not indeed a bringing of him into the world, but rather the first step towards his leaving of it; neither did he at his death leave the world utterly, for though his soul was separated from his body, yet his body was not separated from his person; and therein he continued on the earth.

The coming of Christ to reign here on earth a thousand years is, if not a groundless opinion, yet so dubious and uncertain, as not to be admitted a place in the analogy of faith, to regulate our interpretation of Scripture, in places that may fairly admit of another application.

The figment of the Socinians, that the Lord Christ, during the time of his forty days fast was taken into heaven, which they lay as a supposition unto their interpretation of this place, I have elsewhere shewed to be irrational, anti-scriptural, allied to the fictions of Mahomet, and derogatory to the honour of our Lord Jesus, as he is the eternal Son of God.

From what hath been spoken, it is evident that the trajection proposed may be allowed, as it is by most of the ancient and modern translations. And so the word axı, again, relating unto xy, he saith, denotes only the introduction of a new proof, and doth not intimate a second bringing in of the Lord Christ. And unto what hath already been spoken, I shall only add, that such an intention in the words as hath been pleaded for, would be so far from promoting the apostle's design, that it would greatly weaken and impair it. For the matter he had in hand was to prove the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, not absolutely, but as he was the revealer of the gospel; and if this was not so, and proved to be so by this testimony, whilst he was employed in that work in the world, it is nothing at all to his purpose.

Having cleared this difficulty, and shewed that no second coming of Christ is intended in this word, but only a new testimony to the same purpose with those which are produced before, the intention of the apostle in his prefatory expression, may be farther opened, by considering what that world is whereunto the Father brought the Son, and how, and when he did so, and the manner of it.

There are two opinions about the world, whereunto Christ is said to be brought by the Father; the one is, that of the Socinians, asserted, as by others of them, so by Schlictingius in his comment on this place; and by Grotius after them in his annotations. Ox, saith Grotius, est regio illa superna quæ ab angelis habitatur, ut ipse mox scriptor noster ad hæc sua verba respiciens dicet, cap. ii. 5. It is,' saith he, that region above, which is inhabited by the angels, that is intended; and our author declares as much in that respect which he hath to these words, chap. ii. 5.' In like manner Schlictingius, Per terram

istam, non esse intelligendam hanc quam mortales incolimus, sed cœ-` lestem illam quam aliquando immortales affecti incolemus, et res ispa, et D. autor sequenti capite, ver. 5. aperte declarat. That is, by the earth, not the earth but the heaven is to be understood. But,

1. This suits not at all with the purpose and design of the apostle, which is plainly to prove that the Lord Christ then, when he spake to us, and revealed the will of God, and in that work, was above the angels, which is not at all proved by shewing what befel him after his work was accomplished.

2. It receives no countenance from that other place of ch. ii. 5. whither we are sent by these interpreters. For that the apostle is there treating of a matter quite of another nature, -without any respect unto these words, shall be there declared. Neither doth he absolutely there mention oxovus, the world, but with the addition of μsour, to come; what this means, we shall inquire upon the place.

3. Omovun signifies properly the habitable earth, and is never used absolutely in the Scripture but for the habitable world, or men dwelling in it; and causelessly to wrest it unto another sigfication, is not to interpret, but to offer violence.to the text.

2d, By xoven then, the world, or habitable earth, with them that dwell therein, and nothing else, is intended; for as the word hath no other signification, so the Psalmist in the place from whence the ensuing testimony is taken, expounds it, by the multitude of the isles, or the nations lying abroad in the wide earth. This is the world designed, even that earth wherein the rational creatures of God converse here below. Into this was the Lord Christ brought by the Father.

