this testimony by itself.’ Ver. 5—Unto which of the angels did heat any time [or, ever] say, Thou art my Son, this day have I be-
gotten thee?
Two things are considerable in these words:—1. The manner of - the apostle’s producing the testimony which he intended to make use of: “Unto which of the angels said he at any time?” 2. The testemony itself: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”
In the former, three things may be observed :—
First, That the testimony which in a matter of faith he insisted on is that of the Scripture. He refers the Jews unto that common principle which was acknowledged between them. Men had not as yet learned in such contests to make that cavilling return which we are now used unto, ‘How do you know those Scriptures to be the word of God?’ Nor, indeed, is it suitable unto common honesty for men to question the credit and prostitute the authority of their own most sacred principles, for no other end but to prejudice their
*Tloré, wal weéaw. “Iloré does not serve to strengthen the riv:, but is indepen- dent, signifying ‘ at any time,’ and thus forms a marked antithesis with reac. This xzi zed is to be extended in the following way: Kal rim cav dyyénoyv enw size, To which of the angels has he at any time said, Thou art my Son? and to which has he again said, I will be to him a Father?’ This contains clearly the two ideas: God has used such expressions to an angel not even a single time, but to the Son not merely once, but again and again. Veyév. There is as- ceribed to the Messiah a relation of sonship to God such as is never applied, even approximately, to any of the angels,—a relation of such a kind, that the Messiah derives his real being not from David but from God.”—Ebrard. “It may fairly be doubted whether there exists any valid evidence in favour of the decla- rative sense of the passage, and hence we have no alternative but to explain it according to its literal acceptation, as an absolute affirmation of the divine son- ship of Christ. That this is the exposition which would most readily occur to the Jews is too evident to require any detailed proof... . . To-day always is. - +. So Clement of Alexandria happily remarks, ‘ To-day is the image of an eternal age.’”—Trefrey on the Sonship, pp. 300-302. —Ep.
VER. 5.] od EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 131
adversaries’. But our apostle here confidently sends the Hebrews to the acknowledged rule of their faith and worship, whose authority he knew they would not decline, Isa. viii. 20.
Secondly, That the apostle argues negatively from the authority and perfection of the Scripture in things relating to faith and the worship of God. ‘It is nowhere said in the Scripture to angels; therefore they have not the name spoken of, or not in that manner wherein it is ascribed to the Messiah.’ This argument, saith an expositor of great name on this place, seems to be weak, and not unlike unto that which the heretics made use of in the like cases; and therefore answers that the apostle argues negatively, not only from the Scripture, but from tradition also. But this answer is far more weak than the argument is pretended to be. The apostle deals expressly in all this chapter from the testimony of Scripture, and to that alone do his words relate, and therein doth he issue the whole controversy he had in hand, knowing that the Jews had many corrupt traditions, expressly contrary to what he undertook to prove; particularly, that the law of Moses was eternally obligatory, against which he directly contends in the whole epistle. An argument, then, taken negatively from the authority of the Scripture in matters of faith, or what relates to the worship of God, is valid and effectual, and here consecrated for ever to the use of the church by the apostle.
Thirdly, That the apostle either indeed grants, or else, for argu- ment’s sake, condescends unto the apprehension of the Hebrews, that there is a distinction of degrees and pre-eminence amongst the angels themselves. To confirm, therefore, his general assertion of the dignity and pre-eminence of Christ above them all, he provokes them to instance in any one of them, which either indeed or in their apprehension was promoted above others, to whom such words as these were ever spoken: “ To which of the angels said he.” His assertion respects not only the community of them, but any or all of the chief or princes among them. There are DJYN77 ONY, Dan. x. 18, “chief princes” among the angels. And of them Michael, the prince of the people of God, is said to be 78, “one;” that is, not in order, but the chief in dignity, their head and leader. Now, saith the apostle, to which of these, or of the rest of them, were these words spoken?
Proceed we now to the testimony itself produced, Three things are required to make it pertinent unto his purpose, and useful unto the end for which he makes mention of it:—First, That He of whom he speaks is peculiarly intended therein. Secondly, That there be in it an assignation oy a name unto him made by God himself, which thereon he might claim as his peculiar inheritance. Thirdly, That this name, either absolutely or in its peculiar manner