Hebrews 7 — Verse 1, 2, 3

For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham divided out a tenth part of all: First, being by interpretation King of Righteousness; and after that also King of Salem, which is King of Peace: Without Father, without Mother, without Pedigree; having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like to the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually.

The words are an entire proposition, consisting of a subject, and a predicate, or what is affirmed of it. To the subject spoken of, which is Melchisedec, there is adjoined a large description, by its properties and adjuncts in sundry particulars. That which is affirmed of him, as so described, which is the predicate of the proposition, is contained in the last words, or the close of the third verse; but being made like to the Son of God, abideth a Priest for ever.

The introduction of the whole discourse, and therein its connexion to what went before, is contained in the casual particle [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], For; and this may respect the reason why the Apostle affirmed, and insisted so much on it, that the Lord Christ was a Priest after the order of Melchisedec: For, both the truth (says he) of my assertion, and the necessity of insisting thereon, will be sufficiently manifest, if you will but consider who this Melchisedec was, how he is represented in the Scripture, and what is affirmed of him. Or respect may be had in this word to the whole preceding discourse, from Chapter 5, ver. 11. There he lays the foundation of it, affirming, that he had many things to say of this Melchisedec; and those such, as they would not easily understand, unless they diligently applied their minds to the knowledge of divine mysteries; hereof he now designs to give them an account. For this Melchisedec, &c. But the connexion is most natural to the words immediately preceding; and a reason is given of what was affirmed in them, namely, that Jesus was made an High Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec (Chapter 6:20), for it was thus with this Melchisedec.

When truths in themselves mysterious, and of great importance to the Church, are asserted or declared, it is very necessary that clear evidence and demonstration be given to them; that the minds of men be left neither in the dark about their meaning, nor in suspense about their truth. So deals our Apostle in the large ensuing confirmation which he establishes his fore-going assertion withal.

The mention of Melchisedec is introduced with the demonstrative pronoun [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] this: It always has an emphasis, and denotes somewhat eminent in the subject spoken of, mostly in a way of commendation, so ver. 4. [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], Consider how great a man this was. This man of whom is our discourse.

The person spoken of is variously described: (1.) By his name, Melchisedec. (2.) By his original office, he was a King. (3.) The place of his rule or dominion, which was Salem; King of Salem. (4.) By another office added to the former, which principally belongs to the design of the Apostle; which is described, (1.) By the nature of it, the priesthood; a Priest. (2.) By its object and author; of the most High God. (3.) By his actings as a Priest; he blessed Abraham: Illustrated, (1.) By the manner of it, he met him. (2.) By the time of it, and its circumstance, when he returned from the slaughter of the Kings. (6.) By the acknowledgment of his office made by Abraham; he divided to him the tenth part of all. (7.) By the interpretation of his name; the King of Righteousness. (8.) Of the place of his reign; King of Peace. (9.) By sundry properties of his person, gathered out of the relation of his history in the Scripture; without Father, without Mother, without Pedigree, without beginning of days, or end of life. These descriptions in all these particulars being given of him, there are two things affirmed concerning him: (1.) That he was made like to the Son of God. (2.) That he abideth a Priest continually; all which things must be spoken to.

For the person spoken of, and described by his name, Melchisedec, I shall in this place say no more of him but what is necessary for the understanding of the text. For I shall not here examine those opinions and disputes concerning him, which for the most part have been raised by needless curiosity: the fond and impious imagination of them who would have him, some of them, to be the Holy Ghost, and some of them God, even the Father himself, have been long since exploded. That he was an Angel in human appearance, is so contrary to the design of the Apostle, that not many have given countenance to that opinion.

But that he was the Son of God himself, in a prelibation of his incarnation, taking upon him the form of a man, as he did afterwards the internal form and being in the personal union, some learned men have conjectured and contended. Howbeit, this also is directly contrary to the text, wherein he is said to be made like to the Son of God. And indeed all such opinions as make him more than man, are wholly inconsistent with the design of the Apostle, which is to prove, that even among men, there was a Priest and priesthood representative of Christ, and his priesthood superior to that of the law; which has nothing of argument in it, if he were more than a man. Besides he lays it down for a certain principle, that every High Priest is taken from among men (Chapter 5:1), and therefore if Melchisedec were an High Priest, he was so also.

Among these who grant him a mere man, very many, following the opinion of the Jews, contend he was Shem the Son of Noah, who was certainly then alive, and of great authority in the world by virtue of his primogeniture. But this also rises up in contradiction to our Apostle, beyond all possibility of reconciliation. The Jews who are no further concerned in him but as to what is declared by Moses, may safely, as to their own principles, though not truly, conjecture him to be Shem. But whereas our Apostle affirms that he was without Father, without Mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, we are not allowed to interpret these things of him concerning whom most of them are expressly recorded. Nor will it suffice to say that these things indeed are written of him under the name of Shem, but not under the name of Melchisedec: for this were to make the Apostle to lay the weight of so important an argument as that in hand, and from where he infers the removal of all the ancient legal institutions out of the Church, upon a nicety, and to catch as it were at an advantage for it. Besides, let him be called as he will, it is his person in the discharge of his office which the Apostle speaks of, and the things affirmed of him are not true concerning, or not truly applicable to Shem. And we may observe by the way, what a blessed effect it is of the care and wisdom of God towards the Church, that there are so few things in the Scripture that seem to administer occasion to the curiosities and conjectures of men, and of those not any of them needful to our faith and obedience, so as that they should receive the least prejudice by our ignorance of the precise sense of those places. The whole is filled with such depths of wisdom and truth, as require our humble, diligent, reverent, careful search into them, all the days of our lives. But particular passages, historical or mystical, such as seem to leave room for variety of conjectures, are very few: had they been multiplied, especially in matters of any importance, it could not have been avoided, but that religion would have been filled with fruitless notions and speculations. And thus it has fallen out in this matter of Melchisedec, which being veiled or hidden in the Old Testament, and that on purpose that we should know no more of him, nor any of his concerns, but what is expressly written, all ages have been fruitlessly exercised, yes, pestered with such curious enquiries about him, as rise up in direct opposition to the scope of the Holy Ghost in the account given concerning him.

These things therefore are certain, and belong to faith in this matter. First, that he was a mere man, and no more but so; for (1.) every High Priest was to be taken from among men (Hebrews 5:1), so that the Son of God himself could not have been a Priest had he not assumed our nature. (2.) That if he were more than a man, there were no mystery in it, that he is introduced in the Scripture, without Father, without Mother, without pedigree, for none but men have so. (3.) Without this conception of him there is no force in the Apostle's argument against the Jews. Secondly, that he came not to his office by the right of primogeniture (which includes a genealogy) or any other successive way, but was raised up and immediately called of God thereunto. For in that respect Christ is said to be a Priest after his order. Thirdly, that he had no successor on the earth, nor could have; for there was no law to constitute an order of succession, and he was a Priest only after an extraordinary call. These things belong to faith in this matter, and no more.

