364 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. II.
they are made partakers of in the person of Christ. Besides,—which is the great absurdity of this interpretation,—they all affirm that the same words are used to express and confirm things directly con- trary and adverse unto one another. For those words in the psalmist, “Thou hast made him little less than the angels,” they would have to signify the exaltation of man in his creation, being made nigh unto and little less than angels; and in the application of them by the apostle unto Christ, they acknowledge that they denote depres- sion, minoration, humiliation, or exinanition. How the same words in the same place can express contrary things, prove the exaltation of one and the depression of another, is very hard if not impossible to be understood. Besides, they are compelled to interpret the same phrase in diverse senses, as well as the same sentence in con- trary ; for those words in the psalmist, Bpayt 71, as applied unto man, they make to denote quantity or quality,—as unto Christ, time or duration; which that in the same place they cannot do both is need- less to prove. But, as we said, our exposition is wholly free from these entanglements, answering the words of the psalmist, and suited to the words and context of the apostle throughout.
Schlichtingius or Crellius, in his comment on these words, would fain lay hold of an objection against the deity of Christ, p. 112. “ Hine videmus,” saith he, “cum D. Auctor aded sollicite laboret, et Scripture dictis pugnet eum qui angelis fuerit ratione naturee minor, nempe Christum debuisse suprema gloria et honore coronari, angelosque dignitate longé superare; nec ipsi auctori nec cuipiam Christianorum ad quos scribit, divine preter humanam in Christo nature in mentem venisse, nam si hanc in Christo agnovissent, nullo negotio etiam Christum angelis longe prestare, naturamque humanam ei minime obstare vidissent: quid queso tanto molimine, tantoque argumentorum apparatu ad rem omnibus apertissimam persuadendam opus fuisset? Quid argumentis aliunde conquisitis laborat auctor, cum uno ictu, unica naturee istius divine mentione rem totam conficere potuisset?” The whole ground of this fallacy lies in a supposition that the apostle treateth of the person of Christ absolutely and in himself considered; which is evidently false. He speaks of him in respect of the office he undertook as the mediator of the new covenant; in which respect he was both made less than the angels, not only on the account of his nature, but of the condition wherein he discharged his duty, and also made or exalted above them, by grant from his Father; whereas in his divine nature he was absolutely and infinitely so from the instant of the creation. And whereas those to whom he wrote did hear that he was, in the discharge of his office, for a little while made much lower than the angels, it was not in vain for him to prove, by arguments and testimonies, that in the execution of the same office
VER. 5-9.] ___ EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 365
he was also exalted above them, that part of his work being finished for which he was made lower than they for a season. And most needful it was for him so to do in respect of the Hebrews, who, boasting of the ministry of angels in the giving of the law, were to be convinced of the excellency of the author of the gospel, as such, in the discharge of his work, above them. And the express men- tion of his divine nature was in this place altogether needless and improper, nor would it have proved the thing that he intended; for how easy had it been for the Jews to have replied, that not- withstanding that, they saw in how low an outward condition he ministered upon the earth, and therefore that would not prove his exaltation above angels in the discharge of his office, seeing not- withstanding that he was evidently made lower than they in that office! It would also have been improper for him in this place to have made any mention thereof, seeing the proof of the excellency of his person, absolutely considered, was nothing unto the business he had now in hand. And it was likewise every way needless, he having so abundantly proved and vindicated his divine nature in the chapter foregoing. Now, to take an argument against a thing from the apostle’s silence of it in one place, where the mention of it was improper, useless, and needless, he having fully expressed the same matter elsewhere, yea, but newly before, is an evidence of a bad or barren cause. Of the like importance is that which he afterwards adds, p. 115, “Quemadmodum autem Jesus homo verus, et naturali conditione czeteris hominibus similis esse debuit; neque enim eorum servator est, qui natura et dii sunt et homines, sed hominum tan- tum;” for we shall demonstrate that it was needful he should have a divine nature who was to suffer and to save them who had only a human. And if this man had acknowledged that end and effect of his suffering, without which we know it would have been of no advantage unto them for whom he suffered, he also would believe the same.
We say not any thing of the sense of the Jews on this place of the psalmist. They seem wholly to have lost the design of the Holy Ghost in it, and therefore, in their accustomed manner, to embrace fables and trifles. The Talmudists ascribe those words, “What is man?” unto some of the angels, expressing their envy and indignation at his honour upon his first creation. The later doctors, as Kimchi and Aben Ezra, make application of it unto man in general, wherein they are followed by too many Christians, unto whom the apostle had been a better guide. But we may here also see what is further tendered unto us for our instruction; as,—