10. It is confessed that this name is sometimes used to signify secondary princes, those of a second rank or degree, but is never once applied unto a chief, supreme prince, or a king, though he that
SECT. 9-11.] THE OFFICE OF PRIESTHOOD. Il
is so was sometimes, by virtue of some special warrant, cohen also. The Jews, therefore, after the Targum, offer violence to the text, Ps. ex. 4, where they would have Melchizedek to be called a cohen be- cause he was a prince. But it is said expressly he was a king, of which rank none is, on the account of his office, ever called cohen; but unto those of a second rank it is sometimes accommodated: 2 Sam. xx. 26, “Ira the Jairite was 1)7? 173,”—“ a chief ruler,” say we, “about David.” A priest he was not, nor could be; for, as Kimchi on the place observes, he is called the “cohen of David,” but a priest was not a priest unto one man, but unto all Israel. So David’s sons are said to be cohanim: 2 Sam. viii. 18, 97 0°75 77 ‘333;—“ And the sons of Dayid were cohanim;” that is, “ princes,” though the Vulgate renders it “sacerdotes.” So also Job xii. 19, we translate it “princes.” And in those places the Targum useth x34, “rabba;” the LXX. sometimes abadpyns, “a principal courtier,” and sometimes suverés, “a counsellor.” It is, then, granted that princes were called 5275, but not properly, but by way of allusion, with respect unto their dignity; for the most ancient dignity was that of the priesthood. And the same name is therefore used metaphorically to express especial dignity: Exod. xix. 6, 079 N22» ‘73"7N;—“ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,’ speaking of the whole people. This Peter renders BaoiAsiov iepérevwa, 1 Pet. i 9,—“ A kingly” (or “yoyal”) “priesthood.” The name of the office is 733, Exod. xl. 15, ispdreuwa, “pontificatus, sacerdotium,” “the priesthood.” Allow- ing, therefore, this application of the word, we may inquire what is __ the first proper signification of it. I say, therefore, that 12, “ cohen,” is properly Sirng, “a sacrificer;” nor is it otherwise to be understood or expounded, unless the abuse of the word be obvious, and a meta- phorical sense necessary.
11. He who is first mentioned as vested with this office is Melchi- zedek : Gen. xiv. 18, joy PN? 112 8\71;“ And he was a priest unto the most high God.” The Targumists make a great difference in ren- dering the word j]2. Where it intends a priest of God properly, they retain it, [2 and x73; where it is applied unto a prince or ruler, they render it by 835, “rabba;” and where an idolatrous priest, by sm. But in this matter of Melchizedek they are peculiar. In this place they use wow, “meshamesh :” aNdy dx ntp wown ximn,— “ And he was a minister before the high God.” And by this word they express the ministry of the priests: Exod. xix. 22, panpt s’2n3 ™» Dip xenw>;—“ The priests who draw nigh to minister before the Lord ;” whereby it is evident that they understood him to be a sacred officer, or a priest unto God. But in Ps. cx. 4, where the same word occurs again to the same purpose, they render it by 82, “a prince,” or great ruler: “Thou art a great ruler like Melchizedek:” which
12 THE OFFICE OF PRIESTHOOD. [EXERC. XXV.
is a part of their open corruption of that psalm, out of a design to apply it unto David; for the author of that Targum lived after they knew full well how the prophecy in that psalm was in our books and by Christians applied unto the Messiah, and how the ceasing of their law and worship was from thence invineibly proved in this Epistle. This made them maliciously pervert the words in their paraphrase, although they durst not violate the sacred text it- self. But the text is plain, “ Melchizedek was cohen to the high God,’—“ a priest,” or one that was called to the office of solemn sacrificing to God; for he that offereth not sacrifices to God is not a priest to him, for this is the principal duty of his office, from which the whole receives denomination. That he offered sacrifices, those of the church of Rome would prove from these words, Gen. xiv. 18, m pnd x’s17 ;—“ He brought forth bread and wine.” But neither the context nor the words will give them countenance herein ; nor if they could prove what they intend would it serve their purpose. Coming forth to meet Abraham (as our apostle expounds this pas- sage, Heb. vii.), he brought forth bread and wine, as a supply for the relief and refreshment of himself and his servants, supposing them weary of their travel. So dealt Barzillai the Gileadite with David and his men in the wilderness, 2 Sam. xvii. 27-29. They brought out necessary provision for them, for they said, “ The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.” And Gideon punished them of Succoth and Penuel for not doing the like, Judges viii. 5-8, 13-17. But the aim of these men is to reflect some coun- tenance on their pretended sacrifice of the mass; which yet is not of bread and wine, for before the offering they suppose them to be quite changed into the substance of flesh and blood. The weakness of this pretence shall be elsewhere more fully declared. At present it may suffice that S"Si7 is no sacred word, or is never used to express the offering of any thing unto God. Besides, if it were an offering he brought forth, it was a 172, or “ meat-offering,” with a 792, or “ drink-offering,” being of bread and wine. Now, this was only an acknowledgment of God the Creator as such, and was not an im- mediate type of the sacrifice of Christ; which was represented by them alone which, being made by blood, included a propitiation in them. But that Melchizedek was by office a sacrificer appears from Abraham’s delivering up unto him 251 YY, Gen. xiv. 20, “the tenth of all;’ that is, as our apostle interprets the place, rév &xpo- Ywiay, “ of the spoils” he had taken. WY is a sacred word, and denotes God’s portion according to the law. So also those who had only the light of nature, and it may be some little fame of what was done in the world of old, whilst God’s institutions were of force among men, did devote and sacrifice the tenth of the spoils they