Melchisedec, they tell us, as a priest and type of Christ, did offer this bread and wine in sacrifice to God. Herein, they add, alone was he typical of Christ, who offered himself unto God under the appearance of bread and wine. And he also instituted the sacrifice of the mass, wherein he should be so offered continually unto the end of the world. And on that account alone, they say, he continueth a priest for ever. For if he had not appointed priests here in his room to offer him unto God, that office of his would have ceased, as Bellarmine disputes at large. ’
It were easy to make naked the fondness of these imaginations, would our present design permit. Some few things may be remarked on theirassertions. As, 1. The apostlein this whole discourse wherein Melchisedec is introduced and concerned, treateth not at all of the sacrifice of Christ, nor intimates any resemblance between the offering of Melchisedec and that of Christ; but it is the office alone, and its dignity, which he insists upon, designing to treat afterwards at large about his sacrifice. And when he doth so, he doth not in the least compare it with the sacrifice of Melchisedec, but with those of Aaron according to the law; so that here was no occasion for him to mention any sacrifice of Melchisedec’s, should any such thing be supposed in the text of Moses. 2. A supposition of such a sacrifice of bread and wine as that pleaded for, is contrary to the apostle’s design, and destructive of it. For whereas he endeavoureth to prove that the priesthood of Melchisedec was far more excellent than that of Levi, he could not do it by this, that he offered bread and wine in sacrifice, for so also did the Levitical priests, Lev. vil. 13, xxiii. 13, 18. But all the excellencies which the apostle insisteth on, consist in the dignity of his office, and the qualifications of his person, not in the matter of his sacrifice. 3. Let all be granted they can desire, yet are they not advantaged as unto their especial end thereby. For what is the offering of real bread and wine, and no more, unto the offering of the body and soul of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of them? 4. As unto what they contend, that the Lord Jesus Christ would not be a priest for ever, unless he had those priests on earth who continue to offer him in the sacrifice of the mass; it is so far from truth, as that the contrary is irrefragably true and certain. For if he indeed hath need of other priests to carry on his office, he doth not continue the administration of it himself, or all the apostle’s arguings against the perpetuity of the Aaronical priesthood are invalid. But because I am not willing to engage in anything controversial beyond what is absolutely necessary, I shall only tender some considerations evidencing that no such thing as a-sacrifice can be included in that expression, ‘He brought forth bread and wine;’ and so proceed.
1. The process of the story directs unto another sense of the words. Abraham was now returned with his forces unto the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale, Gen. xiv. 17, a place not far from Jerusalem, called, as it is likely, the king’s dale, from Melchisedec, unto whom it belonged; where afterwards Absalom built a pillar, for the memorial of his name, 2 Sam. xviii. 18. Here probably he continued for awhile, as to refresh his own people, so to stay for the coming of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. For upon their defeat in the battle, they had left the plain, and fled into the mountains, ver. 10, giving up the cities with all their spoil unto the conquerors. But now, hearing of the success of Abraham, and his recovery of the captives with their goods, they resort unto him for relief: he who intended to restore all unto them, stayed for them, as it is probable, some days in the king’s dale. Now, it was the manner in those countries, where any forces were on an expedition, that those in their way who were at peace with them, did bring forth supplies of bread and wine, or water for their refreshment. For the neglect of this duty, wherein they brake the laws of friendship and hospitality, did Gideon so severely punish the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel, Judges vill. 5—7, 13—16. And the observance of this duty is recorded unto the commendation of Barzillai the Gileadite, who sent refreshment unto David and his army; for he said, ‘the people are hungry, and thirsty, and weary in the wilderness,’ 2 Sam. xvii. 27, 28, 29. In this state of things, Melchisedec, being the neighbour, friend, and confederate of Abraham, when he came with his army and abode so near unto him, brought forth bread and wine for their refreshment; which being merely a civil action, our apostle takes no notice of it. And they who can discover a sacrifice in this expression, have either more skill in the opening of mysteries than he had, or a better invention in coining groundless fables and imaginations of their own.
2. This act of Melchisedec is immediately subjoined to the mention of him as king, being an instance of kingly power and munificence: ‘ Melchisedec, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine.’ After this is added, ‘and he was a priest of the Most High God;’ which is a plain introduction of, and preparation for the expression of his exercise of that office in his blessing of Abraham, which ensues in the next words. The Romanists contend that vau in jm nim 15 redditive, giving a reason of what was before affirmed: ‘He brought forth bread and wine,’ because he was the priest of the high God. But as this offers force to the universal usage of that particle, which is connexive only; so it will not serve their occasion. For they would have it that Melchisedec only offered this sacrifice of bread and wine; whereas, if the reason why he did so, was because he was the priest of the high God, then every one who was so, was in like manner to offer the same sacrifice. And whereas they place the whole especial nature of the Melchisedecian priesthood in this his sacrifice, if this were _ common to him with all others, then was he not a priest of a particular order; and so the whole discourse of the apostle is vain and impertinent. But it is plain that he having nothing to do with, nor inference to make from, his royal office or acts, doth therefore omit this which evidently was an act of kingly bounty.
5. The word here used, son, ‘he brought forth,’ or caused to be brought forth, bread and wine, is no sacred word, nor is ever used in the Scripture to express the sacred action of oblation or offering in sacrifice. It is always a common action that is denoted thereby.
4. The apostle’s silence in this matter casteth this pretence out of all consideration. His design was to evince the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi, from this particular consideration, that he was a priest after the order of Melchisedec. To prove that he was so indeed, and withal to show how great and excellent a person this Melchisedec was, who bare that office as a type of Christ in his, and also in how many things the resemblance between the Lord Christ and him did consist, wherein he was made like unto the Son of God, he proposeth unto consideration every minute circumstance of all that was spoken of him, and what also in common use ought to be spoken of him, but being not so, was certainly omitted for some special reason and signification; insisting on some things which no man could have conjectured to have been designedly significant, if the Holy Ghost himself had not made the discovery thereof; omitting nothing that might confirm the truth, or illustrate the evidence of his argument; yet he wholly passeth by this passage without the least notice of it. Herein, if the Romanists may be believed in this accurate collection of all things, he omits nothmg but only that wherein the essence and substance of his cause and plea did wholly consist. For this his offering of bread and wine in sacrifice, they say, was that thing alone wherein he was peculiarly the type of Christ, and dispute with great vehemency that the resemblance between them consisted herein alone, although the apostle instances expressly in sundry other things, as we shall see more afterwards, and makes no mention of this at all. It is therefore clear as the day-light, that he and they are diversely minded in this matter. But if they are in the right, certainly never any man managed an argument unto less advantage, than the apostle doth that in this place, wherein yet there is an appearance of so greataccuracy and care. For they do suppose that he scrupulously collects all circumstances belonging unto the matter he treats of, and some of them ofa difficult application unto his purpose, and at the same time omits that wherein the whole force of his argument did consist; which is a failure not modestly to be ascribed unto any person of sobriety or judgment. Wherefore we need not farther trouble ourselves with those forced and futilous pretences. The reason why the apostle mentions Melchisedec as king of-Salem is to intimate his first prerogative above the Aaronical priests, in that he was a king, And we may observe, that,
Obs. VIII. Acts of munificence and bounty are memorable and praiseworthy, though they no way belong unto things sacred by virtue of divine institution. So was this bringing forth of bread and wine by Melchisedec to refresh Abraham and his people, though there was nothing of sacrifice therein. In former ages, either men were more inclined to such acts than now they are, or there were more efficacious means of engaging them thereunto, than are judged meet now to be made use of, because perhaps discovered to have something of deceit in them. But this went along with all their bounty, that if they would make the acts of it sacred and religious, all should be peculiarly devoted and dedicated unto God; wherein, although their pious intentions are to be commended, yet it may justly be feared that they missed of their aim, in making things and services sacred which God had not madeso. But such acts as those we speak of towards men, need no more of religion in them, but that they be done in obedience to the will of God, who requires of us to do good to ail, and to exercise loving kindness in the earth. They are so good. and praiseworthy, provided, 1. They are of real use, and not in things that serve only for ostentation and show. 2. That they interfere with no other especial duty, nor cause an omission of what is necessary, &c. Again,
Obs. IX. It is acceptable with God that those who have laboured in any work or service of his, should receive refreshments and encouragements from men. For as such an acceptable service is the relief given to Abraham and his people, by Melchisedec celebrated; God is himself a suflicient reward unto his people in and for all their services. He needs not call in the help of men to give them a recompence. However it is well pleasing unto him, that he, or his work which they do, in any thing, be owned by men.
IV. The apostle proceeds with his description of the subject of his proposition, with respect unto that office which he principally regards; ἱερευς του Θεου του wuorov, ‘ Priest of the Most High God.’ Two things are here asserted. 1. That in general he was ἃ priest. 2. The limitation of that office with respect unto the author and object of it 15 expressed—he was a priest of the Most High God.
First. He was a priest, and he was the first that was so by especial institution. How the rite of sacrificing was common to all worshippers of old, and what was the peculiar interest of the first-born therein, I have at large before declared. I have also proved, that Melchisedec was the first who was authoritatively separated unto this office by God’s approbation. And as it was a new, so it was a great and remarkable thing in the world. For although we know not how far it was received or understood by the men of that age, who I believe were not stupidly ignorant and carnal, as some would have them to be; yet certain it is, that the institution of this office, and the representation of it in the person of Melchisedec, gave great light and instruction into the nature of the first promise, and the work of the blessing seed which was to be exhibited. For the faith of the church in all ages was so directed, as to believe that God had respect unto Christ and his work, in all his institutions of worship. Wherefore the erection of tke office of a priesthood to offer sacrifice, and that in the person of so great a man as Melchisedec, must needs lead them into an acquaintance with the nature of his work in some measure, both he and it being so conspicuously represented unto them.
