CAP. I. Of the name and nature of the Test, and the ele­gant allusions made thereto, in the Scrip­tures and other Authors.

HAving observed in Goldmans English Dictionarie the word Test, rende­red fornax ad probandum aurum, I presently conjectured, it was some Instrument belonging to a Gold-smith, whereupon I addressed my self to Iames Cockburn, a Person of great integrity, Judgement, and more then Ordinary both ingenuity and ingine in his calling, who both shewed me the Test and taught me the use of it. It is made up of the ashes of calci­ned Bones, with an Iron Houp into which the ashes are knead, and it put into the [Page 14] fire, the Metall is layd on it to be tryed: what is Lead sinkes into the Test, what is Brasse or Tinne evaporats with the impetuous violence and force of the fire, while the Metall that remains on the Test, is both purged and perfited; so that the use of the Test is threefold, 1. to try and search into the nature of the Metall to discern betwixt the Counterfit and the currant. And so secondly, to separat the precious from the Vile. 3. To consume that which is naughty, the base dregs and drosse. According­ly probo in the Latine hes thes 3. significations, probat qui tentat, probat qui approbat, probat qui demonstrat argumentis. And in a sense that comes more home to our pur­pose, to discover and manifest the nature of a thing, as that in Ovid. Exitus acta pro­bat, and in that Chymicall sense peculiar to the Test, I find the word dokimazo is taken in the Scriptures 1 Pet. 1:7. Gold tryed in the fire.

From all which by an excellent Metaphor, it is translated to be verbum fo­rense & Iuridicum, a Law term signifying that Tryal, whereby Magistrates exa­mine offenders, and particularly we find it applyed to the Tryall of Ministers. 1 Tim. 3:10. Let them first be proved, quos examine praevio constat esse Idoneos, say'th Calvin on the place, or more excellently Hincmarus the Bishop of Rhemes, Probentur primum, nam qui loco docti indoctum ordinat, facit Magistrum qui debet esse Discipulus, & offert caecum Animal. So we read of Gods Test, 1 Thess. 2:4. God that trieth the Hearts Ier. 16:10. Act. 1:24. and of mans Test, 1 Thess. 5:21. prove all things, hold fast that which is good. By man himself 2 Cor. 13:5. or others 2 Cor. 8:8.

2. This Instrument by the Greekes is called Kaminos from Káio whence we have our word chimney. And its ordinarly rendred fornax, which by Martinius in his learned Lexicon Etymologicum is thus described, Ʋsurpatur sayes he, pro loco cavo ferreis laminis concluso, Fit etiam ex lateribus aut Testis. From which no doubt our word Test is derived. So the fining potes spoken of by Solomon, Prov. 17:3. and 27:21. being made of Earthen Vessels, which properly are called Testae, to which the Psalmist alludes 12. Psal. 6. Silver-tryed in a furnace of Earth. Thus Iuvenal Sat. 3. Lin. 270. Tectis sublimibus, unde cerebrum testa ferit; on which Britannicus notes appellatione Testae intelligimus omnia fragmenta vasorum fictilium, ut sunt seriae, urceoli, urnae, tegulae & id genus, & ipsa etiam vasa integra, ut illud, pictaeque incumbere Testae, which he cites from Sat. 15. whence by a very pro­per and unstrained Metaphor, it signifies that Instrument, whereby faith and man­ners are tryed, to which Cicero elegantly alludes, Epist. Fam. Lib. 9. Epist. 15. Nam etsi non facile dijudicatur amor verus & fictus nisi aliquod indicat ejusmodi tem­pus, ut quasi aurum igni, sic benevolentia fidelis periculo aliquo p [...]spici possit. Peri­culo, id est, discrimine, non experimento, as Bernardinus Rutilius there observes. So Ovid. Trist. Lib. 1. Eleg. 4.

Inspicienda not experienda, as some Copies hes it: for it is both better Latine, and more elegantly relates to spectatur.

[Page 15]And Isocrates ad Demonicum, too men gár chryson en to puri dokimazetai, the Scrip­ture also in the same sence uses the word, Zach. 13:9. I will refine them as Silver, and try them as Gold, which there is the proper word, used for the tryall of the Test. And by the Septuagint translated, hos dokimazetai to chryson.

To all which if we add, that the proper Hebrew word for the Test is Cheres, having great affinity with the word sheard in our language, & that both in sound & significa­tion, it will yet give greater light to the explication of the word Test. For that same word Iob 2:7. Is translated a Pot-sheard, and explained by interpreters Testa ex argilla facta, and fictile igne coctum. Buxtor in his Lexicon, calls it simply Testa. And this is the more to be remarked, for where ever we have in our tran­slation a Pot-sheard, it is still in the Latine Testa, as Iob 2:8. The Vulgar hes it, Testâ saniem radebat. Iunius and Tremellius, adeo ut assumeret sibi Testam ad sca­bendum se eâ. Psal. 22:16. Iunius hes it, arescit ut Testa vis mea: aruit tanquam Testa virtus mea, the Vulgar. So Metaphorically Isa. 45:9. Prov. 26:23. and particularly considerable is that in Isa. 30:14. called the Potters Vessel. The use whereof is said there to carry fire. As also to purge Metalls. As will yet more clearly appear from that allusion, God makes to it in Ezech. 22. from 18 to 23. where he sayes he will melt them and purge them from their Brasse, Tinne, Iron and Lead, and as Silver is melted in the midst of the Furnace, so should God melt them by affliction: The old Scholiast his discant thereon is very pleasant, thou which before was pure Silver, resplendent with Religion and shining with vertue, is now degenerated into the Brasse of malice, and Stubborne obstinacy: into the Tinne of Hipocriticall and dissembled piety; the Iron of Tyranny, and the Lead of avarice, Il'e sett my furnace in the midst of Ierusalem, where I shall make the Chaldeans the coalls and wood, my power and wrath the bellowes, Pestilence, famine and warr shall be the fire wherewith I will consume my obstinat adversaries, and expiat and purge my friends; where we have the very manner of the opera­tion of the Test clearly set down. Which kind of Tests to have been in Solomons dayes may be proved from Prov. 25:4. And above 150 yeares since, the Test and its operation, in separando omnem materiam alienam vi ignis ab auro & argento, is excellently described by Matheolus Medicus Senensis in his commentaries on Dioscorides Lib. 5. Cap. 58.

Now there are three wayes to try Metalls, the Ballance, the Toutch-stone, and the Test, to shew its weight, its worth and its purity: To all which we see ane excellent Spiritual allusion made by David, Psal. 26:2. Examine me, that is by the Ballance; prove me, that is by the Toutch-stone; try me that is by the Test, vide Burges spiritual refinings, pag. 87.

