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

And this Priest was thus to arise after the Order of Melchizedek. So it is expressly affirmed in the Psalms. And here the Apostle takes in the consideration of what he had before Discoursed, concerning the Greatness of Melchizedek. For he designed not only to prove the thing it self, which is sufficiently done in the Testimony out of the Psalmist; but also to Evidence the Advantage and Benefit of the Church by this change. And hereunto the consideration of the Greatness of Melchizedek was singularly subservient, as manifesting the Excellency of that Priesthood by whom the Righteousness of the Church and its Worship was to be consummate.

And this Priest was thus to arise after the Order of Melchisedec. So it is expressely affirmed in the Psalms. And here the Apostle takes in the consideration of what he had before Discoursed, concerning the Greatness of Melchisedec. For he designed not only to prove the thing it self, which is sufficiently done in the Testimony out of the Psalmist; but also to Evidence the Advantage and Benefit of the Church by this change. And hereunto the consideration of the Greatness of Melchisedec was singularly subservient, as manifesting the Excellency of that Priesthood by whom the Righteousness of the Church and its VVorship was to be consummate.

Lastly, The Apostle adds negatively of this other Priest who was to rise by Reason of the weakness of the Levitical Priesthood which could not Perfect the state of the Church, that he was not to be Called after the Order of Aaron.

[Greek or Hebrew], and not to be called after the Order of Aaron, that is in the Psalm where the rising of this Priest is declared and fore-told; there ¹he is said to be, or denominated a Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, and nothing is spoken of the Order of Aaron. [Greek or Hebrew] denotes only an external denomination, not an internal Call. It is not the same with [Greek or Hebrew], used by our Apostle, Chap. 5. 4. [Greek or Hebrew], called of God; that is, by an effectual call and separation unto Office. But it answers [Greek or Hebrew], Chap. 5. 10. Cognominatus, called so by external Denomination. For the real call of Christ unto his Office by him who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, was such as the call of Melchizedek himself could not represent. Wherefore the call of Christ unto his Office and that of Melchizedek are no where compared. But upon the Account of sundry Resemblances insisted on by the Apostle in the first verses of this Chapter, Christ is called by external Denomination a Priest after his Order, and is no where called so after the Order of Aaron. And the Reason why the Apostle addeth this Negative is evident. For it might be said that although another Priest was fore-told to arise, yet this might respect only an extraordinary call unto the same Office, and not a call unto an Office of another Kind or Order. Aaron was called by God immediately and in an extraordinary manner; and all his Posterity came unto the same Office by an ordinary Succession: So God Promiseth to raise up a Priest in a singular manner,