_1st_, That when the apostle describes him as king of Salem, he does not hereby intend Jerusalem, or that at that time, he resided there: But, as he explains it, in the words immediately following, it implies, that he was _king of peace_, as this word Salem signifies; and accordingly he is set forth by two of those glorious titles, which are given him elsewhere in scripture, namely, king of righteousness, as it is said concerning him, that _a king shall rise and prosper, who is called, The Lord our righteousness_, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. and likewise, _The Prince of Peace_, Isa. ix. 6. And that which makes this opinion more probable, is, that it doth not appear that Jerusalem was called Salem, which is supposed to be a contraction of the word Jerusalem, till some ages after this; for, till David conquered it, it was commonly known by the name of Jebus, 1 Chron. xi. 4. _2dly_, The apostle’s description of him, as being _without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life_, is rather applicable to a divine Person than a mere man. And as for the sense, which is generally given of these words, namely, that he was without father, _&c._ because no mention is made thereof in scripture, _viz._ in those two scriptures in the Old Testament, in which he is spoken of; this seems more strained and forced, than to understand them according to the proper sense of the words; and, if, indeed, this imports nothing else, but the silence of scripture, with relation thereunto, there are many other persons who have as great a right to this character as Melchizedek; as Job, Elijah, _&c._ whereas Melchizedek is thus described, as distinguished from all others.