And these three several words point furth also the degrees, reality, and found­nesse of grace. And indeed the word trie me, is appropriat to the Test. Try me tho it were by fire. Therefore the Vulgar hes it, ure renes meos, & cor meum. Upon which words Didymus Alexandrinus, Ierom's Master (tho from his youthhood blind) hes ane excellent commentarie, as on many other Scriptures. For whereas the Chaldee hes it perpurga, and Hieronymus, Consta, Didymus in his notes conjoyneth them. Sicut aurifex igne explorat aurum, sic tu Domine eor & mentem, & renes, i. e., intimos affectus meos constando & perpurgando explora, si tibi visum fuerit, [Page 16] etiam per igneus tentationis, & tribulationis. When in our language by a very significant Proverb, we say of a Person or thing that is well approved, that is reall and upright; That it has past the Test: whereas on the contrary a thing or Person that cannot abide the Test, is called reprobator adulterat; as money abused with base mixtures, Ier. 6:30. Is called reprobat Silver. The Prophet gives this reason of it, verss.. 28, 29. They were but Brass and Lead, that did consume, and could not abide the Test. So Aristotle in his Oeconomicks, adokimon epoiese nomisma. And his commentator there turns it, ab usu remotum. That is, un-usefull for Trade.

And as to Persons we find the word taken in that same sence in the New Testa­ment 1 Cor. 9:27. Lest I my self should be a cast-away. The Vulgar hes it, Ne re­probus efficiar. Certainly it doeth not there signifie reprobat as opposite to elect, as A lapide seemes to insinuat, as if Saint Paul had no assurance of his election, (as Tirinus on the place seems to intimat out of Gregorie) for that were contrary to many expresse Scriptures manifesting, that Saint Paul both was elected, and also by ane immediat voice from Heaven, knew himself to be so. Therefore some referre that word rather to the Ministrie then the Person of Saint Paul, lest his Ministrie should be rejected as unsound, and not able to passe the Test, So 2 Cor. 13:5. The word is taken ne pas receivable as the French hes it. Tho both Beza and our translators following him, have some what scrupulously turned the word Rejectaneus, Ʋt pe­riculosam homonymiam vitarem, sayes he.

But lastly observe, the Test may be made of any Beasts bones but the Swine, be­cause it can admit of no unclean Beast, Respuit immundum regia Testa Animal. And so Testam habemus etiam cum pulvisculo. Vide Erasmi adagia sub titulo, totum ut nihil reliqui.

CAP. II. Of Janus and his Temple.

JAnus was one of the most ancient Kings of Italy, Reckoned amongst the abori­gines, about the thirtenth hundred yeare before the Birth of our Saviour, he first taught Husbandry and coyning of money; and because of his wisdome he was reported to know things past and to come: therefore they pictured him with two faces. And after his death being made a God, Numa built him a Temple, which in the time of peace he appointed to be shut, and left open in the time of warr. Whence Ianus was called Patuleus, and Clusius. Or rather as Ovid hes it, Patul­sius and Clausius: As Lib. 1. Fastorum. He brings him in thus.

Of which Virgil according to his lofty manner, sunt geminae Belli portae, Religione Sacrae & saevi formidine Martis. And a little after, nec custos absistit limine Janus.

Macrobius gives this reason of it, when Romulus was fighting against the Sabines, there was a great eruption of Hot-water in that same place where now Ianus Tem­ple stands, whereby the Sabins were confounded and put to the flight. The ex­pectation of the like aid makes them ever since in the time of warr, to leave the door of the Temple open. Others say they leave it open, because they hope to come back and give thanks for the Victorie. And from the raigne of Numa, it was but thrice closed even to the times of Augustus. First by Numa, then by Manlius Tor­quatus the Consul, after the first Punick war. Lastly by Augustus himself, post con­fectum bellum actiacum; about which time it is conjectured our Saviour was born. All which times are pertinently discribed by Stadius his Commentaries on Florus Cap. ult. Sect. 35. Goropius Becanus in his Book he calls Cronia, thinks he was Iaphet: Whom our Countrey-man M ^r. Baily in the first Book of his Chronologie pag. 4. hes demonstrated from Gen. 10:21. (against the Vulgar translation) to have been the eldest Son of Noah. Quintus Fabius Pictor, in his Book de Aureo Saeculo Printed in the year 1530. tells, he was the first that ever taught the Italians the use of Wine, and the nature of Sacrifices: and did first erect Altars to the honour of God. Fuit Ianus (sayes he) Sacerdos & vir Religiosus, Doctus Theologus & Philosophus. Avenarius (whom Fuller in his Miscelanies, and Foord on Psal. 68. thinks, the most skillfull in the Hebrew tongue, and that he hath written the best Dictionary either for singnifications or etymologies.) Is only in the minde that is properly Noah that was so called: And derives Ianus from Iaijn vinum, from whence he derives oinos in the Greek, and vinum in the Latine. And so sayes Mercer, quia primus omnium vi­num invenisse dicitur. And that he is Painted with two faces, because Noah saw both the age that was before, and that which came after the Flood, both the old and new World. Petavius in his Rationarium temporum, Lib. 1. Chap. 11. Assures us, Ianus was the first King of Italie, whom according to Eusebius computation in his Chronicon, he makes to be 1330 yeares before our Saviours birth: From which time he deduces the antiquity of the Idolatrie of the Gentiles, thô Iupiter and Ianus too were made Gods, long after their death. He reckones it about that time that Ehud was judge in Israel. But Lactantius in the second Book of his institutions de origine errorum, Cap. 14. speaking of Noah, unde arguuntur (sayes he) qui authorem vini Liberum putant, ille enim non modo Liberum sed etiam Saturnum atque Uranium, multis autecessit aetatibus. In his first Book Cap. 13. He tells us how Saturn was hospitably received by Ianus in Italie; Wherein if he contradict himself viderint [Page 18] alii. But that which is most to our purpose is that of Ianus Temple, which as Beaumont a modern Poët sweetly Sings:

D. Owen in his Book de natura Theologiae & progressu Idololatriae Lib. 3. Cap. 2. As­serts Ianus to have been Noah on the same accompts. There is one remark concerning Ianus, that I find in many Authors which will very much strengthen the learned Petavius conjecture. Particularly Pompejus Festus de significatione verborum pag. 34. speaking of the Chaos, ex eo chiainein Greci, & nos hiare dicimus, unde Janus de­tractâ aspiratione nominatur, ideo quòd fuerit omnium primus cui primò supplicabant, velut parenti, & à quo rerum omnium factum putabant initium. And that Ianus was first invocat in all their devotions, prayers and Sacrifices, is testified by Saint Augustine (out of Varro) in his 7 Book de Civitate Dei, Cap. 9. As also by Macrobius Lib 1. Saturn. Cap. 9. and Cap. 26. and by Servius in Lib. 1. Aeneid ad versum, cana fides & vesta. Cicero Lib. 1. de nat. deor. principem in Sacrificando Janum esse voluerunt. Horat. Epist. 16. Lib. 1. Arnobius Lib. 3. adversus gentes, doers extreamly scorne them for this folie, Quasi ad Deorum audientiam viam panderet Janus. So sayes Aurelius Victor in breviario Historiae Romanae. Barnabas Brissonius in his Learned book de Formulis, hes told us, that the form of the Heathens more solemne devo­tion did ever beginne thus, Iane, Iupiter, Mars-piter, Quirine, Lares. And Ovid. in Lib. 1. Fast. Brings in him thus speaking for himself, ut possis aditum per me que limina servo. Ad quoscunque voles inquit habere Deos. These that are curious to know more of Ianus may consult Varro Lib. 4. de ling. Lat. Velleius Pater. Lib. 2. Plinius Nat. Hist. Lib. 34. Cap. 7. Sueton in Nero Cap. 14. & auctor libri de viris illu­stribus Cap. 13. so Virgil. Lib. 7. and 12. Ovid. Lib. 1. Fast. And Lib. 4. de Ponto Eleg. 4. Pomp. Fest. in voce opima and sororium tigillum. As also Plutarch in aitiois. Fabius Pictor de aureo saeculo; in all which they may see what several Names, Sur­names and appellations and honour, the old Heathenish superstition bestowed on Ianus.

CAP. III. Shewing that the King hes power of the conscience of the subject, and in what sence the same may safely be maintain'd.

FOr clearing this, we must consider these three. First what conscience is. Second­ly, what the nature of the obligation is, that binds the conscience. Thirdly, the efficacie of this obligation.

Conscience by the ancients, generally, and more particularly by Clemens Alexandri­nus, is called Censor, Corrector, and Paedagogus animae. But it will not be proper here to expatiat much on this subject; I having written a treatise of the nature, effects, pro­perties, obligation, acts and consequence of conscience, in several Sermons Preached at Libertoun, on Act 24:16. and Acts 2:37. and Rom. 2:15. which by assistance of God, and good neighbours, I intend shall see the light of the World. It shall only now suffice to tell, that I think it is no Act either of will or understanding, but a proper facultie of the Soul it self; which of all the faculties of man hes recei­ved the least hurt by the fall, it even in the breasts of the most unregenerat taking or­dinarly Gods part. It may suffice therefore to define it, that facultie whereby application of general knowledge is made to particular actions, followed allwayes with joy or grief: In which sence the Scriptures are not the adequat rule of conscience, otherwayes the Heathen which never heard the Scriptures had had no conscience contrair to Rom. 2:14, 15.

The second thing to be considered, is what it is to bind the conscience, which is brieflie this; to impose a necessity of obedience upon it: so that the sence of the question is, whither or not humane Laws do impose such a necessity of obedience on the conscience, that the contraveening thereof is not only lyable to a temporal pu­nishment, but deservedly also to the anger and offence of God. The difference be­twixt mandats and Laws, perpetual and cursorie, constant and accidental obliga­tions, we cannot stand to discusse.

For the third, we must 1. consider, that the power of making Lawes is the preroga­tive Royal given by God unto Kings, without which it were absolutly impossible for [Page 24] them to attaine the ends of Government, and therefore he that said, by [...]e Kings Reigne, said also, by me Princes Decree Justice, that is, ordaines, makes and exe­cutes, just and wholsome Lawes. Wherefore King and Law-giver are put together in Scriptures, Isa. 33:22. The Lord is our King, the Lord is our Law-giver, Rom. 13:1, 2, 3. 1 Pet. 2:13. shewes what power Kings are invested with, and there is a great reason for it; the execution of the Law being that mean whereby the pub­lict good may both be preserved and promoved, and wherein essentially the office of the Magistrat doth consist, and the difference betwixt him, and his subjects lyes, for which end God conferrs on the Magistrat Numb. 11:17. a particular Spirit of Government, 1 Sam. 10:6. Samuel tells Saul that the Spirit of God shall come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into another man. And this by Solomon, Prov. 20:12. is called the seeing Eye, as subjection is called the hearing Eare. It was the Magistrat ruling by the civill Law even before it was Christned, to which we are commanded to be subject by the Apostle Saint Paul Rom. 13. and Saint Peter, 1 Pet. 2. And to the Priviledge of the Roman Policie Saint Paul did appeal, Acts 25:10. All which invincibly infer not only ane approbation of the Law being made, but also the Ma­gistrats power in making of it. Neither was this ever denyed, but by Carolosta­dius, and the late rable of Monsters amongst our selves, who would send us from our Laws, as far back as the judiciall System amongst the Jews: tho it be confessed by all to be abrogated, as being only temporary, and accommodat to certaine cir­cumstances of times, places, and persons, which now can have no obligation upon us.

2. These Laws made and promulgat by the Magistrat, are of force to bind the conscience: many both Protestants and Papists are down right against this proposi­tion, affirming it proper to God only to bind the conscience. So sayes Calvin lib. 3. instit. 9. cap. sect. 15. And Sibrandus lib. 8. de pontifice Romano cap. 7. Vasques lib. 1. Illust. contravers. 28. 1. And these would only have the Magistrats power to reach the body or Fortunes of the subject, alleadging, no humane power can go fur­ther. To which we oppose these following arguments.

1. A man may bind his own conscience; as is confessed by all in the case of Law­full vowes, they are in our own power before they are made, Act. 5:4. But after that, they are Gods bondes, and do bind the conscience to performance. Where­fore that doeth not altogether hold, that God only can bind the conscience. Other­wayes either vowes do not bind, or else no man can ingage himself in them; either of which to affirme is absurd. I find Alsted. Theol. cas. cap. 2. reg. 2. to make great use of this argument.

2. In the Rom. 13. we learne that Magistrats have power and authority to enact Laws, and therefore they are called powers. 2. That these Lawes of the Magistrat do receive strength and force from the Law of God: for the powers that are (sayeth he) are ordained of God. 3. That the Laws made by the Magistrat have power to bind conscience, v. 5. We must be subject not only for wrath but conscience sake. And if we resist them, we resist the ordinance of God, and pull down Gods judgment and bring condemnation on our selves, when we so do, sayeth the Text, verse 2. And therefore to contemne the Laws of men, tho not expressely, (for then they are Gods) but virtually contained in the word of God, is to be disobedient to God him­self.

[Page 25]3. Consider, that conscience hath relation not to God only, but to man also, Acts 24:16. Conscience both towards God and man, it hath the principal relation to God, as being the absolute binder thereof, yet in and through him to man and his Laws also: For it is to be here remarked, that, at that same instant Saint Paul was pleading before ane Heathen Magistrat.