Two things every way consistent with the scope and purpose of the Apostle, yes, eminently subservient thereunto, I shall take leave to add; the one as my judgment, the other as a probable conjecture only. And the first is, that although he lived and dwelt in Canaan, then and afterwards principally possessed by the posterity of the Son of Cham so called, yet he was none of the seven nations or people therein that were in the curse of Noah devoted to bondage and destruction. For whereas they were therein by a spirit of prophecy anathematized and cast out of the Church, as also devoted to destruction, God would not raise up among them, that is of their accursed seed, the most glorious ministry that ever was in the world, with respect to typical signification, which was all that could be in the world until the Son of God came in his own person. This I take to be true, and do somewhat wonder that no expositors did ever take any notice of it, seeing it is necessary to be granted from the analogy of sacred truth.

My conjecture is, that he was a person of the posterity of Japhet, who was principally to be regarded as the father of the Gentiles that were to be called. Noah had prophesied, that God should enlarge the heart of Japhet, or persuade him so, as that he should return to dwell in the tents of Shem (Genesis 9:27). To Shem he had before granted the present blessing of the covenant, in those words, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, ver. 26, and thereby the bringing forth of the promised Seed was confined to his posterity. Hereon among them was the Church of God to be continued, and upon the matter confined, until the Shilo came, to whom the gathering of the Gentiles was to be, in the enlargement of Japhet, and his return to dwell in the tents of Shem. And whereas the land of Canaan was designed of God for the seat of the Church in his posterity, he suffered it to be possessed first by the seed of cursed Canaan, that in their dispossessing and destruction he might give a representation and security of the victory and final success of the Lord Christ and his Church over all their adversaries. Before this came to pass, God, as I suppose, brought this Melchisedec and some others of the posterity of Japhet into the land of Canaan, even before Abraham himself, in pursuit of the promise made to Shem, had possession of it, and placed him there in a condition of office superior to Abraham himself. And this might be done for two ends. (1.) That a claim might be put in on the behalf of Japhet to an interest in the tents of Shem in the type of the privilege, for a while confined to his family. This right and rule of Melchisedec in those places which were to be the seat of the Church enjoying the promise made to Shem; took, as it were, livery and seisin for the Gentile posterity of Japhet, which was in due time to be brought into the full possession of all the rights and privileges of it. (2.) That he might manifest that the state of Gentile converts in the promise and spiritual privileges of the Church, should be far more excellent and better than was the state and privileges of the posterity of Shem while in their separate condition, God having provided some better things for us that they without us should not be made perfect. But these things are submitted to the judgment of every candid reader.

I shall only add what is certain and indubitable, namely, that we have herein a signal instance of the sovereignty and wisdom of God. All the world was at that time generally fallen into idolatry and false worship. The progenitors of Abraham, though a principal branch of the posterity of Shem (as it is like, in the line of primogeniture) dwelt beyond the river, and served other gods (Joshua 24:2). Probably Abraham himself was not free from the guilt of that apostacy before his call. Canaan was inhabited by the Amorit[illegible] with the rest of the devoted nations on the one hand, and the Sodomites on the other. In the midst of these sinners above others, was this man raised up, the great type of Christ, with all the illustrious qualifications to be afterwards declared. And we may learn,

1. That God can raise the greatest light in the midst of the greatest darkness; as (Matthew 4:16).

2. He can raise up instruments for his service and to his glory, when, where, and how he pleases.

3. This signal prefiguration of Christ in the nations of the world, at the same time when Abraham received the promises for himself and his posterity, gave a pledge and assurance of the certain future call of the Gentiles to an interest in him and participation of him.

2. This is the person spoken of; and the first thing in the description of him is his office, that he was a king. So he is reported in the first mention of him (Genesis 14:18): Melchisedec King of Salem. Now whereas this does not belong to that wherein he was principally to be a type of Christ, nor is the Lord Christ anywhere said to be a King after the order of Melchisedec, nor does the Apostle make any use of the consideration of this office in him, we may enquire therefore why God placed him in that state and condition. And there seem to have been two ends thereof.

1. To make his typical ministry the more eminent and conspicuous. For, placing him in the condition of regal power and authority, what he was and did, would necessarily be more conspicuous and more regarded, than if he had been only a private man. And moreover by those possessions and wealth which he had as a king, he was enabled to the solemn and costly discharge of his office of priesthood in sacrifices and other solemnities. God therefore made him a king, that he might be known and observed as he was a priest, and be able to bear the burden of that office. And these things were then not only consistent, but some preparation seems to be made for the conjunction of these offices, by the privilege and rights of primogeniture, whereof I have discoursed elsewhere. Now although nothing can be concluded from hence concerning the preeminence of the priestly office among men above the regal, which the Romanists plead for, from more vain and empty pretences; yet it does follow, that the greatest temporal dignities and enjoyments, ought to be subservient to spiritual things, and the concerns of Christ.

2. Although he was not in his Kingly Office directly typical of Christ, yet he was by being a King the more meet to represent him as a Priest, seeing he was to be the only King and Priest of the Church also. And it may be observed, that although Moses in Genesis makes mention of the acts of both his Offices, yet our Apostle takes notice of those of one sort only. For Moses informs us in the first place, that when he went to meet Abraham, he brought forth bread and wine, that is, for the refreshment of him and his Army. Now this was an act of regal power and munificence. This the Apostle takes no notice of, but only of his receiving tythes, and blessing Abraham, which were both of them acts of sacerdotal power. Therefore although it was convenient he should be a King, yet as a King, and in what he did as a King, he was no type of Christ, though there might be a moral resemblance between them. For as Melchisedec refreshed Abraham the Father of the Faithful and his Army, when they were weary after their conflict with their enemies, and in the discharge of their duty; so does the Lord Christ as King of his Church take care to support, relieve, and refresh all the children of Abraham, all believers in all their duties, and in the whole course of obedience. So has the wisdom of God disposed of things in the Scripture to a fitness to give instruction, even beyond what they are firstly and principally designed to. And although this and the like considerations should give no countenance to men's curiosity in the exposition and application of any passages in the Scripture, beyond the severest rules of interpretation, yet may it encourage us to a diligent search into them, while we are duly steered by the Analogy of Faith. And I see no reason why we may not hence collect these two things.

