stum esse Pontificem, et ministrum Sancto¬ rum, et tabernaculi, quod fixit Deus, et non homo, id est, esse Pontificem Ecclesiae, non Synagogae, subjungit : Omnis Pontifex ad of¬ ferendum munera , et hostias constituitur , unde necesse est et hunc habere aliquid , quod offe¬ rat (1). Ubi vides Paulum per necessariam consequentiam colligere, debere Christum, si vere est Pontifex, habere aliquid quod of¬ ferat, et consequenter debere offerre, quia omnis Pontifex constituitur ad offerendum. Quare secundum Pauli sententiam, Christus non est Pontifex in aeternum, nisi assidue ali¬ quid offerat, nec satis est, quod semel cruen¬ te obtulerit seipsum. Subjungit postea idem Apostolus, declarans victimam, quam nunc assidue Christus offert, non esse aliquid ter¬ renum, ut oves et boves, sed aliquid coele¬ ste, nimirum sacratissimam Eucharistiam : Si ergo , inquit, esset super terram, nec esset sacerdos , cum essent qui offerrent secundum le¬ gem munera ; qui exemplari, et umbrae deser¬ viunt coelestium (2) . Qu orum verborum haec est sententia : Si hostia immolanda esset super terram, id est, si esset aliquid terre¬ num, et mortale, ut oves et boves etc. Chri¬ stus non esset Sacerdos, quia non esset ulla necessitas novi sacerdotii, cum satis multi sine ipso secundum legem ejusmodi munera terrena assidue offerant. Deinde pergit Pau¬ lus, ac ostendit, Christum esse Pontificem melioris Testamenti, quam antiquum fuerit, ex quo sequitur offerri nunc meliores hostias, quam antiqua) illae fuerint, Atque hinc etiam perspici poterit, quinque illas causas, quas attulit Kemnitius, non suf¬ ficienter ostendere, cur Christus dicatur sa¬ cerdos in adernum. Prima illa, quia vivit in aeternum, non est sufficiens. Nam requiritur quidem vita aeterna in eo, qui debet sacerdo¬ tium. aeternum habere, sed non sufficit : alio- qui omnes Livitici sacerdotes post resurre¬ ctionem dicerentur sacerdotes in aeternum, quia habuerunt sacerdotium, et vivent in aeternum. Requiritur igitur, ut vivens funga¬ tur sacerdotio in aeternum. Quemadmodum non potest aliquis recte dici fuisse rex per triginta annos, si nec regnaverit, nec regna¬ re potuerit, nisi per unum diem. Id quod maxime locum habet in sententia adversa¬ riorum, qui existimant sacerdotium, seu mi¬ nisterium Ecclesiasticum, esse merum offi¬ cium. Denique id apertissime B. Paulus re¬ quirit, ut ostendimus, cum ait, oportere Christum, si est Pontifex, habere aliquid quod offerat. Paulus autem Hebr. vn. ubi ponit istam causam Kemnitii, cum ait : Chri¬ stus autem , eo quod maneat in aeternum, per¬ petuum habet sacerdotium (1) : non probat ideo solum Christum esse aeternum sacerdo¬ tem, quia manet in aeternum : sed probat ex eo, quod manet in aeternum, posse illum perpetuo fungi sacerdotio, nec esse opus, ut quis illi succedat ; sicut in sacerdotio Levi- tico opus erat continua successione, quia nullus eorum poterat perpetuo ministrare, cum morte prohiberentur permanere. Secunda causa, quod virtus oblationis crucis perpetua sit, non etiam est sufficiens. Illa enim ostendit, effectum sacrificii crucis esse perpetuum, et proinde improprie ipsum etiam sacrificium posse dici perpetuum. Pro¬ prie tamen non dicitur sacrificium aeternum, quod semel factum est, nec dicitur aeternum sacerdotium, cum non jugiter sacrificatur : alioqui sacerdotium, et sacrificium Noc, aeterna dici possent, quia (ut colligitur ex cap. vm. Genes.) effectus sacrificii oblati a Noe post diluvium, semper manet, et mane¬ bit : impetravit enim, ne iterum diluvium aquae rediret super terram. Pari ratione Christi nativitas ex matre, passio, et mors, dici possent aeterna, et Christus dici posset semper nasci, pati, et mori, quia effectus ho¬ rum omnium semper manet. Tertia ratio, quod Christus in coelo semper intercedat pro nobis, aut non probat illum esse sacerdotem, aut probat illum nunc per ministros offerre. Nam si volunt adversarii Curis tum intercedere per solam orationem, noii habent inde illum esse proprie sacerdo¬ tem. Nam quilibit homo, quantumvis laicus, potest pro alio per orationem intercedere. Si vero contendant illum intercedere ut sacer¬ dotem, id est, mediante oblatione victima) ; tum neccsse est Christum semper offerro ; et proinde Eucharistiam esse sacrificium, quod a Christo per ministerium humanum Deo ju.