Thirdly, Some refer these words to the prophetical office of Christ, and say that he was the brightness of God’s glory, etc. by his reveal- ing and declaring the will of God unto us, which before was done darkly only and in shadows. So the Socinians generally, though Schlichtingius refers the words unto all that similitude which they fancy to have been between God and: the man Christ Jesus whilst he was in the earth; and therefore renders the participle @y, not by the present, but preterimperfect tense, “who was;” that is, whilst he was on the earth,—though, as he says, not exclusively unto what he is now in heaven.
I shall not examine in particular the reasons that are alleged for these several interpretations, but only propose and confirm that sense
_of the place which on full and due consideration appears, as agree-
90 AN EXPOSITION OF THE } [CHAP. I.
able unto the analogy of faith, so expressly to answer the design and intendment of the apostle; wherein also the unsoundness of the two last branches or ways of applying the second interpretation, with the real coincidence of the first, and first branch of the latter exposition, will be discovered. To this end the following positions are to be observed :—
First, It is not the direct and immediate design of the apostle to treat absolutely of either natwre of Christ, his divine or human, but only of his person. Hence, though the things which he mentioneth and expresseth may some of them belong unto, or be the properties of his divine nature, some of his human, yet none of them are spoken of as such, but are all considered as belonging unto his person. And this solves that difficulty which Chrysostom observes in the words, and strives to remove by a similitude, namely, that the apostle doth not observe any order or method in speaking of the divine and human natures of Christ distinctly one after another, but first speaks of the one, then of the other, and then returns again to the former, and that frequently. But the truth is, he intends not to speak directly and absolutely of either nature of Christ; but treating ex professo of his person, some things that he mentions concerning him have a special foundation in and respect unto his divine nature, some in and unto his human, as must every thing that is spoken of him. And therefore the method and order of the apostle is not to be in- quired after in what relates in his expressions to this or that nature of Christ, but in the progress that he makes in the description of his person and offices; which alone he had undertaken.
Secondly, That which the apostle principally intends in and about the person of Christ, is to set forth his dignity, pre-eminence, and exaltation above all; and that not only consequentially to his dis- charge of the office of mediator, but also antecedently, in his worth, fitness, ability, and suitableness to undertake and discharge it, —which in a great measure depended on and flowed from his divine nature.
These things being supposed, we observe, thirdly, That as these expressions are none of them singly, much less in that conjunction wherein they are here placed, used concerning any other but Christ only, so they do plainly contain and express things that are more sublime and glorious than can, by the rule of Scripture or the ana- logy of faith, be ascribed unto any mere creature, however raised or exalted. There is in the words evidently a comparison with God the Father: he is infinitely glorious, eternally subsisting in his own person; and the Son is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Angels are called “the sons of God,” are mighty in power, and excellent in created glory; but when they come to be compared with God, it is said they are not pure in his
sight; and he charged them with folly, Job iv. 18; and they cover _
VER. 3.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 91
their faces at the brightness of his glory, Isa. vi. 2: so that they cannot be said so to be. Man also was created in the image of God, and is again by grace renewed thereinto, Eph. iv. 28, 24: but to say a man is the express image of the person of God the Father, is to depress the glory of God by anthropomorphitism. So that unto God asking that question, “ Whom will ye compare unto me? and whom will ye liken me unto?” we cannot answer of any one who is not God by nature, that he is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.”
Fourthly, Though the design of the apostle in general be to show how the Father expressed and declared himself unto us in the Son, yet this could not be done without manifesting what the Son is in himself and in reference unto the Father; which both the expressions do in the first place declare. They express him such an one as in whom the infinite perfections and excellencies of God are revealed unto us. So that the first application of the words, namely, to the divine nature of Christ, and the first branch of the second, consider- ing him as incarnate, are very well consistent; as & Lapide grants, after he had blamed Beza for his interpretation. The first direction, then, given unto our faith in these words, is by what the Son is in respect of the Father, namely, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;” whence it follows that in him, being incarnate, the Father’s glory and his person are expressed and manifested unto us.