Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of resort-a most desirable asylum to him, while in his pilgrimage state in that country. Yet every thing bespeaks him a perfect stranger to Jerusalem. No name it was ever known by, is ever mentioned by him. On the contrary we find him frequently confederating with the Canaanites for his own convenience and safety. He takes up his abode with these sinners, lives, and dies, and is buried among them. He never attends on the priesthood of Melchisedec, nor carries a lamb to be offered on his altar, but continues to execute the office of a priest in his own family; and that too, by express direction from God. All this could not have been, if God had established a high-priesthood there, and that upon better promises than the priesthood of Aaron.

5. If such a distinguished priesthood, as this of Melchisedec is represented to be by the apostle, was set up there, then God must have had a visible church established among those reprobated Canaanites. No people of a better sort had inhabited this land before the Canaanites, for they gave name to the country. But was this high-priest over these idolators? No, there must have been a visible people of God there also. But where are they-what became of them? Melchisedec himself is not mentioned among the catalogue of worthies in the eleventh chapter of this epistle to the Hebrews.

6. What must decide this point was the extraordinary direction of God to Abraham concerning the sacrificing of his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. This mountian was in the midst of Jerusalem. It was the very spot, where the temple of Solomon was afterwards built. The time, when Abraham was called to this trying action, was more than forty years after Melchisedec met him, inasmuch as this occurred before the brith of Ishmael. Yet it is evident that the country was still an uninhabited wilderness. The name of Jerusalem was unknown. The country was called the land of Moriah (Gen. xxii. 2.) It

was designated by its mountains, as uninhabited countries generally are. The transaction was in a thicket, for in that the ram was caught by his horns. We must conclude from these considerations that there was no such city, as Jerusalem, existing in name or thing, when Melchisedec met Abraham; and therefore, no such highpriest and king, as Melchisedec reigning there at that time.

We now proceed more at large to show that Melchisedec was not a mere man; but was that Divine Augel, who so often appeared to the arcient patriarchs; and whom they wor shipped as the living and true God.

The first thing, which falls under our notice, is the name by which this extraordinary person is known. Moses saith that Melchisedec, king of Salem, met Abraham. The apostle gives us the real meaning of the words of Moses. He informs us that they meant not his proper name and place of abode, but his character and the quality of his office. The apostle could have no conceivable design by his interpretation, unless it was to lead his hearers to a just conception of his character. And he makes this use of it afterwards; for he labors to prove him to be in an eminent degree, a king of righteousness, and a king of peace. The instance before us is exactly similar to that, where the Evangelist interpreted the word Immanuel, as mentioned by the Prophet Isaiah, (vii. 14,) "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bare a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Here the word is used as the child's name; but the Evangelist saith that Immanuel, being interpreted, is "God with us." In the same manner the apostle interprets this name, and informs us that it was the "king of righteousness," and the "king of peace," which met Abraham and blessed him; and we have no license from the Scriptures to put any other sense upon these words. Now bad these words been translated thus in our Bibles-" the king of righteousness and peace met Abraham and

blessed him," should we have had any doubt who was intended by this character?

2. The character given to this person by the apostle perfectly agrees to that of a divine person. He has not given a trait in it, but what is of a divine stamp. He is without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; and he adds that it "is witnessed that he liveth," two thousand years after his meeting with Abraham-that he is superior to the priests of Aaron, because they die.

Now whatever were the apostles ideas concerning the real character of this person, yet all must grant that he designedly drew a divine character, such an one as he knew could apply to no being but the Deity: and the question is-had he any right so to do, if this person was a mere man? If St. Paul had this right, had not every sacred writer the same right? If so, we have no evidence that there is a single character in the Scriptures, neither of God, nor of his creatures, which bears any more resemblance to the real life, than this one drawn by the apostle of Melchisedec has to a sinful mortal. This would lead us at once into total scepticism, and pave the way to downright infidelity.

But the plea is, it was so drawn that he might be a more perfect type of Christ. The question still remains, "is it truth?" If not, it cannot belong to the Scriptures of truth. Suppose Moses had said that the brethren of Joseph did actually murder him; and that God raised him from the dead, and then sent him down to Egypt. He would have been a more perfect type of Christ; but would the statement have been a true one, and would Moses have been justified in making it? The supposition is altogether inadmissible.

