CHAPTER IX
CHAPTER IX
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
CUVIER says that if you give him a single bone of any animal he will tell you exactly what was the structure of that animal. I think some such aid as this would often be of immense value to the biographer. There are cases in which he is required to construct an entire life out of nothing more than a fragment. One of these instances occurs on the very threshold of the Bible history. There appears in the Great Gallery a deeply-veiled figure—a face and form delineated in colours so pale that the spectators have failed to take the impression. The portrait seems designed to picture one seen through a mist. Everything about it is obscure, dim, unrevealing. Yet this figure is more thronged than many of those with clearer forms. Crowds gather round it; hundreds speculate about it. It is the centre of wonder, the source of controversy, the ground of enthusiasm. Men of all ages come to it.
[ 154 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
Abraham stands before it as a reverent spectator. A psalmist of the Exile stands before it in genuine admiration. Above all, one of the latest of the New 'Testament seers—the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews—has given an exalted interpretation of its character and aim.
This figure, so attractive by its very obscurity, is Melchisedek. I propose to join the crowd of spectators who are standing in front of him. I will disregard speculation, I will keep to the dim record of fact. There is only a fragment to work upon; but that fragment is beyond measure striking. It is more precious than all the gold of Israel, for the simple reason that it is quite distinct from the gold of Israel. It is a metal new to the country—rare in any country. It is a fragment wonderfully unconventional—bespeaking an order of things which is foreign to the scene, foreign to the age in which the fragment dwells. Melchisedek is one of the most original figures in the Bible. He cannot be accounted for by _ genealogy. The writer to the Hebrews does not scruple to say that he is the most unique figure in the Gallery, with the exception of the Son of Man. That is a starthng statement;
PSS
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
but I think it is borne out by the facts. In the case of Melchisedek the most striking fact is not the character of the man, but the discovery that the Bible has delineated such a man. Nowhere has the Old Testament been more inspired than in giving us this picture.
Nowhere has the Jew reached so high in charity, nowhere has he gone down so deep in sympathy, nowhere has he broadened so wide in liberal- : ity. The thing to consider before all others is not the man, but his environment. It is the last environment in which we should have expected such a man, the last environment in which we should have expected the Jew to delineate such a man. The force of the figure lies in its background; its mystery is its mean surroundings. Let us look at this.
If there was one race which the Jew detested, it was the race of Ham; if there was one family of that race which he specially detested, it was the Canaanite. The Canaanite was his earliest enemy; upon the Canaanite fell his earliest curse. He was associated, to the Jewish mind, with all that was bad, all that was profane, all that was worthy to be exterminated. The man of Canaan was to ancient Israel what the man of Galilee was to [ 156 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
later Israel—the dweller in a region which sat in darkness and in the shadow of death.
It was the most unlikely thing in the world that to the eye of the Jew anything good should come out of Canaan. He was commissioned to expel the Canaanite—to expel him relentlessly, root and branch, with fire and sword. His warrant for this expulsion was his sense of the Canaanite's badness. It was his interest to think badly of this enemy; the thought lent weight to his arm, and gave justification to his blows. It was in the nature of things that he should say of Canaan what was afterwards said of Galilee, 'Search and see, for out of this race ariseth no prophet!'
And yet, how stands the case? It is from the hated race of Ham, it is from the specially hated race of the Canaanites, that the artist of the Early Gallery has selected one of his brightest models. This Hebrew hand has painted the image of a spotless hero amongst the natives of this land of sin and death. Melchisedek was a Canaanite. His birthplace was uncanonical. He belonged to that race which was deemed the enemy of the people of God, and which the people of God were commanded to cast out. It was here—in this en- [ 157]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
vironment of horror and desolation—that according to the ancient narrative there grew the loveliest flower that ever made the desert glad.
