all the Old-Teftament fcriptures formerly cited * as containing the doctrines of the Meffiah's divine nature, fubordinate office as Mediator, and future incarnation.

VI. In confidering the hints or obscure intimations of the Meffiah's offices, and particularly of his priesthood, in the books of Mofes, it is of special importance to make fome remarks on what Mofes fays about the priesthood of Melchifedek, compared with what is faid of the fame extraordinary person in Pfal. cx.

1. It deferves particular confideration, that Melchifedek is the first perfon in all the fcripture that is called a priest. Though offering facrifice, which was a chief part of the priestly office, is mentioned as a chief part of religious worship long before the times of Mofes; yet that facred action was performed by every head of a family that worshipped God; and we read even of its being done by a younger fon of the family of Adam himself, viz. Abel. Melchifedek is the first person who is reprefented as invested, in a peculiar and diftinguishing manner, with the office of priesthood.

2. By the manner in which Mofes fpeaks of this. extraordinary perfon, he feems to have been the prieft, not merely of any particular nation, or religious fociety, but of all the people of God of all nations. He is reprefented as, in effect, the priest of the whole world. Though Abraham does not feem to have had any relation to him, but what must have been common to all the worshippers of the true God, he pays tithes to him, receives his bleffing, and thus expreffes a fingular regard to hini as his fpiritual fuperior.

3. Seeing, in every other refpect, Mofes reprefents Abraham as the most eminent perfon among the worshippers of the true God, and the most dif

Chap. III. of this Essay.

tinguished

tinguished favourite of heaven on earth; when, notwithstanding all this, he exalts another perfon, whom he calls the priest of the most high God, above Abraham, and confequently above the Levitical priefts, his offspring, it is evident, that in this Mofes does a thing exceeding oppofite to the natural prejudices of a Jewish writer: for what could be more opposite to thofe prejudices, than to give fuch a preference to any priest belonging to any nation of the Gentiles, especially to any nation of Canaan? There is ground to think, that it was one of the chief aggravations of the fins of the Canaanites, that they mifimproved the miniftrations and inftructions of that extraordinary perfon.

4. As they who look on Mofes only as a human writer can never account for this preference; fo, in confidering him as an infpired writer, it cannot be accounted for, otherwife than by fuppofing fome mystery in it, that was to be unfolded in due time, by fubfequent clearer revelation. As it was obferved formerly, that it is fuitable to the best rules of interpretation, to fuppofe, that extraordinary expreffions have fome extraordinary meaning and defign, the fingular and extraordinary things faid of Melchifedek had a natural tendency to excite the inquiries of the ancient church of God concerning the defign of them, and to awaken their attention to any posterior revelation that might unriddle them. If their obfcurity appeared impenetrable without the help of fuch fubfequent explication, fuch help is afforded, in fome meafure, in the cxth pfalm, which was in part proved before, and will afterwards more fully be proved, to be meant of the Meffiah. In that pfalm, it is faid, that the Meffiah fhould be a prieft for ever after the order of Melchifedek, or resembling Melchifedek; for the word there rendered order fignifies alfo difpofition or condition, and does not at all denote, that a number of different perfons fhould be invested with that

kind of priesthood. The fitnefs of Melchifedek to typify the Meffiah, particularly in his priestly office, is infifted on at large in the reafonings in the epistle to the Hebrews, thewing, that Pfal. cx. compared with Gen. xiv. 18. &c. prove, that the Mef. fiah, though not of the tribe of Levi, was to be a priest, a priest far fuperior to the Levitical priests, a priest and a king, the king of righteoufnefs, and of peace.

