Hebrews 5:5

The description of a high priest according to the law, with respect,

1. Unto his nature;

2. His employment, Hebrews 5:1;

3. His qualification, Hebrews 5:2;

4. His especial duty, with regard

(1.) to himself

(2.) to others, Hebrews 5:3;

5. His call, in the instance of him who was the first of the order, Hebrews 5:4, being completed, an application of the whole is in this verse entered upon unto our Lord Jesus Christ.

And this is done in all the particulars wherein there was or could be an agreement or correspondency between them and him with respect unto this office. And it was necessary to be thus declared by the apostle, unto the end designed by him, for two reasons:

1. Because the original institution of those priests and their office was to teach and represent the Lord Christ and his; which was his main intention to manifest and prove. Now this they could not do unless there were some analogy and likeness between them; neither could it be apprehended or understood for what end and purpose they were designed, and did so long continue in the church.

2. That the Hebrews might be satisfied that their ministry and service in the house of God was now come to an end, and the whole use whereunto they were designed accomplished. For by this respect and relation that was between them, it was evident that he was now actually exhibited, and had done the whole work which they were appointed to prefigure and represent. It was therefore impossible that there should be any further use of them in the service of God; yea, their continuance therein would contradict and utterly overthrow the end of their institution. For it would declare that they had a use and efficacy unto spiritual ends of their own, without respect unto him and his work whom they did represent; which is to overthrow the faith of both churches, that under the old testament and that under the new. Wherefore a full discovery of the proportion between them, and relation of the one unto the other, was necessary, to evince that their continuance was useless, yea, pernicious. But on the other side, it could not be but that those high priests had many imperfections and weaknesses inseparable from their persons in the administration of their office, which could represent nothing nor receive any accomplishment in our Lord Jesus Christ. For if any thing in him had answered thereunto, he could not have been such a high priest as did become us, or as we stood in need of. Such was it that they were subject to death, and therefore were necessarily many, succeeding one another in a long series, according to a certain genealogy: “They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood,” or a priesthood that passeth not from one to another, Hebrews 7:23-24. Herein, therefore, there was a dissimilitude between them, because of their being obnoxious unto death; whence it was inevitable that they must be many, one succeeding to another. But Jesus Christ was to be one high priest only, and that always the same.

Again, they were all of them personally sinners, and that both as men and as high priests; whence they might and did miscarry and sin, even in the administration of their office. Wherefore it was needful that they should offer sacrifice for their own sins also, as hath been declared. Now, as nothing could be represented hereby in Jesus Christ, “who knew no sin,” “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” nor could he therefore offer sacrifice for himself; so these things do cast some darkness and obscurity on those instances wherein they did represent him. Wherefore our apostle steers a straight course between all these difficulties: for, First, He manifests and proves that the legal high priests were indeed types of Jesus Christ in his office, and did bear forth a resemblance of him therein; as also, that they were appointed of God for that very end and purpose. Secondly, He shows what were their qualifications and properties; which he distinguisheth into two sorts:

1. Such as belonged essentially, or were required necessarily, unto the office itself, and its regular discharge.

2. Such as were unavoidable consequents or concomitants of their personal weakness or infirmity. This latter sort, in this application of their description unto Christ and his office, as prefigured thereby, he discards and lays aside, as things which, though necessary unto them from their frail and sinful condition, yet had no respect unto Christ, nor accomplishment in him. And as for the former, he declares in the discourse immediately ensuing how they were found in Christ, as exercising this office, in a far more eminent manner than in them. This is the design of the discourse in the second part of the chapter, which we are now entering on. Only, whereas in the description of a high priest in general, he begins with his nature, qualifications, work, and duty, closing and issuing it in his call; in his application of the whole unto the Lord Christ, he taketh up that first which he had lastly mentioned, namely, the call of a high priest, and proceedeth unto the others in an order absolutely retrograde.

Hebrews 5:5. Οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασε γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα, ἀλλ ᾿ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν· Υἱός μου ει῏ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.

Hebrews 5:5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.

