40 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. L
this discovers the woful state of the present Jews. They grant that the revelation of the will of God is not perfected; and yet, notwith- standing all their. miseries, darkness, and distresses, they dare not pretend that they have heard one word from heaven these two thousand years,—that is, from the days of Malachi; and yet they. labour to keep the veil upon their eyes.
IV. We may see hence the absolute perfection of the revelation of the will of God by Christ and his apostles, as to every end and purpose whatever for which God ever did or ever will in this world reveal himself, or his mind and will.
For as this was the last way and means that God ever designed for the discovery of himself, as to the worship and obedience which he requires, so the person by whom he accomplished this work makes it indispensably necessary that it be also absolutely perfect, from which nothing can be taken, to which nothing must be added, under the penalty of the extermination threatened to him that will not attend to the voice of that Prophet.
Return we now again unto the words of our apostle. Having declared the Son to be the immediate revealer of the gospel, im pur- suit of his design he proceeds to declare his glory and excellency, both that which he had in himself antecedent to his susception of the office of mediator, and what he received upon his investiture therewith.
Two things in the close of this verse he assigns unto him:—l. That he was appointed heir of all; 2. That by him the worlds were made: wherein consist the first amplification of his proposition con- cerning the revealer of the gospel, in two parts, both acknowledged by the Jews, and both directly conducing to his purpose in hand. “Ov bque xrnpovopsov ravrav, ” ROqxe,— Posuit,’ “ fecit,”
"Benne. Cra : z “ — constituit.” Syr., 02,—*posuit,” “he placed,” “ set,” “made,” “ appointed.” ne 1. “Ov, “whom;” that is the Son, in whom the Father ve
spake unto us; and as such, as the revealer of the gos- pel, Occvdpwrog, “God and man.” The Son, as God, hatha natural - dominion over all. To this he can be no more appointed than he can be to be God. On what account he hath his divine nature, on the same he hath all the attributes and perfections of it, with all things that necessarily on any supposition attend it, as supreme dominion doth. Nor doth this denotation of him respect merely the human nature; for although the Lord Christ performed all the acts of his mediatory office in and by the human nature, yet he did them not as man, but as God and man in one person, John i, 14, Acts xx. 28. And therefore unto him, as such, do the privileges belong that he is vested with on the account of his being mediator. Nothing, indeed, can be added unto him as God, but there may be
VER. 1, 2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Al
to him who is God, in respect of his condescension to discharge an office in another nature which he did assume. And this salves the paralogism of Felbenger on this place, which is that wherewith the Jews and Socinians perpetually entangle themselves: “ Deus altissimus non potest salva majestate sua ab aliquo heeres constitutus esse; Filius Dei a Deo est heres omnium constitutus: ergo Filius Dei non est Deus altissimus.” God is called hey ON, “the high,” or “most high God,” with reference to his sovereign and supreme exal- tation over all his creatures, as the next words in the place where that title is given unto him do declare: #8) DY 13p,—* Possessor of heaven and earth,” Gen. xiv.19. He is not termed “Deus altissi- mus,’ “the most high God,” as though there were another “ Deus altus,” “a high God,” that is not the “altissimus;” which is the sense of the Socinians. This one “Deus altissimus,’ “most high God,” absolutely, in respect of his divine nature, cannot be appointed an heir by any other. But he who is so this high God as to be the eternal Son of the Father, and made man, may, in respect of the office which in the nature of man he undertook to discharge, by his Father be made “heir of all.”
2. KAnpovouoy, “the heir.” KaAjpog is “a lot,’ and a peculiar portion received by lot; thence “an inherit- ance,” which is a man’s lot and portion. KA%pos éaidinos, “an in- heritance under controversy ;” xAxpovijuos, “an heir to goods divided by lot,” or he that distributeth an inheritance to others by lot. Absolutely, “an heir.’ So the poet, of the covetous Hermocrates, °Ev diady nos wiry rév id/wv eypanle xAnpoviuovr—* He appointed him- self his own heir in his last will and testament.” It hath also a more large signification. ‘O roi Aéyou xAnpoviuos, he is, in Plato, whose turn it was to speak next. Strictly, it is the same with “ heeres,” “an heir.’ And an heir is he “ qui subintrat jus, locum, et dominium rerum’ defuncti, ac si eadem persona esset ;’—“ who entereth into the right, place, and title of him that is deceased, as if he were the same person.” But yet the name of an heir is not restrained in the law to him that so succeeds a deceased per- son; in which sense it can have no place here. ‘“ Heredis nomen latiore significatione possessorem et fidei commissarium et legata- rium comprehendit ;’—it comprehends a possessor, a trustee, and a legatary. So Spigelius. This sense of the word takes off the cata- chresis which must be supposed in the application of it unto the Son, if it only denoted such an heir as Abraham thought Eliezer would be to him, Gen. xv. 8, 4,—one that succeeds into the right and goods of the deceased; for the Father dieth not, nor doth ever forego his own title or dominion. Neither is the title and right given to the Son as mediator the same with that of God absolutely consi-