3. Seeing Christ himself had no right to minister at the material altar, the re-introduction of such altars is inconsistent with the perpetual continuance of the priesthood.

VERSE 14.

கர்

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

$1. The evidence of our Lord's descent from Judah. §2. 3. The other part of the words explained. §4. Observations.

§1. THE word (xрodyλov) evident, seems to intimate what was manifest beforehand; and this may not only respect, but be confined to the preceding promises and declarations, that the Messiah should be of the tribe of Judah and of the family of David. And thus it was manifest to them beforehand. For to Judah the promise was solemnly confined, Gen. xlix, 8-10; and frequently reiterated to David. And none of the unbelieving Jews made use of this objection, "that he was not of the tribe of Judah," which, if they could have managed, had absolutely justified them in their unbelief.

It was in those days manifest by his known genealogy; for by the providence of God his parents were publicly enrolled of the family of David, in consequence of the tax appointed by Augustus Caesar, Luke ii, 4. And this was yet made more famous by the cruelty of Herod, seeking his destruction among the children of Bethlehem, Matt. ii. The alliance between the blessed Virgin and Elizabeth was doubtless by an antecedent intermarriage of the tribes of Judah and Levi, as Elizabeth's mother might be sister to the father or grandfather of the holy Virgin. And this was not only lawful between the tribes of Judah and

Levi, or the regal and sacerdotal families, whence Jehoshabeath, the wife of Jehoidah, was the daughter of Jehoram the king, 2 Chron. xxii, 11, as some have imagined; but such marriages were usual and lawful among all other tribes, where women had no inheritance of land, which was expressly provided against by a particular law, And this very law of exception sufficiently proves the liberty of all others. Both the express limitation of the law to those who possessed inheritances, and the reason of it for the preservation of the lots of each tribe entire, as Num. xxxvi, 3, 4, 8, manifest, that all other were at liberty to marry any Israelite, be he of what tribe soever. And thus the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, one by a legal, the other by a natural line, were both of them from the tribe of Judah, and family of David.

§2. (Avalelaλne,) he sprang; the word (avaleλhw) is usually taken in an active sense, to cause to rise; (Matt. V, 45, Tov yλiov avls avalɛλhɛi) he causeth his sun to rise; and some think it peculiarly denotes the rising of the sun, in distinction from the other planets. Hence (avaloan) the east, from the rising of the sun. So the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is called "the rising of the sun of righteousness" with healing in his wings; Mal. iv, 2, who is (avaloλn e v↓es, Luke i, 78,) “The day-spring from on high;" a "light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.”

§3. (Eis my Quany, i, e. de qua tribu) with reference to which tribe, Moses, as the law-giver, when the office of the priesthood was instituted in the church, and confirmed by special law or ordinance, spake nothing; for as the first institution of it was directly confined to the tribe of Levi, and house of Aaron, so there is not in all the law of Moses the least intimation, that, on any occasion, it should be translated to the tribe of

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. $5. (III) The illustration of the argument. $6. (IV.) The confirmation of the whole. $7–9. (V.) Observations.

$1. THAT

HAT 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:

འ།

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 (x) 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, manifestum) 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 () 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.

$3. (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 apos tle in this place is not to demonstrate the dignity and eminency of the priesthood of Christ from that of Mel. chisedec 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 (Epeus 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 (lepoç) stranger, may be admitted into that office; much more, if it were neces sary that it should be so. For the law of the priesthood took care of nothing more than that no stranger,