A continuation of the exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the…

Considering these Difficulties in the Application of these particulars, some do judge that these Instances do not belong unto the Analogy and Resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek, but are introduced only in Order unto what ensues, namely, He abides a Priest for ever, wherein alone the similitude between him and Christ doth consist. And so they say we find things quoted in the Scripture at large, when only some one passage in it, may be used directly unto the business in hand. But although this will be difficultly proved, namely, that any Testimony is cited in the Scripture, whereof any principal part of it belongs not unto the Matter designed to be confirmed, yet it may be granted that it is so sometimes, when the sense of the whole Context is to be taken in. But there was no Reason on this Ground, that the Apostle should make so many Observations on what was not spoken at all, which in an Ordinary way ought to have been mentioned, if the whole of what he so Observed, was not at all to his Purpose.

Considering these Difficulties in the Application of these particulars, some do judge that these Instances do not belong unto the Analogy and Resemblance between Christ and Melchisedec, but are introduced only in Order unto what ensues, namely, He abides a Priest for ever, wherein alone the similitude between him and Christ doth consist. And so they say we find things quoted in the Scripture at large, when only some one passage in it, may be used directly unto the business in hand. But although this will be difficultly proved, namely, that any Testimony is cited in the Scripture, whereof any principal part of it belongs not unto the Matter designed to be confirmed, yet it may be granted that it is so sometimes, when the sence of the whole Context is to be taken in. But there was no Reason on this Ground, that the Apostle should make so many Observations on what was not spoken at all, which in an Ordinary way ought to have been mentioned, if the whole of what he so Observed, was not at all to his Purpose.

Wherefore it must be granted, as that which the plain Design of the Apostle exacteth of us, that Melchizedek even in these things, that in the Story he was without Father, without Mother, without Genealogy, having neither beginning of Days nor End of Life, was a Type and Representative of Christ. But it is not of the Person of Christ absolutely, nor of either of his Natures distinctly that our Apostle treateth, but merely with respect unto his Office of Priesthood. And herein all the things mentioned do concur in him, and make a lively Representation of him. It was utterly a new Doctrine unto the Hebrews that the Lord Christ was a Priest, the only High Priest of the Church, so as that all other Priesthood must cease. And their chief Objection against it was, that it was contrary unto the Law, and inconsistent with it. And this because he was not of the Line of the Priests, 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 unto his Office. And this was for ever sufficient to exclude him from any Interest in the Priesthood as it was Established by Law. (2.) He had no Genealogy upon the Priestly Line. And that which is Recorded of him on other accounts, is so far from having respect unto his Right unto the Priesthood of the Law, that it directly proves and demonstrates that he had none. For his Genealogy is evidently of the Tribe of Judah, which was excluded Legally from that Office, as we have besides the Institution an Instance in King Uzziah,