A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews wherein every word and particle in the original is explained ... : being the substance of thirty years Wednesdayes lectures at Black-fryers, London / by that holy and learned divine Wiliam Gouge ... : before which is prefixed a narrative of his life and death : whereunto is added two alphabeticall tables ...

§. 79. Of the resolution and observations of Heb. 7. 13, 14, 15.

Vers. 13.

For he of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no man gave attendance at the Altar.

Vers. 14.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Priest-hood.

Vers. 15.

And it is yet far more evident, for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another Priest.

Vers. 13. IN these three verses it is proved that Christs Priest-hood was not after 〈◊〉〈◊〉 order of Aaron. The proofs are two.

The first proof is taken from the distinction of tribes. This is,

• 1. Propounded, v. 13.
• 2. Confirmed, v. 14.

In the proposition there is,

• 1. A description of Christ by a reference to things before mentioned, thus, He of whom these things are spoken.
• 2. An expression of the argument: wherein we have,
  • 1. The kind of proof, He pertaineth to another tribe.
  • 2. The ground thereof. Here,

• ...
  • ...
    • 1. One thing is expr•…•…ssed; of which no man gave attendance, &c.
    • 2. Another is implied: That they of the tribe of Levi gave attendance at the Al∣•…•….

Vers. 14. In the confirmation two points are to be observed.

• 1. The manner of bringing it in, it is evident.
• 2. The matter whereof it consisteth. Hereof are two parts,
  • 1. An exemplification of the tribe whence Christ sprang. Here are distinctly noted,
    • 1. The stock, Iuda.
    • 2. The branch; Our Lord.
    • 3. His manner of comming from thence. He sprang.
  • 2. A manifestation of the reason, why they of Iuda attended not at the Altar.

The reason is taken from Moses silence thereabouts, He spake nothing about that 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Vers. 15. The second proof is taken from distinction of Orders.

Here note,

• 1. The manner of bringing in the proof. It is yet far more evident.
• 2. The matter of the proof: which is,
  • 1. Generally expressed, There ariseth another Priest.
  • 2. Particularly exemplified, After the similitude of Melchisedec.

Doctrines.

• Vers. 13. I. The excellencies spoken of Melchisedec belong to Christ. The things be∣fore spoken were excellencies of Melchisedec. But here it is said concerning Christ, He of whom these things are spoken. See §. 72.
• II. Christ was of one of the tribes of Israel. This is here taken for granted. See §. 72.
• III. None ought to intermeddle with others function. They who are of another tribe, might not meddle with the function that belonged to Levi. See §. 73.
• IV. Our own calling is to be attended vpon. This phrase gave attendance, implies as much. See §. 73.
• Vers. 14. V. Proofs must be cleer. This I gather from the Apostles premising this phrase, It is evident. See §. 74.
• VI. Christ is a Lord. This very title is here given to him. See §. 74.
• VII. Christ is in speciall the Lord of the Church. This is implyed under this re∣luive, ou•…•…. See §. 74.
• VIII. Christ was man of man. As a branch he sprang out of an humane stock. See §. 75.
• IX. Christ was of the tribe of Iuda. This is plainly expressed. See §. 75.
• X. What about Gods worship is not revealed from. God, ought not to be done therea∣•…•…. Because Moses spake nothing of the tribe of Iuda concerning the Priest-hood, therefore none of Iuda was to meddle with those duties of Gods worship. See §. 76.
• Vers. 15. XI. Weighty points must be made more and more cleer. Thus much is in∣tended under this phrase, And it is here far more evident. See §. 77.
• XII. Christ is another Priest then Aaron was. This relative, another, is spoken of Christ as distinguished from Aaron. See §. 78.
• XIII. Christ is like to Melchisedec. He is here said to be after his similitude. See §. 78.