Ver. 3.-Who being the brightness of glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding [or, disposing of all things by the word of his power, having by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The apostle proceeds in his description of the person in whom God

more than a mere ray, more than a mere image,-a sun produced from the original light." A., "the eternal essential glory of the Father." According to the explanation which refers it to the Shechinah, "the Son would be degraded beneath the Old Testament imperfect typical form of the divine manifestation; seeing that he would be represented as an day. of the latter, which was not even itself an davy, but a mere reflection."-Ebrard.

Χαρακ. τ. υ. α. Υπ. plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or essence. Christ is the development of that substance to our view, the delineation of it. Ancient Greek annotators, and after them most of the modern ones, have applied these words to the divine nature of Christ. In the opinion that the verse now under consideration relates to the incarnate Messiah, I find that Scott and Beza concur."―Stuart. "'Y. means being, essence. Many expositors, offended at the Son being called only the copy of the Being, took v. in the sense adopted by the church, of Person."-Tholuck. A. signifies the essence of the Father with reference to the glory in which he represents himself before the eyes of the suppliant creature; v., this essence as essence, and without regard to its outward manifestation. Xap. is here used "in the sense of a form cut out or engraven." The dog. represents itself in a form composed of rays, a sun; the va̸. stamps itself out in a manifest figure. These appositions belong more properly to the Logos qua eternally pre-existent.-Ebrard.

Pép. corresponds to the Hebrew N, Isa. xlvi. 3, lxvi. 9, curo, conservo, to sustain, to preserve, as a mother does her child. Te pp. T. d. a., by his own powerful word, the word of the Son, not the word of God, as autoй would mean.— Stuart. According to Bleek, auro corresponds to avro of the first person, airov to ipov. If the former, the emphasis being on "self," the phrase would be, "By the word of his own power." "There is no occasion for this emphasis here. Avrou applies in a reflexive sense to the Son, and not to the Father."Ebrard.

Kab., purification; in Hellenistic Greek expiation, e.g., Exod. xxix. 36,xxx.10; not purification by moral means, because it is joined with or' avrov, which is explained in ch. ii. 14 by dia Tov Javátov; in ch. ix. 12 by dià roŭ idíov aïμaros; and in ch. ix. 26 by dia vs Ivoías avrov. —Stuart. "The purification in the Biblical sense consists in the atonement, the gracious covering ( Lev. xvi, 30) of guilt.”—Ebrard. 'Exáé. corresponds to the Hebrew ; which applied to God and to kings, does not mean simply to sit, but to sit enthroned, Ps. ii. 4.-Stuart. "As man, and continuing to be man, he was exalted to a participation in the divine government of the world."-Ebrard.

TRANSLATIONS.—' Añaúy. x. 7. A. the radiance of his glory and the exact image of his substance.-Stuart. An emanation of his glory and an express image of his substance.-Conybeare and Howson. The radiance of his glory and the impress of his substance.-Craik. The brightness of his glory and the exact impression of his manner of existence.-Pye Smith. The refulgence of his glory and the impression of his essence.-De Wette. The ray of his glory and the stamp of his substance.-Turner.

Pepay z. T. 2. Controlling all things by his own powerful word.-Stuart.

Καθαρ. πο After he had made expiation. Stuart. Having made expiation. -Bloomfield. When he had made purification.-Conybeare and Howson. When he had made atonement.-Craik. After he had by himself purified us from sins by making an expiation.-Turner.—ED.

spake in the revelation of the gospel, ascending unto such a manifestation of him as that they might understand his eminency above all formerly used in the like ministrations; as also how he was pointed out and shadowed by sundry types and figures under the Old Tes

tament.

Of this description there are three parts; the first declaring what he is; the second, what he doth, or did; and the third, the consequent of them both, in what he enjoyeth.

Of the first part of this description of the Messiah there are two branches, or it is two ways expressed: for he affirms of him, first, that he is the "brightest beam," or "splendour of the glory;" and, secondly, "the express image," or "character of his Father's person."

