applied unto another; as Matt. xv. 7, 8. our Saviour applies those words of Isaiah to the present Jews, which were spoken of their forefathers.'

Answ. That which is spoken in the first place of an instituted type, is also spoken of the antitype or things prefigured by it, so far as it is represented by the type; so that one thing teaches another, and thereon the words have a double application; first to the type, ultimately to the antitype. But herein such testimonies as this have no concernment. 2. The Scripture sometimes makes use of allegories, illustrating one thing by another, as Gal. iv. 21-24. Neither hath this any place here. 3. That what is spoken of one, should because of some similitude be affirmed to be spoken of another, and nothing agree properly unto him, is untrue, and not to be exemplified with any seeming instance. 4. The words of Isaiah, chap. xxix. 13. which our Saviour makes use of, Matt. xv. 7—9. were a prophecy of the Jews who then lived, as our Saviour both expressly affirms, and the context in the prophet doth plainly declare.

'Some things,' he adds, are applied unto others than they are spoken of, because of their subordination to him or them of whom they are spoken. Thus things that are spoken of God are applied unto Christ, because of his subordination to him; and of this,' saith he, we have an instance in Acts xiii. 47. where the words spoken of the Lord Christ, Isa. xlix. 6. “I have set thee to be a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for salvation to the ends of the earth;" are applied unto the apostles, because of their subordination unto Christ. And in this case the words have but one sense, and belong primarily unto him of whom they are first spoken, and are secondarily applied unto the other.'

Answ. According to this rule, there is nothing that ever was spoken of God, but it may be spoken of and applied unto any of his creatures: all things being in subordination unto him. At least it may be so in that wherein they act under him, and are in a peculiar subordination to him. And yet neither can such a subordination, according to this man's opinion, be applied unto Christ, who in the creation of heaven and earth was in no other subordination to God, than any other things not yet made or existing; so that this rule, that what is spoken of God is applied unto them who are in subordination unto him, as it is false in itself, so it is no way suited to the present business; Christ being in this man's judgment in no subordination to God when the world was made, being absolutely in all respects in the condition of things that were not. Nor doth the instance given at all prove or illustrate what is pretended. The apostle in the citing of those words to the Jews,

doth not in the least apply them to himself, but only declares the ground of his going to preach the gospel unto the Gentiles; which was, that God had promised to make him whom he preached, to be a light, and to bring salvation unto them also.

Wherefore he adds, 3. what is direct to his pretension, that all the words, or things signified by them in any testimony, which are first spoken of one, and then are, for some of the causes mentioned, (that is, conveniency, similitude or subordi nation) applied unto another, are not to be looked on as proper to him to whom they are so applied; but so much of them is to be admitted as agrees to the scope of him by whom the testimony is used, as in the testimony produced, ver. 7. “ I will be unto him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son;" the words immediately following are, "if he shall offend against me, I will chastise him with the rod of men;" which words being spoken of Solomon, can no way be applied unto Christ.'

Answ. What is spoken of any type and of Christ jointly, is not so spoken for any natural conveniency, similitude or subordination, but because of God's institution, appointing the type so to represent and shadow out the Lord Christ, that what he would teach concerning him should be spoken of the type whereby he was represented. Now no person that was appointed to be a type of that, being in all things a type, it is not necessary that whatever was spoken of him was also spoken of Christ, but only what was spoken of him under that formal consideration of an instituted type. This we shewed to have been the case with Solomon, of whom the words mentioned were spoken, as he bare the person of Christ; other things being added in the same place, that belonged unto him in his own personally moral capacity. And therefore those things (as that," if he offend against me)" are not at all mentioned by the apostle, as not being spoken of him as a type. And this plainly overthrows the pretension of our commentator; for if the apostle would not produce the very next words to the testimony by him brought, because they did not belong unto him. of whom he spake, it proves undeniably that all those which he doth so urge and produce were properly spoken of him. And I cannot reach the strength of this inference, because in a place where all that was spoken was not spoken of Christ, the apostle makes use of what was so spoken of him, and omits that which was not; therefore of that which he doth produce in the next place, somewhat does belong to him, and somewhat does not. If any thing be offered to this purpose, it must be in an instance of a testimony produced, in the words whereof, which are produced, and not in what may follow in the same chapter and Psalm, there is that affirmed, which doth now no more beVOL. IIL. P

long unto Christ, than the making of heaven or earth belongeth to this writer, which is the case in hand.

Having premised these general considerations, he makes application of them in particular to his interpretation of this testimony used by the apostle.

6

These words,' saith he, being first expressly spoken of God, and being here by this writer referred unto Christ, we must consider what in them makes to his scope and purpose, what is agreeable to the nature and condition of Christ, who certainly was a man; and such certainly is not he which the Psalm speaks of, about the creation of heaven and earth. And this was well known to them with whom the apostle had to do.'

But any one may perceive that these things are spoken gratis, and upon the supposition that Christ was a mere man, and not God by nature; when the words themselves ascribing a preexistence to the world, and omnipotency unto him, do prove the contrary. What is the scope of the apostle in the whole discourse under consideration, hath been shewed, as also how directly this whole testimony tends to the proof of what he had proposed. It is true, that the words are spoken of him who is God, but no less true, the apostle being judge, that it is the Son of God who is that God. It is true, that he also was man, and nothing is ascribed unto him but what belongs unto him, who was man, but not as he was man. And such was the creation of heaven and earth.