In this general assertion that he was a priest, two things are included. 1. That he was truly and really a man, and not an angel or an appearance of the Son of God prelusory to hisincarnation. For every priest is taken from among men, ch. v. 1, of the same common nature with other men, and in the same state until he be separated unto his office. And so was Melchisedec, a man called out from amongst men, or he was not a priest. 2. That he had an extraordinary call into his office. For he falleth likewise under that other rule of our apostle: ‘ No man taketh this honour unto himself, unless he be called of God,’ Heb. v.4. But of what nature this call was, and how he received it, cannot positively be determined in particular. Two things are certain concerning him negatively. 1. That he came not to this office in the church by succession unto any that went before him, as did all the Levitical priests after Aaron. There was none went before him in this office, as none succeeded unto him, as we shall see immediately. And when the Lord Christ is said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec, it doth not suppose that he was of any certain -, order wherein were a series of priests succeeding one another, but only that it was with Christ as it was with him, in point of call and office. Wherefore his call was personal, in some act of God towards him, wherein himself and no other was concerned. 2. He was not called or set apart unto his office by any outward unction, solemn consecration, or ceremonial investiture. For the Lord Christ Jesus had none of these, who was made a priest after the manner that he was; only there was on outward sign of his call unto all his offices, in the descending of the Holy Ghost on him in the form of a dove Matt. ii; John i. These things belonged unto the law and Aaronical priesthood, wherein spiritual things were to have a carnal representation. And those by whom they are received in the separation of any unto an evangelical office, do prefer the ministration of the law before that of the gospel, as more glorious, because they discern not the glory of spiritual things. Besides there was none in the world greater than he nor nearer to God to confer this office upon him, as Aaron was conse- ᾿ erated by Moses. For in the authoritative collation of an office, there is a blessing; and, without controversy, ‘he who blesseth is greater than he who is blessed by him,’ as we shall see immediately. And therefore would not God make use of any outward means, in the call or the separation of the Lord Christ unte his offices, or any of them, because there was none in heaven or earth greater than he, or nearer unto God to be employed therein. Angels. and men might bear witness as they did unto what was done by the Lord God and his Spirit, Isa. xi. 1, but they could confer nothing upon him. And therefore in the collation of the ministerial office under the gospel, the authority of it resides only in Jesus Christ. Men can do no more but design the person according to his rules and laws, which may be done among equals. Wherefore the call of Melchisedec unto his office was extraordinary, and consisted in an extraordinary unction of the Spirit. And this had two things attending of it. 1. That it gave unto himself sufficient security and warrant to undertake and execute the office whereunto he was called. So did every extraordinary eall accompanied with a divine aflatus and inspiration, Amosvil. 14, 15. 2. That it evidenceth itself unto all that feared God, who thereon willingly submitted unto his administrations in the discharge of his office. And this is all that we can know, as to the way and manner of his becoming a priest. That he was not so by succession unto any other, by the right of primogeniture, nor made so by men, are certain from the apostle’s discourse. The time, place, season, and occasion of his call, are all hidden from us; but he was made a priest by God himself. For,
Obs. X. Every one is that in the church, and nothing else, which God is pleased to make him so to be.—Wherefore, for us to rest in God’s vocation is our honour and our safety, as well as our duty.
Obs. XI. Where God calleth any one unto asingular honour and office in his church, it is in him a mere act of his sovereign grace.— So he took this Melchisedec, who had nothing of stock, race, descent, or succession to recommend him, but as one as it were newly sprung out of the earth, and raised him to the highest dignity that any man in those days was capable of. Let us not therefore repine or murmurat any of God’s dealings with others, nor envy because of his gifts bestowed on them; may he not do what he will with his own, seeing he is greater than man, and giveth no account of his matters ¢
Obs. XII. A divine call is a sufficient warrant for the acting of them according unto it, who are so called, and the obedience of others unto them in their work or office.— By virtue hereof this Melchisedec arose in the midst of the nations of the world, took on him a new office and power, being owned and submitted unto therein, by Abraham and all that believed.
Obs. XIII. The first personal instituted type of Christ wasa priest; this was Melchisedec—There were before real instituted types of his work, as sacrifices. And there were moral types of his person, as Adam, Abel, and Noah, which represented him insundry things. But the first
Δ δι Ὁ AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CH. VII. _ person who was solemnly designed to teach and represent him by what he was and did, wasapriest. And that which God taught herein was, that the foundation of all that the Lord Christ had to do in and for the church was laid in his priestly office, whereby he made atonement and reconciliation for sin. Every thing else that he doth is built on the supposition hereof. And we must beginin the application where God begins in the exhibition. An interest in the effects of the priestly office of Christ,is that which in the first place we ought to look after. This being attained, we shall be willing to be taught and ruled by him, and not else. Secondly. The apostle adds the limitation of this his office of priesthood, as to its author and especial object, and that is, ‘the most high God, For so by ὃ Θεὸς 6 ὕψιστος, doth he render jr>y dx, «in Moses.’ 1. He was >x> jr, ‘a priest to God.’ This determines the sense of the word Cohen to the office of the priesthood; contrary to, the pretensions of some modern Jews, and the Targum on Ps. cx. For whereas they cannot understand how the Messiah should be a priest, and perceive well enough the inconsistency of the legal priesthood with such a supposition, they would have the word Cohen in the Psalms to signify ‘a prince or a ruler.” But although the word used absolutely may be applied sometimes to such a purpose, yet where God is proposed as its object, a priest of God, or unto God, none can be signified but one in the priestly office. 2. He was a priest to the most high God. This is the first time that this title is ascribed unto God in the Scripture, which afterwards is frequently repeated, and so also are others of the same importance, as ‘God above,’ ‘ God over all,’ ‘the God of heaven,’ and absolutely ‘the most High.’ And it is either descriptive or distinctive, as all such attributes and epithets are. 1. As it is descriptive; the majesty, power, and authority of God over all are intended therein. The most high God is the glorious God with whom is terrible majesty. To represent them itis said, that his ‘throne is high and lifted up,’ Isa. vi. 1. And he is called ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,’ Isa. lvn. 15. Thus is he styled to fill our hearts with a reverence of him, as one infinitely above us, and whose glorious majesty is absolutely inconceivable. So when the Holy Ghost would express the glory of Christ as exalted, he says, he is made ‘ higher than the heavens, and he is sat down at the nght hand of the majesty on high.’ The most high God therefore is first, God as inconceivably exalted in glory and majesty. Again, his power and authority are also intended herein: ‘the Most High ruleth over all, Dan. iv. 17. God over all, in power and authority disposing of all things, is the most high God. So Abraham explains this name, Gen. xiv. 18.
2. As it is distinctive, it respects other gods, not in truth and reality butin reputation. For so there were then lords many, and gods many in the world. So they were esteemed by them that made them, and worshipped them: λεγόμενοι θεοι, as our apostle speaks, ‘ such as were called gods,’ 1 Cor. vil. 5, but by nature were not gods,’ Gal. iv. 8. They were all earthly, and though some of them had their being above, as the sun, moon, and host of heaven, yet they had all their deity from beneath; nor ever had it any existence but in the deluded imagi- ᾿ς nations of the of men. ἴῃ opposition unto them, with distinction from them, God is called ‘the most high God.’ The world was at that time fallen into all manner of idolatry. Every country, every city, every family almost, had made new gods unto themselves. The most general veneration, as | have elsewhere shown, was then given unto the sun, and that because he appeared to them on high, or the highest being they could apprehend. Hence had he the name of ἡλιος among the Greeks; from j>y, ‘the high one.’ In opposition unto all these gods, and renunciation of them, Melchisedec professed himself the priest of the most high God; as Paul preached at Athens the unknown God, in opposition unto all their known σεξασματα, or ‘idols, whom they supposed themselves acquainted withal. And whereas God had not yet revealed himself by any especial name, as he did afterwards on sundry occasions; (the first he made of that kind being El Shaddai, or God Almighty, Gen. xvii. 1, as himself declares, Exod. vi. 3;) those that feared him made use of this title as most comprehensive, as most suited unto their present faith and profession. So Abraham expounds this title, ver. 22, ‘the most high God, Possessor of heaven and earth,’ which he gives as a reason why he would not take aught of the king of Sodom, seeing he was the servant of that God who disposed of all things in heaven and earth, and so had no need of supplies from him. His God could make him rich without the help of the king of Sodom. Wherefore God, under this consideration of the most high God, was the principal object of the faith of believers in those days. For whereas they were few in number, and all the inhabitants of the earth being greedily set upon getting possessions and inheritances for themselves, they believed in God as he who was able to protect them, and provide for them, according to the tenor of the name whereby he afterwards revealed himself unto Abraham, namely, of El Shaddai, or ‘God Almighty.’ And this also was the principal part of their profession, that they served the most high God alone in opposition to all the false and dunghill deities of the earth.
The Socinians, in all their disputes against the deity of Christ do always make use of this name, and continually repeat it. ‘ Christ,’ they say, ‘is not the most high God: a God they will allow him to be, but not the most high God. But whereas this name is used in distinction only from all false gods, if their Christ be a God, but not on any account the most high God, he is a false god, and as such to be rejected: see Jer. x. 11. And from this name or title of God, as it is descriptive of his majesty and authority, we may observe,
Obs. XIV. To keep up and preserve a due reverence of God in our minds and words, we should think of, and use those holy titles which are given unto him, and whereby heis described in the Scripture.—This was the constant manner of the holy men of old, and which God himself in sundry places directs unto. Thus Abraham immediately makes use of this name, Gen. xiv. 22, " I have lift up my hand unto Jehovah the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth.’ So are we taught to fearthat dreadful and glorious name, ‘The Lord thy God,’ Deut. xxviii. 58; see Isa. xxx. 15, lvii. 15. And there is nothing that argues a greater contempt of God among men, than the common slight irreverent mention of his name, whose highest wed is that horrible profanation of swearing and cursing by it, with wicked and diabolical spirits. Let us not therefore think of God, nor mention him, but as ‘the most high and holy One that inhabiteth eternity.’ Not-that on all occasions of mentioning him, we should constantly make use of these glorious titles, the Scripture warranting us to speak both to him and of him, without their addition unto his name; but that we should do so as occasion doth require, and always sanctify him in our hearts and words, as he unto whom they do belong.