The professed design of his long epistle to the Hebrews was to break them off from their deep-rooted, and fatal error, respecting their legal ceremonies. They believed that the blood of bulls and goats could take

away sin, and that the sprinkling of the sons of Aaron could cleanse from guilt. On this ground they despised the only sufficient attonement of the Son of God. Did the Apostle expect to relieve his brethren from this fatal mistake by proving that the priesthood and sacrifice of the Son of God was just such, as the priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedec, if the latter was a mere man? If so his priesthood and sacrifices were in no sence superior to those of Aaron. He could be no other than the son of apostate Adam, a sinful worm of the dust offering sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people. His sacrifices could be no better than slain beasts; and as to an everlasting priesthood, his must be far inferior to the order of Aaron's for it was in the hands of a man who could have no successor, and therefore in the space of one short life, it must become extinct. Yet the Apostle holds up to view the priesthood of the Son of God, as a priesthood of the same order as this of Melchisedec, as to its duration. He repeats it to his Jewish brethren not less than five or six times in this epistle, as if it were a subject worthy their highest attention; and tells them that the priesthood of Christ is of the similitude (or likeness) as that of Melchisedec, as to its efficacy and perpetuity; that is not after the order of a carnal commandment, but after the order of an endless life. Had this Melchisedec been a mere man, there was no argument, which the Apostle could have used, that would have so effectually confirmed the Jews in their unhappy prejudice against the atonement of Christ; for his atonement is the same as was made long before by a sinful man. Had they admitted the reasoning of the Apostle, they must have been assured that the priesthood of Aaron's order was far superior to that of the Son of God. But the Apostle seems to have had no such idea of this Melchisedec, of whom he was speaking. He gives us to understand that Melchisedec

was not the proper name of any person, but that being interpreted (that is, the true import of it being explained) it meant the King of Righteousness; and that by the king of Salem, is meant the King of Peace, and not the king of any particular territory. If we admit the Apostle's interpretation of these words, then we must read, and understand them in this light; for he has assured us that it was the true and real meaning of the Holy Spirit, that the King of Righteousness and King of Peace met Abraham and blessed him. This character and office can apply only to the Divine Mediator, and necessarily points him out, as the person intended by Melchisidec.

3. The conduct of Abraham, after his meeting with Melchisedec, is an unquestionable evidence, that he did not view him as appointed from among men to officiate in the office of High Priest upon earth, during the days of Abraham. Though Abraham recognized him as God's High Priest, yet after that, he continued through his whole life, to offer his own sacrifices on altars of his own building. This was the practice not only of Abraham, but of all the Patriarchs from the days of Noah, till the Levitical Priesthood was established. This kind of family priesthood was also by divine appointment. Abraham officiated as a priest by express direction from God, (Genesis, xv. 7-11, and xxii. 2.) To what end could such a priesthood, as the supposed one of Melchisedec, be appointed, when He had commanded his people to peform the office of priest in their own families? Their doing so would be in direct violation of such an institution, and must render it a mere nullity. It is easy to see what must have been the fate of the Levitical priesthood had all Israel been ordered by God to offer their own sacrifices at their own dwellings. This one consideration must go far to prove that no such priesthood was appointed of God among men in the days of Abraham.

4. If such a priesthood was established, it was among the Canaanites; a supposition too improbable to be admitted. They were a people reprobated of God, their country had been taken from them for their abominations, and given to another nation, and the inhabitants were doomed to be utterly extirpated. God had beretofore chosen Shem as his visible people, and had said that Canaan should be his servant. Did the Divine promises come so soon to this? Did the God of Shem so soon forsake him, and return to the people of his curse, put his name there, constitute a priesthood, a high-priesthood among these excommunicants from his favor, and order Shem to pay tithes to them? Such a supposition would be tantamount to charging the God of Shem with a breach of covenant. We have then no licence to believe that any such priesthood was or could be established among men by Divine appointment, at Jerusalem, or in any other place within the territory of that reprobated people.

We now proceed to adduce more positive evidence that this Melchisedec was a Divine person.

1. The Apostle affirms that this person was alive in his day, and appeals to witnesses in confirmation of his words. "And here men, that die receive tithes, but there he received them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." It is on this very argument he founds his assertion that the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior to that of Aaron, for the priests of Aaron die, but he, who received tithes of Abraham, liveth. This testimony of the Apostle cas mean nothing else but a full and posi tive assertion that this Melchisedec, who met Abraham, was living in the Apostle's day,which could not be true if he were a mere man. This declaration is sufficient of itself to prove Melchisedec to be a Divine person, were there no corroborating testimony to support it.

II. It is witnessed of this King of righteousness and peace that he was

Malachi, charged with robbing God (Mal. iii. 8,) when they withheld their tithes. God says in Numbers xviii. 20, to Aaron, "thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shall thou have any part among them I am thy part and thy inheritance among the children of Israel; and behold I have given the Levites all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance.” God himself maintained the Levites out of that, which was a sacred reserve of his, which no creature had the least claim to. If Melchisedec then received tithes of Abraham, he took that, which absolutely belonged to God, and therefore he was in truth the living and true God. Otherwise he must have robbed God of his sacred due, unless God had made a grant of these tithes to Melchisedec, as he did afterwards to the Levites. But if this be granted, then his receiving tithes was no evidence of his greatness and superiority to Abraham. God granted a part of the tithes to the poor of the land; but this was not because they were greater than Abraham, but because they were poor and needy. The Apostle however brings this instance of paying tithes to Melchisedec, as an evidence of the dignity of this person. "Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils ;" and again, "as I may so say, Levi also who received tithes, payed tithes in Abraham" &c. This extraordinary priest must have received these tithes in his own inher