Οὕτω καί, “so also, “and so, or “in like manner;” a note τῆς ἀποδόσεως, of the application of things before spoken unto the subject principally intended. A respect may be herein unto all the instances in the preceding discourse: ‘As it was with the legal high priest in all the things necessary unto that office, so in like manner was it with Christ;'which he now designeth to manifest. Or the intention of this expression may be restrained to the last expressed instance, of a call to office: ‘As they were called of God, so, or in like manner, was Christ also;'which he immediately declares. And this is first regarded, though respect may be had unto it in all the particular instances of analogy and similitude which ensue.

On this note of inference there ensueth a double proposition on the same supposition. The supposition that they both are resolved into is, that “Christ is an high priest.” Hereon the first proposition, with respect unto his call and entrance on that office, is negative, “He glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” The other is positive or affirmative, “But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son;” that is, he glorified him so to be, or he made him so. ῾Ο Χριστός, “Christ,” the subject spoken of; that is, the promised Messiah, the anointed one. The apostle in this epistle calls him occasionally by all signal names, as “the Son,” Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 1:8; the “Son of God,” Hebrews 4:14; the “Word of God,” Hebrews 4:12; “Jesus,” Hebrews 2:9; “Christ,” Hebrews 3:6; “Christ Jesus,” Hebrews 3:1. Here he useth the name of Christ as peculiarly suited unto his present occasion; for he had designed to prove that the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers,, was to be the high priest for ever over the house of God. Therefore he calls him by that name whereby he was known from the beginning, and which signified his unction unto his office, the anointed one. He was to be כֹּהֵן הַמָשִׁיחַ, the “anointed priest;” that is, “Christ.”

The subject spoken of being stated or described by his name, the supposition of his being a high priest takes place. This the apostle had before taught and proved, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 4:14. But you, considering the constitution of the law, and the way of any one's entering on that office, a difficult inquiry yet remained, namely, how he came so to be. Had he been of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron, he might have been a priest., he would have been so, and have been so acknowledged by all. But how he should become so, who was a stranger to that family, who “sprang of the tribe of Judah, concerning which Moses spake nothing of the priesthood,” might be highly questioned. Fully and satisfactorily to resolve this doubt, and therein to take in the whole difficulty whence it arose, the apostle in the preceding verse lays down a concession in a universal maxim, that none who had not a right thereunto, by virtue of an antecedent law or constitution, which Christ had not, as not being of the tribe of Levi, could be a priest, without an immediate call from God, such as Aaron had. By and on this rule he offers the right of the Lord Christ unto this office to trial; and therein acknowledgeth that if he were not extraordinarily called of God thereunto he could be no high priest. To this purpose he declares,

First, Negatively, that “he glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” Outward call by men, or a constitution by virtue of any ordinance of the law he had none. Seeing therefore he is a priest, or if so he be, he must be made so by God, or by himself. But as for himself, neither did he take this honor to himself, nor was it possible that so he should do; for the whole office, and the benefit of his discharge of it, depended on a covenant or compact between him and his Father. Upon the undertaking of it, also, he was to receive many promises from the Father, and was to do his will and work; as we have elsewhere declared and fully proved. It was therefore impossible that he should make himself a high priest.

The Socinians do but vainly raise a cavil against the deity of Christ from this place. They say, ‘If he were God, why did another glorify him in any kind, why did he not glorify himself?'And the Jews on all occasions make the same exception. There were, indeed, some force in the objection against us, if we believed or professed that the Lord Christ were God only; but our doctrine concerning his person is that which is declared by our apostle, Philippians 2:6-7,

“Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”

Wherefore there is no more weight in this cavil than there would be in another, namely, if one, unto those testimonies, that “all things were made by him,” and that he “in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,” should ask, ‘How could this be, seeing he was a man, born in the fullness of time?'But this objection, for the substance of it, was raised by the Jews of old, and fully answered by himself. For whereas they objected unto him that he, being not fifty years old, could not have seen Abraham, as he pretended, who was dead near two thousand years before, he replied,

“Before Abraham was, I am,” John 8:58. If he had no other nature than that wherein they thought he was not fifty years old (being indeed little more than thirty), he could not have known Abraham, nor Abraham him. As, therefore, if he had been man only, he could not have been before Abraham, so had he been God only, another could not have glorified him to be a priest. But he was man also; and these words are spoken not with respect unto his divine nature, but his human.

Again; as it was impossible he should, so it is plain that he did not glorify himself to be a high priest, or take this dignity and honor to himself by his own will and authority. And this may be evidenced by a brief rehearsal of the divine acts necessary to the making of him a high priest; all which I have handled at large in the previous Exercitations. And they were of two sorts:

1. Authoritative, and wholly without him;

2. Perfective, whereunto his own concurrence was required. Of the first sort were,

(1.) His eternal designation unto this office.

(2.) His mission unto the discharge of it.

(3.) His unction with the Spirit for its due discharge.

(4.) The constitution of the law of his priesthood, which consisted of two parts; the first prescribing what he should do, what he should undergo, what he should offer, or what should be the duties of his office; the other declaring, appointing, promising what should be attained, effected, and accomplished thereby.

(5.) The committing and giving a people unto him, for whose sake and on whose account he was to bear, execute, and discharge this holy office. And all these, whereby he was authoritatively vested with his office, were sovereign acts of the will and wisdom of the Father, as I have elsewhere proved. By these was he called and glorified to be a high priest. Again, there were some acts perfective of his call, or such as gave it its complement; and these were wrought in him and by him, neither could they be otherwise: but yet by them did he not make himself a high priest, but only complied with the will and authority of the Father. Thus, when Aaron was called of God to his office, the law for its constitution being made and given, the person designed and called out by name, his pontifical garments put on, and the anointing holy oil poured on him, a sacrifice was to be offered, to complete and perfect his consecration. But because of his imperfection, whence it was necessary that he should come to his office by degrees and the actings of others about him, he could not himself offer the sacrifice for himself. He only laid his hand on the head of it, to manifest his concernment therein, but it was Moses that offered it unto God, Exodus 29:10-12. Thus it could not be with respect unto Jesus Christ, nor did he need any other sacrifice than his own for his consecration, seeing it was necessary unto the legal high priests on the account of their personal sins and infirmities. But although he was perfectly and completely constituted a high priest, by those acts of God the Father before mentioned, yet his solemn consecration and dedication, not to his office, but to'the actual discharge of it, were effected by acts of his own, in his preparation for and actual offering up of himself a sacrifice, once for all. And so he was perfected and consecrated in and by his own blood. Wherefore he did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that was an act and effect of the will and authority of God.

It remains only, as unto this first clause, that we inquire how it is said that “Christ glorified not himself,” as unto the end mentioned. Was there an addition of glory or honor made unto him thereby? Especially may this be reasonably inquired, if we consider what befell him, what he did, and what he suffered, in the discharge of this office; nay, doth not the Scripture everywhere declare this as an act of the highest condescension in him, as Philippians 2:6-9; Hebrews 2:10? How, therefore, can he be said not to glorify himself herein? Let those answer this inquiry who deny his divine nature and being. They will find themselves in the same condition as the Pharisees were when our Savior posed them with a question to the same purpose; namely, how David came to call Christ his Lord, who was to be his son so long after. Unto us these things are clear and evident. For although, if we consider the divine nature and person of Christ, it was an infinite condescension in him to take our nature, and therein to execute the office of a priest for us; yet with respect unto the nature assumed, the office itself was an honor and dignity unto him, on the accounts to be afterwards insisted on.

Secondly, In the affirmative proposition the way whereby Christ came unto his office is declared, or by what authority he was appointed a high priest: ᾿Αλλ᾿ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν, “But he that said unto him.” There is an ellipsis in the words, which must be supplied to complete the anti-thesis: “But he glorified him,” or “he made him to be an high priest, who said unto him, Υἱός μου ει῏ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.” It is not easily apprehended how the apostle confirmeth the priesthood of Christ, or his call to office, by these words (they are twice used elsewhere by himself to other ends, Hebrews 1:5; Acts 13:33); for these words do originally signify the eternal relation that is between the Father and the Son, with their mutual love therein. To this purpose are they applied, Hebrews 1:5. And because this was manifested in and by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when and wherein he was “declared to be the Son of God with power,” Romans 1:4, this testimony is applied thereunto, Acts 13:33.

For the direct intention and the full meaning of the words, the reader may consult our exposition on Hebrews 1:5, where they are handled at large. But how they are produced by our apostle here, as a confirmation of the priesthood of Christ, is an inquiry that is not without its difficulties; and seeing expositors are variously divided about it, their apprehensions must necessarily be inquired into and examined.