1. The Lord Christ as King of the Church is plentifully stored with all spiritual provisions for the relief, supportment, and refreshment of all believers in and under their duties, and will give it out to them as their occasions do require. For as Melchisedec represented the Lord Christ in what he did, so Abraham in his battle and victory, was a type of all believers in their warfare and conflict with all their spiritual adversaries. Therefore as he and all his were refreshed by the kingly bounty of Melchisedec, so shall they be from the munificence and unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ.

2. Those who go to Christ merely on the account of his Priestly Office and the benefits thereof, shall also receive the blessings of his Kingly Power, in abundant supplies of mercy and grace. Abraham designed nothing with Melchisedec but the owning of his sacerdotal office in giving him the tythes of all, and receiving his blessing. But when he met him he was refreshed also with his kingly bounty. Many poor sinners go to Christ principally, if not only at the first, upon the account of his Priestly Office, to have an interest in his sacrifice and oblation, to be made partaker of the mercy and pardon procured thereby. But when they come to him in a way of believing, they find that he is a King also, ready, able, powerful to relieve them, and to whom they owe all holy obedience. And this answers the experience of many, it may be the most of them that do believe.

3. This Kingly Office of Melchisedec is farther asserted by the specification of the place where he was King and reigned. He was King of Salem. There has been great enquiry about, and much uncertainty there is concerning this place or city. Two opinions, all sorts of those who have enquired into these things with any sobriety, do incline to. For as for one who has not long since affirmed, that this Salem is Jerusalem that is above, the Mother of us all, he has thought meet to give other instances also, how little he understands the things he undertakes to treat about. But some think it was that city, and no other, which was afterwards called Jerusalem, and became in David's time, and so for a long continuance, the principal seat of the Church and solemn worship of God. This place they say was first called Salem, and afterwards; it may be presently after the reign of this Melchisedec, and on the occasion thereof, by the addition of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a Vision, or, they shall see Peace, called Jerusalem. Others think that Salem was a city or town not far from Sychem, which was afterwards destroyed; and there are reasons for both opinions.

Of this latter opinion Hierome is the principal author and maintainer in his Epistle to Cuagrius. And there are three reasons for it, whereon he much insists: (1.) That there was a city near Sychem that was called Salem and no otherwise. And this is plainly affirmed in the Scripture (Genesis 33:18), And Jacob came to Shalem a city of Shechem which is in the Land of Canaan. For those who render the words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] — Et venit Jacob pacificus or incolumis ad Urbem Shechem, so making the word appellative, and not the name of a place, are undoubtedly mistaken. For the same place is mentioned again in the New Testament by the same name (John 3:23), John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim. For, that Salim and Salem are the same Hierome well shows, with the reason of the variation. (2.) He affirms, that at that time were seen at Sychem the ruins of the palace of Melchisedec, which manifested it to have been a munificent structure. (3.) It is pleaded that the circumstances of the story make it necessary to judge that it was this Salem. For Abraham was passing by the place where Melchisedec reigned, who thereon went out to meet him. Now whereas he was returning from Hoba which was on the left hand, or North-side of Damascus (Genesis 14:15), Jerusalem was not in the way of his return, but Salem was.

On the other side it is pleaded with more probability, that Hierusalem was the seat of his kingdom. For (1.) it was anciently called Salem, which name is afterwards occasionally applied to it, as that whereby it was known (Psalms 76:2): "In Salem is God's tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Sion," where Hierusalem only can be intended. Afterwards some think that when it was possessed by the Jebusites, it began at first to be called Jebus-Salem, that is, Salem of the Jebusites, which by custom was transformed into Hierusalem. But the approved etymology from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] so that the name should signify a sight or vision of peace, is certainly true, and probably given by God himself. (2.) In the days of Joshua, the king of Hierusalem was called Adonizedec, a name of the same signification with Melchisedec, which possibly from him was the name of the kings who afterwards reigned in that city. And that man as it should seem was in some reputation for righteousness among the Canaanites, from where he managed their common cause in their danger (Joshua 10:1, 2, 3, 4). (3.) Abraham dwelt at this time at Hebron in the plain of Mamre; and in his return from Hoba or Damascus, the way lay near to Hierusalem, as all charts yet declare; and Sychem was more to the north than that he should conveniently pass that way. (4.) Hierusalem being designed to be the place where the Lord Christ was to begin and exercise his priestly office, it may well be supposed that there this his illustrious type was to appear and be manifested; especially considering that it was to be the place where the seat of the church was to be fixed until the signification of the type was to be effected.

And these reasons do prevail with me to judge that Hierusalem was the place of the habitation and reign of Melchisedec. As for what is affirmed by Hierome concerning the ruins of his palace at Sychem, it is notoriously known how little credit such traditions do deserve. Besides, Josephus who lived 400 years before him makes no mention of any such thing. And it is probable that the ruins which Hierome saw were those of the palace of Jeroboam, who there fixed the seat of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 12:25), as king of the place where he obtained the crown, ver. 1. But credulous and superstitious posterity chose to ascribe it to the memorial of Melchisedec rather than of him, who being the bane and ruin of the nation, his memory was accursed. And to enquire how this city came afterwards into the hands of the Jebusites is directly contrary to the design of the Holy Ghost, which was to hide from us the end of his life and offices, as our Apostle declares. And herein also possession was taken of the seat of the church in the tents of Shem, on the behalf and in the name of the Japetian Gentiles. And may we not observe, that,

God in his sovereign pleasure gives various intervals to places, as to the enjoyment of his worship and ordinances. This Hierusalem which was at first ennobled by the priesthood of Melchisedec, was afterwards left for a long season to the idolatrous Jebusites. In process of time it was visited again, and made the fixed station of all solemn divine worship, as it is now left to salt and barrenness. So has he dealt with many other places, and in particular, notwithstanding their boasting, with the city of Rome, sometimes a seat of the gospel, now the throne of Antichrist. "Go to my place which was in Shilo" (Jeremiah 7:12, 14; 26:6).

By the way we must here give an account of somewhat that the Apostle does not say, as well as what he does. After the mention of Melchisedec and his being king of Salem, in the story (Genesis 14), it is added, that he met Abraham, and brought forth bread and wine, ver. 17, 18. Of his meeting Abraham the Apostle takes notice, but of his bringing forth bread and wine, not at all. Hereof undoubtedly no reason can be given, but only that that particular action or passage belonged not at all to his purpose. For he who takes notice of all other circumstances, arguing as well from what was not said of him, as from what was, would not have omitted any thing which is so expressly affirmed, as this is, had it any way belonged to his purpose. But the importunity of the Papists, who with a strange kind of confidence do hence seek countenance to their missatical sacrifice, makes it necessary that we should enquire a little farther into it.