66

In the second also there are two things assigned unto him,—the former relating unto his power, as he is the brightness of glory, he 'sustaineth," or ruleth and disposeth of "all things by the word of his power;"—the latter unto his love and work of mediation,—“by himself," or in his own person, he hath "purged our sins."

His present and perpetual enjoyment, as a consequent of what he was and did, or doth, is expressed in the last words: "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Some of these expressions may well be granted to contain some of those dvovinta, "things hard to be understood," which Peter affirms to be in this epistle of Paul, 2 Epist. iii. 16; which unstable and unlearned men have in all ages wrested unto their own destruction. The things intended are unquestionably sublime and mysterious; the terms wherein they are expressed are rare, and nowhere else used in the Scripture to the same purpose, some of them not at all, which deprives us of one great help in the interpretation of them; the metaphors used in the words, or types alluded unto by them, are abstruse and dark: so that the difficulty of discovering the true, precise, and genuine meaning of the Holy Ghost in them is such as that this verse, at least some part of it, may well be reckoned among those places which the Lord hath left in his word to exercise our faith, and diligence, and dependence on his Spirit, for a right understanding of them. It may be, indeed, that from what was known and acknowledged in the Judaical church, the whole intention of the apostle was more plain unto them, and more plainly and clearly delivered than now it seemeth unto us to be, who are deprived of their advantages. However, both to them and us the things were and are deep and mysterious; and we shall desire to handle (as it becometh us) both things and words with reverence and godly fear, looking up unto Him for assistance who alone can lead us into all truth.

We begin with a double description given us of the Lord Christ at the entrance of the verse, as to what he is in himself. And here

a double difficulty presents itself unto us;-first, In general unto what nature in Christ, or unto what of Christ, this description doth belong; secondly, What is the particular meaning and importance of the words or expressions themselves.

For the first, some assert that these words intend only the divine nature of Christ, wherein he is consubstantial with the Father. Herein as he is said to be "God of God, and Light of Light,"-an expression doubtless taken from hence,-receiving, as the Son, his nature and subsistence from the Father, so fully and absolutely as that he is every way the same with him in respect of his essence, and every way like him in respect of his person; so he is said to be "the brightness of his glory," and "the character of his person" on that account. This way went the ancients generally; and of modern expositors very many, as Calvin, Brentius, Marlorat, Rollock, Gomar, Pareau, Estius, Tena, à Lapide, Ribera, and sundry others.

Some think that the apostle speaks of him as incarnate, as he is declared in the gospel, or as preached, to be "the image of God," 2 Cor. iv. 4. And these take three ways in the explication of the words and their application of them unto him:

First, Some affirm that their meaning is, that whereas God is in himself infinite and incomprehensible, so that we are not able to contemplate on his excellencies, but that we are overpowered in our minds with their glory and majesty, he hath in Christ the Son, as incarnate, contemperated his infinite love, power, goodness, grace, greatness, and holiness, unto our faith, love, and contemplation, they all shining forth in him, and being eminently expressed in him. So Beza.

Secondly, Some think that the apostle pursues the description that he was entered upon, of the kingly office of Jesus Christ as heir of all; and that his being exalted in glory unto power, rule, and dominion, expressing and representing therein the person of his Father, is intended in these words. So Cameron.

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 revealing 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 ŵ, 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

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 nature 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 inquired 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 discharge 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 analogy 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

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. 23, 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, considering him as incarnate, are very well consistent; as à 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.

Fifthly, There is nothing in these words that is not applicable unto the divine nature of Christ. Some, as we have showed, suppose 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 thereunto. 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 the Father, another not the Father; but yet the same in nature, and this in all glorious properties and excellencies. This oneness in nature, 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 generation of the Son, by similitudes of our understanding and its acts, declaring how he is the image of the Father, in their terms, are intolerable 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