In that little village of Salem which in the far-off days was to become the great city of Jerusalem, there lived and reigned a chief of wonderfully despotic power. I say "wonderfully despotic,' for no carnal eye would have seen the source of his despotism. He had no outward weapons, no standing army, no strong fortifications. He had never engaged in war, never raised the standard against a foe
—perhaps never had a foe against whom to raise it. His empire had grown noiselessly.
So noiselessly had it grown that men called him 'The King of Peace.' I should think that was the reason why his capital came to be called Salem; it took its character from th2 character of its king. A man ruling without weapons was in that day a miracle—a far more wonderful spectacle than would have been the sight of the most triumphant warrior.
Men could understand how physical force could preserve order; but that order should be preserved without struggle, without up- [ 158 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
roar, without the visible exercise of authority, this was a unique thing.
Let us proceed further. What gave this man such a marvellous power? What enabled this unarmed mortal to stand in the midst of a rude population and sway them without a blow? It was their sense of his personal sanctity. He was called not only the King of Peace, but the King of Righteousness. And it was their sense of his righteousness that made them peaceable to his sway. The only instance
I know the least analogous to the picture is the spectacle afforded by Medieval Europe of the unarmed Pontiff directing the physical forces of the world. But even this latter Portrait has been painted by friendly hands; that of Melchisedek has been drawn by the hand of an enemy. Who is it that describes the personal sanctity of this Canaanite?
It is his deadly foe. How great must have been that sanctity which could elicit so high a testimoiiy from so unlikely a quarter! If this man's purity of life could dominate the hostile house of Abraham, it is little wonder that his name has been preserved as a desert flower. He did dominate the hostile house of Abraham. Read the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. You will see
[ 159 J
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
there a remarkable meeting. Abraham and Melchisedek stand face to face. Abraham represents the culture that was coming in; Melchisedek represents the culture that was going out. Yet, for the time being, Abraham is the inferior of Melchisedek. Abraham is the man of war; Melchisedek is the man of peace.
Abraham represents earth; Melchisedek is the High Priest of heaven. Abraham dispenses to Melchisedek a temporal donation; Melchisedek bestows on Abraham a Divine blessing.
Nay, I am convinced that the blessing which Melchisedek bestowed on Abraham was nothing less than ordination itself. I am convinced that the Patriarchal House of Israel received its first priestly impress from the touch and from the blessing of this venerable and venerated scion of a disappearing culture and of a race that was ready to die.
Where did Melchisedek get that priesthood which he was certainly credited with possessing and which he probably bestowed? That is the next question which solicits our attention. And to this, I think, the narrative itself gives us the answer. I understand that answer to be, 'Melchisedek was the earliest man of his class, and therefore was not ordained with [ 160 J
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
hands.' The first priest of God in the history of the world must have come from a house not made with hands. He must have derived his ordination, not from apostolic touch, but from popular suffrage. Imagine that in a somewhat rude and unconventional community there lived a man of singularly pure and upright life—in manners gentle, in piety fervent, in counsel wise, in prayer powerful, in speech eloquent. Imagine that from far and near the peasants gathered on the hills to hear him and listened breathlessly to his thoughts of God. Imagine that he went in and out among the people inquiring as to their welfare and ministering to their need. Imagine that in their sickness he came to pray for them and that by a singular coincidence those for whom he prayed recovered. Would not these men, however far behind in goodness, receive an extraordinary impression of the power of goodness! Would they not also receive an impression of this man's special power and canonise him in their hearts as a medium for their communion with God! I have taken a case which has come within my own knowledge.
But let us suppose that it occurred, not in modern times, but in an age when ecclesiastical in- [ 161 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
stitutions were as yet non-existent, would not such a man be an ecclesiastic without orders, a Churchman without a Church, a priest without the laying on of hands! Such the first priest must have been; and the type of the first priest is Melchisedek.
It is in this light that we must understand the remarkable words of the writer to the Hebrews when he speaks of Melchisedek as 'without father, without mother, without descent.' What he means is that his prtesthood was without father or mother or descent.
