Hebrews 7 — Verse 9, 10

[⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Ut verbum dicere, as to speak a word. Vul. Lat. Ut ita dictum sit, be it so said. Syr. As any one may say. Arab. And it is said that this Discourse, or Reason, may be some way ended. Ut ita loquar, as I may so speak. In the rest of the words there is neither difficulty, nor difference among Translators.

There are three things observable in these words. (1.) The manner of the introduction of the Apostle's new assertion. (2.) The assertion itself, which has the force of a new argument to his purpose, ver. 9. And (3.) the proof of his assertion in ver. 10.

The manner of the introduction of his assertion is in these words, as I may so say. This qualification of the assertion makes an abatement of it one way or other. Now this is not, as to the truth of the proposition, but as to the propriety of the expression. The words are, as if that which is expressed was actually so; namely, that Levi himself paid tithes, whereas it was so only virtually. The thing itself intended was with respect to the Apostle's purpose as if it had been so indeed; though Levi not being then actually existent, he could not be tithed in his own person. Nor is the Apostle dubious of the truth of the consequent which he urges from this observation, as if he had said prope dixerim, which is supposed as one signification of this phrase. Only the instance being new, and he arguing from what was virtual only, as if it had been actual, he gave his assertion this qualification. This is spoken upon an allowance of the common acceptation of the sense of these words among Interpreters. For my part, I rather incline to judge that he uses this phrase for as much as ut verbo dicam, to sum up the whole in a word. To put an issue to this dispute between the Levitical Priesthood and that of Melchisedec: I say, that not only Abraham, but even Levi himself was tithed by him.

2. His assertion is, that Levi who received tithes was tithed in Abraham, namely, when Abraham gave the tithes of all to Melchisedec. By Levi he intends not the person of Levi absolutely, the third son of Jacob, but his posterity, or the whole tribe proceeding from him, so far as they were interested in the Priesthood. For Levi himself never received tithes of any, the Priesthood being erected in his family long after his death in the person of his great grandchild Aaron. So then Levi who received tithes is the same with the sons of Levi who received the Priesthood, ver. 5. Namely, in their several generations to that day.

Of this Levi it is affirmed that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], he was tithed or paid tithes in Abraham, or through him, and by him, as the word is. When Abraham himself gave tithes to Melchisedec, he did it not in his own name only, but in the name of himself and his whole posterity. And this upon the principles before laid down and vindicated, proves the preeminence of the Priesthood of Melchisedec above that of the house and family of Levi. All the difficulty of the argument lies in the proof of the assertion, namely, that Levi did indeed so pay tithes in Abraham. This the Apostle therefore proves by the observation which he lays down, ver. 10.

For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.

The force of this proof seems to depend on a double principle. (1.) That children, the whole posterity of any one, are in his loins before they are born. And this principle is sure in the light of nature and common reason; they are in them as the effect in its cause; nor have they any future existence but with relation to their progenitors even the remotest of them. (2.) That what any one does, that all his posterity are esteemed to do in and by him. But it is certain that this rule will not generally hold, nor indeed will it ever do so absolutely without some other cogent circumstances. By human laws, the crimes of men reflect dishonor in some cases on their families; and on the other side they entail the honor which by their worth they have acquired on their posterities. What a man also gives away of his estate to public uses, as in the foundation of schools or hospitals, his children may be said to do it in him, because so much is decreased from their inheritance. As here what Abraham gave to Melchisedec it was alienated from his posterity, Levi among the rest. But none of these things reach the case in hand, or are sufficient to give force or evidence to the reasoning of the Apostle. Therefore to find them out, sundry things must be observed which are manifest truths in themselves, and on the supposition whereof the Apostle's argument stands firm.

1. That Abraham was now called of God, and separated to his service, so as to be the foundation of a new church in the world. And there is a relation to such an original stock in all the branches, beyond what they have to any other intermediate progenitors. Hence all the idolatrous nations in the world, constantly made the first persons from whom they derived their original, of whose offspring they would be accounted, their gods whom they worshipped. These were their Joves indigites, their home-born deities, whom they honored, and whose honors they thought descended to them by inheritance.

2. He had now received the promise that God would be a God to him and his seed after him; whereby all his posterity were taken into covenant with him, and hereon Abraham covenanted with God in the name of, and as the great representative of all his seed. And such covenants are the foundation of all order and rule in this world. For after persons, or a people have covenanted into such agreements in government, and as to the administration of common right among themselves, provided the terms whereon they have agreed be good and suitable to the light of nature, their posterity are not at liberty to alter and change them at their pleasure. For whereas they derive all their right and inheritances from their progenitors, they are supposed in them to have consented to all that was done by them.

3. Hereon what God said and did to Abraham, he said it and did it to all his seed in him. The promises were theirs, and the inheritance was theirs; yea, what God is said to give to Abraham so often, namely, the whole land of Canaan, was never actually made good to him in his own person, no, not a foot's breadth. But he received the grant of it as a representative of his posterity, who 400 years after had the actual possession of it.

4. What Abraham did solemnly in obedience to God by virtue of the Covenant as a public condition thereof, he did undertake in it for his posterity, and performed it in their name. And therefore God enjoined him to bring all his posterity under the token of that engagement in Circumcision so soon as they were capable thereof. And on the other hand, God continually affirms that he would do them good because of his oath and engagement to Abraham, seeing they were intended therein. Therefore,

5. Abraham in this solemn address to God by Melchisedec the type of Christ, wherein he expressed his covenant-obedience to him, was the representative of all his posterity, and in particular of Levi and all the priests that descended from him. And having now received the whole land by virtue of a Covenant in the behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs, though he himself had never possession of it, nor in it, he does in the name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenths to God by Melchisedec, as that chief rent which God for ever reserved to himself, upon his grant. When the people came actually to possess the land, they held it always on this condition, that the tenths of all should be given to God. And this Abraham in his taking seisin of it for them paid in their name: so truly and virtually was Levi himself tithed in the loyns of Abraham when Melchisedec met him. Therefore it was not merely Levi being in the loyns of Abraham with respect to natural generation, from where he is said to be tithed in him, but his being in him with respect to the Covenant which Abraham entered into with God in the name of his whole posterity.

This reasoning of the Apostle's I confess at first view seems as intricate and more remote from cogency than any elsewhere used by him. And therefore by some profane persons has it been cavilled at. But all things of that nature arise merely from want of a due reverence to the Word of God. When we come to it with those satisfactions in our minds, that there is truth, and divine wisdom in every expression of it, that all its reasonings are cogent and effectual, though we understand them not, we shall not fail upon a humble enquiry to attain what we may safely embrace, or see what we ought to admire. And so this place which at first sight seems to present us with a reasoning on a very uncertain foundation, being duly enquired into, we find it resolved into the firm principles of reason and religion.

And the fore-going observation will expedite two difficult questions which expositors raise to themselves on this verse. The first whereof is, whether Christ himself may not as well as Levi be said to pay tithes in Abraham, as being in his loyns? Which would utterly frustrate the design of the Apostle. The second is, how or in what sense one may be said to do any thing in another, which may be reckoned or imputed to him?

For the first of these, Austin and others have well laboured in the solution of it: the sum of what they say is, that the Lord Christ was not in Abraham as Levi was, not in his nature as it was corrupted; nor did he educe or derive his nature from him by carnal generation or the common way of the propagation of mankind. And these things do constitute a sufficient difference and distance between them in this matter. But yet with these considerations and on the supposition of them, there is another which contains the true and proper reason of this difference. And that is, that the Lord Christ was never in Abraham as a foederate, as one taken into Covenant with him, and so represented by him, as Levi was. Abraham was taken into Covenant with Christ, as the Head, Sponsor, Surety, and Mediator of the New Covenant, with respect whereunto he says of himself and the Elect, Behold I and the children which the Lord has given me. Hereon he was the representative of Abraham and all that believe, and what he did is imputed to them. But he was never taken into Covenant with Abraham, nor was capable of so being, seeing to him it was a Covenant of Pardon and Justification by Faith, which he was no way concerned in but as the procurer of them for others. Therefore what Abraham did cannot be imputed to him, so as he should be esteemed to have done them in him.