We are therefore next to inquire wherein the Father's bringing of the Son into this world did consist. We have seen formerly, that some have assigned it to one thing in particular, some another; some to his incarnation and nativity, some to his resurrection, some to his mission of the Spirit, and to the propagation of his kingdom that ensued. The opinion about his coning to reign in the world a thousand years, as also that of his coming at the general judgment, we have already excluded. Of the others, I am apt to think that it is not any one particular exclusive to the other, that the apostle intendeth or designeth. That which was intended in the Old Testament, in the promises of his coming into the world, is that which is here expressed by the phrase of bringing him in. See Mal. iii. 2. "The Lord whom ye seek shall come, but who may abide the day of his coming?" Now it was not any one special act, nor any one particular day, that was designed in that and the like promises. But it is the whole work of God in bringing forth the Messiah by his conception, nativity, unction with the Spirit, resurrec

tion, sending of the Holy Ghost, and preaching of the gospel, which is the subject of those promises. And their accomplishment it is which those words express, "When he brings the first-born into the world;" that is, after he had kept his church under the administration of the law given by angels in the hand of Moses the Mediator, in the expectation of the coming of the Messiah, when he bringeth him forth unto, and carries him on in his work unto the accomplishment of it, he says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." And herein most of the former senses are comprised.

And this interpretation of the words completely answers the intention of the apostle in the citation of the ensuing testimony, namely, to prove that in the discharge of his work of revealing the will of God, he was such an one as by reason of the dignity of his person, had all religious worship and honour due unto him from the angels themselves.

This sense also we are led unto by the Psalm whence the ensuing testimony is taken, Psal. xcvii. The exultation which the first verse of the Psalm requires and calls for, is not unlike that which was in the name of the whole creation expressed at his nativity, Luke ii. 11. And the four following verses are an allegorical description of the work that the Lord Christ should make, in and by the preaching of the gospel; see Mal. iii. 2—4. ch. iv. 1. Matt. iii. 10. Luke ii. 24. And hereon ensues that shame and ruin which was brought upon idols and idolaters thereby, ver. 7. and the joy of the whole church in the presence of Christ, ver. 8. attended with his glorious reign in heaven, as a consequent of the accomplishment of his work, ver. 9. which is proposed as a motive unto obedience, and a matter of confidence and rejoicing unto the church. And this is the Father's bringing of the Son into the world, described by the Psalmist, and intended by the apostle.

It remains that we inquire why, and in what sense, Christ is here called eToToxes, primogenitus, or the first born. The common answer is, Non quod post illum alii, sed quod ante illum nullus: Not that any was born after him,' in the same way, but that none was born before him ;' which, as we have shewed before, will agree well enough with the use of the word. And this is applied both to the eternal generation of his divine person, and to the conception and nativity of his human nature.

But if we suppose that his person and eternal generation may be intended in this expression, we must make newTaTaxes, or the first-born, to be the same with ovoyerns, 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 be ing 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 rewreroxos, or first-born, is used in relation unto others; and yet, as I shewed 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 Schlictingius 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 contineantur, quanquam filiationis perfectione et gradu Christo multo inferiores. And again, Primogenitus dicitur Christus quod cum 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 ca sanctitate similis fuit, qualem in novo fædere præcipit.

But these things agree neither with the truth, nor with the design 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,

1st, False; because, 1. Christ in his sonship is avoyens, 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 orogerns, 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 it 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 the princi

ples of the gospel. 3. If this were so, that the Lord Christ and believers were 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, ch. ii. 11. that he is not ashamed to call them brethren; which yet he compares with the condescension of God, in being called their God, ch. xi. 16.

2dly, This conceit, as it is untrue, so it is contrary to the design of the apostle. For to assert that the Messiah is 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 of suspecting their preference above him.

3dly, 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 sonship. 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 so 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 advantage, which yields nothing in the issue but trouble and perplexity.

Nor can the Lord Christ, which is affirmed in the last place, be called the Son of God, and the first-born, because in him was that holiness which is required in the new covenant; for both all believers under the Old Testament had that holiness and likeness unto God in their degrees, and that holiness consists principally in regeneration, or in being born again by the word and Spirit out of a corrupted state of death and sin, which the Lord Christ was not capable of. Yea, the truth is, the holiness and image of God in Christ, was in the kind of it that which was required under the first covenant; an holiness of perfect innocence and perfect righteousness in obedience. So that this last invention hath no better success than the former.

It appeareth then, that the Lord Christ is not called the firstbegotten, or the first-born, with any such respect unto others, as should include him and them in the same kind of filiation.

To give therefore a direct account of this appellation of Christ, we may observe, that indeed the Lord Christ is never absolutely called the first-begotten, or first-born, with respect either to his eternal generation, or to the conception and nativity of his human nature. In respect of the former, he is called the Son, and