(1.) That some things may be spoken in the psalm which no way respect the type at all. For when not the type, but the person
134 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
or thing signified, is principally aimed at, it is not necessary that every thing spoken thereof should be applicable properly unto the type itself, it being sufficient that there was in the type somewhat that bare a general resemblance unto him or that which was princi- pally intended. So, on the contrary, where the type is principally intended, and an application made to the thing signified only by way of general allusion, there it is not required that all the particu- lars assigned unto the type should belong unto or be accommodated unto the thing typed out, as we shall seein the next testimony cited by the apostle. Hence, though in general David and his deliver- ance from trouble, with the establishment of his throne, might be respected in this psalm, as an obscure representation of the kingdom of Christ, yet sundry particulars in it, and among them this men- tioned by our apostle, seem to have no respect unto him, but directly and immediately to intend the Messiah.
(2.) If it yet be supposed that what is here spoken, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ is also to be applied unto David, yet it is not ascribed unto him personally and absolutely, but merely considered as a type of Christ. What, then, is princi- pally and directly intended in the words is to be sought for in Christ alone, it being sufficient to preserve the nature of the type that there was in David any resemblance or representation of it.
Thus, whether David be admitted as a type of Christ in this psalm or no, the purpose of the apostle stands firm, that the words were principally and properly spoken of the Messiah, and’ unto him. And this is the first thing required in the application of the testimony insisted on.
Secondly, It is required that in the testimony produced a signal name be given unto the Messiah, and appropriated unto him, so as that he may inherit it for ever as his own, neither men nor angels having the same interest with him init. It is not being called by this or that name in common with others that is intended, but such a peculiar assignation of a name unto him as whereby he might for ever be distinguished from all others. Thus many may be beloved of the Lord, and be so termed, but yet Solomon only was peculiarly called MPN, “Jedidiah;” and by that name was distinguished from others. In this way it is that the Messiah hath his name assigned unto him. God decreed from eternity that he should be called by that name; he spake unto him and called him by that name: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” He is not called the Son of God upon such a common account as angels and men,—the one by creation, the other by adoption; but God peculiarly and in a way of eminency gives this name unto him.
Thirdly, This name must be such as either absolutely, or by rea- son of its peculiar manner of appropriation unto the Messiah, proves
VER. 5.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 135
his pre-eminence above the angels. Now, the name designed is The Son of God: “Thou art my Son;” not absolutely, but with that exe- getical adjunct of his generation, “ This day have I begotten thee.” Chrysostom, Hom. xxii., on Gen. vi., positively denies that the angels in Scripture are anywhere called the sons of God. Hence some con- jecture that the translation of the LXX. is changed since that time, seeing it is evident that they are so called in the Greek Bibles now extant.
However, in the original they are called “the sons of God,” Job i. 6, 11. 1, xxxviil. 7; Ps. lxxxii. 6. Believers are also called “the sons of God,” Rom. viii. 16; Gal. iv 6; 1 John in. 1; and magistrates “ gods,” Ps. Ixxxi. 1, 6; John x. 34. It doth not therefore appear how the mere assigning of this name to the Messiah doth prove his pre-eminence above the angels, who are also called by it.
Ans. Angels may be called the sons of God upon a general ac- count, and by virtue of their participation in some common privilege; as they are by reason of their creation, like Adam, Luke iil. ult., and constant obedience, Jobi. But it was never said unto any angel personally, upon his own account, “Thou art the son of God.” God never said so unto any of them, especially with the reason of the appellation annexed, “ This day have I begotten thee.” It is not, then, the general name of a son, or the sons of God, that the apostle instanceth in; but the peculiar assignation of this name unto the Lord Jesus on his own particular account, with the reason of it an- nexed, “This day have I begotten thee,’ which is insisted on. So that here is an especial appropriation of this glorious name unto the Messiah.
Again, The appropriation of this name unto him in the man- ner expressed proves his dignity and pre-eminence above all the angels. For it is evident that God intended thereby to declare his singular honour and glory, giving him a name to denote it, that was never by him assigned unto any mere creature, as his peculiar inhe- ritance; in particular, not unto any of the angels. Not one of them can lay any claim unto it as his peculiar heritage from the Lord.