4. We must consider that we are not only to make conscience of Religion and the worship of God, but of civil things also: For tho things that are civil as civil, do not of themselves, and immediatly bind the conscience, yet by vertue of ane higher Law to which they are subordinat and subjoyned; being made by the Magistrat as the Minister of God, and backed by his Authority which is Gods Seall, so they oblidge the conscience; and not to performe obedience to such Laws, (as for instance sump­tuary Laws made for moderating expence at banquetings or burialls, or in apparel or the like: such as Aulus Gellius makes mention of in his 2 Book Cap. 24. out of Luci­lius the old Poet, and the Lex Fannea, Emilia, Ancia, Iulia, &c.) To con­temne such Laws, tho in it self be a civil fault only; yet in another respect it is a moral sin (the Law being made) contrary both to Justice, Charity, Peace, Saftey, and Wel being of the common wealth.

5. Who ever resists the ordination of God offends God, but every offence of God is a wounding of conscience: wherefore of necessity it must follow by the Law of contraries that we are bound in conscience to obey the Lawes of man. He is the Minister of God, Rom. 13. Gods Legat and Ambassador: therefore what contempt he or his Laws (for both are one, the King being lex animata do sustaine from us, it redoudes unto God whose Minister he is: And God takes it done to himself what is done to or against the Magistrat. Toutch not mine anointed.

6. Every just and good Law flowes from the Law of God & the Law of nature, as the Stream from the Fountain; And therefore hes an Intrinsick power of direction and obligation as a rule of life and manners: The deviating from which is a sin and consequently a wounding of the conscience: For if conscience be the sence of sin, and fear of judgment as some discribe it, tho rather by its effects then by it essential nature, as else where I shall make evident: then it is certain what ever induces to sin concernes conscience, and brings along with it the fear of judgment; but vio­lating of a civil Law does inferr sin; for every particular breach is a violation of the general Law of obeying the Magistrat, and becomes a morall sin against the fifth Commandement. Therefore by the rule of contraries the civil Law doth in­fallibly bind and inevitably oblidge the conscience.

7. Every Law is either contrary to the will of God or conforme to it, every Law is either just or unjust; But herein we must cautiously observe a twofold injustice, either intrinsick or extrinsick. The intrinsick is, when the mater of the Law it self is injust. The extrinsick is when a thing intrinsically just in it self may be unjustly com­manded and imposed upon me. The first only takes away the obligation to obedience, as dissolving the intrinsick ty of conscience: for suppose a Prince should command something that in it self were not unjust, meerly to please his own ambitious Tyran­nical or covetous humor, that indeed would be unjust on his part; but I and every other subject were oblidged to obey, tho he should sinne in commanding, yet I should sinne if I obeyed it not. But on the other hand no humane Laws that on the [Page 26] matter are unjust, can obleidge the conscience, for it is better to obey God than man. From whence we may draw this invincible argument, from the intrinsick na­ture of reason it self, that no man at one and the same time can be oblidged to con­tradictories: but if a man were oblidged to performe ane unjust Law, he should be oblidged in conscience to that, to the not performance whereof the Law of God oblidges him. And to performe and not performe are contradictories. Whereas humane Laws in things just, oblidge the conscience by a supervenient obligation to the Law of God, for obligatio prior tollit posteriorem.

But on the other hand, if Laws be enacted by these who are not invested with law­full power, then they do not oblidge the conscience, no more then a Sentence given by one who is no judge, can oblidge the party to performance: for where the power is wanting, the efficient cause of the obligation is wanting also.

8. We must distinguish betwixt a direct and indirect, a mediat and immediat obligation: we doe confesse the Lawes of man do not immediatly and directly oblidge the conscience, but by vertue of Gods command requiring to give obedience to the Magistrat and his Laws, under the paine of Gods wrath and displeasure. We are bound to performe civil duties on grounds of Religion; and so humane Laws tho not qua humane binds the conscience. Its Gods command binds my conscience to observe mans, as ye see it clearly and expressely, Eccles. 8:21. I Counsel you to keep the Kings commandement, and that in regarde of the Oath of God. It would be a very Fanatick these, to affirme, that a Childe is not bound in conscience to do any Lawfull thing which his Father commands him, Id est, totidem verbis, it is not his dutie, because perhaps totidem Syllabis, it is not contained in the Scripture. But certainly, secundarly and consequentially, with respect unto Gods general com­mand, he is bound in conscience to do that for his Fathers command which he was not bound to undertake without it. See this fully asserted and cleared by Ʋrsine in his Explicatio Catechetica, quest. 69. And in Loci Theologici in pree. 2. de cultu Dei. So Pareus, edicta Magistratûs obligant conscientias. So Alstedius, ut supra. But above all most particularly and fully the learned Bishop Sanderson, de obligatione conscienciae, and Bishop Taylor, in his Ductor Dubitantium, Lib. 3. Cap. 1. rule 1. and 5., and Chap. 4. rule 5. Vide Falkner, in his Libertas Ecclesiastica Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Section 7. Par. 6.

But here we must take along with us these three caveats: first it must be acknow­ledged, that no humane authority can bind the judging power of conscience, so that it is oblidged to judge that a dutie which is commanded without having a liberty to consider its lawfulnesse. 2. The Laws of man does not so illimitedly bind. I must obey God on the bair sight of his will, but I may examine the Lawes of man, whither they be just and equall, and suited to the publick safety, as Acts 9:29. 3. As not so illimitedly nor so immediatly; so neither does humane Lawes so abso­lutly bind the conscience. For Gods command binds even in Secret, and that perpe­tually, and to active obedience too: but the Law of man may be obey'd by suffering the penalty, yea in private where there is no scandall nor danger of contempt of au­thority, I may do the contrary, especially in things in themselves indifferent. Where­fore, when it is said Iam. 4. and 12. There is only one Law-giver, it must be under­stood, one only absolute and supream, whose will is the rule of Justice; the Magistrats [Page 27] under him being but deputes and substitutes responsable still to their Superior, 2 Chron. 19:6. Take head what you do, for you judge not for man but for the Lord.

Aquinas handling this same very question primâ secundae quest. 96. art. 4. deter­mins it, as we have done in the affirmative, justae leges humanae obligant homines in foro conscienciae, ratione legis aeternae à quâ derivantur.

9. Therefore, any Law of the Magistrat that wants the Authority of Gods Law to confirme it, is null, and ought not to be obeyed. But being a thing or matter indiffe­rent, the Lawfullnesse of it is determined to me by that particular Law, which is derived from the general Law of obeying these in Authority. Yea even these same things in case of scandal, will bind us to obedience, tho not in case of conscience simplie considered, as is clear in our Saviours paying Tribute, Mat. 17:27. Rather then any scandall should have arisen. So Abraham gave Lot his choice of the Coun­trey, tho he might otherwayes have disputed his right.

