VER. 5.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 143
the difficulty mentioned in the second interpretation of the words, excluding the Lord Christ from being directly in the oracle, upon that expression, “If he commit iniquity ;” for these words relating to the moral duty of Solomon in that wherein he was a type of Christ, —namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom,—may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by God’s institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them. (4.) That what is spoken of any type, as it was a type, and in respect of its institution to be such, doth not really and properly belong unto him or that which was the type, but unto him who was represented thereby. or the type itself, it was enough that there was some resemblance in it of that which was principally intended, the things belonging unto the antitype being affirmed of it analo- gically, on the account of the relation between them by God’s insti- tution. Hence that which follows on such enunciations doth not at all respect or belong to the type, but only to the antitype. Thus, at the sacrifice of expiation, the scape-goat is said to bear and carry away all the sins of the people into aland not inhabited, not really, and in the substance of the matter, but only in an instituted repre- sentation; for “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Much less may the things that ensue upon the Lord Christ’s real bearing and taking away of our sins be ascribed - to the devoted beast. So is it in this case. The words applied by the apostle to prove the Son to have a more excellent name than the angels, and consequently to be preferred above them, do not at all prove that Solomon, of whom they were spoken merely as he was a type, should be esteemed to be preferred above all angels, see- ing he did only represent Him who was so, and had these words. spoken unto him, not absolutely, but with respect unto that repre- sentation. And this removes the fourth objection made in the be- half of the first interpretation, excluding Solomon from being at all intended in the prophecy; for what was spoken of him as a type re- quired not a full accomplishment in his own person, but only that he should represent him who was principally intended. (5.) That there is a twofold perpetuity mentioned in the Scrip- ture, the one limited and relative, the other absolute; and both these are applied unto the kingdom of David. First, there was a perpetuity promised unto him and his posterity in the kingdom, as of the priesthood to Aaron,—that is, a limited perpetuity,—namely, during the continuance of the typical state and condition of that people; whilst they continued, the rule by right belonged unto the house of David. There was also an absolute perpetuity promised to the kingdom of David, to be made good only in the kingdom and rule of the Messiah. And both these kinds of perpetuity are ex- pressed in the same words, giving their sense according as they are
144 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. 1.
applied. If applied to the successors of David, as his kingdom
was a type of that of Christ, they denote the limited perpetuity be-
fore mentioned, as that which respected an adjunct of the typical
state of that people, that was to be regulated by it and commensu- , rate unto it; but as they are referred to the kingdom of Christ re-
presented in the other, so an absolute perpetuity is expressed in
them. And this takes away the third reason for excluding Solomon
from being intended in these words, the perpetuity promised being
unto him limited and bounded.
These considerations being premised, I say, the words insisted on by the apostle, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,” belonged first and nextly unto Solomon, denoting that fatherly love, care, and protection that God would afford unto him in his kingdom, so far forth as Christ was represented by him therein ; which requires not that they must absolutely and in all just consequences from them belong unto the person of Solomon. Prin- cipally, therefore, they intend Christ himself, expressing that eternal, unchangeable love which the Father bore unto him, grounded on the relation of father and son.
The Jews, I confess, of all others, do see least of typicalness in Solomon. But the reason of it is, because that his sin was the occa- sion of ruining their carnal, earthly glory and wealth; which things alone they lust after. But the thing was doubtless confessed by the church of old, with whom Paul] had to do; and therefore we see that the writer of the Books of the Chronicles, written after the return of the people from their captivity, when Solomon’s line was failed, and Zerubbabel of the house of Nathan was governor amongst them, yet records again this promise, as that which looked forward, and was yet to receive its full accomplishment in the Lord Christ. And some of the rabbins themselves tell us that Solomon, because of his sin, had only the name of peace, God stirring up adversaries against him ; the thing itself is to be looked,for under Messiah Ben David.