Hebrews 7:9-10

It may be objected unto the whole precedent argument of the apostle,

‘That although Abraham himself paid tithes unto Melchisedec, yet it followeth not that Melchisedec was superior unto the Levitical priests, concerning whom alone the question was between him and the Jews. For although Abraham might be a priest in some sense also, by virtue of common right, as were all the patriarchs, yet was he not so by virtue of any especial office, instituted of God to abide in the church. But when God afterwards, by peculiar law and ordinance, erected an order and office of priesthood in the family of Levi, it might be superior unto, or exalted above that of Melchisedec, although Abraham paid tithes unto him.'This objection, therefore, the apostle obviates in these verses; and therewithal, giving his former argument a further improvement, he makes a transition, according unto his usual custom (as it hath been often observed that it is his method to do), unto his especial design, in proving the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, which is the main scope of this whole discourse.

Hebrews 7:9. Καὶ, ὠς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, διὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ ΔευϊV ὁ δεκάτας λαμβάνων δεδεκάτωται· ἔτι γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρὸς η῏ν, ὅτε συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ.

῾Ως ἔπος εἰπεῖν, “ut verbum dicere,”” as to speak a word.” Vulg. Lat., “ut ita dictum sit,” “be it so said.” Syr., “as any one may say.” Arab., “and it is said that this discourse” (or “reason”)” may be some way ended.” “Ut ita loquar,” “as I may so speak.” In the rest of the words there is neither difficulty nor difference among translators.

Hebrews 7:9. And, as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.

There are three things observable in these words:

1. The manner of the introduction of the apostle's new assertion.

2. The assertion itself, which hath the force of a new argument unto his purpose, Hebrews 7:9. And,

3. The proof of his assertion, in Hebrews 7:10.

1. The manner of the introduction of his assertion is in these words, “As I may so say.” This qualification of the assertion makes an abatement of it, one way or other. Now this is not as to the truth of the proposition, but as to the propriety of the expression. The words are as if that which is expressed were actually so, namely, that Levi himself paid tithes, whereas it was so only virtually. The thing itself intended was, with respect unto the apostle's purpose, as if it had been so indeed; though, Levi not being then actually existent, he could not be tithed in his own person. Nor is the apostle dubious of the truth of the consequent which he urgeth from this observation, as if he had said “prope dixerim;” which is supposed as one signification of this phrase. Only, the instance being new, and he arguing from what was virtual only as if it had been actual, he gave his assertion this qualification. This is spoken upon an allowance of the common acceptation of the sense of these words among interpreters. For my part, I rather incline to judge that he useth this phrase for as much as “ut verbo cicam,” ‘To sum up the whole in a word, to put an issue unto this dispute between the Levitical priesthood and that of Melchisedec, I say, that not only Abraham, but even Levi himself was tithed by him.'

2. His assertion is, that “Levi, who received tithes, was tithed in Abraham,” namely, when Abraham gave the tithes of all to Melchisedec. By “Levi” he intendeth not the person of Levi absolutely, the third son of Jacob, but his posterity, or the whole tribe proceeding from him, so far as they were interested in the priesthood; for Levi himself never received tithes of any, the priesthood being erected in his family long after his death, in the person of his great-grandchild, Aaron. So, then, Levi who received tithes is the same with the sons of Levi who received the priesthood, Hebrews 7:5, namely, in their several generations unto that day.

Of this Levi it is affirmed that δεδεκάτωται διὰ ᾿Αβραάμ, “he was tithed” or “paid tithes in Abraham,” or through him and by him, as the word is. When Abraham himself gave tithes to Melchisedec, he did it not in his own name only, but in the name of himself and his whole posterity. And this, upon the principles before laid down and vindicated, proves the preeminence of the priesthood of Melchisedec above that of the house and family of Levi. All the difficulty of the argument lies in the proof of the assertion, namely, that Levi did indeed so pay tithes in Abraham. This the apostle therefore proves by the observation which he lays down, verse 10, “For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.”