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 to God under the appearance of bread and wine. And he also instituted the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein he should be so offered continually to the end of the world. And on that account alone (they say) he continues a priest for ever. For if he had not appointed priests here in his room to offer him to 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 their assertions. As, (1.) The Apostle in this whole discourse wherein Melchisedec is introduced and concerned, treats 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 does so, he does 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 endeavors 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 (Leviticus 7:13, 23, 13, 18). But all the excellencies which the Apostle insists on, consists 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 to their especial end thereby. For what is the offering of real bread and wine, and no more, to the offering of the body and soul of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of them? (4.) As to 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 has need of other Priests to carry on his office, he does 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 to another sense of words. Abraham was now returned with his forces to the Valley of Shaveh, which is the Kings Dale (ver. 17), a place not far from Jerusalem, called, as it is likely, the Kings Dale, from Melchisedec, to whom it belonged; where afterwards Absalom built a pillar, for the memorial of his name (2 Samuel 18:18). Here probably he continued for a while, 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 to the conquerors. But now hearing of the success of Abraham, and his recovery of the captives with their goods, they resort to him for relief: he who intended to restore all to them, stayed for them, as it is probable, some days in the Kings 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 break the laws of friendship and hospitality, did Gideon so severely punish the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel (Judges 8:5, 6, 7; 13, 14, 15, 16). And the observance of this duty is recorded to the commendation of Barzillai the Gileadite, who sent refreshment to David and his army; for he said, The people are hungry, and thirsty, and weary in the wilderness (2 Samuel 17:27, 28, 29). In this state of things Melchisedec being the neighbor, friend, and confederate of Abraham, when he came with his army and abode so near to him, brought forth bread and wine for their refreshment; which being a mere 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is reditive, 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, does therefore omit this which evidently was an act of kingly bounty.

3. The word here used [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 shew 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 to the Son of God, he proposeth to 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 nothing 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 instance expressely 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 diversly minded in this matter. But if they are in the right, certainly never any man managed an argument to less advantage than the Apostle does that in this place, wherein yet there is an appearance of so great accuracy and care. For they do suppose that he scrupulously collects all circumstances belonging to the matter he treats of, and some of them of a difficult application to 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 to any person of sobriety or judgment. Therefore 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

Acts of munificence and bounty are memorable and praise-worthy, though they no way belong to 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 they would make the acts of it sacred and religious, all should be peculiarly devoted and dedicated to 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 made so. 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 all, and to exercise loving kindness in the earth. They are so good and praise-worthy, provided, (1.) They are of real use, and not in things that serve only for ostentation and show. (2.) That they enterfere with no other especial duty, nor cause an omission of what is necessary, &c. Again,

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 sufficient reward to 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 to him, that he, or his work which they do, in any thing, be owned by men.

4. The Apostle proceeds with his description of the subject of his proposition, with respect to that office which he principally regards: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]: Priest of the most High God. Two things are here asserted. (1.) That in general he was a Priest. (2.) The limitation of that office with respect to the author and object of it is 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 to 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 to Christ and his work, in all his institutions of worship. Therefore the erection of the 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 to 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 praelusory to his Incarnation. For every Priest is taken from among men (Hebrews 5:1), of the same common nature with other men, and in the same state until he be separated to his office. And so was Melchisedec, a man called out from among men, or he was not a Priest. (2.) That he had an extraordinary call into his office. For he falls likewise under that other rule of our Apostle; no man takes this honor to himself unless he be called of God (Hebrews 5:4). 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 to 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 to him, as we shall see immediately. And when the Lord Christ is said to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, it does 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. Therefore 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 to his office by any outward unction, solemn consecration, or ceremonious investiture. For the Lord Christ Jesus had none of these, who was made a Priest after the manner that he was; only there was an outward sign of his call to all his offices in the descending of the Holy Ghost on him in the form of a Dove (Matthew 3; John 1). These things belonged purely to 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 to 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 consecrated by Moses. For in the authoritative collation of an office there is a blessing, and without controversy he who blesses 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 to his offices or any of them, because there was none in Heaven or Earth greater than he, or nearer to God to be employed therein. Angels and men might bear witness as they did to what was done by the Lord God and his Spirit (Isaiah 61:1), 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. Therefore the call of Melchisedec to 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 to himself sufficient security and warranty to undertake and execute the office whereunto he was called. So did every extraordinary call accompanied with a divine afflatus and inspiration (Amos 7:14, 15). (2.) That it evidenced itself to all that feared God, who thereon willingly submitted to 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 to 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,

1. Every one is that in the Church and nothing else which God is pleased to make him so to be. Therefore for us to rest in God's vocation is our honor and our safety as well as our duty. For,

2. Where God calls any one to a singular honor 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 sprang 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 murmur at 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 gives no account of his matters?

3. A divine call is a sufficient warranty for the acting of them according to it, who are so called, and the obedience of others to 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 to therein, by Abraham and all that believed.

4. The first personal instituted type of Christ was a 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 in sundry things. But the first person who was solemnly designed to teach and represent him by what he was and did, was a Priest. 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 does is built on the supposition hereof. And we must begin in 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], does he render [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] in Moses. (1.) He was [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] 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 Psalm 110. 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 to 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 to 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 it is said, that his throne is high and lifted up (Isaiah 6:1). And he is called the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:17). Thus is he styled to fill our hearts with a reverence of him, as one infinitely above us, and whose glorious majesty is absolutely unconceivable. 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 right 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 rules over all (Daniel 4:17). God over all in power and authority disposing of all things, is the most High God. So Abraham explains this name (Genesis 14:18).

2. As it is distinctive it respects other gods, not in truth and reality, but in 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: [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] as our Apostle speaks, such as were called gods (1 Corinthians 8:5), but by nature were not gods (Galatians 4:8). 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 imaginations of the sons of men. In opposition to 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 to themselves. The most general veneration, as I have elsewhere showed, was then given to the sun, and that because he appeared to them on high, or the highest being they could apprehend. Hence had he the name of [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] among the Greeks, from [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] the high one. In opposition to 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 to all their known [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 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 (Genesis 17:1), as himself declares (Exodus 6:3)) those that feared him made use of this title as most comprehensive, as most suited to 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 ought 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. Therefore 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 to 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 Jeremiah 10:11. And from this name or title of God as it is descriptive of his majesty and authority, we may observe,

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 to him, and whereby he is described in the Scripture. This was the constant manner of the holy men of old, and which God himself in sundry places directs to. Thus Abraham immediately makes use of this Name (Genesis 14:22): I have lift up my Hand to Jehovah the most High God, the Possessor of Heaven and Earth. So are we taught to fear that dreadful and glorious Name, The Lord your God (Deuteronomy 28:58). See Isaiah 30:15, Chapter 57:15. And there is nothing that argues a greater contempt of God among men, than the common slight irreverend mention of his Name, whose highest degree 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 inhabits 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 to his Name; but that we should do so as occasion does require, and always sanctify him in our hearts and words, as he to whom they do belong.