What he says is this: "This High Priest of God was uncanonical. He derived his office from no touch of episcopal hand, from no human genealogy. He was the first of his class; he made his class. He has lighted the torch of priesthood for his successors; but God lighted it for him. The generations that followed him can claim him as their ecclesiastical father; but he himself had no ecclesiastical father; he got his life from God. His priesthood came from within. It was his sanctity that made him reverenced. Abraham received his blessing from him, his ordination from him, not because he was the scion of a long sacred line, but because he was the per- [ 162 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
sonification of righteousness, the emblem of peace. The tribute paid to him was the tribute j/ paid to holiness. He derived his sacred character from no carnal authority, but from "the power of an endless life'"—a life without beginning of days or close of years—the Life of the Eternal.'
I have sought thus to paraphrase the striking passage in Hebrews. The thought clearly seems to be that the chain of canonicity has its origin in the uncanonical—in the spontaneous and unruled dictates of the individual heart.
The writer declares that the beginning of every ecclesiastical chain is something not ecclesiastical—something human. He tells us that the Churches of the old world each began in a human soul—in the heart of a single solitary man. Within this holy temple all other temples had their foundation; within this sacred shrine all other shrines were lighted. In Melchisedek, within the precincts of one heart, was laid the nucleus of all that sanctity which attached to the patriarchal line.
- The priesthood of a Jacob, the priesthood of an Isaac, the priesthood of an Abraham, were all derived; but the priesthood of Melchise- [ 163 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
dek was all his own—it came from the purity of his inmost soul.
There are, I think, three orders of priesthood in the Bible—the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian; and at the beginning of each dispensation there stands an individual life whose ordination is not made with hands.
The origin of the patriarchal dispensation is the holiness of one man—the man Melchisedek. The origin of the Jewish dispensation is the holiness of one man—the man who got his fire direct from the burning bush—the man
Moses. The origin of the Christian dispensation is, from the human side, the holiness of one man—the Man Christ Jesus.
I should not have dared to make this last comparison if the writer to the Hebrews had not made it before me. But he has. He says that Christ was made a priest 'after the manner of Melchisedek.' I prefer the translation
'after the manner' to 'after the order.' The very peculiarity of Melchisedek is that he belongs to no order. He did not derive his priesthood from that hereditary descent which in patriarchal times was its common source; he was, in this respect, 'without father or mother.' He was the earliest of his kind.
[ 164 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
Aaron got his priesthood from the consecrated hand of Moses; Melchisedek got his from no hand. The difference between Aaron and Melchisedek lay precisely in this, that Aaron belonged to an order, Melchisedek did not.
The point of comparison, therefore, between Melchisedek and Christ is just the uncanonical manner of their ordination. Looking at the matter from the human side, and abstracting the attention from theological prepossessions, there is nothing to my mind more remarkable than the uncanonical aspect of the Son of Man.
He has founded a Church—the greatest priesthood this world has ever seen. He has built a visible House of God—a structure which has filled the largest space in modern history and occupied the centre of modern civilisation. Yet He Himself stands not in a house made with hands. The ordination He has given is an ordination which personally He does not possess. The ecclesiastical function has been made canonical by Him; but He Himself has no canonical orders. He has given what He did not get, imparted what
- He did not receive. We have obtained the flower from His hand, but we have never seen
Him pluck it from any garden. He has not [ 165 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
been presented with the rose; He has created it; He has obtained it 'after the manner of Melchisedek.'
I am deeply impressed with the prominence which the Evangelists have given to this feature of the Son of Man—His want of canonicity. It is to my mind the thing which of all others they are most eager to suggest. As a rule, they are chiefly anxious to tell their story; but, if there is anything they desire to tell besides their story, it is of the absence of canonicity in the Priesthood of Jesus. We see the child in the temple performing an act of self-consecration to the service of His Father.