3. The force of this proof seems to depend on a double principle:

(1.) That children, the whole posterity of any one, are in his loins before they are born. And this principle is sure in the light of nature and common reason; they are in them as the effect in its cause, nor have they any future existence but with relation unto their progenitors, even the remotest of them.

(2.) That what any one doth, that all his posterity are esteemed to do in and by him. But it is certain that this rule will not generally hold, nor indeed will it ever do so absolutely, without some other cogent circumstances. By human laws, the crimes of men reflect dishonor in some cases on their families; and on the other side, they entail the honor which by their worth they have acquired on their posterities. What a man also gives away of his estate unto public uses, as in the foundation of schools or hospitals, his children may be said to do it in him, because so much is decreased from their inheritance; as here, what Abraham gave to, Melchisedec, it was alienated from his posterity, Levi among the rest. But none of these things reach the case in hand, or are sufficient to give force or evidence unto the reasoning of the apostle.

Wherefore, to find them out, sundry things must be observed which are manifest truths in themselves, and on the supposition whereof the apostle's argument stands firm:

(1.) That Abraham was now called of God, and separated unto his service, so as to be the foundation of a new church in the world. And there is a relation unto such an original stock in all the branches, beyond what they have unto any other intermediate progenitors. Hence all the idolatrous nations in the world constantly made the first persons from whom they derived their original, or whose offspring they would be accounted, their gods whom they worshipped. These were their “Joves indigites,” their home-born deities, whom they honored, and whose honors they thought descended unto them by inheritance.

(2.) He had now received the promise that God would be a God unto him and his seed after him, whereby all his posterity were taken into covenant with him; and hereon Abraham covenanted with God in the name of, and as the great representative of all his seed. And such covenants are the foundation of all order and rule in this world. For after persons, or a people, have covenanted into such agreements in government, and as to the administration of common right among themselves, provided the terms whereon they have agreed be good and suitable unto the light of nature,- their posterity are not at liberty to alter and change them at their pleasure; for whereas they derive all their rights and inheritances from their progenitors, they are supposed in them to have consented unto all that was done by them.

(3.) Hereon what God said and did unto Abraham, he said it and did it unto all his seed in him. The promises were theirs, and the inheritance was theirs; yea, what God is said to give unto Abraham so often, namely, the whole land of Canaan, was never actually made good unto him in his own person, no, not a font's breadth: but he received the grant of it as the representative of his posterity, who, four hundred years after, had the actual possession of it.

(4.) What Abraham did solemnly in obedience unto God, by virtue of the covenant, as a public condition thereof, he did undertake in it for his posterity, and performed it in their name, and therefore God enjoined him to bring all his posterity under the token of that engagement, in circumcision, so soon as they were capable thereof. And on the other hand, God continually affirms that he would do them good, because of his oath and engagement unto Abraham, seeing they were intended therein. Wherefore,

(5.) Abraham, in this solemn address unto God by Melchisedec, the type of Christ, wherein he expressed his constant-obedience unto him, was the representative of all his poster and in particular of Levi and all the priests that descended from him. And having now received the whole land, by virtue of a covenant, in the behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs, though he himself had never possession of it, nor in it, he doth in the name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenths unto God by Melchisedec, as that chief rent which God for ever reserved unto himself, upon his grant. When the people came actually to possess the land, they held it always on this condition, that the tenths of all should be given unto God. And this Abraham, in his taking seisin of it for them, paid in their name. So truly and virtually was Levi himself tithed in the loins of Abraham, when Melchisedec met him. Wherefore it was not merely Levi being in the loins of Abraham with respect unto natural generation, whence he is said to be tithed in him, but his being in him with respect unto the covenant which Abraham entered into with God in the name of his whole posterity.