The last is the efficacie of this obligation; and it arises from the nature of con­science it self, which being so intimat with every man, so important ane enemy, and so worthy and true a friend, a faithfull admonisher, a sad accuser, a severe witnesse, an uncorrupt judge, considering that it accuses to him, who is the dreadfull judge of all the Earth, whose wisdome cannot be deceived, nor his Justice bribed or cor­rupted; the Execution of whose Sentence can neither be suspended nor avoyded, so that upon the one hand this meditation obviats all grounds of rebellion, discontent, pride, ambition, covetousnesse and hypocrisie, and overawes a man in the first rise of these corruptions, destroying the Cockatrice in the Egg; so on the other hand, it manifests, that horror and anguish must be a Traitors portion both here and hereafter.

(His opprobrious Kirk) of King Iames its known to all that knows his Historie, how opprobriously the Kirk-men used him; not only molesting and contemning, but counteracting him on every occasion. When he appointed a Feast, they appointed a Fast, & è contra. And after all their Pranks, they openly scorned to answer his tribu­nall, contrarie to the practice of Christ and Saint Paul, both before Jews and Hea­then Magistrats. But alace Christ and Saint Paul were both Episcopall. The juris­diction of their Kirk was Paramount to all his decrees: Yea in his Basilicon Doron he tells how they persecuted him even before he was born, & all along till he came to the Throne: And when he was gloriously seated there, the only Eclipse of his glory was from the Kirk. One passage whereof I cannot omitt, which will indeed justifie my Epithet of that Kirk. Crebrae adversus me in concionibus calumniae spargebantur, non quòd crimen aliquod designassem, sed quia Rex eram, quòd omni crimine pejus habeba­tur. That they constantly reviled and reproached him, not only in their private con­venticles, but in their publick Preachings, not for any crime he had done or inten­ded to do, but because he was a King, which in their opinion was the worst of all crimes. And this they made evidently appear in the Person of his Son, that incom­parable Prince and blessed Martyr, of whom we may say according to the Letters on his Coffin, C. R. I. Clementia Religiosa interfecit.

[Page 28]It was they broke his Scepter in pieces, by throwing the Militia out of his Royal hands; that tore the Crown off this head; baffled his supremacie; barrd him the ve­ry liberty of his conscience in the point of Church Government, which he believed and strongly defended, to be jure divino Episcopal. And would have him to acknow­ledge himself guiltie of all the blood they had spilt. And after they had hunted him like a Partridge on the Mountains, at last surprized and murthered him in his own House. It was the Presbyterians held him by the Hair, as he who wrote the History of Independency well observes, till the Independents (a kind of Synonymous word for one thing) cut off his head.

Lin. 10 (Ioyned with Soveraignity) so Diotogenis Pythagorici verba apud Stobeum, anagkaton teleion basilea strategonte agthaon hemen kai dikasten kai hierea.

Lin. 11. (So Numa) Livius lib. 1. De Numa tum sacerdotibus creandis animum ad­jecit, quanquam ipse plurima sacra obibat. And a little after, Flaminem Iovis assi­duum sacerdotem creavit: Julius Caesar Pontifex maximus fuit; Suet. in Julius Cap. 13. And Augustus Suet. in Octavius 31. Pontificatum maximum suscepit: And a little after, Sacerdotum & numerum & dignitatem sed & commoda auxit.

Lin. 12. (Malabar in the East) Ferdinandus Lopez Lib. 1. Histor. Indicarum. But to come nearer home, the learned Doctor Basier in his Book of the liberty of the Bri­tannick Church, in that part that he hes from Father Barns, makes it out from Authen­tick Chronicles and Histories, and statutes also within themselves, that the Kingdom of England hath been ane entire Empire Governed by one head, supream both in spi­ritualls and temporalls. And this he makes out by eighteen several instances in sta­tutes by Kenulphus, Edward the Confessor, Edward the first, the third, the fourth, Richard the third, Richard the second, justifying the Act of Henry the eight; That it was according to the ancient supremacy of all the Kings of England over all Persons and in all causes whatsomever, aswell Ecclesiastick as temporal.

Lin. 20. (Mishpat Hameleck.)

CHAP. IV. What is the meaning of the Mishpat Hameleck amongst the Iews, the jus Re­gium: or the nature of the Prerogative Royall.

WHat this Mishpat Hameleck was, I find it mightily debated amongst the lear­ned: some will have it to be jus Regium, others only consuetudo Regia, the one the allowance and ordinance of God, the other the Usurpation and Tyranny of man, the greatest blessing or scourge that either the mercy or Justice of God sends to man­kind. The first and chief place we read of it, is 1 Sam. 8:11. where we have it tran­slated the manner of the King, in Deut. 17:16. we have the Kings power and Pre­rogative [Page 29] described by God himself, but it is not termed there the Mishpat. And how to understand it here is thought a very knotty and puzeling difficulty: The perplexi­ty whereof lyes in this, that either de jure, the Kings of Israel, and in them all other Princes ought to do after the manner there described; But this we see is directly contrary to the duty of a King prescribed by God himself in Deut. 17:16. He shall not multiply Horses, but here in 1 Sam. 8:11. we have mention made of Chariots and Horse-men in multitudes, which cannot be without multitudes of Horses, Deut. 17:17. Ye shall not multiply Silver or Gold: but here verss. 14, 15, 16. He shall take your Fields, Servants, your Vine-yeard, your Cattell, and dispose of them to his minions and attendants: Deut. 17:20. He must not be proud; but here v. 17. All must be his Servants and run and walk as he pleases, Ezek. 45:9. Take away your exactions from my people. And Chap. 46:18. The Prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance to thrust them out of their possessions: Here we find the quite contrary. Their Fields, their Vine-yeards, their Sones, their Sheep, their Servants and all to be disposed of by him at his pleasure. Yea by the Law of God the Levits were to have the tenths as peculiar to them.

On the other hand, if it be said, that it only contains a prediction, that de facto they should be so treated by their Kings, on the quite contrary, we do not read in all the Books and Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah or Israel, that they did proceed thus farr as it is here exprest. Yea even Achab that was one of the most wicked amongst them all, a man that sold himself to work wickednesse, yet he did not take Naboths Vine-yeard by force, 1 Kings 21:25. but by Iezabells craft, and wicked Policy, it was pretended to be legally Forsaulted; tho the taking away of Vine-yeards is expres­sely mentioned here as a part of the Mishpat Hameleck, or the jus Regium.