We see the youth on the banks of Jordan recognised as independent of the baptism He received. We see the man on the path of beneficence pointing the labouring and the heavyladen, not to the consolation of the Scriptures, not to the counsel of the Hierarchy, not to the cleansing power of the Jewish sacrifices, but to His own underived strength: 'Come unto
Me!' We see the life as it nears its close repair to no human helps or fountains of earthly preparation, but illumine itself with a glory all its own: 'as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance was altered, and His face did
[ 166 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
shine.' He gave the impression of one having 'life in Himself'—life not derived from other lives. He gave the impression of one who was lighting the world—not of one whom the world was lighting. He gave the impression of one who was creating a fountain—not of a thirsty traveller who had been refreshed by a stream. He was not made sacred by the touch of sacred things; He touched common things, and they became sacred. He glorified objects which were canonically ignoble; He made suffering holy, He made patience heroic, He made the cross divine. Unconsecrated, He became the source of consecration; He was a priest 'after the manner of Melchisedek.'
I have dwelt upon this Gospel picture because it illustrates the Old Testament picture
—is meant to illustrate that picture. In the absence of any direct biography of Melchisedek, the best description we can give of his priesthood is to say, It was like the ministry of Jesus. That is what the writer to the Hebrews says, and it conveys a whole volume. What, now, is the effect of this portrait of Melchisedek as reflected in the life of Christ? What is its historical significance, its abiding lesson?
Is it not simply this, that in the last result [ 167 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
the most important ofall factors is the individual man? Catholic and Protestant alike, if they go back far enough, will arrive at a time when a man's Church is in his own house and in his own soul. They will come to a time when a man's glory shines not from without but from within. St. John in Patmos beheld a city of the future in which there was no temple. But, if religion is to culminate in the absence of a temple, its culmination will be only like its beginning. The first man in the garden of the Lord is ever a Melchisedek.
Like the primeval Adam, he stands alone. He is without father or mother or descent. He has received no ordination from the past; he has to make his own paradise. There are no stones in his wilderness which he can make bread.
He is the heir to no sacraments, the inheritor of no promises. The desert cannot make him glad; he has to gladden the desert. He is the first rose of summer, and therefore, as truly as the last rose, he is alone. The last rose has lost her companions; but the first has never had companions, and that is equal loneliness.
The solitude of Melchisedek is the solitude of the Son of Man—the solitude of one who is born before his time and who has seen a vision
[ 168 ]
MELCHISEDEK THE UNCANONICAL
his generation cannot see. Melchisedek burst into flower when the Canaanite was still in the land.
I THANK Thee, O Father, that Thou hast ever planted Thy first rose ere the Canaanite has been expelled. I thank Thee that Thou hast sown the wheat before Thou hast plucked up the tares. I thank Thee that Thou hast sent
Thy primrose into my early year. There are Melchisedeks in the heart while the heart is still only a 'land of the Canaanites.' My aspirations come sooner than my deeds. Long before 1 am good I have longings after goodness.
Thou acceptest me for these longings, O my God! Thou waitest not for the full corn;
Thou tarriest not for the autumn ripeness.
Thou comest to the one opening bud in my heart—the one Melchisedek in my Canaan.
Thou comest to my first rose—my primrose.
Thou callest my life a garden while it is yet a wilderness; I am justified by faith—by mere aspiration, ere I have done a single good work. The Canaanites are all within me still; the old habits are there, the old temptations are there. But there is a single Melchisedek
[ 169 ]
THE REPRESENTATIVE MEN
among them—the wish of my heart for better things. Thou hast accepted that solitary flower and called it righteousness. Thou hast beheld my one star and called it Bethlehem. Thou hast seen my one thread of gold and called it
Christ. Thou hast heard the faint beating of my heart and called it Calvary. Thou hast received Melchisedek in spite of his environment; in the dark and in the cold Thou hast received him, in the midst of the Canaanites
Thou hast received him. Bless the Lord, O my soul!
[ 170 ] i i: