Masius brings forward two causes. One: that he himself was, as it were, midway between Gabaon and the camp of the Israelites, as is clear from the situation of the places; and therefore [was] nearest to danger. The other: that he excelled the other kings in dignity. And this [excellence] in dignity Arias Montanus has excellently set forth in this place, from the very etymology of the name of King Adoni-zedek. “Zedek,” he says, “or Tsedek, signifies ‘justice’ and ‘equity’; to which is joined the name Adon, and by composition Adoni offers [itself] to be rendered in Latin [as] ‘lord of justice,’ or ‘one set over justice’; [and] if to the same the name Melech or Melchi is joined by composition, it must be translated into Latin [as] ‘King of justice.’ And in the first book of Moses we read that, in Abraham’s time, Melchizedek the king of Salem — that is, ‘king of justice’ — was [so] surnamed, who was both Priest and King, and who, meeting Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the enemies, congratulated [him] and approved the victory in the name of God. But that the city of Salem [was] called by another name, Ierusalem, we taught in the Sacred Apparatus.” And the surname of “justice,” ascribed to this one King beyond the others (though all Kings ought to be vindicators of justice and judgment, by that very fact that they are Kings), indicates that something singular must be attributed to this [one]: namely, some surpassing power, granted to this one [King] by the rest of the Kings of that region — [by] the posterity of Canaan — for the examining and judging of public causes, and [those] of greatest moment, and royal [causes], and for settling controversies by equity and law; since otherwise so many kings in the same region, [being] mutually hostile, could not lack a constant material of contentions and struggles. It pleases [me]
— it seems, therefore, to have pleased all — to set some one [man] over themselves for the greatest and royal causes, both of [their] peoples and of [their] kings; and that for this thing the King of Jerusalem was chosen — descended from the Jebusite, sprung from Canaan’s third son, lord of an illustrious city, and seated in the middle of the region; and that to this [man] also fell the dignity of high priest among them — a priest, I say, consecrated to God, the supreme source [of authority], whose authority the rest, both peoples and kings, would reverently observe, in that manner in which now the Christian Kings reverence the Roman Pontiff (who is also himself a King), and observe his decrees in causes brought forward in the name of religion — and would that they observed the same in all royal controversies! For the Christian Commonwealth would enjoy a far greater peace and tranquility. And so the surname of “justice” attributed to this one Prince, and joined to the name “Lord” or “King,” indicates to us that his power of justice was altogether surpassing, and royal over [other] lords and kings — so that we may interpret Melchizedek [as] “King of justice,” and “the justice of the king,” or “of kings”; [and] Adoni-zedek, [as] “Lord of justice,” and “the justice of lords.” And we judge that this [King] exercised the cognizance and judgment of all public causes pertaining to the preservation of the nation, the race, and the kingdoms; and therefore that, of this matter which is now being narrated, he was in the first place called the “head.”
Theophilus, indeed, relates (To Autolycus, book 1) that it is handed down by some that others succeeded Melchizedek both in dominion and in the priesthood — among whom [are] Abimelech (Genesis [20]), Ephron (Genesis 23), and, with Monceius as author (chapter 1 of the Specimen), Job himself, because he was wont to sanctify [his] sons daily. But I would not deny that Job indeed performed a priestly office; yet that he was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek I altogether deny, since he was not even conversant in Salem. About Abimelech and Ephron [I treat] elsewhere; but about Adoni-zedek [it is] certain [that] — if he was Melchizedek’s son [and] successor in the priestly office — he had nonetheless degenerated from that first [priesthood] to idolatry, and yet retained his authority among the Gentiles; just as also many others among the same Gentiles were priests of supreme power, like that one of whom Strabo [speaks], book 12: ὁ ἱερεὺς μέγιστος [“the greatest priest”].