Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

It is with a strange confidence that Mr. Chubb enters on this argument from circumstances; declaring in a very positive manner, as if the reader was to expect nothing less than demonstration, that Melchizedek was the giver of tithes, and that the circumstances do not admit it to be otherwise. But-quid dignum tanto tulit hiatu? What has he produced to support this positive and dogmatical air? He has laid hold of a few trifling circumstances, which, when rightly understood, (and they are very obvious to understand,) are altogether against him: is this becoming a man of sense and candor, and a pro

fessed seeker of truth?

I am ashamed to insist longer on trifles, and nothing should have engaged me to do it, but Mr. Chubb's having seriously urged them as decisive of the point in question. It is time to inform the unlearned reader (for it is such only that can be imposed on by this kind of reasoning) what is the real truth of the case.

It was a practice of very ancient standing to dedicate a tenth part of spoil taken from a conquered enemy, a tenth part of increase by husbandry or commerce, to the service of God, in acknowlegement of his protecting providence. The case before us is the most ancient instance of this sort left on record; and you meet with another instance* not long after, in the history of Jacob. It was not a practice confined to the land of Canaan, and in use only amongst the patriarchs and founders of the Jewish nation, but was observed in most parts of the world. You meet with it amongst the Romans, the Grecians, the Tyrians, the Carthaginians, the Arabians, and in short amongst most of the civilised nations of the old world.†

When therefore we read that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, we are not to suppose it was in gratitude to him, and for his own use and benefit, but in gratitude to God, the giver of victory and success; not under the notion of a personal compliment to Melchizedek, but an act of piety to God, in compliance with the general practice of that age and country.

* Gen. xxviii. 22.

The reader will find this subject considered at large by Seld. de Decimis, and by Spencer de Leg. Heb. lib. 3. and the authors cited by them.

SHERL.

VOL. V.

P

The king of Sodom, when Abraham offered to return his goods, made some difficulty at first in receiving them; but Melchizedek made none in receiving his tenth ; a plain evidence that it was God's portion, and due by custom from the conqueror, to be employed in sacrifices and such other solemnities as were agreeable to the piety of the times.

But Mr. Chubb finds another difficulty in the case. Melchizedek, he thinks, had no right to receive tithes of Abraham in virtue of his priesthood; "because, though he was a priest, yet he was not a priest in and to the family of Abraham, and therefore did not stand in the relation of a priest to him; and because Abraham was also a priest himself, as every head of a family or tribe was both king and priest in his own house." Take the priesthood of Melchizedek in no higher sense than as Mr. Chubb has stated it, and you still see a propriety in his receiving tithes of Abraham. Abraham gave them, not as a priest, but as a conqueror, and in that character under an obligation to give them; not for any private advantage obtained for himself and family, but for a public blessing, in which the kings of Salem and Sodom had more than an equal share; he gave them to Melchizedek, who went forth to meet him in the territories of Salem, where he was priest and king; who no doubt applied them to the pious uses for which they were intended; and Abraham and the king of Sodom most probably took their share in the solemnity. Take the transaction in this light, and let Mr. Chubb prove, if he is able, that there is any thing in it inconsistent with the manners and piety of that age.

If he thinks it an absurdity that Melchizedek should receive tithes and make sacrifices for the victory of Abraham, because Abraham was a priest as well as himself, what will he think of the case of Jethro, Exod. xviii.? Jethro was both priest and prince of Midian; he met Moses in the wilderness at the head of the Israelites; Moses recounted to him the wonders God had wrought, and the kindness he had showed to Israel. A sacrifice was appointed in honor of God for his great mercies to him and his people, and Jethro performed the solemnity. Apply Mr. Chubb's reasoning to this fact, and see how it concludes. "To say that Jethro performed the sacrifice as a priest, must needs be weakly urged; because though he was a

priest, yet he was not a priest to the Israelites, and therefore did not stand in the relation of a priest to them; and because they had also priests of their own," to offer sacrifices, and perform all other parts of the sacerdotal office. This is Mr. Chubb's own argument, and if it proves that Melchizedek received no tithes, it will prove too that Jethro offered no sacrifice.

It is a difficulty with the learned, what was the real character of Melchizedek, and what his order of priesthood. But Mr. Chubb is above all difficulties: he tells you, as if no doubts had ever been raised about it, that he was priest in no other sense than as head of a tribe. But the reader must take it on his own word, and trust for a proof, till he is at leisure to find one. The story of Melchizedek, with the comment of the writer to the Hebrews on it, is a very obscure one; but obscure as it is, there is light enough to show that Mr. Chubb's notion of him is not only without but against authority.