This difficulty has being looked on by a great many learned men, so inextricable, that it hes made them think, that God is only here describing the manner of the Heathen Kings that know not God, that so he might deferr them from seeking a King; or at the least that he was angry that they sought such a King as the other na­tions had, not such a King as God allowed them, as was described in Deut. 17. but this is expressely against the very words of Deut. 17:14. likeas all the nations have about me. Others are of opinion that he describes not here what Kings should or may do, but that they ordinarly degenerat into Tyranny, and this is their Custome so to do. And we see the word Mishpat is many times translated Custome and man­ner, Iudg. 18:7. Carlessely after the manner of the Zidonians Pemishpat, Gen. 40. vers 13. Former manner when thou was buttler, Exod. 21:9. 1 Sam. 27:11. 2 Kings 11:14. 2 Kings 17:29. Psal. 119:131. As thou used to do, in the origi­nall is according to thy manner and Custome. So that the Custome of Tyrants (say they) is only here described. Of this opinion is Bartoldus de regimine civili Num. 4. Bodinus de Republica Cap. 10. Melancton in Philosophia morali pag. 197. Brentius Hom. in 1 Sam. 27. Osiander h. l. Pezelius part. ult. object. pag. 999. Zepperus in explicatione legum Mosaicarum Lib. 4. Cap. 8. Tossanus in notis, hoc loco: Rossius de Christianae Reipublicae potestate supra reges Cap. 2. Com. 103. and Hunnius in resolut. disp. vol. 1. pag. 73.

But with reverence to so great authority and so great semblance of reason nullius addictus jurare in verba, I take leave to dissent, and that I may more clearly expresse [Page 30] my own opinion, I premit these two distinctions. 1. We must carefully distin­guish betwixt a Kings Crown and his coveteousnesse. If any covetous Kings there be, they certainly are the perfect emblems of miserable happiness, and rich beggary. But say, a King out of an avaritious lust should gripp the goods, and seaze on the possessions and Lands of his Subjects for his own private Interest, certainly he doeth Tyrannically and unjustly: but if, for the safety and advantage of the common wealth, this is one of the rights of the Crown, to make use of the subjects goods for that end.

2. We must also distinguish betwixt the manner and measure of the thing, and the thing it self. The King may for the necessity of the common-wealth, and peace and safety of the subject, exact their service and goods, if not done in a violent man­ner, nor exacted in ane exorbitant measure, not for his own private gaine and ad­vantage, but for the good of the community whereof he is the head. Now in such a case all things that belongs to the subject, they belong also to the power and au­thority of the King, and he may make use of them, observing that due measure (in the necessity or advantage of the community) by his prerogative Royal, with­out incurring the odious name and imputation of a Tyrant. This is Lyra's judgment in his Commentarie on this place of Samuel, as it is Lawfull (sayes he) for a man to cut or mutilat himself, to cut off a Hand or a Legg, for the preservation of the whole body; so may a King Lawfully make use of the subjects wealth in the time of necessity. And this I take to be the proper meaning of the Mishpat Hameleck in 1 Sam. 8:11. That a King not only de jure may, but will in case of necessity require the goods of his subjects without any suspition of Tyranny or oppression: And my arguments for this my opinion are.

1. Because as I find the word Mishpat translated here, and else where, manner and Custome, so I find it also oftentimes translated Judgment, Statute, Law, or Right. Judgment or Right from Shapat, judicavit, therefore may be translated the Kings Right or Prerogative Royal, for this is its most proper signification, as its original imports, so Iudg. 16:31. He judged Israel twenty years, Id est, Rex erat qui jure & justitia vindicaverat: As Buxtorf on the word Shapat pag. 838. And so in many other places there cited, to which I referre the doubter. And the word Mishpat is taken many times so, Psal. 105:5. Ier. 4:12. Psal. 72:1. The word signifies both the Sentence of a Judge and the Right that is done to a man by that Sentence, as is observed by the excellent Drusius on Ioel 3:2. This being its most proper signification, but the word Custome and manner but Metaphoricall, there is great reason, we should rather read it the Kings Right, and accordingly the Vul­gar hes turned it jus Regis: And Iunius and Tremellius, 1 Sam. 10:25. which we call the manner of the Kingdom, hes turned it jus Regni, so we read of a place Gen. 14:7. called Enmishpat, the Fountain of Judgment, as the King may properly be called. And the septuagint turns this Mishpat into dikaioma tou basileos; which word dikaiomad if we beleeve Beza on Rom. 1:32. will signifie sometime legem natu­rae, vel jus gentium.

2. Consider we, what it was the Israelites sought, it was not a Tyrant but a King, Rescripta sunt interpretanda juxta petita, according to the rule in the civil Law, except we would say of God according to that Mat. 7:10. when we Ask a [Page 31] Fish, he will give us a Serpent which is horrid blasphemy.

3. Why should Samuel say, this was the peculiar maner of Kings? Is not this the custome of any other judges and Magistrats as well as of Kings, to degenerat some times, and be Tyrannical? as we see what Iotham sayes of Abimeleck Iudg. 9:14. That he was become a Bramle in stead of a Vine. See also what was said of the Sons of Eli and Samuel, that were no Kings, 1 Sam. 2:16. That they turn'd cruel, Tyrannical, Base and oppressive, so that men abhorred the Offering of the Lord, 1 Sam. 8:3. Its said of his Son that he turned aside after Lucre, took brybes and perverted judgment. Why then should this be called the maner of Kings only, since it's also incident to inferior Magistrats, and perhaps much more?

4. I would gladly know, if by the maner of the King and Kingdom, 1 Sam. 8. verss. 11. and 10. and 25. Any thing that is unjust and unlawful be mean'd, as Ty­ranny and oppression, as in their opinion the words must needs importe. Do they think that the excellent Samuel should have taken the paines to have written these unjust Laws in a Register, and laid them up beside the Ark of the Covenant? Or rather if we believe Iosephus lib. 6. antiquit. Iud. Cap. 5. in the Ark it self, for a per­petual memorial. Nay he is so just a judge, would have rather caused burn and destroy all these monuments of iniquity: Wherefore this Mishpat Hameleck cannot be rationally supposed to involve any Tyrannical exactions or oppression of the Peo­ple, as they expone it. Samuel to make a Law for oppression, a man both wise and holy, and to consigne it to that publick and holy repository, being a monument of iniquity, to preserve it to the knowledge and use of the posterity, I hope scarce any sober man will be induced to admit it amongst the least atomes of his be­liefe.

5. I would know in effect, if David, Salomon and all the rest of the Kings of Iudah and Israel did not all this that is here exprest; And yet no where, are accused of Tyranny. Had' not they their Tables in times of peace, magnificently and splendid­ly furnished, which is intimat here by taking their Sons and Daughters to be con­fectioners and Cooks? Had not they in time of war their Horses, Chariots, Foot­men, and Captains, and Souldiers of all ranks? And what disparadgment is that, to be the Kings Servants, who himself is the representative of God unto us? And by the way we have a remarkable instance of this in Salomon, who 2 Chron. 9:25. Is said to have had 4000 Stalls for Horses, and the 1 King. 4:26. He is said to have had fourty thousand Stalls for Horses; the word translated Stalls is different in the Original, yet only a Iod added: And signifies either a particular standing for one Horse, or else a Stable having in it many such standing places. Tho I have heard some Fools bogle at this, yet it may be reconciled, considering 4000 Stables with ten Stalls a piece, and each holding ten Horses will make just fourty thousand. We read also 2 Chron. 1:14. He had 1400 Chariots, and 12000 Horse-men that atten­ded him in State. But consider with me, what a laborious and vast work he had in building of the Temple of God, and of his own Palaces? And how many Horses that great work would need? And how many Queens and Concubins he had, and what a number of attendants both of pride and necessity they would require? Or consider also, how provident, so wise a man would be in case of warr: In which case we read the Philistins brought to the Field 1 Sam. 13:5. thirty thousand Cha­riots, [Page 32] and would Salomon think you be behind with them, on these considerations? It had been unjust to have imputed that to Salomon either as Tyranny or oppression: But certainly rather it was the jus Regium his prerogative Royal, to have and main­taine them. And altho in the most strict sence, these things be the Kings preroga­tive, yet good and gracious Kings make use only of their prerogatives as Christ did of his Miracles, meerly in cases of necessity, and for the publict good, to which they will make their Pomp and State subservient.