And this makes way for the solution of the general question, How one may be said to do any thing in another which shall be reckoned to him as his own act? And this may be by virtue of a Covenant and no otherwise. Hence divines do usually illustrate the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity by this example of Levi, though I have not met with any who truly understand the ground of the comparison, which is Abraham acting as a covenanter in the name of his posterity. But whereas this is opposed with some vehemency by Schlictingius in his Comment on this place, I shall transcribe his words, and consider his discourse. Haec sententia non ad omnes actiones transferenda est; sed ad eas tantum quae propriè versantur vel in auctione vel in diminutione rerum quae à Parentibus in liberos devolvi & haereditario jure transferri solent, qualis actio est decimarum solutio. Persolvuntur enim de bonis & facultatibus, quae hactenus cùm sunt liberorum, quatenus jus haereditatis ad eos spectat, praesertim si certum sit, fore liberos, qui in bona succedant, quemadmodum Abrahamo contigit, cui certa fuit à deo promissa posteritas. Quemadmodum enim haeredes personam patris post mortem ratione possessionis bonorum veluti repraesentant, it a antequam haeredes à patre separentur & de bonis paternis statuendi arbitrium habeant, Pater omnium liberorum suorum personam quadam ratione refert, & quicquid de illis statuerit aut fecerit id haeredes quodammodo fecisse censentur. Dico, quodammodo, quia propriè id dici non potest; nec autor hic D. id propriè factum esse asserit, sed improprietatem verbis suis subesse ipsemet profitetur, ut antea vidimus. Ex dictis autem facilè intelligitur, id quod nos unà cum Autore D. statuimus, ad eos tantum Successores seu posteros esse extendendum ad quos vel certò, ut Abrahami posteris contigit, vel saltem verisimiliter perventura sit haereditas Parentis, & notabilis aliqua bonorum ab eo profectorum portio. Alioquin vis illa haereditatis de qua diximus, expirabit, nec posteris tribui poterit id quod majorum aliquis circa bona sua fecerit. Quibus it a explicatis, facile jam apparet falli eos qui ex hoc loco colligunt omnem Adami posteritatem in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, & mortis supplicium verè fuisse commeritum. Nam vel de co nunc quidquam dicam ipsum Autorem improprietatem in hac loquendi forma agnoscere, nequaquam id extendendum est ad parentum majorumve peccata ac merita. Etenim peccata ac merita qua talia mere sunt personalia, seu personam ejus qui peccat non egrediuntur, nec eatenus parentes posteritatem suam repraesentant; licet fieri queat ut ex eorum delicto damnum aliquod nec exiguum ad liberos redumlet, quemadmodum quidem in Adami delicto contigit; ipsum tamen peccatum ac meritum Adami revera non communicatur cum ejus posteritate, ac proinde posteri Adami ob Parentis sui noxam revera non puniuntur, nisi & ipsi parentem fuerint imitati.