This reasoning of the apostle's, I confess, at first view seemeth intricate, and more remote from cogency than any elsewhere used by him. And therefore by some profane persons hath it been cavilled at. But all things of that nature arise merely from want of a due reverence unto the word of God. When we come unto it with those satisfactions in our minds, that there is truth and divine wisdom in every expression of it, that all its reasonings are cogent and effectual, though we understand them not, we shall not fail, upon a humble inquiry, to attain what we may safely embrace, or see what we ought to admire. And so this place, which at first sight seems to present us with a reasoning on a very uncertain foundation, being duly inquired into, we find it resolved into the firm principles of reason and religion.

And the foregoing observation will expedite two difficult questions which expositors raise unto themselves on this verse. The first whereof is, Whether Christ himself may not, as well as Levi, be said to pay tithes in Abraham, as being in his loins? which would utterly frustrate the design of the apostle. The second is, How or in what sense one may be said to do any thing in another, which may be reckoned or imputed unto him?

For the first of these, Austin and others have well labored in the solution of it. The sum of what they say is, that the Lord Christ was not in Abraham as Levi was, not in his nature as it was corrupted; nor did he educe or derive his nature from him by carnal generation or the common way of the propagation of mankind. And these things do constitute a sufficient difference and distance between them in this matter. But yet with these considerations, and on the supposition of them, there is another which contains the true and proper reason of this difference. And that is, that the Lord Christ was never in Abraham as a federate, as one taken into covenant with him, and so represented by him, as Levi was. Abraham was taken into covenant with Christ, as the head, sponsor, surety, and mediator of the new covenant; with respect whereunto he says of himself and the elect, “Behold I and the children which the LORD hath given me.” Hereon he was the representative of Abraham and all that believe, and what he did is imputed unto them. But he was never taken into covenant with Abraham, nor was capable of so being, seeing unto him it was a covenant of pardon and justification by faith, which He was no way concerned in but as the procurer of them for others. Wherefore what Abraham did cannot be imputed unto him, so as he should be esteemed to have done them in him.

And this makes way for the solution of the general question, How one may be said to do any thing in another which shall be reckoned unto him as his own act? And this may be by virtue of a covenant, and no otherwise. Hence divines do usually illustrate the imputation of the sin of Adam unto his posterity by this example of Levi; though I have not met with any who truly understand the ground of the comparison, which is Abraham acting as a covenanter in the name of his posterity. But whereas this is opposed with some vehemency by Schlichtingius in his comment on this place, I shall transcribe his words, and consider his discourse:

“Haec sententia non ad omnes actiones transferenda est; sed ad eas tantum, quae proprie versantur vel in auctione vel in diminutione rerum quae a parentibus in liberos devolvi et haereditario jure trans- ferri solent, qualis actio est decimarum solutio. Persolvuntur enim de bonis et facultatibus, quae hactenus cum sunt liberorum, quatenus jus haereditatis ad eos spectat, praesertim si certum sit, fore liberos, qui in bona succedant, quemadmodum Abrahamo contigit, cui certa fuit a Deo promissa posteritas. Quemadmodum enim haeredes per-sonam patris post mortem ratione possessionis bonorum veluti re-praesentant, ita antequam haeredes a patre separentur et de bonis paternis statuendi arbitrium habeant, pater omnium liberorum suorum personam quadam ratione refert, et quicquid de illis statu-erit aut fecerit id haeredes quodammodo fecisse censentur. Dico, quodammodo, quia proprie id dici non potest; nec auctor hic D. id proprie factum esse asserit, sed improprietatem verbis suis subesse ipsemet profitetur, ut antea vidimua Ex dictis autem facile intelligitur, id quod nos una cum auctore D. statuimus, ad eos tantum successores seu posteros esse extendendum ad quos vel certo, ut Abrahami posteris contigit, vel saltem verisimiliter perventura sit haereditas parentis, et notabilis aliqua bonorum ab eo profectorum portio. Alioquin vis illa haereditatis de qua diximus, expirabit, nec posteris tribui poterit id quod majorum aliquis circa bona sua fecerit, Quibus ira explicatis, facile jam apparet falli eos qui ex hoc loco colligunt omnem Adami posteritatem in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. Nam vel de eo nunc quidquam dicam ipsum auctorem improprietatem in hac loquendi forma agnoscere, nequaquam id extendendum est ad parentum majorumve peccata ac merita. Etenim peccata ac merita qua talia mere sunt personalia, seu personam ejus qui peccat non egrediuntur, nec eatenus parentes posteritatem suam re-praesentant; licet fieri queat ut ex eorum delicto damnum aliquod nec exiguum ad liberos redundet, quemadmodum quidem in Adami delicto contigit; ipsum tamen peccatum ac meritum Adami revera non communicatur cure ejus posteritate, ac proinde posteri Adami ob parentis sui noxam revera non puniuntur, nisi et ipsi parentem fuerint imitati.”

I have transcribed these words at large, because their design is to defeat that article of our faith concerning the imputation of the sin of Adam unto all his posterity; which there is no doubt but they will make use of who are gone over among ourselves unto the negative of it: and that it might appear whose heifer they plough withal who deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto justification, because “those things that are personal and inherent in one cannot be communicated unto another.” I say, therefore,

1. That this assertion, “One being accounted unto another in what he doth, holds only in those things which belong unto the increase or diminution of an inheritance which descends from parents unto children, and not otherwise,” is “gratis dictum,” without pretense or confirmation. Even in things moral, God threatens to “visit the iniquities of the fathers on the children.” So the Israelites wandered penally in the wilderness forty years, and bare the iniquity of their parents. The infants that perished in the flood, and at the conflagration of Sodom, died penally under the judgment that came for the sin of their parents. Wherefore the general foundation of his whole discourse is unproved and false, and the application of it unto the present case, as we shall see, weak and impertinent. For,

2. This renders the argument of the apostle as weak and impertinent as any thing can be imagined. For it allows Levi to be no otherwise tithed in Abraham, but as part of the goods which Abraham gave in tithe to Melchisedec would have descended unto him; for he was but one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandchild of Abraham, whose share in those tithes cannot be computed to be worth mentioning, much less to bear the weight of an argument in so great a cause. Besides, it is not the person of Levi, but his posterity in the family of Aaron, that is intended; and such movables as were tithed by Abraham do seldom descend through so many generations. It is therefore ridiculous to impose such a kind of argumentation on the holy apostle.

3. Yea, this interpretation is directly contrary unto what the apostle designed to confirm by the instance he gives. For that which he aimed at, was to prove Levi inferior to Melchisedec, by his paying of tithes in the loins of Abraham: but if he did this no otherwise but that some goods that should have descended unto him were given unto Melchisedec, it argues him rather superior unto him; for absolutely he that gives is superior to him that receives, as it is in general a more blessed thing to give than to receive.

4. That which he proceeds upon is a general rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable unto this particular case, as it is a particular case. It is this, “That, as children succeed into the room of their parents as to their goods, and after a sort represent them; so parents, before their children come to inherit, do represent their children, so as that they may be said in some sense to do what is done by their parents.” But this is a rule made without any color of reason. For,

(1.) I would know when this representation and concernment should expire, or whether it holds unto all generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said in some sort to do what Adam did with his goods and lands before he died, and so of all our intervenient progenitors. If it do expire, and this relation abideth only for a season, I desire to know the bounds of that season. Aaron was the first of the house of Levi who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh generation from Abraham; in which time it is probable, if ever, this right of inheritance would expire.

(2.) It is not true in any sense, in the very next parents in most cases. For suppose a parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his substance and goods in riotous living, in what sense shall his son, suppose him a person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his goods in him?

(3.) The truth is, unless it be by a subsequent approbation of what our progenitors have done, or by virtue of a covenant whereby they and their posterity were obliged (which is the case in hand), children can in no sense be said to do what their progenitors have done in the disposal of their goods and inheritances. Neither, indeed, will a subsequent approbation give any tolerable sense unto this assertion, unless there be a power of an effectual dissent in the children also. If a man give a part of his estate to found an hospital, and leave the care of it unto his posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just cause for it, they should resume the estate into their own possession; in case they do not so, they may in some sense be said to do what indeed their father did. But if this be not in their power, though they approve of what he did, they cannot be said to have done it. But in covenants the case is plain. Men may enter into a mutual covenant for the erection of a government among them, which proving a foundation of all their civil rights for the future, their posterity may be said to have made that covenant, and to be obliged thereby, as it was in this case.

5. Neither will it advantage his pretense, with a seeming acknowledgment of some impropriety in the assertion, in these words, ὡς ἔπος ειπεῖν , “as I may so say.” For although it should be granted that he intends some impropriety in the expression, yet there must be truth in his assertion, which this interpretation will not allow; for if it be true only in the sense he contends for, it is true in none at all, for that is not any. But the meaning of these words is, “ut verbo dicam,” ‘That I may give you a summary of the whole, that which my argument riseth up unto.'

6. Having given us this crooked rule, he adds a limitation unto it, whereby he hopes to reduce the whole to his purpose. For saith he, “This rule is not to be extended unto the merits or sins of parents and ancestors, though some loss may accrue unto the children thereby;” for thence he infers, that though we may suffer some loss by the sin of Adam, yet his sin is not imputed unto us. But,

(1.) How far the children of flagitious parents may not only suffer loss, but undergo temporal punishment also, for the sins of their parents, was showed before in the instances of those who perished in their infancy, both by the flood and in the conflagration of Sodom.

(2.) The case between any other parent and his posterity is not the same as it was between Adam and us all; so that these things are sophistically jumbled together. There is, indeed, an analogy between Adam and his posterity on the one hand, and Christ with believers on the other; and never was there, nor shall there ever be, the like relation between any else: for these two individual persons were appointed of God to be the heads of the two covenants, and representatives of the federates, as unto the ends of the covenants. Hence the whole evil of the one and the good of the other, as they were, and as far as they were, heads of the covenants, are imputed unto them who derive from them in their respective covenants. But after the first sin Adam ceased to be a head unto his posterity, as to the good or evil of that covenant, which was now broken and disannulled. Neither was he nor any of his posterity ever after restored or assumed into the same state and condition. It is therefore highly vain to confound the consideration of our concernment in what Adam did as he was the head of the covenant, with what he afterwards did, and other intervenient progenitors might do. All this our apostle confirms at large, Romans 5.

7. Abraham was taken into a new administration of the covenant, with new promises and seals; but he neither was nor could be made the head and representative of that covenant whereinto he was taken, otherwise than typically. Hence his moral good or evil could not be reckoned unto his posterity in covenant. But yet he was made the head and spring of the administration of its outward privileges; and this, so far as his trust extended, was imputed unto his posterity, as in the case of circumcision. Wherefore, seeing what he did unto Melchisedec belonged unto the administration of the covenant committed unto him, Levi is rightly said to have done it in him also. And so these things do mutually illustrate one another. But to deny that we were all in Adam, as the head of the first covenant, that we sinned in him, that the sin which we in any sense have sinned in him is imputed unto us, is not to dispute with us, but expressly to contradict the Holy Ghost.

But we may take some observations from these words; as,

Obs. 1. They who receive tithes of others, for their work in holy administrations, are thereby proved to be superior unto them of whom they do receive them. They are given unto them, among other ends, as an acknowledgment of their dignity. So it was when they were paid of old by God's institution; and so it would be still, if they might be paid or received in a due manner, with respect unto the labor of any in gospel administrations. But whereas not one among thousands doth give or pay them on any other ground but because they must do so whether they will or no; nor would do so any more, were it not for the coercive, enforcing power of human laws; if they on the other side that do receive them, do look on them, not as a free pledge of the people's respect and the honor that they bear unto them, but as their own right and due by law, they are a testimony neither of the people's obedience nor of the ministers'dignity, but only of the extreme disorder of all things in religion

Obs. 2. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned. The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Romans 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as our representative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them. And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.