There is something surprising and mysterious in the first appearance of Melchizedek, and in the subsequent references to him. Bearing a title which Jews in after- ages would recognise as designating their own sover- eign, bringing gifts which recall to Christians the Lord's Supper, this Canaanite crosses for a moment the path of Abraham, and is unhesitatingly recognised as a per- son of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God. Disappearing as suddenly as he came in, he is lost to the sacred writings for a thousand years, and then a few emphatic words for another moment bring him into siglit as a tv'pe of the coming Lord of David. Once more, after another thousand years, the Hebrew Chris- tians are taught to see in him a proof that it was the consistent purpose of God to abolish the Levitical priest- hood. His person, his office, his relation to Christ, and the seat of his sovereigntj', have given rise to innumer- able discussions, which even now can scarcely be consid- ered as settled. Hence the faith of early ages ventured to invest his person with superstitious awe. A myste- rious supremacy came also to be assigned to him (" the great high-priest," Philo, Ojip. ii, 34) by reason of his having received tithes from the Hebrew patriarch ; and on this point the Epistle to the Hebrews (vii, 1-10) ex- patiates strongly. But the Jews, in admitting this of-
MELCHIZEDEK
58
MELCHIZEDEK
ficial or personal superiority of Melchizedck to Abra- ham, soiif^ht to account for it by alleging that the royal priest was no other than Shem, the most pious of Noah's sons, who, according to the shorter chronology, might have lived to the time of Abraham (Bochart, I'lialeri, ii, 1), and who, as a survivor of the deluge, is supposed to have been authorized by the superior tlignity of old age to bless even the father of the faithful, and entitled, as the paramount lord of Canaan (Gen. ix, 26), to convey (xiv, 19 ) his right to Abraham. Jerome, in his A/j.bcxiii, ad Ecaitijelum (in 0pp. i, 438), which is entirelj' devoted to a consideration of the person and dwelling-place of Melchizedek, states that this was the prevailing opinion of the Jews in his time ; and it is ascribed to the Sa- maritans by Epiphanius (//rer. Iv, 6, p. 472). It was afterwards embraced by Luther and Melancthon, by II. Broughton, Selden, Lightfoot {Clior. Marco pram. eh. X, 1, § 2), Jackson {On the Creed, bk. ix, § 2), and by many others. Equally old, perhaps, but less widely dif- fused, is the supposition, not unknown to Augustine (^Qucesf. in Gen. Ixxii, in 0pp. iii, 396), and ascribed by Jerome (/. c.) to Origen and Didymus, that Melchizedck was an angeL The fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries record with reprobation the tenet of the Melchizedekians that he was a Power, Virtue, or Influence of (Jod (Au- gust. J)e Haresibiis, § 34, in 0pp. viii, 1 1 ; Theodoret, Hmet.fuh. ii, 6, p. 332; Epiphan. //(cn Iv, 1, p. 4G8; corap. Cml Alexand. Glaph. in Gen. ii, 57) superior to Christ (Chrysost. Horn, in Melchiz. in 0pp. vi, p. 269) and the not less daring conjecture of Ilieracas and his followers that Melchizedek was the Holy Ghost (Epi- phan. Ifmr. Ixvii, 3, p. 711, and Iv, 5, p. 472). Epi- phanius also mentions (Iv, 7, p. 474) some members of the Church as holding the erroneous opinion that I\Iel- chizedek was the Son of God appearing in human form, an opinion which Ambrose {l)e Ahrah. i, § 3, in Opj). i, 288) ser'ins willing to receive, and which has been adopted by many modern critics. Similar to this was a Jewish opinion that he was the Messiah (ap. Deyling, Ohs. Sacr. ii, 73; Schottgen, /. c. ; comp. the book Sohar, ap. Wolf, Curoi Phil, in Heb. vii, 1). Jlodern writers have added to these conjectures that he may have been Ham (Jurieu), or a descendant of Japhet (Owen), or of Shem (ap. Deyling, I. c), or Job (Kohlreis), or Mizraim, or Canaan, or even Enoch (DcyVing, Observat. iSacr. ii, 71 sq. ; Clayton,Chronoloff_i/ of the Heb. Bible, p. 100). Other guesses may be found in Deyling (/. c.) and in Pfeiifer (Be persona Melch. in 0pp. p. 51). All these opinions are unauthorized additions to Holy Scripture — many of them seem to be irreconcilable with it. The conjecture, however, which holds jMelchizedek to have been Sliem (see Jerome, ad Isa. xli), and which we liiid in Kashi on Gen. as well as in the Jerusalem Targum, and also that of Jonatlian (ad loc. Gen.), but not in that of Onkelos, requires an explanation how his name came to be changed, liow he is found reigning in a country inhab- ited l)y the descendants of Ham, how he came forth to congratulate Abraham on the defeat of one of his own descendants, as was Chedorlaomer, and how he could be said to liavc been without recorded parentage (Heb. vii, 3), since tlie pedigree of Shem must have been notori- ous. In that case, also, the difference of the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Levi would not be so distinct as to bear the argument which the Epistle to the Hebrews founds upon it. Rejecting on such grounds this opin- ion, others, as we have seen, in their anxiety to vindi- cate the dignity of Abraham from marks of spiritual submission to any mortal man, have held that Melchiz- edek was no other than the Son of God himself. But in this case it would hardly have been said that he was made "/*/.e unto the Son of (iod" (Heb. vii, 3j, or that ; Christ was constituted " a priest" after the order of Jlel- I chizedek (Heb. vi, 20), or, in other words, was a type of ' himself. The best founded opinion seems io be that of I Cari)Z()v {Apparat. A ntiip Sacr. Cod. chap, iv, p. 52) and I most judicious moderns, who, after Josejilius (ir«)-, vi, 10), allege that he was a principal person among the I