To this we may add, (which will farther strengthen this argument) what the apostle says, that in this respect, he was _made like the Son of God_, that is, as is generally supposed, a type of him. Now, if his being without _father_, _mother_, _descent_, &c. in the common acceptation of the words, be inconsistent with his being a type of Christ to the church, in Abraham’s time, then certainly that cannot be the sense thereof; for he was, without doubt, a type of his priestly, and kingly office to him, and the church, in his days, as well as to those who lived in following ages. Now, that he could not be a type thereof to many, who lived in that age, is evident; for they, who lived in the place where he was born and died, knew his father, mother, descent, beginning, or end of life; therefore he was no type of Christ’s eternal priesthood to them. And as for Abraham, though he might not know his father, mother, or descent, or the exact time when he was born, and so, in that respect he might, in part, he made like to the Son of God, to him, as signifying, that his priestly office was not derived by descent, as the Aaronical priesthood descended from parents to children: yet he could not be a type of the everlasting duration of Christ’s priestly office since he was then no more without end of days, in the common sense in which that expression was taken, than Abraham, or any other who lived with him, who could not be supposed to know the time, or place, of their death. And, if, according to the common opinion, Melchizedek is said to be without father, mother, descent, _&c._ because there is no mention thereof in scripture, this could not be a type to Abraham, or any other, before the word of God was committed to writing. _3dly_, There is another thing, which may be observed in the apostle’s description of him, Heb. viii. 8. when he says, that _he liveth_,[151] and accordingly is opposed to those priests that _die_, by which he seems to be described as immortal, and so opposed to mortal men. It is not said, that he once lived, and that we have no mention made of the time of his death, but _he liveth_, which some conclude to be an ascription of that divine perfection to him, whereby he is styled the living God, or, as it is said in one of the following verses, _He ever liveth_, ver. 25. to denote his eternal priesthood; or, as he says concerning himself elsewhere, _I am he that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore_, Rev. i. 8.