First, Those of the Socinian way, as Crellius and Schlichtingius, affirm that these words are constitutive of the priesthood of Christ; and that they were spoken to him after his resurrection. Hence they suppose two things will ensue:

1. That the Lord Christ was not a priest, at least no complete priest, until after his resurrection; for not until then was it said unto him, “Thou art my Son.”

2. That his priestly and kingly offices are the same; for his exaltation in his kingly power is principally intended in these words. But these things are fond and impious. For if the Lord Christ were not a priest until after his resurrection, then he was not so in the offering of himself to God, in his death and blood-shedding; which to say is to offer violence to the common sense of all Christians, the whole institution of the types of old, the analogy of faith, and express testimonies of Scripture in particular, as hath been evinced in our Exercitations. It expressly contradicts the apostle in this very place, or would make him contradict himself; for after this he affirms that as a priest he offered unto God “in the days of his flesh,” verse 7. They say, therefore, that he had some kind of initiation into his office by death, but he was not completely a priest until after his resurrection. The meaning whereof is, that he was not a complete priest until he had completely finished and discharged the principal work which belonged unto that office! I say, therefore,

1. That this distinction, of the Lord Christ being first an incomplete priest, and then afterwards made so completely, is foreign to the Scripture, a vain imagination of bold men, and inconsistent with his holy perfection, who was at once made so by the oath of God.

2. It is destructive of all the instructive parts of the type; for Aaron neither did nor could offer any sacrifice to God until he was completely consecrated unto his office. Nor is any thing in the law more severely prohibited, than that anyone should draw nigh to God in offering sacrifice that was not completely a priest.

3. Thus to interpret the testimony urged by the apostle,'is completely to disappoint his purpose and intention in it. For he designs by it to prove that Christ, in the offering which he made in the days of his flesh, did not glorify himself to be made a priest, but was made so by him who said unto him, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” And if this was not said unto him until after his resurrection, then in his offering of himself before, he glorified himself to be a priest, for he was not yet made so of God the Father.

4. The vanity of confounding the kingly and priestly offices of Christ hath been sufficiently detected in our Exercitations.

Secondly, Others say that the confirmation of the priesthood of Christ in these words, is taken from the ancient usage before the law, whereby the priesthood was annexed unto the primogeniture. Wherefore God declaring the Lord Christ to be his only-begotten Son, the first-born, lord and heir of the whole creation, did thereby also declare him to be the high priest. And this exposition is embraced by sundry learned men, whose conjecture herein I cannot comply withal. For,

1. The foundation of it is very questionable, if not unquestionably false; namely, concerning the priesthood of the firstborn before the law. This, indeed, is the opinion of the Jews, and is so reported by Jerome, Epist. ad Evagr.; but the matter is not clear in the Scripture. Abel was not the first- born, nor Abraham either; yet they both offered sacrifice to God.

2. This would include an express contradiction unto the scope of the apostle. For his design is to prove that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, called of God, and raised up extraordinarily, in a way peculiar and not common to any other. But on this supposition, he should be a priest after the order of the first-born. For what belonged unto Christ as the first-born, see our exposition on Hebrews 1:3.

Thirdly, Some judge that although the apostle recites expressly only these words, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” yet he directs us thereby to the whole passage in the psalm whereof these words are a part, Hebrews 5:7-8,

“I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”

Here seems to be an express constitution, such as the apostle refers unto. For if we would know when or how God the Father glorified Christ to be a high priest, it was in that decree of his which is declared, Psalms 2:7. It was before established in heaven, and then declared in prophecy. And moreover, there is added an especial mention of the discharge of one part of his office as a priest, in these words, “Ask of me;” wherein authority is given him to make intercession with God. And this exposition, whereof, as far as I can find, Junius was the author, I shall not oppose; only for two reasons I cannot readily assent unto it. For, 1. It seems not probable that the apostle, in the quotation of a testimony, should omit that which was directly to his purpose, and produce those words only which alone were not so.

2. The asking here enjoined, is not his sacerdotal intercession, but only an expression denoting the dependence of Christ, as king, on God the Father for the subduing of his enemies.

