Augustine of Hippo : Why is it that Scripture reports, for the sake of the tremendous difference between the priesthood of Christ and that of Levi, that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of Abraham, since Christ was also there, and so both Levi and Christ paid the tithe? Unless it is because we should understand that, in some other way, Christ was not there? But who would deny that Christ was there according to the flesh? Then he was not there according to the soul, for the soul of Christ did not originate through the transmission of the sin of Adam, or else he would have been there.…Levi was surely there in the loins of Abraham in accordance with the transmission of human seed by which he would enter into his mother; Christ was not there through that cause, although the flesh of Mary was. Thus, neither Levi nor Christ were present there according to the soul, but both of them were there according to the flesh. Levi was there according to fleshly desire, while Christ was there only according to his physical substance. For in a seed, there is both a visible physicality and an invisible principle. Both ran their course from Abraham, even from Adam himself, all the way to the body of Mary, since that too was conceived and born in the normal way. So Christ assumed the physical substance of flesh from the flesh of the virgin, but the reason for his conception did not come from a man's seed, but from a much different source—from above. So for this reason, the flesh which he assumed from his mother was also present in the loins of Abraham. So Levi paid a tithe in Abraham, who, although he was only there according to the flesh, was still there in the loins of Abraham, as Abraham also was once in the loins of his own father. In other words, he was born of his father Abraham in the same way that Abraham was born of his own father, namely through the law at work in his members fighting against the "law of his mind" and an invisible concupiscence, though the chaste and noble rights of marriage do not permit it to grow strong except insofar as these things are able to make provision for the continuation of the human race. But he who acquired his flesh not as a rotting wound, but as the source of healing, did not himself also pay a tithe in that way. Since the paying of the tithe served to prefigure the source of healing, the one who would be cured paid the tithe in the flesh of Abraham, but not the one from whom healing would come. For the same flesh, not only that of Abraham, but also that of the first man taken from the earth, contained in itself at the same time both the wound caused by transgression and the medicine for that wound. The wound of sin was at work in the law of the fleshly members fighting against the law of the mind; this law was being transcribed upon all flesh begotten by the principle of a human seed. But the medicine for the wound was also in that flesh, which was assumed without any deed of concupiscence, assumed only in the physical material of the flesh from the Virgin through a divine principle of conception and formation for the sake of a participation in our death not due to his own iniquity and as an example of resurrection that is not deceptive.… The soul of Christ is from the original soul only if it has not contracted the stain of sin; but if it could not be from that source without the guilt of sin, it has not come from that soul. — ON THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF Genesis 10.19.34-21.37 Augustine of Hippo : We now advance in reply to such as argue that one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as already baptized. "For why," they ask, "could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Levi was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?" They who propose this argument ought to observe that Levi did not on this account subsequently not pay tithes, because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not to pay them; otherwise neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, whilst in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchisedec. — ON THE MERITS AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ON INFANT BAPTISM 2.39 John Chrysostom : How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi. Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants. In a marvelous and triumphant way he cast out the Jewish system. On this account he said, "Ye are become dull," because he wished to lay these foundations, that they might not start away. Such is the wisdom of Paul, first preparing them well, he so leads them into what he wishes. For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, even more than plants. Since in that case there is only the nature of material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: but in this there is will, which is liable to many alterations, and now prefers this, now that. For it quickly turns to evil. — Homily on Hebrews 12 Oecumenius : "and so to speak." So that they may not say, "And what," he says, "was also tithing through Abraham?" Yes, he says. For Levi was in Abraham when he gave the tithes, even though he was not yet born. If therefore Levi was in the loins of Abraham when he gave the tithes, it is clear that Levi himself, the ancestor of the priests, gave tithes, when Abraham gave tithes. And the phrase, so to speak, means this, that, in short, or instead of saying, let me put it this way. For it seemed a bold statement to say that Levi, not yet born, was tithed by Melchizedek, and this was corrected. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews Oecumenius : Therefore, it is said that Abraham gave tithes, even Levi who receives tithes was himself tithed, that is, he gave tithes. Thus, concerning those words, "through Abraham," a distinction must be made so that the meaning becomes completely undeniable. For because of Abraham's tithing, in a certain way, Levi, who was still in his loins, was also tithing. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews Photios I of Constantinople : He says, that because Abraham paid tithes, also Levi "who receives tithes himself was made to tithe," that is, he gave a tithe. We must underscore the phrase "through Abraham," so that the meaning does not suffer violence. For because Abraham was made to tithe, in a certain sense also Levi, being still "in his loins" has been made to tithe. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 7.9-10