“ Some things,” he adds, “are applied unto others than they are
200 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
spoken of, because of their subordination to him or them of whom they are spoken, Thus things that are spoken of God are applied unto Christ, because of his subordination to him; and of this,” saith he, “we have an instance in Acts xii. 47, where the words spoken of the Lord Christ, Isa, xlix. 6, ‘I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth,’ are applied unto the apostles because of their subordination unto Christ. And in this case the words have but one sense, and belong primarily unto him of whom they are first spoken, and are secondarily applied unto the other.”
Ans, According to this rule there is nothing that ever was spoken of God but it may be spoken of and applied unto any of his ecrea- tures, all things being in subordination unto him; at least, it may be so in that wherein they act under him and are in a peculiar sub- ordination to him. And yet neither can such a subordination, ac- cording to this man’s opinion, be applied unto Christ, who in the creation of heaven and earth was in no other subordination to God than any other things not yet made or existing. So that this rule, that what is spoken of God is applied unto them who are in subor- dination unto him, as it is false in itself, so it is no way suited to the present business, Christ being, in this man’s judgment, in no subor- dination to God when the world was made, being absolutely in all respects in the condition of things that were not. Nor doth the instance given at all prove or illustrate what is pretended. The apostle, in the citing of those words to the Jews, doth not in the least apply them to himself, but only declares the ground of his going to preach the gospel unto the Gentiles; which was, that God had promised to make Him whom he preached to be a light, and to bring salvation unto them also.
Wherefore he adds, (3.) what is direct to his pretension, “That all the words, or things signified by them, in any testimony, which are firstly spoken of one, and then are, for some of the causes men- tioned” (that is, conveniency, similitude, or subordination), “ap- plied unto another, are not to be looked on as proper to him to whom they are so applied; but so much of them is to be admitted as agrees to the scope of him by whom the testimony is used: as in the testimony produced, verse 5, ‘I will be unto him a father, and he shall be to me a son,’ the words immediately following are, ‘ If he shall offend against me, I will chastise him with the rod of men;’ which words, being spoken of Solomon, can no way be applied unto. Christ.” )
Ans. What is spoken of any type and of Christ jointly is not so spoken for any natural conveniency, similitude, or subordination, but because of God’s institution, appointing the type so to represent and shadow out the Lord Christ, that what he would teach con-
VER. 10-12.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 201
cerning him should be spoken of the type whereby he was repre- sented. Now, no person that was appointed to be a type of him being in all things a type, it is not necessary that whatever was spoken of him was also spoken of Christ, but only what was spoken of him under that formal consideration of an instituted type. This we showed the case to have been with Solomon, of whom the words mentioned were spoken as he bare the person of Christ. Other things are added in the same place, that belonged unto him in his own personally moral capacity; and therefore those things (as that, “If he offend against me”) are not at all mentioned by the apostle, as not being spoken of him as a type. And this plainly overthrows the pretension of our commentator; for if the apostle would not produce the very next words to the testimony by him brought, because they did not belong unto him of whom he spake, it proves undeniably that all those which he doth so urge and pro- duce were properly spoken of him. And I cannot reach the strength of this inference, ‘ Because in a place where all that was spoken was not spoken of Christ, the apostle makes use of what was so spoken of him, and omits that which was not; therefore of that which he doth produce in the next place, somewhat does belong to him, and somewhat does not.’ If any thing be offered to this purpose, it must be in an instance of a testimony produced, in the words where- of—which are produced, and not in what may follow in the same chapter and psalm—there is that affirmed which doth now no more belong unto Christ than the making of heaven or earth belongeth to this writer; which is the case in hand.
Having premised these general considerations, he makes applica- tion of them in particular to his interpretation of this testimony used by the apostle. .