But what is moft directly fubfervient to the particular defign of this chapter, is the very obfcurity of the paffage in Gen. xiv. concerning this extraordinary priest of the most high God, compared with the illuftration given of it in Pfal. cx. as pointing to the Meffiah. It is of confiderable importance to obferve the two following native deductions from thefe two fcriptures. 1ft, That it is not merely the New Teftament, but alfo the Old, that affirms, that fome obfcure things in the most ancient revelations given to the church were defigned to typify the Meffiah. 2dly, That fome things in the more ancient revelations were, for wife and holy ends, defigned to be left under a greater vail of obfcurity, till new light was thrown on them by fubfequent explications; as the scope of the paffage in Mofes, Gen. xiv. muft have continued very obfcure, (abftracting from other extraordinary means of interpretation), until it was illuftrated by David's predictions in the pfalm that fpeaks of the fame extraordinary perfon.

VII. The remarks made on the paffages relating to the priesthood of Melchifedek are of confiderable ufe in proving, from the Old Teftament itself, that the Levitical priesthood was typical of that of the Meffiah. To fet this in its due light, it is proper to confider the following things.

It has been oft and justly obferved, that as facrifices anciently prevailed through all nations, it is not poffible to account for the origin of that kind

of worship, otherwife than by deriving it from divine inftitution; and that no other reasonable end of it can be affigned, but familiarizing to mens thoughts the notion of vicarious punishment of fin, for the honour of the divine law and juftice, in the remifiion granted to finners.

Once fuppofing the divine inftitution of facrifices, it naturally implies this important doctrine, That though repentance is abfolutely neceffary, fo that none may expect pardon without it; yet it is not fufficient: it cannot make atonement for fin; it cannot expiate guilt already contracted; though, fo far as it goes, it prevents the increase of guilt for the future.

Whereas making atonement for fin is the effect afcribed to propitiatory facrifices, there are only two conceivable meanings of the many expreffions which afcribe fo great an effect to fo low a cause as the death of brutes: 1. The grofs Jewish meaning, That the Levitical facrifices were appointed by God to produce that effect, properly and really by themfelves, without any view to a more excellent facrifice reprefented by them. 2. That they made atonement only typically, as representing and applying the adequate facrifice of the Meffiah. All the arguments that refute the first of these interpretations eftablish the fecond.

Various arguments against the firft, and in favour of the fecond, may be drawn, not only from the general rules of interpretation, but more particuTarly from the rules of interpreting expreffions abour ceremonial inflitutions, from fome of the chief branches of the laws about Levitical fervice, compared with the predictions of the future abolition of it, and the prophetic doctrine about the nature and extenfive efficacy of the Meffiah's priefthood, as alfo from the principles of juft reafoning about final caufes applied to the scope of the ceremonial law,

No

No doubt, had it been faid exprefsly in the books of Mofes, that the Levitical priesthood was defigned to typify that of the Meffiah, the Old-Teftament proofs of the gospel-doctrine on that head had been tronger but here, as in many other cafes, it is ufeful to have in view the remarks formerly made on the evidence of natural as well as revealed religion; particularly, that, for wife and good ends, it is not of that irresistible kind that will take place at the last day, forcing the affent of the most perverse and inconfiderate; but abundantly fufficient to found obligation to attention and affent, and to convince the fincere and unbiaffed inquirer.

1. It is one of the most evident principles of reafoning, about the meaning of words, efpecially thofe of an intelligent writer, That when any kind of expreffions are, in themselves, capable of two different meanings; if one of these meanings is evidently abfurd, unfuitable to the author's character, and inconfiftent with his fcheme of principles, that meaning must be rejected; and the other, which is not liable to fuch exceptions, must be admitted as the true meaning. The grofs interpretation of the fcripture-expreffions about the atoning efficacy of the Levitical facrifices, is liable to all the chief exceptions that prove an interpretation to be falfe : It is in itfelf highly abfurd; unfuitable to the pérfections of God, reprefented as the author of those inftitutions; unfuitable to the doctrine of Mofes concerning thofe perfections, and to the character of Mofes himself, confidered merely as an author who gives proof of his fingular knowledge in natural theology.

It is highly abfurd in itfelf; because it afcribes fo great an effect as real and proper atonement for fin, to fo low a caufe as the death of brutes *. Making atonement for fin, when understood not figurative

* See Heb. ix. 10.

L12

ly,