tion, necessarily denies place for any rule by which the moral nature of affections is to be determined, and precludes all possibility of the existence of any such

rule.

It is, hence, evident, that voluntarily affections are, in fact, necessarily beautiful or deformed, either virtuous or vicious (if any such thing as moral affections ever exist) previously to a comparison of them with any rule or standard whatever; though the knowledge or discovery of their beauty or deformity, arises from such comparison. The moral beauty or deformity of an affection, and the knowledge or discernment of them, are two distinct things, perfectly separable from each other-Therefore the former may exist without the latter.

But, on the other hand, the supposition, that light is necessary to the existence of moral action, denies that any sin ever is, or can be, committed, otherwise than against light; or that any action can possibly be criminal, unless a conviction at the same time exist in the mind, that the action in question be a violation of the rule of righteousness.

On this hypothesis, impenitence is never criminal, unless the subject of it is, at the same time, convinced of its criminality-Selfishness is no sin, without a conviction of the duty and obligation of disinterested benevolence. Therefore, a sinner, and a person under conviction, are phrases perfectly synonimous; one necessarily implying the other; as, the former cannot, in the nature of things, exist without the 'etter-Consequently, to endeavor to produce or men, must really be to endeave ing sinners, since sin cannot ex On which hypothesis, ignoran not only the mother of devotion

nocence.

mote conviction in

promote their be

ithout conviction. Jay justly be stiled, but of inoffensive in

But, in opposition to these conclusions, it may, perhaps, be urged, "That mankind in general have ability and advantage for knowing their duty; and are, there

fore, criminal for violating the rule of it-That sinners, at least under the light of the gospel, have advantage and opportunity for knowing, that impenitence and selfishness are criminal; and, therefore, they are justly reprehensible for their impenitency."

To this it may be replied, that this argument admits the possibility, yea, the actual existence and commission, of sin, even of many and great sins, without light-That light, in the sense of the question, does not go into the nature of moral affection; and that it is by no means essential to the exercise or existence of such affection-Consequently this objection yields the very argument which it is brought to oppose.

"But sinners might know their duty if they would; and, therefore, are justly punishable for neglecting or acting against it."-Consequently, their wills shut out the light, and prevent their seeing it; and, therefore, if they are at all criminal, it must be for those exercises of will which bar the mind against the entrance' of light. And if these exercises of will are criminal, there may, of course, be moral actions, sinful exercises of will, without light.

FOR THE NEW-YORK MISSIONARY MAGAZINE.

OF THE PERSON OF MELCHISEDEC.

THA

HAT Melchdec was no mere man, who lived and exercisec offices of both priest and king, in the days of Alaram, seems probable, for the following reasons, viz.

1. It appears, that Abraham was the person whom God selected from amongst the nations, with a view to preserve the knowledge and the worship of the one true God, that the whole world might not be left to sink into ignorance and idolatry. But if Melchisedec were a man, who lived and reigned in Salem at this

.

period, exercising the priestly office, and that in a more perfect manner than was ever afterwards done, until the coming of Christ, it will be evident, that the priestly office and character of Christ were even then better understood than they ever afterwards were, by the help of all the types and shadows of the Mosaic institution: and, that the worship, at that day, came much nearer to the worship of the true Christian Church, than it did at any future period before the coming of Christ. When we consider the progressive steps of Divine Providence, in preparing the way for the coming of Christ, it will appear rather unaccountable, that this knowledge was not preserved, especially in a family particularly chosen of God, and set apart from all others, to be a repository for his holy oracles and the communications which he should be pleased to make to men, of the way of salvation by Christ.

2. The Aaronical priesthood was instituted as a type of the priesthood of Christ, and to prepare the way for his priestly office and character to be better understood. But dark images and types are useless, after that, which is meant to be prefigured by them, is more clearly seen, and better understood, than it can be by the help of shadows and images. If, therefore, a priesthood had existed, and its office been exercised, in the days of Abraham, in more exact conformity to the priestly office and character of Christ, than that which was afterwards instituted in the family of Aaron, it would seem to have superceded, both the necessity and the use of the Aaronical priesthood.

3. We have no where any account of a place or city by the name of Salem, where the eminent person in question lived and reigned. It is true, he is stiled king of Salem (Gen. xiv. 18.)-But the Apostle explains this to mean king of peace-The title may be considered only as descriptive of his character. That it was not the city afterwards called Jerusalein, seems probable from the circumstance, that when Abraham went to offer up his son Isaac, at least very near to the place

where the temple of Solomon afterwards stood, he saw a ram caught in a thicket by his horns. For this remarkable service, God directed Abraham to a secret and solitary place.

That both the name Melchisedec, and the title king of Salem, are used as significant and descriptive of office and character, appears from the words of the Apostle, Heb. vii. 2.-There he tells us, that Melchisedec, king of Salem, signifies king of righteousness and king of peace-an office and character which can be ascribed, with propriety, to no one but Christ: For in him only, and in his glorious work, in the language of the Psalmist, do mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other.

4. The description given of this eminent person by the Apostle, Heb. vii. 3. can apply to no other than Christ-He is said to be without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. It is immediately seen, that what is here said of this Melchisedec, can be literally true of no other than Christ. And how the want of a genealogical history of any man, whose name is left on record in the sacred writings, should be an authority for a description so very hyperbolical, is not easily discerned. Certainly, however, if this circumstance be a sufficient authority for asserting, that Melchisedec was without father, mother, or descent, the same may be said of many others, whose names we find in the Holy Scrip

tures.

Should it be said, this may be asserted of Noah, or of one of his sons, because, being preserved from the deluge, they came from the old world into the new; it may be replied, that so it may of Noah, or of either of his sons-And, consequently, would be no mark of distinction of one from the other, or serve to give a more illustrious character of one, than of either of the others.

Or should it be urged, that it was said of Melchisedec, on account of the divine origin of his priesthood,

that he was without father, without mother, &c. it will be remembered, that the same, also, may be said of Aaron, who, in the loins of his father Abraham, paid tythes to Melchisedec.

But it is objected, that Melchisedec being said to be made like unto the Son of God, is sufficient evidence that he was not, in fact, himself the Son of God. In reply to the objection, it may be remarked, it might, on the same authority, as well be said, that the person whom John heard speaking, and whom he discovered to be like unto the Son of Man, Rev. i. 12, 13. was not, in reality, that glorious personage who, while on earth, often stiled himself the Son of Man. And yet, by the character and description given him, it is exceedingly clear, that it was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is generally agreed, that the divine person who, on several occasions, appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and conversed with him, was that glorious person in the Godhead, who was afterwards manifest in flesh, and who sustains the offices of both priest and king. The same glorious person appeared to Joshua, near Jericho, as captain of the Lord's host. And it is no more remarkable, that he should appear to Abraham, when returning from the slaughter of his enemies, and bring bread and wine for the refreshment of him and his men, than that he should come, at another time, and sit under the oak, near Abraham's tent, and graciously condescend to dine on the fatted calf, which the pious patriarch caused to be slain and prepared for him.

These circumstances being all considered, as also the great superiority of Melchisedec to Abraham; it is apprehended, that what is said of this king of Salemthis priest of the most high God, can, with no propriety, be applied to any other than Christ.