That he was a person of great eminence is not to be doubted. Moses speaks of him with a respect which he does not show to the other princes of that country. The moment he mentions him, he takes care to distinguish him, not only as a king, but as a priest of the most high God; and as such he gave Abraham his blessing, an office of much solemnity amongst the ancients, with what levity soever Mr. Chubb may think fit to treat it; and judged (whether right or wrong is not to our purpose) to be attended with great efficacy. The Psalmist * speaks of him in a passage, which Mr. Chubb has not overlooked, with great marks of reverence; he makes him a type of the Son of God, and a priest of the same order. But what could lead him to do this, if he was a priest only as head of a tribe? Had this been the case, would it not have been much more natural to fetch his comparison from some of his own ancestors than from a stranger? Would he not rather have said, after the order of Noah, of Abraham, or any other of the patriarchal chiefs? But above all, what could tempt the writer to the Hebrews to take up the same comparison, who knew very well, and his readers knew, that Christ was not the head of his tribe, whatever Melchizedek was?

*Psalm cx. 4.

The five kings of Canaan mentioned in this chapter were perhaps, as Mr. Chubb supposes, priests as well as kings, and performed the ordinary office of priest in their own tribes and families. But Melchizedek was evidently a priest of a higher order, whose authority and jurisdiction extended probably over the whole province of Canaan; to whom it belonged to perform the extraordinary solemnities of religion, and to whom the inhabitants of that district brought their stated offerings and sacrifices, as the Israelites did to the high-priest under the law of Moses. Hence the great reverence and distinction with which Moses and the later writers of Scripture speak of him; hence the style of high-priest which the author to the Hebrews gives him; and hence the payment of tithes by Abraham. I do not mean to impose this on the reader as certain and undoubted fact founded on the letter of the history, but as a probable account only of one part of Melchizedek's character, agreeable at least to the representations of Scripture.

I shall close the argument with a remark on one point more that Mr. Chubb has started in the course of the debate. He seems to think that the Canaanites at that time, Melchizedek and his subjects only excepted, were idolaters; and that he was called a 66 priest of the most high God, because he paid his thank-offerings, not to the titular and fictitious deities of the Canaanites, but to the supreme God." I mention this not as material to the principal question, but to show how prone he is to advance things without warrant. For what ground has he for thinking that the Canaanites were in general idolaters at that period of time? Is it because they were idolaters five hundred years after in the days of Joshua? Bad as this reason is, I question whether he is able to give a better. Learned men have differed about the state of religion in the land of Canaan at the time of Abraham; and I shall not give my judgment in a point which history affords but a small light to determine. But I will venture to say that Mr. Chubb's notion is taken up at random, and that the country of which he speaks, and its neighborhood, were not so universally infected with idolatry as he seems to imagine. What does he think, for instance, of Abimelech's case?* There is a plain evidence that

* Genesis xx.

he knew the true God and adored him; but that he knew and worshipped any false god there is no evidence. The true God was known likewise to the king of Egypt; and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, though they were wicked enough to deserve the most signal judgment that ever was inflicted on a nation, are not charged with being idolaters. Abraham himself had not lived many years in the land of Canaan : he left his own country by the command of God, because it was corrupted with idolatry; and perhaps a good reason is not easy to be assigned why he should change it for another equally infected.

And now Mr. Chubb may re-consider, if he please, the case of Abraham and Melchizedek, and he may perhaps find reason to abate somewhat of that sufficiency which he is so forward to betray. The next time he thinks of declaring war against patriarchs, Apostles, and the learned of former and later times, I would advise him in the first place to be well assured of his own strength, and come better qualified for the combat. For my own part, it is, I confess, a matter of no small surprise to me to see him dictating with such a poverty of argument against the authority of Jews and Christians, as well ancient as modern, in the interpretation of a passage which he had not well considered, and which it is plain he did not understand.

ESAU AND JACOB.

IN God's government, both of the moral and the natural world, we meet with many appearances that are beyond the comprehension of the ablest philosophers; and yet no man that believes a God makes any doubt of ascribing all to the direction of infinite wisdom. In like manner, in the history of God's providence it is reasonable to expect some difficulties, which for the same reason are no just objections against the authority of that history. In fact we find a multitude of circumstances and events in the history of Providence, which we know not

« AnteriorContinua »