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 pilgrims in the earth (Hebrews 11:13). The Church was not as yet fixed to 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 to 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 to God, with the descriptions that are made of him, are all suited to this end, that in the variety of occasions and trials that may befall us in this world, we may still have something peculiarly suited to the encouragement of our faith and dependence on God.

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 (Genesis 17:1): I 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 from there receive. As this Name is distinctive we may observe, That,

Public profession in all ages is to be suited and pointed against the opposition that is made to the truth, or apostasy from it. The world being now 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 alike occasions.

The Apostle describes this Melchisedec from that action of his with its circumstances, which gave occasion to 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 to 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 (Genesis 14:17). Hence is he here said, to return from the slaughter of the Kings; for as he includes in it the destruction of their host, so it was that which signalized his victory. And the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] afterwards mentioned were the Opima Spolia taken from the Kings themselves. As Abraham thus returned with honor and glory, made very great in the eyes of the nations round about, as he stayed in the Kings Dale to deliver to 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 among the spoils, Melchisedec knowing the state of things, and the promise made to Abraham, comes out to him for the ends mentioned.

But it may be enquired 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 apostacy 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 (Psalm 110:6). This was to be effected by a glorious conquest and victory, which is every where so described in the Scripture. See (Colossians 2:15). 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 (Isaiah 63:1, 2, 3; Revelation 19). 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 (Daniel 7:18, ver. 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. Therefore 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 to the world, whenever its pride and blindness will admit of its help and kindness (Micah 5:7). The church is indeed the only means of conveying blessings to the world, as the oppression thereof will prove its ruin.

3. The land of Canaan was now given to Abraham and his seed for a possession, to be the seat of the church and God's worship among them. The nations now inhabiting of it, were devoted to 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 in justice and affection, both, to rescue his brother Lot, whom they were carrying away captive. And this is 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 to him that overcomes. And we may observe, That,

1. All the commotions and concussions that are among the nations of the world, do lye in or shall be brought into a subserviency to 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 (Genesis 14:5, 6, 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. Yes, I 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 such 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 to. 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 to 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 does require; as he did here with all these nations (Isaiah 43:3, 4; Chapter 60:6, 7).

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 (Isaiah 41:2, 3). And our Apostle mentions that circumstance of the slaughter of the kings as that which was a token of God's kindness to 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 to 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 to him by God himself; and (3.) a subserviency to 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.

6. 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 (Genesis 14:19, 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 has delivered your enemies into your hand." There are two parts of this blessing: (1.) That which has Abraham for its object, a blessing of prayer. (2.) That which has 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 (Genesis 33:11). So also are curses of evil. Hence it is God alone that absolutely can either bless or curse, for he only has sovereign power of all good and evil. He does therefore so express his blessing: "In blessing I will bless you" (Genesis 22:17), 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 you, and curse them that curse you" (Genesis 12:3), 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 you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed" (Numbers 22:6), for however he might divine concerning them that should be so, absolutely he could neither bless nor curse. Therefore I say all blessings are instituted means of the conveyance and communication of good to others, according to the power and interest of them that bless, in that good. This being among men by God's concession and institution various, there are also various sorts of blessings, which may be reduced to 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 blesses to be superior to him that is 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; yes, inferiors may bless superiors, children may bless parents, servants masters, subjects their rulers (Psalm 20:1, 2, 3, 4).

Authoritative benediction among men is two-fold: (1.) Paternal. (2.) Sacerdotal, or with respect to 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 warranty. For the first; parents have an especial right by virtue of divine institution authoritatively to bless their children, inasmuch as he has given to 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 to God of their acceptance and approbation of that duty and obedience which the children perform to 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, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that they may prolong your days. They shall have power to communicate this good to you by their blessing, in their solemn declaration of their acceptance and approbation of your 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 to believers and their seed in and by them, they do three ways bless them with the good things thereof: (1.) By communicating to them the privilege of the initial seal of the Covenant, as a sign, token and pledge of their being blessed of the Lord. (2.) By pleading the promise of the Covenant in their behalf. (3.) By careful instructing of them in the mercies and duties of the Covenant. Therefore although this power of blessing be founded in the law of nature, and in all nations something has been observed that looks towards it, yet it is by faith alone and in an interest in the Covenant, that any parents are able to bless their children in a due manner. For a blessing is a communication of good according to his interest in it that blesses, 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 them.

Secondly, there was of old a paternal benediction that had its rise in an especial warranty, and was accompanied with a spirit of prophecy. This consisted in a certain praediction and declaration of future events, whereby those so blessed were infallibly and indispensibly stated in a right to them. So Noah blessed Shem and Japhet; Isaac blessed Jacob, Jacob all his sons. Herein God gave to some parents the honor of a power to bequeath to 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 has 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, many of those parents who do use conscientiously the ways appointed of God whereby they may bless their children, do oft-times not see the effect of their endeavors. 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 has, when they are gone out of the world, yes, in their children's children for many generations. (3.) If all 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. (1.) There was a common 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 to them in the Name of God; that as he ministerially carried their gifts, offerings, and services to God, so in like manner he should return his acceptance and blessing to them. Whereas therefore this right and duty belonged to 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 blesses 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, that whatever be the interest, duty and office of any to act in the name of others towards God, in any sacred administrations, 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 to them for that purpose. Therefore the ministerial blessing is somewhat more than euctical or a mere prayer. Neither is it merely doctrinal and declaratory, but that which is built on a particular especial warranty proceeding from the nature of the ministerial office. But whereas it has respect in all things to other ministerial administrations, it is not to be used but with reference to 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 (Numbers 6:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27): "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, On this wise shall you bless the children of Israel, saying; The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you, the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon you and give you 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 apparent, and may be proved, that many if not the most of those sacred institutions, which were given in one system to Moses, were singly and gradually given out by inspiration and prophecy to 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 Melchisedec as a priest enjoyed and used before. And from what has been spoken we may gather the nature of this blessing of Melchisedec wherewith he blessed Abraham. For, (1.) it had the nature of a blessing in general, whereby any one man may bless another, in that it was euctical and eucharistical, it included both prayer for him, and thanksgiving on his account to 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 requires, and so God had in particular appointed, that the priests should bless in his name. (3.) It was prophetical, proceeding from an immediate inspiration, whereby he declares the confirmation of the great blessing promised to Abraham; Blessed be Abraham. And we may see,

1. That he who has 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. We are apt to think that if God should speak once to us as he did to Abraham, and assure us of the blessing, we should never need farther confirmation while we live. But the truth is, he does so speak to all that believe in the Word, and yet we find, how much we want the ministerial renovation of it to us. Bless God for the ministry, for the Word and Sacraments; ordinarily our faith would not be kept up without them.

