Fifthly, There is nothing in these words that is not applicable unto the divine nature of Christ. Some, as we have showed, sup- pose that it is not that which is peculiarly intended in the words; but yet they can give no reason from them, nor manifest any thing denoted by them, which may not be conveniently applied there- unto. I say, whatever can be proved to be signified by them or contained in them, if we will keep ourselves within the bounds of that holy reverence which becomes us in the contemplation of the majesty of God, may be applied unto the nature of God as existing in the person of the Son. He is in his person distinct from: Father, another not the Father; but yet the same in nature, a this in all glorious properties and excellencies. This oneness in na- ture, and distinction in person, may be well shadowed out by these expressions, “He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” The boldness and curiosity of the schoolmen, and some others, in expressing the way and manner of the genera- tion of the Son, by similitudes of onr understanding and its acts, declaring how he is the image of the Father, in their terms, are in- tolerable and full of offence. Nor are the rigid impositions of those words and terms in this matter which they or others have found out to express it by, of any better nature. Yet I confess, that supposing
92 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. I.
with some that by the first expression here used, “The brightness of glory,” the apostle intends to set forth unto us the relation of the Son to the Father by an allusion unto the sun and its beams, or the light of fire in iron,-some relief may thence be given unto our weak understandings in the contemplation of this mystery, if we observe that one known rule, whose use Chrysostom urgeth in this place, namely, that in the use of such allusions every thing of imperfec- tion is to be removed, in their application unto God. A few instances we may give unto this purpose, holding ourselves unto an allusion to the sun and its beams.
1. As the sun in comparison of the beam is of itself, and the beam of the sun; so is the Father of himself, and the Son of the Father. 2. As the sun, without diminution or partition of its substance, with- out change or alteration in its nature, produceth the beam; so is the Son begotten of the Father. 3. As the sun in order of nature is before the beam, but in time both are co-existent; so is the Father in order of nature before the Son, though in existence both co-eter- nal. 4, As the beam is distinct from the sun, so that the sun is not the beam, and the beam is not the sun; so is it between the Father and the Son. 5. As the beam is never separate from the sun, nor can the sun be without the beam, no more can the Son be from the Father, nor was the Father ever without the Son. 6. As the sun cannot be seen but by the beam, no more can the Father but in and by the Son.
I acknowledge that these things are true, and that there is no- thing in them disagreeable unto the analogy of faith. But yet as sundry other things may be affirmed of the sun and its beam, whereof no tolerable application can be made to the matter in hand, so I am not persuaded that the apostle intended any such comparison or al- lusion, or aimed at our information or instruction by them. They were common people of the Jews, and not philosophers, to whom the apostle wrote this epistle; and therefore either he expresseth the things that he intends in terms answering -unto what was in use among themselves to the same purpose, or else he asserts them plainly in words as meet to express them properly by as any that are in use amongst men. ‘To say there is an allusion in the words, and that the Son is not properly, but by a metaphor, “the brightness of glory,” is to teach the apostle how to express himself in the things of God. For my part, I understand as much of the nature, glory, and properties of the Son, in and by this expression, “He is the brightness of glory,” as I do by any of the most accurate expressions which men. have arbitrarily invented to signify the same thing. That he is one distinct from God the Father, related unto him, and partaker of his glory, is clearly asserted in these words; and more is not intended in them.
VER. 3.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 93
Sixthly, These things, then, being premised, we may discern the general importance of these expressions. The words themselves, as was before observed, being nowhere else used in the Scripture, we may receive a contribution of light unto them from those in other places which are of their nearest alliance. Such are these and the like: “ We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,” Johni. 14. “ Heis the image of the invisible God,” Col. i.15. The glory of God shines forth in him, 2 Cor. iv. 6. Now, in these and the like places, the glory of the divine nature is so inti- mated, as that we are directed to look unto the glory of the abso- lutely invisible and incomprehensible God in him incarnate. And this in general is the meaning and intendment of the apostle in these expressions: ‘The Son, in whom God speaks unto us in the revelation of the gospel, doth in his own person so every way answer the excellencies and perfections of God the Father, that he is in him expressly represented unto our faith and contem- plation,’