My concise work essentially comprises a compilation of Jewish inquiries and folklore, making it pertinent to convey the Jewish perspective on Melchisedec. They contend that he is Shem, Noah’s son, and demonstrate that his lifespan extended to the time of Isaac, asserting that the firstborn descendants of Noah served as high priests until the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood. The title "king of Salim" refers to the ruler of Jerusalem, which was once named Salim. The holy Apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, characterizes Melchisedec as one "without father and mother" (Heb. 7:3), linking him to Christ and through Christ to Gentile believers (as the glory of the head pertains to its members). For it is He who, with the foreskin, blessed Abraham, who had been circumcised, and in turn blessed Levi, from whom the priesthood ultimately arose. Therefore, it follows that the circumcised priesthood of the synagogue was infused with the priesthood of the Church through the foreskin. The statement, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Psalms 109:4), indicates our own ordinance. This priestly ritual does not pertain to the Aaronic lineage. Rather than through the sacrifice of lifeless offerings, it is through the presentation of bread and wine—the body and blood of our Lord Jesus—that this action is consecrated.
You sent me the book anonymously titled άνωνυμον άδέοσποτον, and I am unsure whether the author's name was omitted intentionally or if the writer preferred anonymity to evade dispute. Upon reading it, I observed that the author, while addressing the significant matter of the high priest Melchisedec, sought to demonstrate through numerous arguments that the one who blessed the esteemed patriarch Abraham possessed a divine essence and should not merely be regarded as an ordinary man. Ultimately, the author even suggested that the Holy Spirit approached Abraham in human form. However, he neglected to discuss how the Holy Spirit presented bread and wine or received the tithe of the spoils from Abraham after his triumph over the four kings.
You have asked for my opinion on both the author and the topic at hand. I confess I did not wish to articulate my views or engage in a potentially contentious debate, as any position I took would likely invite dissent. Yet, upon revisiting your letter and encountering your strong urging not to dismiss your request, I turned to the writings of the ancient sages to consider their views and respond to you as if drawing from a broad consensus. I soon found Origen's discourse on Melchisedec in his first treatise on Genesis, where he, after examining the issue from various perspectives, identifies Melchisedec as an angel. He offered similar arguments regarding the divine concerning the Holy Spirit as your author employed. Following up with Didymus, his disciple, I discovered a consistent alignment of thought with his teacher. I then explored the writings of Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Eusebius of Emisa, Apollinarius, and our own Eustathius, the first bishop of Antioch to confront Arius, realizing that their views diverged only slightly—asserting that Melchisedec was a Canaanite king of Jerusalem, which had been called Salim, then Jebus, and eventually Jerusalem.
It is not unexpected, then, for the priest of the Most High God to be depicted as uncircumcised, existing beyond the ceremonial law and the tribe of Aaron, especially since both Abel and Enoch found favor with God as they offered sacrifices. Furthermore, Job himself, who was not of the Levi lineage but descended from Esau, is depicted as a priest offering daily sacrifices for his children (Job 1). As Noah, inebriated and uncovered, was mocked by his middle son (Gen. 9), could represent the Savior, while Ham could symbolize the Jewish people. Similarly, Samson, who loved Delilah, demonstrated more might in his death than throughout his life (Judg. 16)—both providing an image of the Savior's death. All the saints, patriarchs, and prophets in various respects reflected the Savior's image; so too, Melchisedec—being a Canaanite and not of Jewish origin—served as a foreshadowing of the priesthood of the Son of God, referenced in the hundred and ninth Psalm: "Thou art a priest for ever after the rank of Melchisedec." His rank is understood in numerous ways; he was both king and priest, possessing the priesthood prior to circumcision—as a foreshadowing that the priesthood would not emerge from Jews but rather from Gentiles; he was anointed not with the oil prescribed by Moses (Lev. 8:1) but with gladness and the purity of faith; and rather than slaughtering animal sacrifices, he sanctified the sacrament with bread and wine, the pure and simple offering of Christ.
Many relationships are also illustrated, but discussing them at length is curtailed by the brevity of this letter. I have not included details elaborated in the epistle to the Hebrews, which is acknowledged by all Greek-speaking Christians and some Latins—where it is stated that Melchisedec, meaning "king of righteousness," was king of Salim, or "king of peace," existing without a genealogical record. This does not imply he lacked both father and mother—since Christ, in both His natures, had both—but rather that in Genesis, he appears suddenly, meeting Abraham after triumphing over his foes, without any mention of lineage before or after. The Apostle asserts that the Aaronic priesthood, representing the Jewish race, had definitive beginnings and endings, whereas Melchisedec's priesthood, representing Christ and the Church throughout both past and future, is eternal without a designated founder. Consequently, with the dissolution of the priesthood, there also occurs a transformation of the law, as the word of the Lord emanates not from Hagar the bondwoman and Mount Sinai but from Sarah the free woman and the stronghold of Zion (Heb. 5:11). It was not that the Apostle was incapable of explanation; rather, he chose not to elaborate, knowing that it would be detrimental as he sought to persuade the Jews—not believers, to whom the mystery could be fully revealed. Should the chosen vessel feel bewildered by the sacrament and recognize the topic as ineffable, how much more should we, mere insects, confess our ignorance, striving to illuminate the vast truths through succinct expressions that allow you to discern the collective views of many?