And for these passages of Ezekiel, of Achab, and the tenths bestowed on the Levits; they are easily answered by what is said allready. For 1. that of Ezekiel is, thou shall not take away the possession of the subject, by oppression; not, in case of necessity, and conveniency of State. Therefore Ezek. 44:9. what in one part of that same verse is called exactions, in the other it is called violence and spoile: There exacti­ons being neither with justice nor moderation, Ezek. 46:18. Its also clear as the Beames of the Sun, the Prince shall not take the inheritance of the People by op­pression, which is expressely added, importing in point of necessity, he may do it, and be neither Tyrant nor Robber: For Achab all the World knows it was only his lustfull and covetous humor he gratified, not minding the benefite of the common-wealth. And for the tithes of the Levits, Its known that it was not a ceremonial precept, but morall founded on the judgment of right reason, according to the Law of nature it self. And therefore cannot be in it self unlawfull, nature teatching us that a publick Person should be served of the publick. And therefore tribute jure divino belongs to the publick Magistrat, Mat. 17:25. and 22. and 15. verss. There­fore all things both Sacred and civil must be serviceable to the publick benefit. This I take to be the true meaning of this Mishpat Hameleck.

But if we speak particularly of the prerogative Royal, Iustinian makes it to con­sist in these three, the power of things Sacred, the power of the publick good, and the power of denuncing warr. Bodinus in his Book de Republica lib. 1. cap. 10. ex­tends it to these five, 1. The power of making and abrogating Lawes, 2. Supre­macy of jurisdiction, from which can be no appeal, 3. Power of establishing all inferior Magistrats, and Officers of State, 4. Imposition and exaction of tribute, 5. The power of warr, To which Arniseus adds the right of publick wayes, navi­gable Rivers, mines of Gold and Silver, and any thing that hes no particular owner, that it should belong to the common Master; as hunting, confiscation, coyning of money, Arniseus lib. 2. de jure Majest. cap. 1. n. 8. Neither will any that remem­bers we swear in the Test to defend the Kings prerogatives (we hope) think this di­gression impertinent: To which we shall add the Golden observation of Chrysostome upon Rom. 13. That to leavy money, and exact stents for the publick good is the peculiar prerogative of the Crown; and therefore sayes he, the Apostle sayes not, give tribute, but vers. 7. render tribute, render Custome, non dicit date but red­dite: For the subject nihil gratuito dat, debitum siquidem est res ista: quod si non [Page 33] feceris perfidi poenas dabis. The subject gives nothing to the King; its debt, which if he refuse, he deserves to be punished as a false Traitor.

But to speak yet more particularly of the Royal prerogative in the most part of all Nations: We begin with the Jews whose Royal prerogative (as we have seen) is set down particularly in Deut. 17. and 1 Sam. 8. tho contradicted by learned men; to whom forecited we are not yet afraied to add Saint Gregorie, Cajetan, Abulensis, and Vatablus on the place, and even Aquinas too, who in his Book de regimine principis Cap. 11. is expressely against our interpretation, and in his Summs, primâ se­cundae quest. 6. Art. 1. in answer to the fifth objection. Illud jus non debebatur Regi ex institutione divina, sed magis praenunciabatur usurpatio Regum qui sibi jus ini­quum constituunt, in Tyrannidem degenerantes & subditos depraedantes. But consi­dering that the most part of Papists are ill affected towards all Kings, as well as our Presbyterians, the one making the Pope their Presbytery, and the other the Pres­bytery their Pope: Therefore all our Fanatick writers, as Lex Rex, Didoclavius and the rest, hes all their arguments from Papists; yet we hope, we have said als much for our opinion, as will abundantly satisfie any sober and intelligent Reader.

To come then to particulars, we find the Law of the prerogative Royal amongst the Jews, after that ancient one established by God himself and promulgat by Moses and Samuel; als fully and als amply (as can be) constitute in the Person of Simon Macabeus, 1 Macab. 14. chap. from 41. to the 45. Wherein is contained the Sanction of the Law. And the prerogatives are reckoned out to the number of twelve, which at more length may be there seen, and corresponds much with our own, one or two only excepted. Neither may it be objected, he was their Captain only, and not their King: For his posterity did assume both the Title and Estate of the King without any innovating of these prerogatives, as is known all along their Historie. But more particularly, what the Royal prerogative amongst the Jews was, both before and after that, may be more fully gathered from the writings of Iosephus against Appion, and from his antiquities; from Mennochius, Sigoneus, Bertra­mus, and Cunaeus; to which we may add the most part of the writings of Hottinge­rus: all which have written fully and learnedly of the Laws and Customes of that Re­publick, but especialy in his Smegma Orientale, and Epitome utriusque juris judaici.

The Royal prerogatives amongst the Romans, are fully described by Dionysius Halycarnasseus, lib. 2. which were agreed upon (as he sayes) betwixt Romulus and the People of Rome, the care of Religion, and the Laws; The convocating of the People and the absolute power of warr, with many others there to be read: which still continued till the time of Tarquin the proud, who contemning these de­crees and ordinances, was deprived of his Kingdom, and banished the City. What it was afterwards, may be known by Suetonius, after the death of Iulius Caesar in Tiberius Cap. 30, 31, 32. And Tacitus Annales, especially the first Book. And after­ward in processe of time, how they were increased and established, may be seen in the Commentaries of Claudius Rangolius, ordinis minimorum S. Francisci de Paula (who hes described them in a collection from Hottoman, and Calvin Lawyers) on 1 Sam. 8:11. Yea the lex regia, as he there writes, gave a kind of infinit power to the Emperours, in all things that concerned the preservation or amplification of [Page 34] the common-wealth. To whose writings we may add what hes been written by Scriverius his Respublica Romana, and Lipsii Roma illustrata, and by Dion, Ap­pianus, and Pollybius, the Greek Historians; of whom it must be observed, that they wrote the Roman History farr more impartially then any Roman.