a far greater character than Abraham. "Now consider," saith the Apostle, "how great this man was, unto whom Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils, and who blessed Abraham; and without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better." By better, we must here understand that God had bestowed greater blessings on him, and had made unto him better promises, and had given to him greater rights; otherwise there could be no propriety in' saying that he blessed him, who received the promises, unless Abraham was the less with all the blessings and promises bestowed on him by his Maker. Yet God had made Abraham the father of all the redeemed to the end of the world-he had promised him that his natural seed should become as the stars of heaven and as the sand of the sea for multitude, and should be his chosen people forever, and that his covenant with them should not be broken, while the sun and moon should endure. He had also given to him and his seed all that land, which Melchisedec himself (on the supposition that he was a mere man) possessed; and to crown all his other blessings, he had promised that the Saviour of the world should be of his offspring. Now from all things it is beyond dispute that Abraham was the greatest character on earth, the highest favourite of God, and had received more precious promises, than could be granted to any other person in the world. The bare mentioning such a character as being the less, bespeaks the bet-ent right, or else it could be no more ter to be Divine.

III. It is also said of Melchisedec that he received tithes of Abraham. But tithes were due only to God. No creature had any more right to pay tithes to a mere man, than he had to pay divine adoration to him, neither has any creature any more right to receive tithes of any person, than to receive worship from him. God expressly declares that the tithes are his, that they do not belong to man, (Levit. xxvii. 30.) Therefore the children of Israel were by the prophet Vol. 3.-No. X.

66

proof of his greatness than it was of his indigence. But if he received these tithes as his own proper due, as he evidently did, then he received that, which was due to God and to no other, and of course claimed to be a Divine person.

IV. What next demands our attention is the order of this priesthood, by which is to be understood its form, construction, or what it effects and how long it continues in force.

1. It is an everlasting priesthood. The Apostle says, that this Melchise

dec abideth a priest continually. This could not be, even were he immortal, unless his priesthood was everlasting also. To this David bears witness in the 110th Psalm, and his words are quoted by the Apostle to prove the perpetuity of the priesthood of the Son of God, (Heb. vi. 20.) 2. The order of this priesthood was such, as admitted of but one priest, who was as endless in his duration and office, as the priesthood was. This is evident from what has just been said, and further it is said that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life." These passages of scripture furnish sufficient evidence that this priesthood admits of no succession, but is ever administered by the same immortal priest.

3. This priesthood is of an order, that hath perfection, that is, it can make complete atonement for sin. In this respect, it is contrasted with the priesthood of Aaron, which had not perfection." If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law,) what need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron ?" (Heb. vii. 11.) The sum of the Apostle's reasoning here is this the priesthood of Aa ron was so faulty, as to render it necessary that there should be another priesthood, such an one as that of Melchisedec, introduced to supply its defects; and this is that of the Son of God, who supplies the place of Melchisedec, and administers a priest hood of the same efficacy as his was.' This is attaching to the priesthood of Melchisedec all the perfection of that of Christ, for he assures us that it is of the same order.

It is worthy of remark also that in this comparison of priesthood, if it may be called a comparison, there is not a syllable, in which the priesthood of the Divine Redemer is placed in any degree above that of Melchisedec. They are kept on a perfect equality, till they are terminated in one standing on better promises than the priesthood of Aaron's

order. "For now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises; for if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place had been found for the second." (Heb. viii. 6, 7.) But how could this priesthood, which is of the same order as Melchisedec's, be founded on better promises than that of Aaron, if Melchisedec was but a man? How could it be faultless if like the priesthood of Aaron, its offerings for sin were to be but the blood of bulls and goats? Moreover, if the priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Christ were distinct, why is the priesthood of Aaron constantly called by the Apostle, the first, and that of Christ the second? This could not be true. Melchisedec's was the first, Aaron's the second, and Christ's the third.

After having in the beginning of his epistle drawn, in the most exalted language, the character of the Son of God, the Apostle attempts to prove that the promised Messiah is a Divine person-the only high priest of God, and that his sacrifices, and his alone, are sufficient to take away sin. He proceeds to prove this from the scriptures, and shews them that David in the Spirit acknowledged him to be the Lord he worshipped, and the everlasting priest of the Most High. And because the Jews had gone into the same error, respecting Melchisedec, to whom he was likened, which exists at the present day, he goes on to show who he is. He shows them from the scriptures, that he is an everlasting priest, that he was greater than Abraham &c. as has been pointed out in the preceeding pages. When we consider the almost idolatrous estimation, in which Abraham was held by the Jews, the last mentioned argument must have had great weight with them.

One or two objections have been often urged against the assertion that by Melchisedec is meant a divine person; and now demand our attention.

The first is that the priesthood of Christ is said to be after the order

« AnteriorContinuar »