Fourthly, Some conceive that the apostle intends not a testimony of the constitution of Christ in his office of priesthood, but only to give an account of the person by whom he was called thereunto: ‘He made not himself a high priest; but was made so by him from whom he had all his honor and glory as mediator, and that because be was his Son, and in his word declared so to be.'But the testimony given unto his priesthood is brought in in the next verse. Nor do I see any more than one exception which this exposition is liable unto, but which those that follow it have taken no notice of. And this is, that the manner of the introduction of the next testimony, “As he also saith in another place,” doth evidence that they are both produced and urged to the same purpose, for the confirmation of the same assertion. But withal I answer thereunto by concession, that indeed they are both here of the same importance, and used to the same purpose. For these words in this place, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,” are considered as spoken to him by God the Father, even as the former were. This, therefore, is the design of the apostle in the introduction of this testimony; for the clearing whereof we may observe:

1. That it is not the priesthood of Christ, but his call thereunto, which in this place the apostle asserts, as was before declared.

2. As to this, he intends to show only that it was God the Father from whom he had all his mediatory power, as king, priest, and prophet to his church.

3. This is evidently proved by this testimony, in that therein God declares him to be his Son, and his acceptance thereby of him in the discharge of the work committed unto him. For this solemn declaration of his relation unto God the Father in his eternal sonship, and his approbation of him, doth prove that he undertook nothing, performed nothing, but what he had appointed, designed, and authorized him unto. And that he had so designed him unto this office is more particularly declared in the ensuing testimony.

Obs. 1. The office of the high priesthood over the church of God was an honor and glory to Jesus Christ.

It was so unto his human nature, even as it was united unto the divine; for it was capable of glory, of degrees of glory, and an augmentation in glory, John 17:1; 1 Peter 1:21. And the Lord Christ had a twofold glory upon him in the bearing and discharging of this office:

1. The glory that was upon him, or of the work itself;

2. The glory that was proposed unto him, in the effects of it.

1. There was a glory upon him in his work, from the nature of the work itself. So it was prophesied of him, Zechariah 6:13, “He shall build the temple of the LORD, and he shall bear the glory.” All the glory of the house of God shall be on him, Isaiah 22:24. And it was a glory unto him, because the work itself was great and glorious It was no less than the healing of the breach made between God and the whole creation by the first apostasy. Sin had put variance between God and all his creatures, Genesis in, Romans 8:20. No way was left, but that God must be perpetually dishonored, or all creatures everlastingly cursed. And hereby there seemed to be a kind of defeatment of God's first design, to glorify himself in the making of all things; for to this purpose he made them all “exceeding good,” Genesis 1:31. And his glory depended not so much upon their being, as their being good; that is, their beauty, and order, and subjection to himself. But this was now lost as to all the creation, but only a part and portion of the angels, who sinned not. But yet the apostasy of those who were partakers of the same nature, privileges, and advantages with them, made it manifest what they also in their natural state and condition were obnoxious unto. How great, how glorious a work must it needs be, to put a stop unto this entrance of confusion; to lay hold on the perishing creation, running headlong into eternal ruin, and to preserve it, or some portion of it, some first-fruits of it, unto God from destruction! Must not this be a work equal unto, if not exceeding, the first forming of all things? Certainly it is a glorious and honorable thing unto him that shall undertake and accomplish this great and glorious work. What is said with respect unto one particular in it, may be applied unto the whole. When the sealed book containing the state of the church and the world was represented unto John, it is said that there was “no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, that was able to open the book, neither to look thereon,” Revelation 5:3. Whereon the apostle wept that none was found worthy to engage in that work. But when the Lord Christ, “the lion of the tribe of Judah,” appeared to do it, and prevailed therein, Revelation 5:5, all the host of heaven, all the saints of God, joined together in ascribing glory and honor unto him, Revelation 5:6-14. The work was great and honorable, and therefore on the account of it doth that harmonious ascription of glory and honor unto him ensue. How much more must the whole work be esteemed such, whereof that book contained only a small portion! Herein, then, was the Lord Jesus Christ exceedingly glorious in his priestly office, because in the discharge of it he was the only means and way of the recovery and advancement of the glory of God; the greatness of which work no heart can conceive nor tongue express.

2. It appears from the effects and consequents of the discharge of his office, or the glory proposed unto him. And that,

(1.) On the part of them for whom he did discharge it. And these were all the elect of God. He himself looked on this as a part of the glory set before him, that he should be a captain of salvation unto them, and bring them unto the eternal enjoyment of God in immortal glory. And a double honor ariseth hence unto Jesus Christ:

[1.] Initial, the love, thankfulness, and worship of the church in all ages, in this world. See Revelation 1:5-6. This is a glory wherein he is delighted, that all his saints, in all parts of the world, do severally, and in their assemblies, with all humility, love, and thankfulness, worship, adore, bless, praise, and glorify him, as the author and finisher of their recovery unto God, and eternal salvation. Every day do they come about his throne, cleave unto him, and live in the admiration of his love and power.

[2.] This glory will be full at the latter day, and so hold unto all eternity, when all his saints, from the beginning of the world unto the end thereof, shall be gathered unto him, and abide with him, adoring him as their head, and shouting for joy when they behold his glory.

(2.) On his own part. There is a peculiar honor and glory given him of God, as a consequent of his discharge of this office, and on the account thereof, 1 Peter 1:21; Philippians 2:9-10; Ephesians 1:20-23: whereof see our exposition on Hebrews 1:2.

(3.) That glory wherein God will be exalted unto all eternity in the praise of his grace, the end of all his holy purposes towards his church, Ephesians 1:6, doth ensue and depend hereon. For these and the like reasons it was that our blessed Savior, knowing how unable we are in this world to comprehend his glory, as also how great a part of our blessedness doth consist in the knowledge of it, makes that great request for us, that, after we are preserved in, delivered from, and carried through our course in this world, as a principal part of our rest and reward, we may be with him where he is, to behold his glory which is given him of his Father, John 17:24. And our present delight in this glory and honor of Christ, is a great evidence of our love of him and faith in him.

Obs. 2. Relation and love are the fountain and cause of God's committing all authority in and over the church to Jesus Christ.

By this expression of relation and love, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” doth the apostle prove that God called him to be the high priest of the church. To the same purpose himself [3] speaketh, John 3:35, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” In his constitution and declaration to be the great and only prophet of the church, God did it by an expression of his relation and love to him:

[3] Or rather, John the Baptist. Ed.

“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” Matthew 17:5.

And this also was the foundation of his kingly office. Hebrews 1:2, “He hath spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things;” he who was his Son, and because he was his Son. God would give this glory and honor unto none but unto his only Son; which to prove is the design of our apostle in the first chapter of this epistle. And this his relation unto God manifested itself in that he did in the discharge of his office; for saith the evangelist,

“We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” John 1:14.

Now, first, the relation intended is that one single eternal relation of his being the “Son of God,” the “only-begotten of the Father,” through the divine ineffable communication of his nature with him, or unto him. And hence the faith hereof is the foundation of the church; for when Peter made that confession of it, in opposition unto all false conceptions of others concerning his person, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he answers, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” Matthew 16:16; Matthew 16:18. And why doth the Lord Christ build his church on the profession of this article of our faith concerning his person? It is because we declare our faith therein that God would not commit all power in and over the church, and the work of mediation in its behalf, unto any but him who stood in that relation to him, of his only-begotten Son. And hereby, as God declares the greatness of this work, which none could effect but his Son, he who is God with himself, and that none other should partake with him in this glory; so he directs us to the worship and honor of him as his Son: for it is the will of God that “all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” John 5:23. And those who put in themselves, their wills and authorities, as the pope; or bring in others into the honor of this work, as saints and angels; do rise up in direct opposition to the design of the will and wisdom of God. They must first give some one the relation of an only Son to God, before they ought to ascribe any thing of this great work or the honor of it unto him. Secondly, The love intended is twofold:

1. The natural and eternal love of the Father unto the Son, and his delight in him, as participant of the same nature with himself. This is expressed, Proverbs 8:30-31; which place hath been explained and vindicated before.

2. His actual love towards him on the account of his infinite condescension and grace in undertaking this work, wherein his glory was so deeply concerned. See Philippians 2:6-11. And this love hath a peculiar influence into the collation of that glory and honor on Christ which God bestowed on him. And in these things, which must not be here enlarged on, doth lie the blessed, sure, stable foundation of the church, and of our salvation, by the mediation of Christ.