Judah. Nor was it possible without the alteration and abolition of the whole law; for the whole instituted worship of God was to cease, rather than any one of that tribe should officiate in the office of the priesthood. Whatever is not revealed and appointed in the worship of God, by God himself, is to be considered as nothing; yea, as that which is to be rejected.

$4. From the whole observe:

1. It pleaseth God to give sufficient evidence to the accomplishment of his promise; and,

2. Divine revelation gives bounds, positively and negatively, to the worship of God.

VERSES 15--17.

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

$1. The introduction and subject stated. §2. (1.) The manner of introducing the argument. 3, 4. (II) The argument itself. 65. (III) The illustration of the argument. $6. (IV.) The confirmation of the whole. $7—9. (V.) Observations.

§1., THAT the Aaronical priesthood was to be changed, and consequently the whole law of ordinances that depended thereon; and that the time wherein this change was to be made was now come, is that which is here recapitulated and confirmed. And there are four things to be considered in these words:

1. The manner of introducing this new argument; "and it is yet far more evident."

2. The medium or argument itself; "There was another priest to arise after the similitude of Melchisedec,"

3. The illustration of this argument; "who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."

4. The confirmation of the whole with the testimony of David; "For he testifieth, thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

§2. (I.) "And it is yet far more evident." The conjunctive particle (na) and, connects this consideration with that foregoing, as of the same nature and tendency. The thing spoken of is said to be (naladyλov) yet more open and convincingly evident. Hence he adds, that it is (Tεpolepov, magis patet, abundantius, mani festum) of an abundant efficacy for conviction; there is more immediate force in this consideration to prove the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, "That another priest was to arise after the similitude of Melchisedec," than was merely in this, "That our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah."

And therefore he adds (1) yet; that is, above all that hath been collected from the consideration of Melchisedec, there is yet this uncontrolable evidence to our purpose remaining. It may be, we see not why he should insist so much upon, and so narrowly scan, all particulars in this matter. For being freed by the gospel from the power of temptations about it, and being of the Gentiles who were never concerned in it, we cannot be sensible of the just importance of what is under confirmation. The truth is, he hath the greatest argument in hand that was ever controverted in the church of God, and upon the determination of which the salvation or ruin of the church depended. The worship he treated of was immediately instituted by God himself, and had now continued near fifteen hundred years in the church. All this while it had been the certain rule of God's acceptance of the people, or

his anger towards them; for whilst they complied with it, his blessing was continually upon them; and the neglect of it was still punished with severity. And the last caution that God had given them by the ministry of the last prophet he sent to them, was, that they should abide in the observance of the law of Moses, lest he come and smite the whole earth with a curse, Mal. iv. It was therefore very necessary that the apostle should proceed warily, distinctly, and gradually.

$8. (II.) The argument itself is; "if another priest arise after the similitude of Melchisedec." (E) if is generally taken here to be not a conditional, but a causal conjunction. And it is yet far more evident, "if so be" that another priest. As to the argument in general, we must observe, that the design of the apostle in this place is not to demonstrate the dignity and eminency of the priesthood of Christ from that of Melchisedec his type, which he had done before sufficiently; he doth not produce the same words and arguments again to the same purpose; but what he aims at is, to prove from the same testimony, whereby he had proved the dignity of Christ's priesthood, the necessary abolition of the Levitical. Wherefore he doth not insist on the whole of the testimony before pleaded, but only of that one thing of another priest, necessarily included.

§4. The subject spoken of is (ɛpeus elɛpos) another priest; "Another" in this case is a stranger, one that is not of the house or family of Aaron. And nothing can be more evident than that the Levitical priesthood, and the whole law of divine worship, must be taken away, if it appear that any (→ ɛlɛpoç) stranger, may be admitted into that office; much more, if it were necessary that it should be so. For the law of the priesthood took care of nothing more than that no stranger,

that was not of the house of Aaron, should be called to that office. See Exod. xxix, 33, &c. If therefore there must be "another priest," that was not of the lineage of Aaron, the latter is abolished. For whereas God had ordered all things in the scripture concerning Melchisedec, that he might be (ver. 3,) "made like to the Son of God," he is said to arise (nala The opiolla) according to the likeness or similitude of Melchisedec. For every similitude is mutual, one thing is as like to another, as that is to it. This therefore is evident, that there was to be (εlɛpos) another priest; not only (años) merely another, but (anλyevs) one of another stock; and not so much as after the "similitude" of Aaron. Christ rising in his offices puts an end to all other things that pretend usefulness to the same end with them. When, for instance, he arose as a king, he did not put an end to the office and power of kings in the world, but he did to the typical kingdoms over the church, even as he did to the typical priesthood, by rising as the priest of it.

§5. (III.) Who was made, not after the law, &c. This verse contains an illustration and confirmation of the foregoing assertion, by a declaration of the way and manner how this other priest, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come to that office, (is yɛyove) who was made a priest; that is, by the appointment and designation of the Father. For the authority of God alone is the foundation of all office, duty, and power in the church. "Not according to the law of a carnal commandment;" Syriac version, "The law of bodily commandments." It is unquestionable that the apostle by this expression intendeth, in the first place, the law of the Levitical priesthood, or the way and manner whereby the Aaronical priests were first called and vested with their offices; and then any other law, constitution, rule, or order of the same kind. He

was made a priest neither by that law, nor any other like it.

Why doth the apostle call this commandment carnal or fleshly? It may be on either of these three ac

counts:

1. With respect to the sacrifices which were the principal part of the consecration of Aaron to his office. These were the flesh, or the bodies of beasts; as the Syriac reads these words: "The commandment of bodies," that is, of beasts to be sacrificed. In themselves, and their relation to the Jewish state, they reached no farther than the "purifying of the flesh."

2. It may be called "carnal," because that priesthood was to be continued by carnal propagation only, was confined to the carnal seed of Aaron, wherein this other priest had no interest.

3. Respect may be had to the whole system of those laws and institutions of worship, in opposition to the dispensation of the spirit under the gospel and its institutions. None of these ways was the Lord Christ made a priest. He was not dedicated to his office by the sacrifice of beasts; he was not of the carnal seed of Aaron; and no constitution or ordinance of the law conveyed to him either right or title to the priesthood. It is therefore abundantly evident, that he was in no sense made a priest according to the law of a carnal commandment, "but according to the power of an indissoluble life." The (Swn analaλuloç) indissoluble life here intended, is the life of Christ himself. Hereto belonged, or from hence proceeded, that (Suvapis) power, whereby he was made a priest. And both the office itself and the discharge of it are here intended. As to the office itself, this endless life of Christ is his life as the Son of God. Hereon depends his own mediatory life for ever, and his conferring of eternal life on us,