The opinion of these men is, that whereas two things are mentioned in the words, the creation of the world, which was past; and the dissolution or destruction of it, which was to come, that the latter is assigned unto Christ, but not the former and for this division of the words, which confessedly is not in the least intimated by the apostles, he gives these rea

sons.

:

1. All the words of the Psalm being manifestly spoken of the high God, and no word in the Psalm declaring Christ to be that God, yet of necessity if these words be applied unto Christ, he must be supposed to be the high God there spoken of. But if this divine writer had taken this for granted, he had been eminently foolish to go about to prove by arguments and testimonies, that the Creator does excel all creatures. He should use in a matter no way doubtful, witnesses no way necessary.'

This is the first reason whereby he would prove that the apostle did not apply the words to Christ, though he himself plainly says that he does; for his preface to them is, "But to the Son he said." Or that if he doth so, he doth it wondrous foolishly, for such liberty do poor worms take to themselves.

That the Psalm so speaketh of the high God, that it directly and peculiarly intends Christ the Son of God, hath been in part declared, and shall farther afterwards be evinced. And the eulogium in these words given unto him proves him to be

So.

And though he affirms that it was a foolish thing in the apostle to prove from the works of him that is God, that he is above the angels, the most glorious of made creatures, yet God himself most frequently from these his works, his omniscience, omnipresence, and other attributes declared in them, proves his excellency in comparison of idols, which have no existence but in the imagination of men. See Isa. xli. 20, 21, &c.

By this testimony then, the Holy Ghost with infinite wisdom proves, that he who was made less for a little while than the angels in one respect, was absolutely, and in his own person, infinitely above them, as being the Creator of heaven and earth.

He adds, secondly, Those Hebrews to whom he wrote, were either persuaded that Christ was God, the Creator of heaven and earth, or they were not. If they were, what need of all these arguments and testimonies? One word might have dispatched this whole controversy, by affirming that Christ was the Creator, and that angels were creatures between whom there could be no comparison, nor any reason to fear that the law given by the administration of angels should be preferred to the gospel whereof he was the author. If we shall say the latter, that they did not yet believe it, how do we suppose that he takes a great deal of pains to little purpose? for he assures and takes for granted, that that was true which was alone in question. What need he then to prove by so many arguments, that Christ was more excellent than the angels, and to take that for granted which would have put it out of question, namely, that he was God who made heaven and earth ?'

Answ. This dilemma hath as much force against the other testimonies produced in this chapter or elsewhere by the apostle, as it hath against this; so that the using of it doth scarce argue that reverence to the holy word of God which is required of us. But the truth is, grant whether of the suppositions you please, nothing of inconvenience as unto the apostle's argumentation will ensue. Let it be granted that they did believe, and that expressly that Christ was God, have believers no need to have their faith confirmed by testimonies out of the word, that may not so readily occur to themselves? Have they no need to be strengthened in the faith, especially in such points as were in those days greatly opposed, as was this of the eternal glory of the Messiah, concerning which the believing Hebrews had to do with learned and stubborn adversaries continually. And if the apostle might have ended the whole controversy, by plainly affirming that he was the Creator of all things, and the angels

creatures, might he not as well have ended the dispute about his pre-eminence above angels with one word, without citing so many testimonies to prove it? But would he then have unfolded the mysteries of the Old Testament to the Hebrews, which was his design, had he manifested that he taught nothing but what was before revealed, though obscurely, to Moses and the prophets, which he aimed to do, thereby to strengthen and confirm in the faith those that did believe, and convince gain-sayers? Again, suppose some of them to whom he wrote did not yet expressly believe the deity of Christ, as the apostles themselves did not for a while believe his resurrection, could any more convincing way be fixed on to persuade them thereunto, than by reminding them of those testimonies of the Old Testament, wherein the attributes and works of God are ascribed unto him? Nor was it now in question whether Christ was God or not; but whether he were more excellent than the angels that gave the law. And what more effectual course could be taken to put an end to that inquiry, than by proving that he made the heaven and earth; that is, producing a testimony wherein the creation of all things is assigned unto him? It is beyond the wisdom of man to invent a more conclusive proof of pre-emi

nence.

3. He adds, That Christ might be spoken of in this place, either in respect of his human nature, or of his divine; if of the former, to what end should he make mention of the creation of heaven and earth? Christ as a man, and as made above the angels, made not heaven and earth. If as God, how could he be said to be made above the angels?'

But the answer is easy: Christ is said to be made above, and more excellent than the angels, neither absolutely as God, nor absolutely as man, but as he was God-man, the Mediator between God and man; in which respect, as Mediator for the discharge of one part of his office, he was a little while made lower than they; and so the creation of heaven and earth does demonstrate the dignity of his person, and the equity of his being made more excellent than the angels in his office. And this fully removes his following exceptions, that the remembering of his deity could be no argument to prove that the humanity was exalted above the angels; for it is not an argument of the exaltation of his humanity, but the demonstration of the excellency of his person, that the apostle hath in hand.

4. He allegeth, That it is contrary to the perpetual use of the Scripture, to affirm absolutely of Christ that he created any thing. When any creation is ascribed unto him, it is still ap plied to him as the immediate cause, and said to be made by him, or in him he is no where absolutely said to create. And if he created the world, why did not Moses as plainly attribute