Obs. XV. It is good at all times to fix our faith on that in God, which is meet to encourage our obedience and dependence upon him in our present circumstances.—The believers in those days did in a very particular manner confess themselves to be strangers and _ pilegrims in the earth, Heb. xi. 13. The church was not as yet fixed unto any certain place, and they being separated from the apostate world, not mixing with it, nor incorporating in any society, went up and down from one place to another. In this condition, having no inheritance nor abiding place, but exposed unto manifold dangers, they eyed God in an especial manner as the most high God; as he that was over all, — and had the disposal of all things in his own sovereign power. And that variety of titles which in the Scripture are given unto God, with the descriptions that are made of him are all suited unto this end, that in the variety of occasions and trials that may befal us in this world, we may still have something peculiarly suited unto the encouragement of our faith and dependence on God.
Obs. XVI. In particular, it is a matter of inestimable satisfaction, that he whom we serve is the most high God, the sovereign Possessor of heaven and earth. It is in sense the same with that name which God gave himself when he entered into covenant with Abraham, encouraging thereby to an adherence to him in faith and obedience, Gen. xvil. 1, 41 am God almighty.’ And it were easy to demonstrate what relief in all troubles, dangers, persecutions, distresses, inward and outward, in life and death, we may thence receive. As this name is distinctive, we may observe, that,
Obs. XVII. Public profession in all ages is to be suited and pointed against the opposition that is made unto the truth, or apostasy from it. The world being new generally fallen into idolatry and the worship of new earthly gods, believers made this the principal part of their profession, that they served the most high God, which ought to be observed on all like occasions. |
V. The apostle describes this Melchisedec from that action of his, with its circumstances, which gave occasion unto the whole account'of him: ‘Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings.’ On this occasion only is he introduced in the Scripture story, as a new person never heard of before, nor ever afterwards to be made mention of, as unto any of his own concerns. Abraham did not only overthrow the whole army of the kings, and recovered the spoils, but he slew the kings themselves, as is expressly affirmed, Gen. xiv. 17. Hence is he here said, to return from the slaughter of the kings; for, as he includeth in it the destruction of their host, so it was that which signalized his victory. And the ἀκροθινία afterwards mentioned, were the opima spolia taken from the king’s themselves. As Abraham thus returned with honour and glory, made very great in the eyes of the nations round about, as he staid in the king’s dale to deliver unto the king of Sodom his goods and people with a royal munificence, becoming a servant of the most high God, who had a better portion than could be found amongst the spoils, Melchisedec knowing the state of things, and the promise made to Abraham, comes out unto him for the ends mentioned.
But it may be inquired whether this were a just occasion for the introduction of this king of peace, priest of the high God, and type of Christ, to bless him who returned from war with the spoils of a bloody victory. Answ. 1. The apostasy and rebellion of the whole world against God, have made it necessary that spiritual victory be the foundation of all the actings of Christ, in the setting up of his kingdom. The first promise of him was, that he should break the serpent’s head, wound the head over the large earth, Ps. cx. 6. This was to be effected by a glorious conquest and victory, which is everywhere so described inthe Scripture: see Col. 11.15. And because outward force and opposition is always used by the world in the defence of the interest of Satan, he will also sometimes apply the outward sword for the destruction of his stubborn adversaries, Isa. lxiii. 1—3; Rev. xix. This, therefore, was no unmeet season for the introduction of him who made so solemn a representation of him. 2. Abraham himself was in this victory herein also a type of Christ, not absolutely of his person as was Melchisedec, but of his power and presence in his church. Melchisedec, I say, represented Christ in his person and his offices. Abraham represented his presence in the church, or the church as his body. I will neither approve of, nor reject that conjecture of some, that these four kings were types of the four great monarchs of the world which the church of God was to conflict withal, and at length to prevail against; as Dan. vil. 18,27. And, indeed, many things in their names and titles, do notably countenance that conjecture. But it is certain in general that they were great oppressors of the world, roving up and down for dominion and spoil. Wherefore, Abraham’s conquest of them was not only a pledge of the final success of the church in the world, but also a representation of the usefulness of the church unto the world, whenever its pride and blindness will admit of its help and kindness, Micah v. 7. The church is, indeed, the only means of conveying blessings unto the world, as the oppression thereof will prove its ruin.
3. The land of Canaan was now given unto Abraham and his seed for a possession, to be the seat of the church and God’s worship among them. The nations now inhabiting it, were devoted unto destruction in an appointed season. And he was not to allow these foreign kings to set up any dominion therein. And God gave him this victory as a pledge of his future possession.
4, Abraham was obliged, both in justice and affection, to rescue his brother Lot, whom they were carrying away captive. And this is
422 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [cH. Vil. expressed as the next cause of his engagement against them, ver. 14. On all accounts, therefore, this war was just, and the victory of God. And because there was a representation therein of the victory and success of Christ in his church, it was a season most eminently proper for the introduction of Melchisedec, blessing him in the exercise of sacerdotal power.
5. This congress of Melchisedec and Abraham, after Abraham had gotten the victory over all his adversaries, was a type and _ representation of the glorious congress and meeting of Christ and the church at the last day, when the whole church shall have finished its warfare, and be victorious over the world, sin, the law, death, and hell. Then will the Lord Christ bring out the stores of heaven for their eternal refreshment, and give them in the fulness of the blessing, and all things shall issue in the glory of the most high God. All the promises are unto him that overcometh. And we may observe, that,
Obs. XVIII. 1. All the commotions and concussions that are among the nations of the world, do lie in, or shall be brought into, a subserviency unto the interest of Christ and his. church. I intend those places where either the seat of the church is, or is to be. A great war and tumult there was between these eastern kings and those of Canaan, and many nations were smitten and destroyed in the expedition, Gen. xiv. 5—7. And what is the final issue whereinto all these things do come? Why, two things fell out hereon that neither side of the combatants either looked for, or had any interest in. 1. The victory of Abraham, or the church over them all. 2. A glorious type and representation of Christ brought forth visibly acting in his church. Yea, | may add, that in Abraham’s glorious victory, and royal munificence on the one hand, and in the sacerdotal blessing of Melchisedec on the other, there was sucli a representation of Christ in his principal offices as priest and king, as had never been made in the world before. This issue did God direct that war and tumult unto. It will be no otherwise with all those confusions and disorders that the world is filled withal at this day, though we can see nothing of the ways and means of their tendency unto such an end.
2. There have been, and are to be, such seasons wherein God will dispose of nations, and their interest, according as the condition of the church doth require; as he did here with all these nations, Isa. xliii. ty Ay ARG, |
3. The blessing of God may be expected on a just and lawful war. This war and victory of Abraham, which he received the blessing upon, is celebrated, Isa. xli. 2, 3. And our apostle mentions that circumstance of the slaughter of the kings as that which wasa token of God’s kindness unto Abraham, and of his own greatness. And where these things occur, 1. A lawful, necessary, immediate cause of war, as Abraham had for the rescue of Lot. 2. A lawful call unto the war, as Abraham had, being a sovereign prince, and raising his army of his own people merely, and that to the securing of the possessions of a country granted unto him by God himself; and, 3. A subserviency unto the glory of Christ and the good of the church; the presence of God in it, and the blessing of God upon it, may be justly expected.
VI. Melchisedec is farther described by two acts of his sacerdotal power, or office which he exercised on this occasion of meeting Abraham. 1. He blessed him; and then, 2. He received tithes of him.
He met Abraham and blessed him. This solemn benediction is fully expressed, Gen. xiv. 19, 20, ‘And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.’ There are two parts of this blessing: 1. That which hath Abraham for its object,—a blessing of prayer. 2. ‘hat which hath God for its object,—a blessing of praise. Our apostle seems to take notice only of the first, or that part of the blessing whereof Abraham was the immediate object. But the truth is, the other part whereby he blessed God, being on the account of Abraham, and as it were in his name, it belongs also to the blessing wherewith he was blessed.
As to this blessing, we may consider, 1. The nature, 2. The form of it. As to the nature of it, blessings in general are the means of communicating good things, according to the power and interest in them of them that bless, Gen. xxxuli. 11. So also are curses of evil. Hence, it is God alone that absolutely can either bless or curse, for he only hath sovereign power of all good and evil. He doth, therefore, so express his blessing: ‘In blessing I will bless thee,’ Gen. xxi. 17, do it assuredly and effectually, as having all the subject-matter of blessings in my hand. And, therefore, he says to Abraham, ‘I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee,’ Gen. xil. 3, because he is over them and all their blessings and curses. Balak therefore, was not a little mistaken when he tells Balaam, ‘I know that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed,’ Num. xxii. 6. For, however he might divine concerning them that should be so, absolutely he could neither bless nor curse. Wherefore, I say all blessings are instituted means of the conveyance and communication of good unto others, according unto the power and interest of them that bless, in that good. This beimg amongst men by God’s concession and institution various, there are also various sorts of blessings, which may be reduced unto two heads. 1. Such as are authoritative. 2. Such as are charitative or merely euctical. The latter sort of blessing is removed from our consideration in this place. For our apostle treats only of*such blessings as evidently and unavoidably prove him that blesseth, to be superior unto him that 15. blessed, ver. 7. But this is not so in this latter sort of blessings, which consist only in prayer for a blessing on them. For so equals may bless one another; yea, inferiors may bless superiors, children may bless _parents, servants masters, subjects their rulers, Ps. xx. 1—4.
Authoritative benediction among men is twofold. 1. Paternal. 2. Sacerdotal, or with respect unto any other office in the church.
Paternal benedictions were of old of two sorts. 1. Such as were of common right. 2. Such as had an especial prophetical warrant. For the first, parents have an especial right, by virtue of divine institution, authoritatively to bless their children, inasmuch as he hath given unto them an especial interest in the matter of the blessing, and power for ~ the communication of it. And this blessing consists in two things. 1. A solemn declaration unto God of their acceptance and approbation of that duty and obedience which the children perform unto them by the law of nature and God’s appointment. This brings ordinarily the children so blessed under the promise of the fifth commandment. So are the words of the command, Τὴ. PIN} 1»)2 5, ‘that they may prolong thy days.’ They shall have power to communicate this good unto thee by their blessing, in their solemn declaration of their acceptance and approbation of thy obedience. And if this were more considered, and more observed by parents and children, it would be much to their advantage. And, indeed, the state of those children is unhappy, whose parents cannot sincerely avow an approbation of their duty, which intercepts the benefit of their blessings. 2. Parents bless children, by endeavouring to enstate them in their own covenant interest. God having promised to be a God unto believers, and their seed in and by them, they do three ways bless them with the good things thereof. First. By communicating unto them the privilege of the initial seal of the covenant, as a sign, token, and pledge of their being blessed of the Lord. Secondly. By pleading the promise of the covenant in their behalf. Thirdly. By careful instructing of them in the mercies and ~ duties of the covenant. Wherefore, although this power of blessing be founded in the law of nature, and in all nations something hath been observed that looks towards it, yet it is by faith alone, and an interest in the covenant, that any parents are able to bless their children inadue manner. For a blessing is a communication of good according to his interest in it that’ blesseth, which we have none in any that is really so, but by virtue thereof. And whereas these things are a solemn appointment of God, it is certainly a disadvantage, that a foppish ceremony is in common practice substituted in the room of
Secondly. There was of old a paternal benediction that had its rise in an especial warrant, and was accompanied with a spirit of prophecy. This consisted in a certain prediction and declaration of future events, whereby those so blessed were infallibly and indispensably stated in a right unto them. So Noah blessed Shem and Japheth, Isaac blessed _Jacob, Jacob all his sons. Herein God gave unto some parents the honour of a power to bequeath unto their posterity, those good things which he graciously intended to bestow on them. This kind of blessing is now absolutely ceased, for it wholly respected the coming of Christ in the flesh, with those other things which conduced thereunto.
It were well, if instead of all these several ways of blessing, many parents did not curse their children. Some upon their provocations, have desperately and profanely imprecated curses upon them; and we have known instances wherein God hath eminently revenged their impiety, by his judgments inflicted on parents and children both. Some entail a curse upon them, by oppressions and falsehood, in getting their estates, or in a flagitious course of life, which God will revenge to the third generation. But most do curse them with the cursed example of their conversation, initiating them, almost from the cradle, in a course of sin and wickedness.
It is true, those parents who do use conscientiously the ways appointed of God, whereby they may bless their children, do ofttimes not see the effect of their endeavours. ‘They bless them, but they are not blessed. But, 1. They have peace and comfort in the discharge of their duty. 2. Their blessing may have success, and oftentimes hath, when they are gone out of the world; yea, in their children’s children for many generations. 3. Ifall fail, they shall be witnesses for God at the last day, against their own profligate posterity. But I return.
Sacerdotal blessings were authoritative also; and that on a double ground, 1. Of common right and equity. 2. Of especial institution.
First. There was acommon right and equity, that he who was called to be a priest, should bless the people authoritatively. For as he was appointed to act for men with God, so it is reasonable that he should pronounce blessings unto them in the name of God; that as he ministerially carried their gifts, offerings, and services unto God, so in like manner, he should return his acceptance and blessing unto them. Whereas, therefore, this right and duty belonged unto the office of the priest, two things ensue thereon. 1. That this blessing was an act of authority,—for every act of office is so. 2. That he who thus blesseth another, is greater than he who is blessed by him, as our apostle disputes, and we shall see afterwards. And we may take notice in our passage, |
Obs. XTX. That whatever be the interest, duty, and office of any to act in the name of others towards God, in any sacred administration, the same proportionably is their interest, power, and duty, to act towards them in the name of God in the blessing of them. And, therefore, ministers may authoritatively bless their congregations. It is true, they can do it only declaratively, but withal, they do it authoritatively, because they do it by virtue of the authority committed unto them for that purpose. Wherefore, the ministerial blessing is somewhat more than euctical or a mere prayer. Neitheris it merely doctrinal and declaratory, but that which is built on a particular especial warrant, proceeding from the nature of the ministerial office. But, whereas it hath respect in all things unto other ministerial administrations, it is not to be used but with reference unto them, and that by them, by whom at that season they are administered.
Secondly. There was an especial institution of a sacerdotal benediction under the Old Testament, recorded, Num. vi. 22—27, ‘ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and his sons, saying, On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel, saying, The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee, the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon thee and give thee peace; and they shall put my name on the children of Israel, and I will bless them.’ Their putting the name of God upon the people, was their praying for, and pronouncing blessings on them in his name, by virtue of this institution. For it is an institution whereby the name of God is put on any thing or person. Hereon God would effectually bless them. This especial institution, I acknowledge, was after the days of Melchisedec, and the cessation of his office as to actual administration. But it is ap- parent, and may be proved, that many, if not the most of those sacred institutions which were given in one system unto Moses, were singly and gradually given out by inspiration and prophecy, unto the church, before the giving of the law; only at Sinai, their number was increased, and the severity of their sanction heightened. Thus, this sacerdotal benediction was but a transcript from, and expressive of that power and form of blessing, which Melchisdec as a priest, enjoyed and used before. And from what hath been spoken, we may gather the nature of this blessing of Melchisedec, wherewith he blessed Abraham. For, 1. It hath the nature of a blessing in general, whereby any one man may bless another, in that it was euctical and euchaxistical; it includeth both prayer for him, and thanksgiving on his account unto God. And 2. It was authoritative and sacerdotal; he was the priest of the High God, and he blessed Abraham, that is, by virtue of his office. For so the nature of the office requireth, and so God had in particular appointed, that the priests should bless in his name. 8, It was prophetical, proceeding from an immediate inspiration, whereby he declares the confirmation of the great blessing promised unto Abraham; ‘ Blessed be Abraham.’ And we may see,
Obs. XX. That he who hath received the greatest mercies and privileges in this world, may yet need their ministerial confirmation.— Abraham had before received the blessing from the mouth of God himself. And yet it was no doubt a great confirmation of his faith, to be now blessed again in the name of God by Melchisedec. And - indeed, such is the estate of all the faithful, the children of Abraham in this world, that what through the weakness of their faith, what through the greatness of their temptations and trials, they stand in need of all ministerial renovations of the pledges of God’s good-will towards them. Weare apt to think, that if God should speak once unto us as he did to Abraham, and assure us of the blessing, we should never need farther confirmation whilst we live. But the truth is, he doth so speak unto all that believe in the word, and yet we find how much we want the ministerial renovation of it unto us. Bless God for the ministry, for the word and sacraments; ordinarily our faith would not be kept up without them.
Obs. XXI. In the blessing of Abraham by Melchisedec, all believers are virtually blessed by Jesus Christ.—Melchisedec was a type of Christ, and represented him in what he was and did, as our apostle declares. And Abraham in all these things bare the person of, or represented all his posterity according to the faith. Therefore doth our apostle in the foregoing chapter entitle all believers, unto the promises made unto him, and the inheritance of them. There is, therefore, more than a bare story in this matter. A blessing is in it conveyed unto all believers in the way of an ordinance for ever.
Obs. XXII. It is God’s institution that makes all our administrations effectual. So did sacerdotal benedictions become authoritative and eflicacious. Innumerable ways and means of blessing things and persons, have been found out in the Papacy. ‘They will bless bells, steeples, churches, churchyards, utensils, fonts, candles, salt, and children by confirmation. There is, in truth, in them all, a want of that wisdom, gravity, and reverence, which ought to accompany men in all religious services; but that which renders them all useless, and casts them out of the verge of religion, is, that they want a divine institution,
The second sacerdotal act, or exercise of priestly power ascribed unto Melchisedec, is, that he received tithes of all. ‘To whom Abraham also gave the tenth of all. As Abraham gave them ina way of duty, so he received them in a way of office. So the apostle expresseth it, ver. 6, ‘He received tithes of Abraham,’ or tithed him. And the word παντων, ‘of all, is limited unto the spoils which he took of the enemies, ver. 4. To whom Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. This in the original history is so expressed, as to leave it doubtful both of whom the tenths were given, and of what they were, Gen. xiv, 20, bom awyn 1d ym, ‘and he gave him the tenth of all.” ‘The words immediately preceding, are the words of Melchisedec, and the story concerneth him; so that if the relative included in jn, ‘he gave,’ do answer unto the next antecedent, Melchisedec gave the tenth of all unto Abraham. Nor doth it appear what the 55, ‘all’ was, that is intended; whether his own whole estate, or all titheable things which he had then with him. But all this ambiguity is removed by our apostle, according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, and withaldeclared how great a mystery depended on the right understanding of those words. It was Abraham that gave the tenth of all to Melchisedec, whereby he acknowledged him to be the priest of the High God, and the type of the Son of God as incarnate, every way superior unto him who but newly received the promises. And that the tenth which he gave, was only of the spoils that he took from the enemies, as a token and pledge in particular, that the victory and success which he had against the kings, was from God. ’
This receiving of tithes by Melchisedec, was a sacerdotal act. For, 1. The tenth thus given was first given unto God; and he who received them, received them as God’s officer in his name. Where there was none in office to receive them, they were immediately to be offered unto God in sacrifice, according unto their capacity. So Jacob vowed the tenth unto God, Gen. xxviii. 22, which he was himself to offer, there being no other priest to receive it at his hand, and no doubt but he did it accordingly, when God minded him to pay his vow at Bethel, Gen. xxxv. 1—6. ‘And 2. The things that were fit for this sort, were actually to be offered in sacrifice unto God. This, Saul knew, when he made that his pretence of sparing and bringing away the fat cattle of the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xv. 15. And I no way doubt but that these tenths that Abraham gave, at least such of them as were meet for that service, although it be not expressed, were offered in sacrifice unto God by Melchisedec. For whereas he was a king, he stood in no need of any contribution from Abraham; nor was it honourable, to receive any thing in way of compensation for his munificence m bringing forth bread and wine, which was to sel his kindness and spoil his bounty, nor would Abraham have deprived the king of Sodom and others, of any of their goods, to give them unto another.
Wherefore, he received them as a priest, to offer what was meet In sacrifice to God, whereon, no doubt, according to the customs of those times, there was a feast wherein they ate bread together, and were mutually refreshed. 3. This matter was afterwards precisely determined in the law, wherein all tithes were appropriated unto the priest. I observe these things, only to show that the apostle had just ground to infer from hence, the sacerdotal power of Melchisedec, and his preeminence in that office above Abraham. For every thing in the Scripture is significant, and hath its especial design, the whole being inlaid with truth by infinite wisdom, whether we apprehend it or not. Without this light given by the Holy Spirit himself, how should we have conceived that this giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedec, was designed to prove his greatness and dignity above Abraham and all the Levitical priests on that account, as the great type and representative of Jesus Christ. And indeed, all the mysteries of sacred truth which are contained in the Old Testament, are seen clearly only in the light of the New; and the doctrine of the gospel, is the only rule and measure of the interpretation of the writings of the Old Testament. Wherefore, although the writings of both are equally the word of God, yet the revelation made immediately by Jesus Christ, is that which ought to be our guide in the whole. And they do but deceive - themselves and others, who in the interpretation of mystical passages and prophecies of the Old Testament, do neglect the accomplishment of them, and light given unto them, in the New, taking up with Jewish traditions or vain conjectures of their own, such as the late writings of some who highly pretend unto learning, are stuffed withal. And we may see from hence, 1. How necessary it 15 for us, according to the command of our Saviour, to ‘search the Scriptures,’ John v. 39. Ερευνᾳν, to make a scrupulous inquiry, a diligent investigation, to find out things hidden, or parcels of gold ore. So are we directed to ‘seek for wisdom as silver, and to search for her as for hid treasures,’ Prov. ii. 4. There are precious, useful, significant truths in the Scripture, so disposed of, so laid up, as that if we accomplish not a diligent search, we shall never seteye on them. The common course of reading the Scripture, nor the common help of expositors, who for the most part, go in the same track, and scarce venture one step beyond those that are gone before them, will not suffice, if we intend a discovery of these hid treasures. This diligent search was attended unto by the prophets themselves under the Old Testament, with respect unto their own prophecies which they received by inspiration, | Pet. 1. 1Q, 11. God gave out those deep and sacred truths by them, which they comprehended not, but made diligent inquiry into the mind of the Holy Ghost, in the words which themselves had spoken. What belongs unto this diligent search, shall be elsewhere declared. 2. That the clear revelation of the New Testament, ought to be our principal rule in the interpretation of difficult passages in the Old. What our apostles in these cases had by immediate inspiration and direction, that we must look for, from what is recorded in their writings, which is sufficient for us, and will not fail us.
There is great inquiry usually made on this place, whether tithes be due by the light of nature, or at least by such a moral positive command of God, as should be perpetually obligatory to all worshippers to the end of the world. This, many contend for, and the principal reasons which they plead from the Scripture, are these. 1. That tithes were paid before the law, as well as under the law; and what was so observed in the worship of God, namely, that being in usage before the law, and confirmed by the law, is originally of the law of nature, and could have no other fountain. 2. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, speaking of tithing mint and cummin, approveth of it, affirming that those things ought not to be omitted, though the most inferior instance that could be given of the duty. 3. He seems in like manner to have respect thereunto, when he commands to give unto Cesar, the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s, which were the tithes, the law concerning them being thereby confirmed, which proves it not to be ceremonial. And this, some men judge to be a certain argument, of that which is moral and unalterable, namely, the appointed usage of it before the law, under the law, and under the gospel, after the expiration of the law of ceremonies, or the law of commandments contained in ordinances. And it seems so to be, if there be the same reason of the law or command in all these seasons, for otherwise it isnotso. For instance it is supposed that the eating of blood was forbidden before the law, and assuredly it was so under the law, and is so in the New Testament, Acts xv., which yet proves it not to be morally evil, and perpetually forbidden. For it is not so upon the same grounds and reasons. For in that place of Gen. ix. 4, ‘ But flesh with the life thereof, that is, the blood thereof shall ye not eat:’ blood is not absolutely forbidden, but in some cases and with respect unto a certain end. It was not to be eaten whilst it was yet hot and warm in the flesh, which prohibition God gave to prevent that savage custom, which yet afterwards got ground among mankind, of eating flesh like ravenous beasts, whilst the blood was yet warm in it. Under the law it was forbidden, because God had taken it to be the principal part of the sacrifices, and far the most significant, Lev. xvil. 5, 6, 11, 14. And in the 15th of the Acts, it is only occasionally forbidden for a season, to avoid scandal and offence. So that if it should be supposed that the matter of the prohibition before the law, under the law, and in that synod at Jerusalem, were the same, yet the reasons of it being various, it doth not prove a morality in the Jaw, or such as should be everlastingly obligatory. But where not only the subject-matter, but the formal reason of the command is the same, there it is of natural equity, and unalterable; and so it is said to be in the case of tithes.
I shall not enter into any long digression about this controverted subject. It is such as wherein the various interests of men, have engaged their utmost diligence on the one hand and on the other. But this I am sure enough of, that unless they were paid by them that give them, with more conscience and regard unto duty than generally they seem to be, not one in a thousand having respect in the payment of them, to any thing but the civil law of the land; and unless they turned to a better account with them by whom they are received, than generally they do, it is to no great purpose to dispute upon what grounds, or by what right they are due unto any. And without solicitousness concerning offence, I shall take leave to say, that it is no safe plea for many to insist on, that tithes are due and divine, as they speak, that is, by a binding law of God now under the gospel. For, be the law and institution what it will, nothing is more certain than that there is nothing due under the gospel by virtue of God’s command or institution with respect unto his worship, unto any who do not wholly give up themselves unto the ministry and labour in the word and doctrine, unless they be such as are disenabled by age and infirmities, who are not to be forsaken all the days of their lives. For men to live in pleasure and idleness, according to the pomp, vanities, and grandeur of the world, neither rising early, nor going to bed late, nor spending their time or strength in the service of the church, according to the duties required of all the ministers thereof in the gospel, to sing unto themselves that tithes are due to them, by the appointment and law of God, is a fond imagination, a dream that will fill them with perplexity when they shall awake. But as to the question in hand, I shall briefly give my thoughts about it in the ensuing observations and propositions.
1. By tithes is understood either the express law of tithing, or paying the tenth of all our substance, and of the whole increase of the earth; or only the dedication of a certain portion of what we have, unto the uses of the worship and service of God. If this latter be intended, it is with me past all doubt and question, that a bountiful part of our enjoyments, is to be separated unto the use and service of the worship of God; particularly unto the comfortable and honourable support of them that labour in the ministry. And it is no small part of that confusion which we suffer under, that Christians being in all places compelled by civil laws to pay the tenth unto some or other, whether they will or not, are either discouraged or disenabled, or think themselves discharged from doing that, which God certainly requireth at their hands in a way of duty. However, this will be no excuse for any, for generally they have yet left unto them, that whereby they may discharge their duty in an acceptable manner. And I cannot but wonder how some men can satisfy their consciences in this matter, in such circumstances as I shall not now name. |
2. If the strict legal course of tithing be intended, it cannot be proved from this text, nor from any other instance before the law. For Abraham gave only the tenth of the spoils which were not titheable by law. For if the places taken or destroyed in war, were anathematized, as Jericho was and also Amalek, no portion was to be reserved under a pretence of sacrifice or any other sacred use, as Saul found to his cost. And if they were not anathematized, all the spoils were left entirely unto the people that went to war, without any sacred decimation. So the Reubenites and the Gadites, at their return over Jordan into their own land, carried all their rich spoils and cattle with them. no tithe being mentioned, Josh. xxii. 8. Although there is no question but many of them offered their free will-offerings at the tabernacle. And when God would have a sacred portion out of the spoils, as he would have in the wilderness, out of those that were taken from the Midian- ites, to manifest that they fell not under the law of tithes, he took not the tenth part, but one portion of five hundred from the soldiers, and one of fifty from the people, Num. xxxi. 28—30. Wherefore, the giving of the tenth of the spoils, was not from the obligation of any law, but was an act of free-will and choice in the offerer. But vet there was so great an equity herein also, namely, that God should have an acknowledgment in the fruits of those successes which he gave in war, that out of the spoils of his and his people’s enemies, David made his provision for the building of the temple. And the captains of the host that went against Midian, after a tribute was raised for the Lord out of the spoils, according unto the proportions mentioned, when they found the goodness of God in the preservation of their soldiers, whereof there was not one lost, they made a new voluntary oblation unto God out of their spoils, Num. xxx. 48—50. And as for the instance of Jacob, who vowed unto God the tenth of all, it is so far from proving that the tenth was due by virtue of any law, that it proves the contrary. For had it been so, it could not have been the matter of any extraordinary vow, whereby he could express his obedience unto -
3. The precise law of tithing, is not confirmed in the gospel. For that saying of our Saviour’s, approving the tithing of mint and cummin, evidently respects that legal institution which was then in force, and could not be violated without sin. And by his approbation of that law, and of the duty in observance of it, he did no more confirm it, or ascribe an obligatory power unto it under the gospel, than he did so unto all other those ceremonial institutions, which both he himself observed as a man made under the law, and enjoined others so to do. They all continued in full force unto the time of reformation, which gave them their bounds and limits, Heb. ix. 10, and ended with his resurrection. His other saying, of giving ‘ unto Cesar the things that are Ceesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s,’ respects our whole moral obedience unto God, and uot this or that particular institution. The meaning of it is, that we are to pay or perform unto God, all whatever he requireth of us in a way of obedience, but what that is in particular, is not here determined. And other mention of tithes in the gospel, there is none.
4. Whereas by the light of nature, all rules of reason and positive institutions, a portion of what God is pleased to give unto every man, is to be returned unto him, in the way of his worship and service, wherein it may be used according unto his appointment; and whereas, before the giving of the law, sundry holy men fixed on the tenth part, as that which was meetest to be so dedicated unto God, and that as is probable, not without some especial conduct of the Holy Spirit, if not upon express revelations; and whereas, this was afterwards expressly confirmed under the law by positive institution, the equity whereof is urged in the gospel; it is the best direction that can be given unto any what proportion of their estate should be set apart unto this purpose. Herein, I confess, so many circumstances are in particular cases ‘to be considered, as that it is impossible any one certain rule should be prescribed unto all persons. But whereas, withal, there is no need in the least to furnish men with pleas and excuses for the non-performance of their duty, at least as unto the necessary degrees of it, that I shall not suggest any thing unto them, which may be used to that purpose. I shall, therefore, leave this rule in its full latitude, as the best direction of practice in this matter.
5. On these suppositions it is, that the apostle, treating of this matter, makes no use of the right or law of tithing, though directly unto his purpose, if it had not been abrogated. For, intending to prove that the ministers of the gospel ought ‘to be liber ally supported in their works, with the earthly things of them unto whom they do administer the things of God, he argueth from the light of nature, the general equity of other cases, the analogy of legal institutions, the rules of justice, with ths especial institution of Christ in the gospel, but makes no mention of the natural or legal right of tithing, 1 Cor. ix. 7—15. And farther I shall not at present divert on this subject. And we may observe, that
Obs. X XIII. Whatsoever we receive signally from God in a way of mercy, we ought to return a portion of it unto him in a way of daty. That this was the practice of the saints of old, might easily be proved by an induction of instances, from this act of Abraham, (yea, from the sacrifice of Abel,) down to the vow of Jacob, the dedications of David, Solomon, and others, in their respective places and generations. The light of nature also counted it as a duty among all the civilized heathens. The offerings and sacred dedications of nations and private families, are famous on this account. And it was laid as a lasting blemish on good Hezekiah, that he returned not unto the Lord according to the mercy which he had received.
And we may do well to consider, 1. That no man hath any great or signal success in any affair or occasion, more than others, or more than at other times, but there will be in his mind an ascription of it unto one cause or another. This the nature of things makes necessary, nor can it be avoided, Hab.i. 1]. 2. That whatever a man doth secretly ascribe such successes unto, that he makes in some sense his God. ‘They sacrifice unto their net, and burn incense unto their drag, because by them their portion is fat, and their meat plenteous,’ Hab. 1, 16. They ascribe their successes unto their own strength, endeavours, and means that they used. Hereby they deified themselves as far as in them lay; and therefore, these thoughts are called sacrificing and burning incense, which were expressions of religious worship. And it is no better with us, when in our successes in our trades and affairs, we secretly applaud our own endeavours, and the means we have used, as the only causes of them. 3. It is a great sign that a man hath not engaged God in the getting of any thing, when he will not entitle him unto any portion of what is gotten. There are two evils common in the world in this case. Some will make no acknowledgment unto God, in the especial consecration of any part of their substance unto him, where it is lawfully gotten. And some will make great dedications of what hath been gotten by robbery, spoils, oppression, and violence. Many public ἐδ τ ἘΝ of munificence and charity, as they are called, have had no other original. This is but an endeavour to entitle God to injustice, and draw him to a co-partnership with them, by giving him a share in the advantage. God ‘hateth robbery for burnt-offerings,’ Isa. ]xi. 8, and he ‘smites his hands at men’s dishonest gain,’ Ezek. xxii. 13. He will have nothing to do with such things, nor accept of any portion of them or from them, however he may overpower things in his providence to his glory. Both these ways are full of evil, though the latter be the worst. 4. No man hath any ground to reckon that he can settle what he hath, unto himself or his, where this chief rent unto God is left unpaid. He will at one time or other, make a re-entry upon the whole, take the forfeiture of it, and turn the ungrateful tenant out of possession, And among other things, this makes so many estates industriously gotten, so speedily moulder away, as we see they do in the world. 5, God hath always his receivers ready to accept of what is tendered, namely, his poor, and those that attend the ministry of his house.
VI. The apostle pursues his design and argument from the name and title of the person spoken of, with their interpretation. “ First, being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.’ And we shall consider herein,
2. The grounds or reasons of the apostle’s arguing from this interpretation of names.
1. He respecteth his proper name, that is, Μελχισεδὲκ, ‘Melchisecec.’ For the fancy of some, that Sedec was a place or city where first he reigned, as he did afterwards at Salem, is very fond. For then he must be utterly without a name belonginy unto his person, which the apostle doth not observe, as he would have done one way or other, had any such unusual thing offered itself unto him. Besides, had it been so, he would not have been called Melchisedec, but said to be Melech Sedec, as he is said to be Melech Salem. 757, is a ‘ king,’.and by the interposition of Yod, to smooth the composition, the former Segol is turned into Pathah, and the latter into Scheva, whence Melchi ariseth. Some would have this Yod to be a pronoun affix, and then the meaning of the word is ‘ my king;’ and on this supposition, taking p78_for ps Sedek for Saddik, they would render it, ‘my righteous king.’ But there is nothing more ordinary in the composition of names, than the interposition of Yod paragogicum, to soften the sound and _pronunciation of them. So is it in Adonizedek, Adonibezek, Abimelech, Achitob, Abishua, Abishag, Abishalom, and sundry others. Wherefore, Melchi is nothing but the name Melech, a ‘king,’ a little varied to fit it unto the composition intended. vx, is righteousness.’ And so the whole name is properly interpreted and rendered by our apostle, βασιλεὺς δικαιοσυνης, a ‘king of righteousness.’
say they, doth not signify peace, but pi>w, ‘Shalom.’ Salem is only as much as pacificus, ‘ peaceable,’ not pax, or peace itself. But yet neither ought this to give us any trouble. For instances may be given in this language, wherein the same word is used sometimes substantively; sometimes adjectively; as for instance, ΤῊΝ and 725 are. And -upon the matter, the signification is the same. Rex pacificus and rex pacis do both denote him that he is the maker and author of peace. So God on that account is called the ‘God of peace,’ Rom. xv. 18, xvi. 20; 1 Thess. v. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 16; Heb. xii. 20. Wherefore, as we ought to acquiesce in the authority of the apostle, who knew better than us all the signification of these nanies, so that he gives is proper, according unto our best conception of these things.
Secondly. It may be inquired what ground the apostle had to argue from the signification of these names, which seems to be but a curious and infirm kind of argumentation. And we find by experience, that whilst some have followed and imitated, as they suppose, this example, they have fallen into woeful mistakes.
Answ. 1. The apostle takes it for granted in general, that every thing in the story of Melchisedec was mystical and figurative. This he did on good grounds, because the only reason of its introduction, was to give a representation of the person and priesthood of Christ.
2. It was usual under the Old Testament, to have names given unto children by a spirit of prophecy, as to Noah, Peleg, and others, yea, it may be most of the patriarchs. It was so also to have men’s names changed upon some great and solemn occasions, as Abram was called Abraham, Sarai, Sarali, Jacob was called Israel, and Solomon, Jedediah. And whereas this was sometimes done by divine authority, as in the instances mentioned, whence it was highly significant; so the people, in imitation thereof, did often give other names to themselves, or others, on some cccasion wherewith they were affected. Hence it is that we find the same persons so frequently called by divers names, which gives no little difficulty in genealogies. But where this was done by divine warrant, it was doctrinal and prophetically instructive. So was it in that great mame given unto our Lord Jesus Christ himself, namely, Immanuel, which the evangelist remembers and gives us the interpretation thereof, Matt. 1.23. Now, whether this name was given to Melchisedec from his nativity, by a spirit of prophecy, as is most probable, or whether his name were changed by God himself, when he was publicly called unto his office, is uncertain, and no way needful to be inquired into. But certain it is, that this name was given him by divine direction, and that for the very end for which it is here used and applied by our apostle. And no countenance can hence be taken unto their curiosity, who seek for mysteries out of names and their numbers, which, for aught they know, had a casual imposition, or that which respected some particular occasion, whereof they are utterly ignorant.
3. As for the name of the place where he reigned, or Salem, it was also given unto it on the same ground, to be presignificative of the work that was to be effected by him whom he typed out. Most probably at that time, God first gave that name unto that place; for that it was not the Salem by Shechem, we have before declared. And I am persuaded that God himself, by some providence of his, or other intimation of his mind, gave that name of peace first unto that city, because there he designed not only to rest in his typical worship for a season, but also in the fulness of time, there to accomplish the great work of peace-making between himself and mankind. Hence it was afterwards, by the same guidance, called Jerusalem, or a vision of peace, because of the many visions and prophecies concerning the spiritual and eternal peace which was to be wrought and published in that place; as also from all those holy institutions of his worship, which there represented the means whereby that peace was to be wrought, the sacrifice of Christ himself, the only real and proper priest of the church. Wherefore cur apostle doth justly argue from the signification of those names which were given, both to the person and place, by divine authority and guidance, that they might teach and fore-signify the things whereunto by him they are applied.
Thirdly. The interpretation of the names being proper, and the arcument from thence in this case useful, as to the signification of them, it must be inquired how this man was king of righteousness and peace. Most suppose that no more is intended but that he was a righteous and peaceable king, one that ruled righteously and lived peaceably. And it is true that absolutely in himself, and as to his ewn personal qualifications, he was so and no more, nor could be more, But these names have respect to his relative state, and were given him as a type of Christ. He was a king of righteousness and peace, as he was without father and without mother, that is, to represent Christ in his office. Really he was a righteous and peaceable king; typically he was the king of righteousness and peace. Now the king of righteousness is he who is the author, cause, and dispenser of righteousness to others. As God is said to be ‘ the Lord our righteousness.’ And so is the king of peace also, in which sense God is called the God of peace. Thus was it with Melchisedec as he was the representative of Jesus Christ.
4. The last thing that the apostle observes from these names and titles, is their order, wherein it is natural that the name of a man should precede the title of his rule. First, king of righteousness, and afterwards king of peace. Righteousness must go first, and then peace will follow after. So it is promised of Christ and his kingdom, that in his days ‘ the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of peace solong as the moon endureth,’ Ps. lxxii. 7. First, they are made righteous, and then they have peace. And Isa. xxxu. 17, ‘ The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and peace for ever.’ This is the order of these things. There 1S no peace but what proceedeth from and is the effect of righteousness. So these things with respect to Christ are declared by the Psalmist, Ps. Ixxxv..9—13, What we are taught hence is,
1. That the Lord Jesus Christ is the only King of righteousness and peace to the church. See Isa. xxxii. 1, 2, ix.6, He 15 not only a righteous and peaceable king, as were his types Melchisedec and.
teousness and peace to the church. So is it declared, Jer. xxii. 5, 6, ‘ Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a Righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.’
VII. The apostle proceeds yet to other instances in the description of Melchisedec wherein he was made like to the Son of God, ver. ὃ, ‘Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.’ The things here asserted being at the first view strange and uncouth, would administer occasion to large discourses, and accordingly have been the subject of many inquiries and conjectures. But it is in no way to the edification of those who are sober and godly, to engage into any long disputes about those things, wherein all learned sober expositors are come to an issue and agreement, as they are in general in this matter. For it is granted that Melchisedec was a man, really and truly so, and therefore of necessity must have all these things; for the nature of man, after him who was first created, who yet also had beginning of life and end of days, doth not exist without them. Wherefore these things are not denied of him absolutely, but in some sense, and with respect to some especial end. Now this is with respect to his office therein, or as he bare that office, he was ‘ without father, without mother, &c. And how doth this appear that so it was with him? It doth so because none of them is recorded or mentioned in the Scripture, which yet diligently recordeth them concerning other persons; and in particular those who could not find and prove their genealogies, were by no means to be admitted to the priesthood, Ezra 11. 61—63. And we may therefore by this rule inquire into the particulars.
1. It is said of him in the first place, that he was ἀπάτωρ; αμητωρ, ‘without father, without mother, whereon part of the latter clause, namely, ‘ without beginning of days,’ doth depend. But how could a mortal man‘come into the world without father or mother? ‘ Man that is born of a woman,’ is the description of every man; what therefore can be intended? The next word declares, he was ayeveadoynroc, ‘without descent,’ say we. But yeveadoyia, is “ἃ generation, a descent, a pedigree,’ not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded. Teveadoynroc, is he whose stock and descent is entered on record. And so on the contrary, ayeveaXoynroc, is not he who hath no descent, no genealogy, but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered, recorded, reckoned up. Thus the apostle himself plainly expresseth this word, ver. 6, ὃ μὴ γενεαλογουμενος εἕ avtwv, ‘whose descent is not counted,’ that is, reckoned up in record. Thus was Melchisedec without father and mother, in that the Spirit of God, who so strictly and exactly recorded the genealogies of other patriarchs and types of Christ, and that for no less an end than to manifest the truth and faithfulness of God in his promises, speaks nothing to this purpose concerning him. He is introduced as it were one falling from heaven, appearing on a sudden, reigning in Salem, and officiating in the office of the priesthood to the High God.
2. On the same account he is said to be pnre ἀρχὴν ἡμερων, μητε ζωης τελος exw, “ without beginning of days or end of life.’ For as he was a mortal man he had both. He was assuredly born, and did no less die, than other men. But neither of these are recorded concerning him. We have no more to do with him, to learn from him, nor are concerned in him, but only as he is described in the Scripture, and there is no mention therein of the beginning of his days, or the end of his life. Whatever therefore he might have in himself, he had none to us. Consider all the other patriarchs mentioned in the writings of Moses, and you shall find their descent recorded, who was their father, and so upwards to the first man; and not only so, but the time of their birth and death, the beginning of their days, and the end of their lives is exactly recorded. For it is constantly said of them, such a one lived so long, and begat such a son, which fixed the time of birth. Then of him so begotten it is said he lived so many years, which determines the end of his days. These things are expressly recorded. But concerning Melchisedec none of these things are spoken. No mention is made of father or mother, no genealogy is recorded of what stock or progeny he was, nor is there any account of his birth or death. So that all these things are wanting to him in this historical narration wherein our faith and knowledge is alone concerned. Some few things may yet farther be inquired into for the clearing of the sense of these words.
1. Whereas the observation of the apostle is built on the silence of Moses, in the history, which was sufficient for him, whatever was the _cause and reason of that silence, we may inquire whence it was? Whence it was, I say, that Moses should introduce so great and excellent a person as Melchisedec, without any mention of his race or stock, of his parents or progenitors, of his rise or fall, contrary to his own custom in other cases, and contrary to all rules of useful history. For to introduce so great a person, in any story, and on so great an occasion, without giving any account of him, or any of his circumstances, whereby his concernment in the matter related might be known, is utterly contrary to all rules of serious history.
Answ. 1. Some of the Jews absurdly imagine that it was because his parents were not only obscure, but that he was born of fornication, and so he had no right of genealogy. But this is both a foolish and wicked imagination. For it is not to be supposed God would have advanced a person known to be of such an extract and original, into the honour of the priesthood, and that of the most excellent kind that ever was under the Old Testament. For being low and mean in the world it is neither disadvantage nor disparagement. The best of men were so, and all the chief patriarchs were but shepherds. But bastardy is a mark of infamy in the world, and God would not raise such a one to administer peculiarly to him, and that as a type of his own Son who was to be incarnate. |
2. Some say that there is no singular thing herein, but that it is done according to the custom of Scripture, which relates only the genealogies of the patriarchs, who were of that lineage from whence Christ did come. But when it makes mention of any others, though
‘they be never so eminent, it reckoneth not up their genealogy. Thus it dealeth with Jethro the father-in-law of Moses, and with Job, so great and holy a person, concerning whom it says no more, but that ‘there was a man in the land of Uz named Job.’ And some things may be allowed herein. But the instances are no way parallel. For Jethro, he was a stranger to the church, and there is a full account concerning him, so far as it is either necessary or useful, that we should in point of story know any thing of him. And the story of Job is a separate story, wherein himself only and family was concerned; and we have therein his country, the number and names of his children, with the years of his life, and time of his death. But as we have none of these things in the account of Melchisedec, so he is introduced as one in whom the church of God was publicly concerned. Wherefore,
3. The true cause of the omission of all these things, was the same with that of the institution of his priesthood, and the introduction of his person in the story. And this was that he might be the more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. For to this end it was not only needful that he should be declared to be a priest, as the Messiah was to be, but also in that declaration all those circumstances were to be observed, wherein the nature of the priesthood of Christ might be any way prefigured. After this the church being reduced into a standing order for succession, it was obliged necessarily for many generations to a priesthood which depended solely on their genealogy and pedigree both by father and mother, Ezra x. 18, 19; Neh. vu. 63—65. Wherefore, whereas the priesthood of our Lord Christ was to depend on no such descent, (‘ for it is evident that our Lord sprang of Judah, whereof Moses spake nothing of the priesthood,’) it was necessary that it should be originally represented, by one who had no genealogy, seeing that as to his office he himself was to have none. And therefore when the church of Israel was in the highest enjoyment of the Levitical priesthood, whose office depended wholly on their genealogy, yea so far as on a supposition of a defect or change thereof, not only the priesthood itself, but all the sacred worship also which it was designed to officiate, must utterly cease; yet the Holy Ghost then thought meet to remind them, that a priest was to come without respect to any such descent or genealogy, in that he was to be after the order of Melchisedec who had none, Ps. cx. 4. This is the true and only reason why in the story of Melchisedec as the priest of the High God, there is no menag made of father, mother, genealogy, beginning of life or end of
And we may herein consider the sovereign wisdom of the Holy Ghost, in bringing forth truth unto light according as the state and condition of the church doth require. And,
First. He proposeth only a naked story of a person that was a type of Christ, and that obscurely and sparingly. Something the men of the age wherein he lived might learn by his ministrations, but not much, For that which was principally instructive in him for the use of the church was not of force till all his circumstances were forgotten; and the church was now to be instructed, not so much by what he was, as what was recorded of him, wherein the Scripture superseded all tradition that might be of him in the world. Yea, the contrivance of any tradition concerning his parents, birth, and death, had been contrary to the mind of God, and what instruction he intended the church by him. Afterwards when, it may be, all thoughts of any use or design of this story in Moses was lost, and the church was fully satisfied in a priesthood quite of another nature, the Holy Ghost in one word of prophecy instructs the church, not only that the things spoken concerning Melchisedec were not so recorded for his own sake, or on his own account, but with respect to another priest which was afterwards to arise, by him represented. This gave a new consideration, sense, and design to the whole story; but moreover gives the church to know,. that the priesthood which it then enjoyed was not always to continue, but that another of another nature was to be introduced, as was signified long before the institution of that priesthood which they enjoyed, Ps. cx. 4. And as this was sufficient for the use and edification of the church in those days, yet it was left greatly in the dark as to the full design and meaning of these things. And therefore it is evident that at the coming of our Saviour, and at the accomplishment of this type, the church of the Jews had utterly lost all knowledge and understanding of the mystery of it, and the promise renewed in the Psalm. For they thought it strange that there should be a priest that had no genealogy, no solemn consecration nor investiture with his office. Wherefore our apostle, entering on the unfolding of this mystery, doth not only preface it with an assertion of its difficulty, or how hard it was to be understood aright, but also by a long previous discourse variously prepareth their minds to a most diligent attention. And the reason of it was not only because they had utterly lost the understanding that was given in these things formerly, but also because the true understanding of them would put an end at that time to that priesthood and worship which they had adhered to. Wherefore until this time the church was not able to bear the true understanding of this mystery, and now they could no longer be without it. Hence is it here so fully and particularly declared by our apostle. And we may
Obs. XXIV. That the church never did in any age, nor ever shall want that instruction by divine revelation which is needful to its edification in faith and obedience. This it had in all ages, according to that gradual progression which God gave to light and truth, in the explication of the great mystery of his grace, ‘ which was hid in him from the foundation of the world.’ An instance hereof we have in the things which concern this Melchisedec, as we have observed. The church never had need to look after the traditions of their fathers, or to betake themselves to their own inventions; their instruction by revelation was always sufficient for the state and condition wherein they were. Much more, therefore, is it so now, when the sum and perfection of all divine revelations is given in to us by Jesus Christ.
