The other two remaining reasons must be afterwards spoken unto. And for the present removal of this exposition, I shall only observe, that to affirm Solomon not at all to be intended in this oracle, nor the house or temple which afterwards he built, is to make the whole answer of God by the prophet unto David to be equivocal. For David inquired of Nathan about building a house or material temple unto God. Nathan returns him answer from God that he shall not do so, but that his son should perform that work. This answer David understands of his immediate son and of a material house, and thereupon makes material provision tor it and prepara- tion in great abundance, upon the encouragement he received in this answer of God. Now, if neither of these were at all intended in it,—neither his son nor the material temple,—it is evident that he was led into a great mistake, by the ambiguity and equivocation of the word; but we find by the event that he was not, God ap- proving and accepting of his obedience in what he did. It remains, then, that Solomon firstly and immediately is intended in these words.
2. Some, on the other hand, affirm the whole prophecy so to be- long unto and so to be fulfilled in Solomon, and in him alone, that there is no direct respect therein unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason for their assertion they take from the words which im- mediately follow those insisted on by the apostle, namely, “If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men;” which cannot be applied unto Him who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. They say, therefore, that the apostle applies these words unto Christ only by way of an allegory. Thus he deals with the law of not muzzling the ox which treadeth out the corn, applying it to the provision of carnal things to be made for the dis- pensers of the gospel; as he also in another place representeth the two testaments by the story of Sarah and Hagar.
That which principally is to be insisted on for the removal of this difficulty, and which will utterly take it out of our way, will fall in with our confirmation of the third interpretation, to be proposed. For the present, I shall only answer, that as the words cited by the apostle do principally concern the person of Christ himself, yet being spoken and given out in form of a covenant, they have respect also unto him as he is the head of the covenant which God makes with all the elect in him, And thus whole mystical Christ, head and members, are referred unto in the prophecy; and therefore David,
142 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
in his repetition and pleading of this oracle, Ps. Ixxxix. 30, changeth
those words, “ If he commit iniquity,” into “If his children forsake
my law.” Notwithstanding, then, a supposition of transgression in
him concerning whom these words are spoken, the Lord Christ may , be intended in them; such failings and transgressions as disannul
not the covenant often falling out on their part for whom he under-
taketh therem. But I offer this only “in majorem cautelam,’ to
secure the testimony insisted on unto our apostle’s intention; the
difficulty itself will be clearly afterwards assoiled.
3. We say, therefore, with others, that both Solomon and the Lord Christ are intended in this whole oracle; Solomon literally, and nextly as the type; the Lord Christ principally and mystically, as he who was typed, figured, and represented by him. And our sense herein shall be further explained and confirmed in the ensuing con- siderations :—
(1.) That there never was any one type of Christ and his offices that entirely represented him and all that he was to do: for as it was impossible that any one thing or person should do so, because of the perfection of his person and the excellency of his office, which no one thing that might be appointed to prefigure him as a type, because of its limitedness and imperfection, could fully represent; so had any such been found out, that multiplication of types which God in his infinite wisdom was pleased to make use of, for the reve- lation of him intended in them, had been altogether useless and needless, Wherefore, according as God saw good, and as he had made them meet and fit, so he designed one thing or person to figure out one thing in him, another for another end and purpose.
(2.) That no type of Christ was in all things that he was or dida type of him, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be, and wherein he hath revealed him so to have been. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king or captain, he was not so. The like must be said of Isaac, Melchizedek, Solomon, and all other personal types under the old testament, and much more of other things.
(3.) That not all things spoken of him that was a type, even therein wherein he was a type, are spoken of him asa type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong unto him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, because he who was a type of God’s institution might morally fail im the per- formance of his duty, even then and in those things when and . wherein he was a type. Hence somewhat may be spoken of him, as to his moral performance of lis duty, that may no way concern the antitype, or Christ prefigured by him. And this wholly removes