3. For the Greeks their prerogative Royal, to wit, of the Lacedemonians, it is fully described by Halicarnasseus in his 5 Book.

Of the Macedonians by Quintus Curtius in his sixth Book of the warrs of Alexan­der, anent the death of Philotas Parmenio's Son.

The Royal prerogative of Agamemnon, and other Princes of Grecia, may be collected from Homer. And of the whole Greeks, both their History, and Privi­ledges may be gathered from Pausanias, and Plutarch, especially in the lives of So­lon and Lycurgus; and his Greek Questions. But most elegantly and compendious­ly written by the learned Ʋbbo Emmius de Graecorum rebus publicis. And from Postellus de Magistratibus Atheniensium. To which may be added Meursii Athenae. Nicolai Damasceni Historia.

4. The prerogative of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Persians, may be col­lected out of Herodot, and Zenophon, and Diodorus siculus his 2 Book, Cap. 3. But above all out of the learned Brissonius de regio Persarum principatu.

5. The prerogative of the Germans out of Tacitus de moribus Germanorum.

6. Of the French, out of Caesar de bello Gallico, lib. 7.

Out of all which by a judicious and serious Reader might be collected a full com­plete Volume of the prerogatives of all Nations: Which if it be yet done, in whole, or in part, I know not; Only I could wish this would animat the gene­rous attempt of some learned head: but this being the work rather of a Lawyer, then a divine, and not belonging to our design but by way of annotation, and digres­sion, Let these few remarckes suffice.

CHAP. VI. Concerning Melchisedeck who he was.

GReat hes been the toil of learned Men in all ages both Jews and Gentiles, to loose this knot, and some after all their labour, have concluded the mystery not only profound, but incomprehensible, alleadging, where the great Apostle makes difficulty the preface, it is fit for them to make dispair the conclusion. Heb. 5:11. Gesnerus in his Commentaries on Gen. 14 quest. 3. pag. 307. tells us of one Copres an Abbot in Scythia, who observing his Disciples to contend much about this same controversie, pronunced a woe on himself, for searching so much in it. Saint Ierom. 3. Tom. Epist. 136. speaking of it, sayes, Si vas electionis stupet ad my­sterium, & dum disputat ineffabile confitetur, quanto magis nos vermiculi & culi­ces, solam debemus scientiam inscitiae confiteri. Mr. Bailly our Countrey-man, in the first Book of his Chronologie. pag. 18. Quis mortalium hic fuerit, frustraneus est curiosissimorum labor inquirere; and ends his discourse of him, Necesse est desinant homines in lucem velle protrahere, quod Deus decrevit in tenebris occultandum. Rai­nolds on Psal. 110. pag. 462. I cannot but wonder that men should toil themselves in the dark to find out that, of which they have not the least ground of solide con­jecture, speaking of Melchisedeck. But yet with all humility following the conduct of the Scriptures by the threed of solide reason, we shall crave liberty to propone other mens Sentences, and to interpose our own. There have been then 7 several opinions, ancient and modern concerning Melchisedek. 1. Some have thought that, that whole business concerning him was a mystery known to God only, and should never be revealed to man. 2. Some, that he was some power and vertue of God, greater then Christ the Son of God. 3. Some, that he was an Angel. 4. That he was the Son of God; who in a preludie to his future humanity appeared to the Sons of Men. 5. Some, that he was the Holy Ghost. 6. Some, that he was Shem the Son of Noah. But the opinion I shall fix upon, is different from all these.

The first is the opinion of Prudentius, whom Gennadius in his Catalogue illustrium [Page 37] virorum Cap. 13. calls Poeta Palatinus, sed Christianus saeculari literatura insignis His words are in his preface to his Psychomach; Dei Sacerdos, Rex & idem praepo­tens, origo cujus fonte inenarrabili, secreta, nullum prodit Authorem sui, Melchise­deck qua stirpe, queis majoribus, ignotus, uni cognitus tantum Deo. Of this opinion are many other modern Authors, see Ravanel in his Bibliotheca in voce Melchi­sedeck.

To which I answer, I darr not be so impudent to obtrude into the World any scrible of mine with that vain glorious and boasting preface, En reserata orbi magni secreta tonantis: as Scaliger observeth of a German in his time. For I must confesse with the great Apostle, that what concerns Melchisedeck is hard to be uttered, that is, is both profound and mysterious, Heb. 5:11. Yet this was not the obscurity so much upon the matter, as in the dulness and incapacity of the Hearers to receive so excellent doctrine, otherwise he had superseded all labour of any further explication; and the several sentiments of learned men in all ages are enough to refute this faint and floating conjecture.

The 2. That he was some great power of God greater then Christ, was the pecu­liar opinion of these Heretickes called by Epiphanius in his 2 Book adversus Hereses, Heres. 55. Melchisedeciani. Megalen ten dunamin phaskousi, alla kai Meizoteron tou Christou. Theodoret. de maleloquentia haeretica Lib. 2. calls them Griveous Heretic­kes. So said Augustine lib. de Heresibus ad quod vult Deum Cap. 34. The ground of this opinion was, because its said of Christ, he was to be after the order of Melchise­deck: Therefore say they, he was inferior to him in dignity. This Epiphanius there refutes, shewing a Servant is not equal to his Master; Christ was God and Melchise­deck but a Man. Doctor Gouge in his Lexicon on the Hebrews shews, that their own argument refutes themselves, for Christ being an High-priest after the order of Melchisedeck: Melchisedeck was a Type of Christ, and Christ the Truth of that Type, but the Truth is alwayes greater then the Type, and by that expression (as shall be manifested) Melchisedeck is so farr from having any prerogative to, that he hes not so much as an equality with Christ.

The 3. That he was an Angel. A. Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheca Sancta lib. 5. Annot. 90. hath observed out of Saint Ierom. in his Epistle to Euagrius. That Orige­ne was the first Author of this opinion, and sayes that Dydimus his Scholar was of the same mind, and in his Annot. 91. he tells us that Saint Augustine in his Book of the Questions on the Old and New Testament quest. 109. endeavours to prove that Melchisedeck was an Angel, or the Holy Ghost. But Alphonsus à Castro in his 10 Book against Heresies proves that, that Book cannot belong to Saint Augustine: For in his Book of Heresies before cited he condemned it for Heresie Cap. 34. and no mention made of it in his retractations. But be the opinion whose it will, its easily refuted, by the description of an High-priest, Heb. 5:1. That he must be a Man. Neither doth this any way accord to the History delivered of Melchisedeck, Gen. 14. Neither any where in the whole Scripture is the Priest-hood attributed to the Angels. Besides what a ridiculous prerogative had that been to tell us, an Angell had neither Father nor Mother nor Genealogie. So Gouge, Slegelius, Tena and Molineus de praecog. futurorum Lib. 4. Cap. 11.

The 4. opinion is, That he was the Son of God. And this Epiphanius tells us was