2. 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 bore the person of, or represented all his posterity according to the faith. Therefore does our Apostle in the foregoing chapter entitle all believers, to the promises made to him, and the inheritance of them. There is therefore more than a bare story in this matter. A blessing is in it conveyed to all believers in the way of an ordinance for ever.

3. It is God's institution that makes all our administrations effectual. So did sacerdotal benedictions become authoritative and efficacious. Innumerable ways and means of blessing things and persons have been found out in the Papacy. They will bless bells, steeples, and churches, church-yards, 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 to Melchisedec is that he received tithes of all. To whom Abraham also gave the tenth of all. As Abraham gave them in a 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of all, is limited to 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 to whom the tenths were given, and of what they were (Genesis 14:20). [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] — he gave, do answer to the next antecedent, Melchisedec gave the tenth of all to Abraham. Nor does it appear what the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or, all was that is intended; whether his own whole estate, or all the tithable 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 withal declared 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 to 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 firstly given to God; and he who received them received them as God's officer in his name. Where there was none in office so to receive them, they were immediately to be offered to God in sacrifice according to their capacity. So Jacob vowed the tenth to God (Genesis 28:22), 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 (Genesis 35:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). And (2.) the things that were fit of this sort, were actually to be offered in sacrifice to God. This Saul knew, when he made that his pretence of sparing and bringing away the fat cattle of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:15). 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 to 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 in bringing forth bread and wine, which was to sell 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 to another. Therefore 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 eat bread together and were mutually refreshed. (3.) This matter was afterwards precisely determined in the law, wherein all tithes were appropriated to 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 has its especial design, the whole being inlaid with truth by infinite wisdom, whether we apprehend it or no. 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. Therefore 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 to them in the New, taking up with Jewish traditions, or vain conjectures of their own, such as the late writings of some highly pretending to learning are stuffed withal. And we may see from hence, (1.) how necessary it is for us according to the command of our Savior to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to make a scrupulous enquiry, 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 (Proverbs 2:4). 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 set eye 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 to by the prophets themselves under the Old Testament with respect to their own prophecies, which they received by inspiration (1 Peter 1:10, 11). God gave out those deep and sacred truths by them which they comprehended not, but made diligent enquiry into the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words which themselves had spoken. What belongs to this diligent search shall be elsewhere declared. (2.) That the clear revelations 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, approves 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 to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to 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 is not so. 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 15), 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 Genesis 9:4, "But flesh with the life thereof, that is, the blood thereof shall you not eat": blood is not absolutely forbidden, but in some cases and with respect to a certain end. It was not to be eaten while 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 while the blood was yet warm in it. Under the Law it was forbidden, because God had taken it to be the principal part of sacrifices, and far the most significant (Leviticus 17:5, 6, 11, 14). And in the 15th of the Acts it is only occasionally forbid 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 does not prove a morality in the law, 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 to 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 to any. And without sollicitousness 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 to his worship to any who do not wholly give up themselves to the ministry and labor in the Word and Doctrine, unless they be such as are disabled 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 to 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 dedicating of a certain portion of what we have to 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 to the use and service of the worship of God, particularly to the comfortable and honorable supportment of them that labor in the ministry. And it is no small part of that confusion which we suffer under, that Christians being in all places compelled to pay the tenth by civil laws to some or other whether they will or no, are either discouraged, or disabled, or think themselves discharged from doing that which God certainly requires at their hands in a way of duty. However this will be no excuse for any, for generally they have yet left to 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 tithable 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 pretense 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 to 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 (Joshua 22:8). 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 Midianites, to manifest that they fell not under the Law of Tithes, he took not the tenth part, but one portion of 500 from the soldiers, and one of 50 from the people (Numbers 31:28, 29, 30). Therefore 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 yet 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 to 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 to God out of their spoils (Numbers 31:48, 49, 50). And as for the instance of Jacob, who vowed to 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 an extraordinary vow, whereby he could express his obedience to God.

3. The precise Law of Tithing is not confirmed in the Gospel. For that saying of our Savior'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 to it under the Gospel, than he did so to 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 to the time of reformation, which gave them their bounds and limits (Hebrews 9:10), and ended with his resurrection. His other saying, of giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's, respects our whole moral obedience to God, and not this or that particular institution. The meaning of it is, that we are to pay or perform to God all whatever he requires 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 to every man is to be returned to him in the way of his worship and service, wherein it may be used according to 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 to 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 to any what proportion of their estate should be set apart to 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 to 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 to the necessary degrees of it, that I shall not suggest anything to 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 to his purpose, if it had not been abrogated. For intending to prove that the ministers of the Gospel ought to be liberally supported in their works with the earthly things of them to whom they do administer the things of God, he argues from the light of nature, the general equity of other cases, the analogy of legal institutions, the rules of justice with the especial institution of Christ in the Gospel, but makes no mention of the natural or legal right of tithing (1 Corinthians 9:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). And farther I shall not at present divert on this subject. And we may observe, that

Whatever we receive signally from God in a way of mercy, we ought to return a portion of it to him in a way of duty. That this was the practice of the saints of old might easily be proved by an induction of instances, from this act of Abraham (yes, 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 to the Lord according to the mercy which he had received.

And we may do well to consider, (1.) That no man has any great or signal success in any affair and occasion, more than others, or more than at other time, but there will be in his mind an ascription of it to one cause or another. This the nature of things makes necessary, nor can it be avoided (Habakkuk 1:11). (2.) That whatever a man does secretly ascribe such successes to, that he makes in some sense his God. They sacrifice to their net, and burn incense to their drag, because by them their portion is fat, and their meat plenteous (Habakkuk 1:16). They ascribed their successes to their own strength, endeavors 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 endeavors, and the means we have used as the only causes of them. (3.) It is a great sign that a man has not engaged God in the getting of any thing, when he will not entitle him to any portion of what is gotten. There are two evils common in the world in this case. Some will make no acknowledgment to God in the especial consecration of any part of their substance to him, where it is lawfully gotten. And some will make great dedications of what has been gotten by robbery, spoils, oppression and violence. Many public works of munificence and charity as they are called, have had no other original. This is but an endeavor to entitle God to injustice, and draw him to a copartnership with them, by giving him a share in the advantage. God hates robbery for burnt-offerings (Isaiah 61:8), and he smites his hand at men's dishonest gain (Ezekiel 22:13). He will have nothing to do with such things, nor accept of any portion of them or from them, however he may over-power things in his providence to his glory. Both these ways are full of evil, though the latter be the worst. (4.) No man has any ground to reckon that he can settle what he has to himself or his, where this chief rent to 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 has 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,

- 1. The names themselves with their interpretation. - 2. The grounds or reasons of the Apostle's arguing from this interpretation of names. - 3. What is intended in them, or what he would have us learn from them. - 4. Their order which he particularly observes.

