Page:The Holy Bible faithfvlly translated into English ovt of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek, & other Editions in diuers languages.pdf/72

54 al to his freind, when he had first cited grauer Authours, S. Ireneus, Hypolitus, Eusebius Cesariensis, Eusebius Emissenus, Apolinarius, and Eustathius, al agreably affirming that Melchisedech was a Chananite, King of Salem, which was afterwards called Ierusalem. To this opinion agreeth Philo Iudæus, continually speaking of him as of a stranger to the Iewes Nation. Iosephus also a Iew writeth plainly (li. 7. de bello Iudaico. c. 18.) that he was of Chanaan, and Prince of the Chanaites. Also S. Dionysius Ariopagita, (Cælest. Hier. c. 9.) S. Epiphanius (her. 55. & 67.) Theodoretus (q. 63. in Gen.) and Suidas, are of the same mind, and manie other Christian Doctours. Who confirme their assertion by that S. Paul saith to the Hebrewes: He whose generation is not numbred among them, tooke tithes of Abraham. For what els can S. Paul meane, but that Melchisedechs kindred & people, was diuers from the kindred and people of the Iewes? Which he could not say of Sem, from whom Abraham & al Iewes descended: as it can not be said, that Adam and Noe are of diuers generation from anie people that now liueth, because we al come of them. Of this difficultie (not pertaining to anie controuersie of our time) the studious may see more in F. Pererius his commentaries vpon this 14. chap. of Genesis. disp. 3.

18. Bringing forth.) Seeing the Royal Prophet Dauid, and S. Paul say Christ is a Priest for euer according to the Order of Melchisedech, we demand of Protestants, if Christ fulfilled not Melchisedechs figuratiue Sacrifice offered in bread and wine, by offering his owne bodie and bloud at his last supper in formes of bread & wine, and by instituting the same to be offered by his Priests til the end of the world, what other figuratiue sacrifice of Melchisedech they can find performed by Christ, by which it may appeare that he is a Priest for euer according to that order? Caluin (li. 4. Instit. c. 18. para 2.) Kemnisius (par. 2. exam. pag. 740. &. 747.) Peter Martyr (in 1. Cor. 5.) and most English Protestants grant that Melchisedech was a Priest, and that the peculiar function of a Priest is to offer Sacrifice; wherfore they hauing no sacrifice wil haue only Ministers and no Priests: but they denie that Melchisedech offered Sacrifice in bread and wine. Wherupon we ioyne issue with them to proue that he did, and that by this place amongst others of holie Scripture.

Kemnisius complayneth that the Latin text hath Obtulit, for Protulit, Offered, for Brought forth. And to disproue the same, he alleadgeth the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greeke, and S. Cyprian. But Catholikes more iustly complaine of him for lying. For al Latin Editions haue Proferens, bringing forth. The question therfore in controuersie is, to what end and vse Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine? Caluin and Kemnisius say it was only to refresh or feed Abraham and his men, and not for sacrifice. Which their bare saying is without reason, for that there was store of victuals in the prey (v. 11.) and they had eaten therof. Moreouer the Hebrew word Hotsi, brought forth, is a word pertayning to Sacrifice, as in the 6. chap of Iudges, (v. 18. and 19.) and importeth that the bread and wine were first offered in Sacrifice, and then doubtles they did participate: though they wanted not other sufficient corporal food. Againe, the wordes following For he was the Priest of God most High, can haue no other sense, but that he did the function of a Priest in the bread and wine which he brought, otherwise if the only cause of bringing that prouision had been to relieue the camp with victuals, the reason would rather haue been yealded, because he was a bountiful King, a liberal Prince, a special freind to Abraham, as indeed he was: But none of these reasons or the like fitted this purpose so wel, nor touched the cause of bringing forth bread and wine, as to signifie that he was a Priest, whose office is to offer Sacrifice.

Here againe some Protestants take exception against the Latin text, that the causal coniunction Enim, for, is not agreable to the Hebrew, but should be the copulatiue Et, and, which is a meere wrangling. For the lerned know wel enough that the Hebrew particle is better expressed in such places, by Enim, or Rh