A Vindication, Part 7
The next Scripture produced by me to prove Chriſt's Deity by, was Heb. 7. 3. Without father, without mother, without deſcent, having neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life, made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Prieſt continually. Chriſt is here reſembled to Melchiſedech, in reference to eternity. But what anſwer makes he to this text! Truly it is an impotent, lame, and poor anſwer.
Was Melchiſedech (ſaith he) eternall? if ſo, then he was God, but he was neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghoſt; I hope you will not allow a quaternity of perſons in unity of eſſence; and therefore will allow the words to be taken in a figurative ſenſe; Melchiſedech was without beginning of dayes, and end of life, in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death in the Hiſtory of Moſes, or eſpecially in reference to his Prieſthood; the time of it's beginning or ending, being not certainly known. So our High Prieſt Jeſus Chriſt is without beginning of dayes, or end of life
Repl. This anſwer is too light and frothy in a ſubject ſo ſerious; It was not mine intent or deſigne, (and he knows it very well) to make Melchiſedech God, nor any of the perſons of the Godhead, nor yet to make a quaternity of perſons, but to make Chriſt God, to whom that in truth belongs, which in type only, and in a figure, myſtically is attributed to Melchiſedech. Moſes and David ſpeak of Melchiſedech, as if he had been one who had glided down out of heaven, and come from above, and had again ſoon after conveyed himſelf thither; for there is not any mention at all made of his birth, or death, of his father, or mother, or kindred, or when he became Prieſt, nor when he laid down his Prieſthood. And the Apoſtle ſaw the myſterie in it, and that it behoved him ſo to be deſcribed, and ſet out, that he might be a Type of Chriſt, both of his Perſon, and Prieſthood. And therefore when he makes uſe of him as a Type to ſet out Chriſt by, he deſcribes him to be without father, and ſo was Chriſt as he was man; and without mother, and ſo was Chriſt as he was God, having no beginning of dayes, nor end of life; nor had Chriſt (according to his divine Nature conſidered) either beginning, or end of dayes; but acording to his humane, he had both, and both of them deſcribed, and well known by all that are verſed in Scripture-ſtory; and the Apoſtle knowing theſe things, in expreſſe words makes Melchiſedech the Type of him, diſcerning, that the Holy Ghoſt (in concealing theſe things of him) had made him ſo, and intended him to be ſo, as theſe words import, Made like unto the Son of God, for he is deſcribed (ſaith Beza) as if he had neither been mortall man, nor had been born of a mortall woman; which becauſe it could by no means agree with any meer man born of men; therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, that he is peculiarly the figure of that one only begotten Son of God, and that it was ſo intended by the Holy Ghoſt.
Now then the ſtrength of the Argument fetch'd from this Scripture, lies here, Firſt, Melchiſedech is a Type of Chriſt; that is without controverſie. Secondly, He is a Type in theſe things mentioned of him, Without father, without mother, without beginning of dayes, and end of time. Otherwiſe in vain doth the Apoſtle mention theſe things of Melchiſedech, but as a type; for in truth, it was not ſo of Melchiſedech. And it appears by the ſcope of the Apoſtle, which was to interpret the words of David, A Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedech; therefore it was neceſſary for him to ſet forth what Melchiſedech was in his perſon, and in his office; and in his perſon he was foreign, &c. Without father, without mother, not in truth; but they are not mentioned, and ſo it is, as if it had been ſo, and that in type he might be ſo, and therein reſemble the Son of God, that in truth was ſo. Thirdly, Melchiſedech (being only a type in theſe things of Chriſt) it was not neceſſary that he ſhould be ſuch in truth, but only in a figure, myſtically, as indeed he was not; but it was neceſſary, that Chriſt ſhould be ſo in truth, being the Anti-type, that is, being the ſubſtance of that which Melchiſedech was but a ſhadow of; therefore in John 1. 17. it is ſaid, that the law was given by Moſes, but grace and truth came by Jeſus Chriſt. That is, there were many ſhadows in the law of Moſes, but Chriſt came and fulfilled them, and was the truth of them. We read of David, that he ſaid of himſelfe, They pierced my hands and my feet, they gave me vineger and gall to drink; which really were not done to David, but myſtically, and in a figure, as David was the type of Chriſt; but theſe things were really done to Chriſt, and in truth were fulfilled in Chriſt. So the bloud of buls and calves and of ſuch beaſts which were ſacrificed, and offered, they took away ſin, cleanſed away the guilt, and brought pardon, and purged the conſcience, and brought peace; but none of theſe did ſo in truth, but myſtically, in type only, as they ſhadowed out, and pointed at the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and at his bloud: but the bloud of Chriſt really and in truth did take away ſin, did clenſe the conſcience, did bring remiſſion & peace, Heb. 9. 9, 12, 13, 14. More inſtances might be given, but indeed there is evidence enough in the very nature of a type, and antitype. There is a myſtery in the type, and there is the impletion or fulfilling of the myſtery in the Antitype, or the thing of the myſtery, is to be ſeen in the Antitype. But enough of this, unleſs he had ſaid more to impugne it.