First,

1. He respects his proper name, that is, Melchisedec. 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 belonging to his person, which the Apostle does not observe, as he would have done one way or other, had any such unusual thing offered itself to him. Besides had it been so, he would not have been called Melchisedec, but said to be Melch Sedec, as he is said to be Melec Salem. 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 is a King, and by the interposition of Yod to smooth the composition, the former Saegol is turned into Patha, and the latter into Schevah, from where Melchi arises. 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 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 for 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 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 paragoricum, to soften the sound and pronunciation of them. So is it in Adonisedek, Adonibezek, Abimelech, Achitob, Abishua, Abishag, Abishalom, and sundry others. Therefore Malchi is nothing but the name Melek a King, a little varied to fit it to the composition intended. 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 is Righteousness. And so the whole name is properly interpreted and rendered by our Apostle 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 a King of Righteousness.

2. His title is, 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉, the King of Salem, of which place we have spoken before. This is by interpretation, says our Apostle, 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 the King of Peace. Some think that herein occurs a greater difficulty, than did in the interpretation of his name. For 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 Salem, say they, does not signify Peace, but 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 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 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 and 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 and 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉 are. And upon the matter the signification is the same. Rex pacificus and Rex pacis do both denote him that is the maker and author of peace. So God on that account is called the God of Peace (Romans 15:13; Chapter 16:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Hebrews 13:20). Therefore as we ought to acquiesce in the authority of the Apostle who knew better than us all, the signification of these names, so that he gives, is proper according to our best conception of these things.

Secondly, It may be enquired 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 while some have followed and imitated as they suppose this example, they have fallen into woful 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.

It was usual under the Old Testament to have names given to children by a spirit of prophecy, as to Noah, Peleg, and others, yes, 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, Sarah, Jacob was called Israel, and Solomon, Jedediah. And whereas this was sometimes done by divine authority, as in the instances mentioned, from where it was highly significant; so the people in imitation thereof, did often give other names to themselves, or others, on some occasion 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 warranty, it was doctrinal and prophetically instructive. So was it in that great name given to our Lord Jesus Christ himself, namely, Immanuel, which the Evangelist remembers and gives us the interpretation thereof (Matthew 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 to his office is uncertain, and no way needful to be enquired 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 to their curiosity who seek for mysteries out of names and their numbers, which for ought they know had a casual imposition, or that which respected some particular occasion, whereof they are utterly ignorant.

As for the name of the place where he reigned, or Salem, it was also given to it on the same ground to be praesignificative of the work that was to be effected by him, whom he typed out. Most probably at that time, God first gave that name to that place; for that it was not the Salem by Sychem 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 to that city, because there he designed not only to rest in his typical worship for a season, but also in the fullness 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, namely, the sacrifice of Christ himself, the only real and proper Priest of the Church. Therefore our Apostle does 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 argument from there in this case useful, as to the signification of them, it must be enquired 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 own 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.

The last thing that the Apostle observes from these names and titles in 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, so long as the moon endures (Psalm 72:7). First they are made righteous, and then they have peace. And (Isaiah 32:17) 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 is no peace but what proceeds from and is the effect of righteousness. So these things with respect to Christ are declared by the Psalmist (Psalm 85:9, 10, 11, 12, 13). What we are taught hence is,

That the Lord Jesus Christ is the only King of Righteousness and Peace to the Church. See (Isaiah 32:1, 21; chapter 9:6). He is not only a righteous and peaceable king as were his types Melchisedec and Solomon, but he is the author, cause, procurer and dispenser of righteousness and peace to the Church. So is it declared (Jeremiah 23:5, 6): Behold the days come says the Lord that I will raise to 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. He is righteous and reigns righteously, but this is not all, he is 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. 3. 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 enquiries and conjectures. But it is 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, does not exist without them. Therefore 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, etc. And how does this appear that so it was with him? It does so because none of them is recorded or mentioned in the Scripture, which yet diligently records 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 2:61, 62, 63). And we may therefore by this rule enquire into the particulars.

1. It is said of him in the first place, that he was without Father, without Mother, whereon part of the latter clause, namely, without beginning of days, does 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], without Descent say we. But [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is he whose stock and descent is entered upon record. And so on the contrary, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is not he who has no descent, no genealogy, but he whose descent and pedigree is no where entered, recorded, reckoned up. Thus the Apostle himself plainly expresses this word, ver. 6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 the office of the priesthood to the High God.

2. On the same account is he said to be 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 certainly 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 an 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 enquired into for the clearing of the sense of these words.

(1.) Whereas the observation of the Apostle is built upon the silence of Moses in the history, which was sufficient for him, whatever was the cause and reason of that silence, we may enquire from where it was? From where 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 of 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 honor 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 an one to administer peculiarly to him, and that as a type of his own Son, who was to be incarnate.

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 where Christ did come. But when it makes mention of any others, though they be never so eminent, it reckons not up their genealogy. Thus it deals 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. Therefore,

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 praefigured. 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 10:18, 19; Nehemiah 7:63, 64, 65). Therefore 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, yes, 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 mind 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 (Psalm 110:4). This is the true and only reason why in the story of Melchisedec as the Priest of the High God, there is no mention made of father, mother, genealogy, beginning of life or end of days.

And we may herein consider the sovereign wisdom of the Holy Ghost in bringing forth truth to light according as the state and condition of the Church does require. And first he proposes 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 until 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. Yes, 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 thing spoken concerning Melchisedec were not so recorded for his sake, or on his own account, but with respect to another Priest which was afterwards to arise, by him represented; which gave a new consideration, sense and design to the whole story; but moreover gives it 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 (Psalm 110:4). 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 Savior, and 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. Therefore our Apostle entering upon the unfolding of this mystery does 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 prepares 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. Therefore 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 observe,

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 had never 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.

It is a great honor to serve in the Church by doing or suffering for the use and service of future generations. This was the honor of Melchisedec, that he was employed in a service, the true use and advantage whereof was not given in to the Church, until many generations after. And I add suffering to doing, because it is well known what glories have sprang up in future ages, upon the past sufferings of others.

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 there. But I have (as I remember) discoursed somewhat hereof before.

Secondly, our next enquiry is, wherein Melchisedec was typical of Christ, or what of all this belongeth to the following assertion that he was made like to the Son of God; that is, so described as that he might have a great resemblance of him.