-» giter offeratur. Dicent, Christum offerre seipsum in ccelo, (i) Rom. VIII, 3. — (2) Id. 4 et 5. LIBER V. 320 dum passionem suum assidue Patri reprae¬ sentat, et per eam nos reconciliat. Hoc enim videtur sentire Calvinus lib. iv. Institut. cap. 18. §. 2. ubi dicit, non esse amplius in teri/is ullum sacerdotium, cum sit translatum in coelum, Christo ibi in aeternum sacerdote existente. Respondeo : Aut volunt oblationem quae fit in coelo, esse verum ac proprie dictum sa¬ crificium ; aut solum improprie, et figurate. Si primum, plurima sequentur contra adver¬ sarios, et aliqua eorum etiam contra verita¬ tem. Primo, religionem, ac legem Christia¬ nam non esse amplius in terris, sed transla¬ tam esse in coelum : nam translato sacerdo¬ tio, necesse est ut etiam legis translatio fiat, Ilebr. vii. Secundo, in coelo non esse nudam veritatem, sed umbras etiam, et figuras, ac caeremonias : nam omnia sacrificia proprie dicta, debent esse repraesentati va sacrificii crucis, et caeremoniae quaedam religionis. Tertio, oportebit adversarios concedere, re¬ peti saepius oblationem Christi, quod illi nullo modo concedere volunt. Si secundum, tum necesse erit confiteri Christi verum sa¬ crificium in terris offerri, quod nos conten¬ dimus, aut certe Christum non esse vere, ac proprie sacerdotem, quod est absurdissimum, et contra manifestas Scripturas. Id autem sequi perspicuum est, quia non potest esse vere, ac proprie sacerdos, qui sacrificium verum, ac proprium offerre non potest. Quarta Kemnitii ratio similis est superiori : perinde enim est Christum sacerdotem pro nobis intercedere, qusc erat tertia ratio ; et nos per sacerdotem Christum aditum habere ad Patrem, quie erat quarta. Quinta ratio, quod salvare in perpetuum possit, probat eum Salvatorem esse, non au¬ tem sacerdotem. Neque haic ratio dissimilis est secunda) ac tertiae ; proinde eodem modo, refellitur. Quare non probavit Kemnitius Christum dici posse aeternum Sacerdotem sine oblatione victimae per Ecclesiae Mini¬ stros. Est autem hoc loco addendum, nos mi¬ nime negare, quin Sacerdotium Christi ab¬ solute sit futurum aeternum ratione effectus, quatenus virtus oblationis ejus consummat in aeternum sanctificatos, ut ex Apostolo docet S. Thomas par. 3. quaest. xxii art. o. Et quia Christus in quo semper residet summa sacerdotalis dignitas, vere manet in aeternum, et semper Deo sacrificium laudis, et gratiarum actionis immolat : tamen ra¬ tione officii saderdotalis proprie dicti, et juxta vaticinium Psalm. cix. Sacerdotium Christi dici existimamus aeternum, non quia duraturum sit infinito tempore, sed quia nullum ei sacerdotium unquam succedet. Neque enim David solum ait, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, sed addit, secundum ordinem Melchisedcch, id est, ut ex Patribus demon¬ stravimus, Tu es Sacerdos in aeternum offe¬ rens per ministros tuos in Ecclesia tua sacri¬ ficium corporis, et sanguinis tui in specie panis et vini. Sacrificium autem in specie panis et vini non durabit infinito tempore, et tamen durabit in aeternum, quia semper du¬ rabit, quamdiu sacrificium proprie dictum necessarium erit, id est, usque ad mundi consummationem. Juravit enim Dominus, et non poenitebit eum, hoc est, non mutabit unquam hoc sacerdotium cum alio sacerdo¬ tio, sicut mutavit sacerdotium secundum or¬ dinem Aaron cum sacerdotio secundum or¬ dinem Melchiscdech.