But if we suppose that his person and eternal generation may be intended in this expression, we must make zpuréroxog, or the “ first- born,” to be the same with jovoyevgs, or “ only-begotten ;’ which may not be allowed: for Christ is absolutely called the “only-begotten of the Father” in his eternal generation,—his essence being infinite, took up the whole nature of divine filiation, so that it is impossible that with respect thereunto there should be any more sons of God,— but zpwréroxos, or “ first-born,” is used in relation unto others; and yet, as I showed before, it doth not require that he who is so should have any other brethren in the same kind of sonship. But because this is by some asserted, namely, that Christ has many brethren in the same kind of sonship whereby he is himself the Son of God, and is on that account called the first-born (which is an assertion greatly derogatory to his glory and honour), I shall in our passage remove it, as a stumbling-block, out of the way.
Thus Schlichtingius on the place: “ Primogenitum eum nomine Dei Filium appellat, innuens hoc pacto plures Dei esse filios etiam ad Christum respectu habito; scilicet ut ostenderet non ita Christum esse Dei Filium, quin alii etiam eodem filiationis genere contine- antur, quanquam /filiationis perfectione et gradu Christo multd inferiores.” And again: “ Primogenitus dicitur Christus quod eum Deus ante omnes filios, eos nimirum qui Christi fratres appellantur genuerit ; eo scilicet modo quo Deus filios gignere solet; eos autem gignit quos sibi similes efficit; primus est Christus qui Deo ea sanc- titate similis fuit, qualem in novo foedere pracipit.”
But these things agree neither with the truth, nor with the de- sign of the apostle in this place, nor with the principles of them by whom they are asserted. It is acknowledged that God hath other sons besides Jesus Christ, and that with respect unto him; for in him we are adopted,—the only way whereby any one may attain unto the privilege of sonship: but that we are sons of God with or in the same kind of sonship with Jesus Christ, is,—
158 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
1. False. Because,—(1.) Christ in his sonship is wovoyevys, the “only-begotten” Son of God: and therefore it is impossible that God should have any more sons in the same kind with him; for if he had, certainly the Lord Christ could not be jwovoyev4s, his “ only-begotten” Son. (2.) The only way of filiation, the only kind of sonship, that believers share in is that of adoption; in any other kind of sonship they are not partakers. Now, if Christ be the Son of God in this kind, he must of necessity antecedently unto his adoption be a member of another family,—that is, of the family of Satan and the world, as we are by nature,—and from thence be transplanted by adoption into the family of God; which is blasphemy to imagine. So that neither can believers be the sons of God with that kind of sonship which is proper to Christ, he being the only-begotten of the Father; nor can the Lord Christ be the Son of God with the same kind of sonship as believers are, which is only by adoption, and their translation out of one family into another. So that either to exalt believers into the same kind of sonship with Christ, or to depress him into the same rank with them, is wholly inconsistent with the analogy of faith and principles of the gospel. (8.) If this were so, that the Lord Christ and believers are the sons of God by the same kind of sonship, only differing in degrees (which also are imaginary, for the formal reason of the same kind of sonship is not capable of variation by degrees), what great matter is in the condescension mentioned by the apostle, chap. i. 11, that “he is not ashamed to call them brethren;” which yet he compares with the condescension of God im being called their God, chap. xi. 16?
2. This conceit, as it is wntrue so it is contrary to the design of the apostle; for, to assert the Messiah to be the Son of God in the same way with men, doth not tend at all to prove him more excellent than the angels, but rather leaves us just ground for suspecting their preference above him.
3. It is contrary unto other declared principles of the authors of this assertion. They elsewhere affirm that the Lord Christ was the Son of God on many accounts; as first and principally, because he was conceived and born of a virgin by the power of God; now, surely, all believers are not partakers with him in this kind of son- ship. Again, they say he is the Son of God because God raised him from the dead, to confirm the doctrine that he had taught; which is not so with believers. Also they say he is the Son of God, and go called, upon the account of his sitting at the right hand of God; which is no less his peculiar privilege than the former. So that this is but an unhappy attempt to lay hold of a word for an ad- vantage, which yields nothing in the issue but trouble and per- plexity.
VER. 6.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 159