Obs. XXV. It is a great honour to serve in the church, by doing or suffering for the use and service of future generations. This was the honour of Melchisedec, that he was employed in a service, the true use and advantage whereof was not given to the church, until - many generations after. And I add suffering to doing, becauseat is well known what glories have sprung up in future ages, on the past sufferings of others.
Obs. XX VI. The Scripture is so absolutely the rule, measure, and boundary of our faith and knowledge in spiritual things, as that what it conceals is instructive, as well as what it expresseth. This the apostle manifests in many of his observations concerning Melchisedec, and his inferences from thence. But [ have, as I remember, discoursed somewhat hereof before.
Secondly. Our next inquiry is, wherein Melchisedec was typical of Christ, or what of all this belongeth unto the following assertion, that he was made like unto the Son of God; that is, so described as that he might have a great resemblance of him.
Answ. It is generally thought that he was som the whole, and in every particular mentioned distinctly. Thus, he is said to be without father and without mother, (no mention is made of them,) because the Lord Christ was in some sense so also, He was without father on earth as to his human nature, with respect whereunto God says that he will create a new thing in the earth, ‘that a woman should compass a man,’ Jer. xxxi. 22, or conceive a man without natural generation. And he was without mother as to his person or divine nature, being the only begotten of the Father by an eternal generation of his own person. But yet it must not be denied, but that on the other side he had both father and mother: a Father as to his divine, and a mother as to his human nature. But as to his whole person, he was without father and mother. Again, whereas he is said to be without genealogy, it is of somewhat a difficult application; for the genealogy of Christ, βιξλος γενεσεως, OF main πο, ‘the roll of his pedigree,’ is declared by two of the evangelists, the one driving of it up to Abraham, the other unto Adam, as it was necessary, to manifest the truth of his human nature, and the faithfulness of God in the accomplishment of his promises. It may be, therefore, respect is had unto those words of the prophet, Isa. li. 8, mmm 7 1, ‘ Who shall declare his generation?” there was somewhat in his age and generation, by reason of his divine pre-existence to all, that was ineffable.
Again, He is said to be without beginning of days and end of life. And this also is spoken by our apostle with respect to the narration of Moses, wherein mention is made neither of the one nor of the other. And it belongs unto his conformity to the Son of God, or that wherein he represented him: for as unto his divine person, the Lord Christ had neither the one nor the other, as the apostle proves, ch. i. 10—12, from Ps. cu. 25—27. But on the other side, as to his human nature, he had both; he had both beginning of days and end of life, both which are upon solemn record. Wherefore it should seem, that if there be a likeness in these things on the one account, there is none on the other, and so no advantage in the comparison.
Considering these difficulties in the application of these particulars, some do judge that these instances do not belong unto the analogy and resemblance between Christ and Melchisedec, but are introduced only in order to what ensues, namely, ‘ He abides a priest for ever,’ wherein alone the similitude between him and Christ doth consist. And so they say we find things quoted in the Scripture at large, when only some one passage in it may be used directly unto the business in hand. But although this will be difficultly proved, namely, that any testimony is cited in the Scripture, whereof any principal part of it belongs not unto the matter designed to be confirmed, yet it may be granted that it is so sometimes, when the sense of the whole context is to be taken in. But there was no reason on this ground, that the apostle should make so many observations on what was not spoken at all, which in an ordinary way ought to have been mentioned, if the whole of what he so observed was not at all to his purpose. Wherefore it must be granted, as that which the plain design of the apostle exacteth of us, that Melchisedec, even in these things, that in the story he was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, was a type and representative of Christ. But it is not of the person of Christ absolutely, nor of either of his natures distinctly, that our apostle treateth, but merely with respect unto his office of priesthood. And herein, all the things mentioned do concur in him, and make a lively representation of him. It was utterly a new doctrine to the Hebrews that the Lord Christ was a priest, the only high priest of the church, so as that all other priesthood must cease. And their chief objection against it was, that it was contrary unto the law, and inconsistent with it. And this because he was not of the line of the priests, either as to father, or mother, or genealogy, nor had any to succeed him. But in this type of his, the apostle proves that all this was to beso. For, 1. In this respect he had neither father nor mother, from whom he might derive any right or title unto his office. And this was for ever sufficient to exclude him from any interest in the priesthood, as it was established by law. 2. He had no genealogy upon the priestly line. And that which is recorded of him on other accounts, is so far from having respect to his right unto the priesthood of ‘the law, that it directly proves and demonstrates that he had none. For his genealogy is evidently of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded legally from that office, as we have, besides the institution, an instance in king Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16—18, from Exod. xxx. 7; Num. xviii. 7. Hence, our apostle concludes, that had he been on the earth, that is, under the order of the law, he could not have been a priest, there being others who by virtue of their descent, had alone the right thereunto, Heb. viii. 3, 4. Wherefore, God in these things instructed the church, that he would erect a priesthood that should no way depend on natural generation, descent, or genealogy; whence it inevitably follows, that the state of the priesthood under the law was to cease, and to give place unto another, which our apostle principally designs to prove. 3. In this respect also the Lord Christ was without beginning of days and end of life. For, although in his human nature he was both born and died, yet he had a priesthood which had no such beginning of days, as that it should be traduced from any other to him, nor shall ever cease, or be delivered over from him unto any other, but abides unto the consummation of all things. |
In these things was Melchisedec made like unto Christ, whom the apostle here calls the Son of God: αφωμοιωμενος τῳ viw του Θεου, ‘made like unto the Son of God.’ I have formerly observed in this Epistle, that the apostle makes mention of the Lord Christ under various appellations, on various occasions; so that in one place or another he makes use of all the names whereby he is signified in the Scripture. Here he calls him the Son of God, and that 1. To intimate that though Melchisedec were an excellent person, yet was he infinitely beneath him whom he represented, even the Son of God. He was not the Son of God, but he had the honour in so many things to be made like unto him. 2. ‘To declare how all these things which were any way represented in Melchisedec, or couched in the story, or left unto inquiry by the veil of silence drawn over them, could be fulfilled in our high priest; and it was from hence, namely, that he was the Son of God. By virtue hereof he was capable of an always-living, abiding, uninterrupted priesthood, although as to his human nature he once died in the discharge of that office.
This description being given of the person treated of, which makes - up the subject of the proposition, it is affirmed concerning him, that, μένει ἱερευς εἰς To διηνεκες, ‘he abideth a priest for ever.’ For any. thing we find in the story of his death, or the resignation of his office, or the succession of any one unto him therein, ‘he abideth a priest for ever.’ Some 1 find have been venturing at some obscure conjectures of the perpetuity of the priesthood of Mechisedec in heaven. But I cannot perceive that they well understood themselves what they intended. Nor did they consider that the real continuance of the priesthood for ever in the person of Melchisedec, is as inconsistent with the priesthood of Christ, as the continuance of the same office in the line of Aaron. But things are so related concerning him in the Scripture, as that there is no mention of the ending of the priesthood of his order, nor of the ending of his own personal administration of his office by death or otherwise. Hence is he said to abide a priest for ever. This was that which our apostle principally designed to confirm from hence, namely, that there was in the Scripture, before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, a representation of an eternal, unchangeable priesthood to be introduced into the church, which he demonstrates to be that of Jesus Christ.