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, Marloratus, Rollocus, Gomarus, Paræus, Estius, Tena, A 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 the invisible 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 his excellencies, but that we are overpowered in our minds with their glory and majesty, he hath in Christ the Son as incarnate, contemporated 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 had 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 Camero. Thirdly, Some refer these words to the prophetical office of Christ, and say that he was the brightness of God's glory, &c. by his revealing and declaring of the will of God unto us, which before was done darkly only, and in shadows. So the Socinians generally, though Schlictingius refers the words unto all that similitude, which they fancy to have been between God, and the man Christ Jesus, while he was in the earth; and therefore he renders the participle, not by the present, but præterimperfect tense, who was, that is, while 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 both agreeable to the analogy of faith, and expressly to answer the design and intention of the apostle; wherein also, the unsoundness of the two last 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 Chrysostome 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. 3. 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 used or exalted. There is in the word 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 chargeth 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 thereunto, 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 anthropomorphism. So that unto God asking that question, "Whom will ye compare unto me, and whom will you liken me unto?" we cannot answer VOL. III. H 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, Marloratus, Rollocus, Gomarus, Paræus, Estius, Tena, A 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 the invisible 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 his excellencies, but that we are overpowered in our minds with their glory and majesty, he hath in Christ the Son as incarnate, contemporated 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 had 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 Camero. Thirdly, Some refer these words to the prophetical office of Christ, and say that he was the brightness of God's glory, &c. by his revealing and declaring of the will of God unto us, which before was done darkly only, and in shadows. So the Socinians generally, though Schlictingius refers the words unto all that similitude, which they fancy to have been between God, and the man Christ Jesus, while he was in the earth; and therefore he renders the participle, not by the present, but præterimperfect tense, who was, that is, while 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 both agreeable to the analogy of faith, and expressly to answer the design and intention of the apostle; wherein also, the unsoundness of the two last 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 Chrysostome 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 concern ing 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. 3. 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 used or exalted. There is in the word 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 chargeth 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 thereunto, 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 anthropomorphism. So that unto God asking that question, "Whom will ye compare unto me, and whom will you liken me unto?" we cannot answer VOL. III. H 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 shew 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 A Lapide grants, after he had blamed Beza for his interpretation. The first direction then given to 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 shewed, 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 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, name |