It is generally thought that he was so in 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 (Jeremiah 31:22), 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 was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the roll of his pedigree, is declared by two of the Evangelists, the one driving of it up to Abraham, the other to 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 to those words of the Prophet (Isaiah 53:8), [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] — 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 to his conformity to the Son of God, or that wherein he represented him; for as to his divine Person, the Lord Christ had neither the one nor the other, as the Apostle proves (Hebrews 1:10, 11, 12) from Psalm 102:25, 26, 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. Therefore 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 to 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 does 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 to 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 to 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.

Therefore 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 meerly with respect to 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 to the Law, and inconsistent with it. And this because he was not of the line of the priests, neither 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 be so. For (1.) In this respect he had neither Father nor Mother from whom he might derive any right or title to 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 to 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 Chronicles 26:16, 17, 18) from (Exodus 30:7; Numbers 18:7). 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 (Hebrews 8:3, 4). Therefore God in these things instructed the Church, that he would erect a priesthood which should no way depend on natural generation, descent, or genealogy; from where it inevitably follows that the state of the priesthood under the Law was to cease, and to give place to 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 humane 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 to any other, but abides to the consummation of all things.

In these things was Melchisedec made like to Christ, whom the Apostle here calls the Son of God; made like to 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 although 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 honor in so many things to be made like to him. (2.) To declare how all these things which were any way represented in Melchisedec or couched in the story, or left to enquiry by the vail 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 was he capable of an always-living, abiding, uninterrupted priesthood, although as to his humane 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 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 to him therein, he abideth a Priest for ever. Some I find have been venturing at some obscure conjectures of the perpetuity of the priesthood of Melchisedec 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 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 in the Church, which he demonstrates to be that of Jesus Christ.

It may not be amiss in the close of this exposition of these verses summarily to represent the several particulars wherein the Apostle would have us to observe the likeness between Melchisedec and Christ, or rather the especial excellencies and properties of Christ that were represented in the account given of the name, reign, person and office of Melchisedec.

1. He was said to be, and he really was, and he only, first the King of Righteousness, and then the King of Peace; seeing he alone brought in everlasting righteousness and made peace with God for sinners. And in his kingdom alone are these things to be found.

2. He was really and truly the Priest of the High God, and properly he was so alone. He offered that sacrifice, and made that atonement which was signified by all the sacrifices offered by holy men from the foundation of the world.

3. He blesses all the faithful, as Abraham the Father of the Faithful was blessed by Melchisedec. In him were they to be blessed, by him are they blessed, through him delivered from the curse and all the fruits of it, nor are they partakers of any blessing but from him.

4. He receives all the homage of his people, all their grateful acknowledgments of the love and favor of God in the conquest of their spiritual adversaries, and deliverance from them, as Melchisedec received the tenth of the spoils from Abraham.

He was really without progenitors or predecessors to his office, nor would I exclude that mystical sense from the intention of the place, that he was without Father as to his human nature, and without Mother as to his divine.

He was a Priest without genealogy, or derivation of his pedigree from the loins of Aaron, or any other that ever was a Priest in the world, and moreover mysteriously was of a generation which none can declare.

He had in his divine person, as the High Priest of the Church, neither beginning of days nor end of life, as no such thing is reported of Melchisedec. For the death which he underwent in the discharge of his office, being not the death of his whole person, but of his human nature only, no interruption of his endless office did ensue thereon. For although the person of the Son of God died, from where God is said to redeem his Church with his own blood (Acts 20:28), yet he died not in his whole person. But as the Son of man was in Heaven while he was speaking on the Earth (John 3:13), namely, he was so in his divine nature; so while he was dead in the Earth in his human nature, the same person was alive in his divine. Absolutely therefore, nor in respect of his office, he had neither beginning of days nor end of life.

He was really the Son of God, as Melchisedec in many circumstances was made like to the Son of God.

He alone abides a Priest for ever; whereof we must particularly treat afterwards.

The doctrinal observations that may be taken from these verses, are,

When any were of old designed to be types of Christ, there was a necessity that things more excellent and glorious should be spoken or intimated of them, than did properly belong to them. So many things are here observed of Melchisedec, which were not properly and literally fulfilled in him. And so there are likewise of David and Solomon in sundry places. And the reason is, because the things so spoken were never intended of them absolutely, but as they were designed to represent the Lord Christ, to whom alone they did truly belong. And in the exposition of such typical prophecies, the utmost diligence is to be used in distinguishing aright what is absolutely spoken of the type only, and what is spoken of it merely as representing Christ himself.

All that might be spoken so as to have any probable application in any sense to things and persons typically, coming short of what was to be fulfilled in Christ, the Holy Ghost in his infinite wisdom supplied that defect by ordering the account which he gives of them so, as more might be apprehended and learned from them than could be expressed. And where the glory of his person as vested with his office could not be represented by positive applications, it is done by a mystical silence, as in this story of Melchisedec. And the most eminent and glorious things assigned to types as such, have a more glorious signification in Christ than they have in them. See to this purpose our exposition on Chapter 1, verse 5.

That Christ abiding a Priest for ever has no more a vicar or successor or substitute in his office, or any deriving a real priesthood from him, than had Melchisedec, whereof we shall speak afterwards.

The whole mystery of divine wisdom effecting all unconceivable perfections centred in the person of Christ, to make him a meet, glorious, and most excellent Priest to God in the behalf of the Church. This it is the principal design of the whole Gospel to demonstrate, namely, to declare that all the treasures of divine wisdom and knowledge are hid in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3). The constitution of his person, was the greatest mystery that ever infinite wisdom effected (1 Timothy 3:16). And thereby did God gloriously represent himself and all his infinite perfections to us (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:14, 15; 2 Corinthians 4:6). Had he not the divine nature, he could not have been the express image of God in himself. And had he not been Man, he could not have represented him to us. Nor can any thing be more mysteriously glorious, than the furniture of his person as Mediator, with all fullness of power, wisdom and grace for the accomplishment of his work (John 1:16; Colossians 1:18, 19; Chapter 2:9; Philippians 2:5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The work that he wrought in offering himself a sacrifice and making atonement for sin, has the highest unconceivable impression of divine wisdom upon it (John 3:16; Acts 20:28; Revelation 5:8; Ephesians 5:2). And so also has the grace that is from there administered by him and from him to Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 3:8, 9, 10, 11). And instances of the like kind may be multiplied. And we may consider from there first, into what condition of sin and misery we were fallen by our apostacy from God, from where nothing would or could recover us but this blessed work of the whole mystery of divine wisdom. And then the unspeakable riches and excellencies of that wisdom, love, and grace which provided this way for our recovery.