A Treatise Proving Melchizedek to be Shem, Errata
Scapes in printing▪ at which if the Reader ſtagger, let him reade thus.
ſickerly for ſickerles, A ii. line 33. Sixtus for Pius at A 4. line 12. for foreign for from from Vr from Vr. blunter beaſtes read breſtes. For moueth vsus to fayth, meeteth vsus by fayth. F. b. i. the fourth ſide, line 13. for Ramban read Rambam H i. b. in the margent. reade Pſal. 48. for 180. D ii. a. line 14. F iii. b. reade that in a Politicall. Gen. 11. not. 12. F. iii. the thirde page, lyne. 33.
A treatiſe touching the ſundry opinions concerning Melchiſedek, who he ſhoulde be: wherein is enterlaced a diſcourſe of the olde Greke tranſlatours, hiding their mynde for Gen. 5. and 11.
SVndry opinions hath Epiphanius of Melchiſedek, Epiphanius, book 2. her. 55what, or who that perſon ſhoulde be. But time hath vanquiſhed part of them, frō defence of ye learned by writing, though in phantaſies of men they be quicke. Part, hauehave yet their defenders of ſundry ſortes vntyll this day. Of ſuche as are vanquiſhed, a ſhort ſpeeche may ſuffiſe: of the others, more ſhalbe ſpoken: to ſettle one, true.
1 The Melchiſedekians framing a deadly hereſie, as Epiphanius doth recorde,The firſt Opinion▪ helde Melchiſedek to be a certaine wight dwelling in ſome place, which none can tell of, being a wight greater then CHRIST. Forſooth they woulde ſtabliſhe that opinion from (Pſal. 110. 4.) Thou art a Sacrificer for euer, after the order of Melchiſedek: as though Chriſte muſt therefore be inferiour, and needing the order of the other. And of Melciſedek they holde it to be properly ſpoken, that he is without father, without mother, without kinred: going about to proue that, from the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes. Now from the ſame wordes they may be confuted. As Dauid prophecying of the LORD, ſayd, that he ſhoulde be a Sacrifi…er after the order of M…lchiſedek: by the very ſame Scripture ſheweth the Apoſtle, That euen Chriſt ſhould be that Sacrificer, who is Lord in Dauid. Pſal 110. and aboue all to be prayſed for euer. Rom. 9. Of Melchiſedek ſpeaketh the Apoſtle in the ſame place, that he likened to the Sonne of God, continueth a Sacrificer for euer. Now if he be but likened to the ſonne of God, he is not equall to the ſonne of God: For how can the ſeruant be equal to ye maiſter? Now Melchiſedek was a man. That Epiphanius proueth afterwardes. And that, VVithout father, without mother: is not ſayd, as though he had not father and mother: but becauſe they are not in moſt manifeſt ſort (foreign.) named in the Scripture. How many others hauehave not their kinred in ye moſt manifeſt ſort, as Daniel, Sidrac, Miſac, and Elias?
This much for the Melcheſedekians, out of the Greeke Father Epiphanius: wherein I coulde wyſhe ſome to marke how grauely and truely, the learned father expoundeth the wordes. without father, without mother. For whereas he *In ſaying foreign ▪ that is: in the moſt manifeſt ſort.maketh the relation to be only to Gen. 14. they do not wel that ſtretch it further: as though the holy Ghoſt had ſayde, in all the Scripture, a father or mother for him can not be founde. So they might as wel ſay, that by al the Scripture it coulde not be proued, that he had beginning of dayes, and ende of lyfe. Whereas the Apoſtle expreſly teacheth, That it is ordeyned, that all men once ſhall die. Now of Melchiſedek it is as wel‡Heb. 7. Gene. 3. affyrmed, that he lyueth: as that he is without father and mother. But by the Scripture we may gather, that he dyed: therefore as well, that he had father and mother. Wherefore it is not properly ſpoken.
Let none thinke, that the ſpirite of God is controlled, by ſeeking his name and parentage. Iob woulde tell vsus, that it is not good to defend Gods cauſe with an errour,Iob. 13. 7. (pretending a religion.) Neyther is the Figure hereby deſtroyed. For it is not ſpoken ſimply, but in relation. And eueryevery ♐By S. Auguſtnes leaue.wyſe man wyl graunt, that he had both father and mother. And why ſhoulde the Figure be more defaced, by a certayne father taught vsus, by ſundry argumentes, by Moſes when he wrote, then by obſcure fathers? The Apoſtle diſputeth of Melchiſedekes caſe, as in Abrahams tyme he was knowen, when he was alyue, and actually a figure of Chriſt, not medlyng with that certayntie, whiche is euident ſince Moſes wrote a Comment vponupon that caſe, ſhewyng what man was then alyue, at Salem greater then Abraham. And without the ſtory of Sem, I thinke we ſhall hardly performe this charge:Heb. 7. Conſider how great this man is: or vnderſtande this:Heb. 6. Of him we hauehave many thinges to be ſpoken, hard to be vttered: becauſe ye are dull of hearing. Folow then the Apoſtle, and marke his wordes: and know both the reaſon of Moſes ſilence, Gen. 14. and his vndoubted proper meaning from Gen. 9.Gen. 14. 18. what man he muſt needes be, who then was king of Salem. It is a frowarde modeſtie, which wyll not ſearch when God biddeth: and the ſtopping of the eares, is Serpentlike: when God blameth for dulnes of hearing.
The Apoſtle (in deede) from the ſilence of Moſes teſtifieth, that he was a figure of the Meſſias. But how large may we expounde his ſilence, to be ouer his whole lawe, or in the phraſe touching Melchiſedek? Doubtles touching the open and preſent ſtory of Melchiſedek. For to whom doth he teſtifie that? but to the Hebrwees: which ſo holde it vntounto this day, as the Apoſtles ſpeach doth handle it: who both conſider the Figure repreſenting one more then a man, & alſo can playnely proue, in hiſtorical kinde, by Moſes from other places, who helde Salem then: and who then alyue might be holden greater then Abraham: whereby it might well be knowen, what perticular perſon, both the Apoſtle meant, and the Hebrewes knewe to be ſpoken of. And why then ſhoulde men draw the matter otherwyſe then euer the Hebrewes woulde ſuffer it to be drawen? Sickerles the Apoſtle woulde reaſon, as the Iewes might vnderſtand▪ and neuer woulde his argument, which muſt be playne, bring more entanglementes then all religion had. But the Iewes ſhoulde hauehave been more entangled by a doctrine making any then alyue greater then Abraham, but ſuch as had the promiſe of Chriſt before. Therefore the Apoſtle would neuer go about, to thruſt an opinion vponupon them: for one greater then Abraham, but woulde talke accordyng to their meanyng. Let none thereon frame a godlyer modeſty vntounto him ſelfe, then the whole ſway of Hebrewes, touching an Hebrew poynt, wil ſuffer: and the Apoſtle writing to them: expounded by their continuall iudgement. Neyther let any euer thinke, that God would forbid ſearching of the Scripture for a matter of ſtorie: as the kinred of a man is: but rather charge vsus to marke al poyntes, the firſt and the later: that in all, Gods playne conſtancie of bleſſing myght appeare in a man: whom wicked Canaan knew to be glorious, but no more regarded his ſtate, or knew his kinred, byrth, or death: then yf he had them not at all: Yet might hauehave knowen, yf their Fathers had delyuered the memorie of Noes bleſſing from age to age vntyll theyr tyme: and had taught them who dwelt at Salem, borne before the worlde now,2. Pet. 3, 7. not of their kinred: nor lyke to ende his lyfe in theyr dayes, by reaſon of luſty ſtrength. An higher poynt Melchiſedek reſembled,Conferre Gen. 9. & 11. & 14. to which the proper* ſtorie woulde bring by degrees: whiche to knowe we are bounde. The ignorance of that bred the Melchiſedekians: The confuting of them, I truſt, ſhall not be needefull in this age, but ſo farre as men ſomewhat touch them, in miſtaking the ſpech: without father, without mother. &c.
2 There ſprang another opinion that was ſomwhat holden of ſome olde Latines,The seconde opinion. otherwyſe the beſt learned: But Epiphanius fathereth it vponupon Hierax, which taught earneſtly that Melchiſedek was the holy Ghoſt, becauſe he was tearmed to be lykened to the Sonne of God: and applyeth theſe wordes, Abydeth a Sacrificer continually, to that which the Apoſtle ſayd:Rom.▪ The ſpirite maketh interceſſion with groninges vnſpeakable. But Hierax hath miſt extreamely. For the Holy ſpirite neuer tooke fleſh: Wherefore he coulde not be a king of Salem, and a ſacrificer of one certaine place: For, eueryevery (high) Sacrificer is taken from men. Heb. 5. 1.Some pardon muſt be geuen to them that helde this errour, more then to the former: by reaſon that of two other opinions, which hauehave had ſome ſtroke: neyther coulde greatly pleaſe the Grekes Vntyll this day, as ſhal appeare by the diſcourſe. Alſo amongſt the Latines S. Auguſtine was a mighty wreſtler for ye defence of Hierax minde, ſtyrred Vp by ye fondnes of that one opinion, which Greekes ſomwhat liked of,‡That Melchiſedeck was a Cananite by kinred. Epiph. in Here. 55. oecum. vponupon Heb. 7. either not knowing, or not conſidering cleerely the Chronicle and ſtorie fortifiyng the other. Theſe two opinions agree in one poynt, that Melchiſedek was a king of a ſmal kingdome in Chanaan: Or as one tranſlateth Tremelius, (a lytle§That he was no farther a Chananite then by place. Chanaanite King:) for as the Iewes language is called in Eſay. 19 The ſpeech of Chanaan: ſo any one dwelling there, might as well be of Tremelius called Chananeus. Now by both ſides, who holde this opinion, Melchiſedek cannot be any ſpirite: but one that hath Adam and Noe to his father, and doubteles to his mother Eue namely: and had both beginning of dayes, and ende of lyfe in proprietie: and lyueth not continually on the earth: nor can abyde a Sacrificer for euer, otherwyſe then by the deſcription of Melchiſedek. Gen. 14. VntoUnto which onelyonly the Apoſtle woulde hauehave vsus to referre thoſe ſpeaches: ſeeing the reſt of Scriptnre, woulde teach otherwyſe of the very man, which we muſt marke, vnleſſe we be dull of hearyng: to know who by many degrees, ſhoulde be greater then Abraham. From this one ſtocke of this king in Chanaan, growe two branches: one beareth vp them, who make him to be of Chanaans ſeede: an other holde they, who ſay that he is Sem the ſonne of Noe. The firſt the Greekes brought in, who helde that Sem could not then be alyue: The other helde the Hebrewes.