I have transcribed these words at large, because their design is to defeat that article of our faith concerning the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his posterity, which there is no doubt but they will make use of, who are gone over among our selves to the negative of it: and that it might appear whose heifer they plough withal who deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to justification, because those things that are personal and inherent in one, cannot be communicated to another. I say therefore, (1.) that this assertion, of one being accounted to another in what he does, holds only in those things which belong to the increase or diminution of an inheritance which descends from parents to children, and not otherwise, is gratis dictum, without pretence or confirmation. Even in things moral God threatens to visit the sins of the fathers on the children. So the Israelites wandered poenally in the wilderness forty years, and bare the iniquity of their parents. The infants that perished in the Flood, and at the conflagration of Sodom, died poenally under the judgment that came for the sin of their parents. Therefore the general foundation of his whole discourse is unproved and false, and the application of it to the present case, as we shall see, weak and impertinent. For, (2.) this renders the argument of the Apostle as weak and impertinent as any thing can be imagined. For it allows Levi to be no otherwise tithed in Abraham, but as part of the goods which Abraham gave in tithe to Melchisedec would have descended to him. For he was but one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grand-child of Abraham, whose share in those tithes cannot be computed to be worth mentioning, much less to bear the weight of an argument in so great a cause. Besides it is not the person of Levi, but his posterity in the family of Aaron, that is intended. And such movables as were tithed by Abraham do seldom descend through so many generations. It is therefore ridiculous to impose such a kind of argumentation on the Holy Apostle. (3.) Yes, this interpretation is directly contrary to what the Apostle designed to confirm by the instance he gives. For that which he aimed at was to prove Levi inferior to Melchisedec by his paying of tithes in the loins of Abraham. But if he did this no otherwise, but that some goods that should have descended to him were given to Melchisedec, it argues him rather superior to him; for absolutely he that gives is superior to him that receives, as it is in general a more blessed thing to give than to receive. (4.) That which he proceeds upon, is a general rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable to this particular case, as it is a particular case. It is that, as children succeed into the room of their parents as to their goods, and after a sort represent them; so parents before their children come to inherit do represent their children, so as that they may be said in some sense to do what is done by their parents. But this is a rule made without any color of reason. For, (1.) I would know when this representation and concernment should expire, or whether it hold to all generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said in some sort to do what Adam did with his goods and lands before he died, and so of all our intervenient progenitors. If it do expire, and this relation abides only for a season, I desire to know the bounds of that season. Aaron was the first of the house of Levi, who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh generation from Abraham, in which time it is probable, if ever, this right of inheritance would expire. (2.) It is not true in any sense, in the very next parents in most cases. For suppose a parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his substance and goods in riotous living, in what sense shall his son, suppose him a person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his goods in him? (3.) The truth is, unless it be a subsequent approbation of what our progenitors have done, or by virtue of a covenant whereby they and their posterity were obliged, which is the case in hand, children can in no sense be said to do, what their progenitors have done in the disposal of their goods and inheritances. Neither indeed will a subsequent approbation give any tolerable sense to this assertion, unless there be a power of an effectual dissent in the children also. If a man give a part of his estate to found a hospital, and leave the care of it to his posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just cause for it, they should re-assume the estate into their own possession; in case they do not so, they may in some sense be said to do, what indeed their father did. But if this be not in their power, though they approve of what he did, they cannot be said to have done it. But in covenants the case is plain. Men may enter into a mutual covenant for the erection of a government among them, which proving a foundation of all their civil rights for the future, their posterity may be said to have made that covenant, and to be obliged thereby, as it was in this case. (5.) Neither will it advantage his pretence, with a seeming acknowledgment of some impropriety in his assertion in those words, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], as I may so say. For although it should be granted that he intends some impropriety in the expression, yet there must be truth in his assertion, which this interpretation will not allow: for if it be true only in the sense he contends for, it is true in none at all, for that is not any. But the meaning of these words is, ut verbo dicam, that I may give you a summary of the whole, that which my argument riseth up to. (6.) Having given us this crooked rule, he adds a limitation to it, whereby he hopes to reduce the whole to his purpose. For, says he, this rule is not to be extended to the merits or sins of parents and ancestors, though some loss may accrue to the children thereby; for from there he infers, that though we may suffer some loss by the sin of Adam, yet his sin is not imputed to us. But (1.) how far the children of flagitious parents may not only suffer loss, but undergo temporal punishment also for the sins of their parents was shewed before in the instances of those who perished in their infancy, both by the Flood and in the conflagration of Sodom. (2.) The case between any other parent and his posterity, is not the same as it was between Adam and us all, so that these things are sophistically jumbled together. There is indeed an analogy between Adam and his posterity on the one hand, and Christ with believers on the other; and never was there, nor shall there be the like relation between any else. For these two individual persons were appointed of God to be the heads of the two covenants, and representatives of the foederates as to the ends of the covenants. Hence the whole evil of the one, and the good of the other, as they were, and as far as they were, heads of the covenants are imputed to them who derive from them in their respective covenants. But after the first sin Adam ceased to be a head to his posterity, as to the good or evil of that covenant, which was now broken and disannulled. Neither was he nor any of his posterity ever after restored or assumed into the same state and condition. It is therefore highly vain to confound the consideration of our concernment in what Adam did as he was the head of the covenant, with what he afterwards did, and other intervenient progenitors might do. All this our Apostle confirms at large (Romans 5). (7.) Abraham was taken into a new administration of the covenant with new promises and seals. But he neither was nor could be made the head and representative of that covenant whereinto he was taken, otherwise than typically. Hence his moral good or evil could not be reckoned to his posterity in covenant. But yet he was made the head and spring of the administration of its outward privileges; and this so far as his trust extended, was imputed to his posterity, as in the case of circumcision. Therefore seeing what he did to Melchisedec belonged to the administration of the covenant committed to him, Levi is rightly said to have done it in him also. And so these things do mutually illustrate one another. But to deny that we were all in Adam as the head of the first covenant, that we sinned in him, that the sin which we in any sense have sinned is imputed to us, is not to dispute with us, but expressly to contradict the Holy Ghost.

But we may take some observations from these words: As,

1. They who receive tithes of others for their work in holy administrations, are thereby proved to be superior to them of whom they do receive them. They are given to them among other ends as an acknowledgment of their dignity. So it was when they were paid of old by God's institution; and so it would be still, if they might be paid or received in a due manner with respect to the labor of any in Gospel administrations. But whereas not one among thousands does give or pay them on any other ground but because they must do so whether they will or no; nor would do so any more were it not for the coercive enforcing power of humane laws: if they on the other side that do receive them, do look on them not as a free pledge of the people's respect and the honor that they bear to them, but as their own right and due by law, they are a testimony neither of the people's obedience, nor of the ministers' dignity, but only of the extreme disorder of all things in religion.

2. It is of great concernment to us, what covenant we do belong to, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representatives in our name. There were never absolutely any more than two covenants wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned. The first was the Covenant of Works made with Adam and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed to us as if we had done it (Romans 5:12). The other is that of grace made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lies the life and hope of our souls, that what Christ did as the head of that covenant as our representative, it is all imputed to us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance to us than to know whether of these covenants we belong to; we are also some way concerned in them, by whom that one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed to us. For before we make our own personal voluntary choice, we are by the law of our natures, and of the covenant itself enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And from there it is that in the severest temporal judgments children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet oft-times partake of the punishment they have deserved, being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings on the other hand are they partakers of, who are included in the covenant of those parents, who are interested in the Covenant of Grace. For such parents succeed in the room of Abraham every one of them. And what Abraham did as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place, and therefore had the seal of the covenant given to them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace has not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.