was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. i, 3; Acts xiii, 33. And some to the day of his ascension. All these interpretations are consistent and reconcileable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving to the same end; that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal, and fixed upon in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony: Acts xiii, 33. And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect to David as a type of Christ; as he was raised up and established in his rule and kingdom. Neither indeed does the apostle treat in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above anges. The eternal sonship is to be taken only declaratively; and that declaration to be made in his resurrection and exaltation. But every one is left to the liberty of his own judgment herein. And this is the first testimony, whereby the apostle confirms his assertion, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.

§7. For the farther confirmation of the same truth he adds another testimony of the same import: "And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." Indeed the main difficulty, with which expositors generally trouble themselves in this place, ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should prove a "natural sonship" of Jesus Christ, which they suppose they are produced to confirm; seeing it is from thence that he is exalted above the angels. But the truth is, the words are not designed to any such end; his aim being only to prove, that the Lord Christ has a name assigned him more excellent, either in itself, or in the manner of its being attributed, than any that is given to the angels; which is the medium of his argument to prove him

the most exalted revealer of the will of God. The words are taken from 2 Sam. vii, 14, and arep art of the answer returned from God to David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him an house. The difficulty ariseth hence, that it is not easy to apprehend how any thing at all in these words should be appropriated to Christ.

1. Some cutting that knot which they suppose cannot otherwise be untied, affirm that Solomon is not intended in these words, but that they are a direct and immediate prophecy of Christ, who was to be the son of David, and who was to build the spiritual house or temple of God. But this is to make the whole answer of God equivocal. For David inquired of Nathan about building an house or temple: Nathan returns him an 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 an answerable provision for it. It remains then, that Solomon primarily and immediately is intended in these words.

2. Some on the other hand affirm, the whole prophecy to be so exclusively fulfilled in Solomon, that their is no direct respect therein to our Lord Jesus Christ. The words, "If he commit iniquity I will chastise him with the rod of men;" cannot, say they, be applied to him who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. They therefore plead, that the apostle applied these words to Christ only by way of allegory. But,

3. The words here cited principally concern the person of Christ himself, yet being uttered in the form of a covenant, they have respect also to him as the head of that covenant, which God makes with all the elect in him. And thus Christ's mystical head and mem

bers are referred to in the prophecy; and therefore David in pleading this oracle, Psalm lxxxix, 30, changeth those words, "if he commit iniquity," into "if his children forsake my law."

§8. But more particularly we may say with others, that both Solomon and Christ are here intended; Solomon literally as the type; Christ principally and mystically as typified. Our sense herein shall be farther explained and confirmed in the ensuing considerations.

1. There never was any one type of Christ and his offices, that entirely represented him, and all his undertakings, because of the perfection of his person, and the excellency of his office. Hence the multiplying of types.

2. No type of Christ was in all things a type of him, but only in some expressly intended particular. Thus David was a type of Christ in conquering the church's enemies, &c. but not in his private actions, whether as man, king, or captain.

3. Not all things spoken of a typical person, even in that wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type; but some of them may belong to him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is plain, because he who was a type by God's institution, might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even in those things wherein he was a type. Thus that expression, "If he sin against me" related to the moral duty of Solomon in the typical administration of his kingdom.

4. What is spoken of any type, as such, doth not really and properly belong to him, or that which was the type, but the anti-type. For as to the type itself, it was enough that it possessed some resemblance of what was principally intended; the things belonging to the

anti-type being affirmed of it only analogically, on account of the relation between them by God's institution. Thus at the sacrifice of expiation, the scape goat is said to "bear away the sins of the people into a land not inhabited;" not really, but only in an instituted representation; for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Much less may the things consequent upon Christ's real taking away of our sins, be ascribed to the devoted beast. So in this case, the words applied by the apostle do not at all prove that Solomon, of whom they were typically spoken, should be preferred above all angels; seeing he only represented him who was so restrictively, not absolutely. 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 primarily to Solomon, denoting the fatherly love, care, and protection that God would afford him in his kingdom, so far as Christ was represented by him therein, which requires not that they must absolutely, and in all just consequences, belong to the person of Solomon; but principally they intend Christ himself, expressing that eternal unchange able love which the Father bore to him, grounded on the relation of father and son.. Now herein God promiseth to be to Christ, as exalted to his throne, a father in love, care, and power, to protect and carry him on in his rule to the end of the world. And, therefore, upon his i ascension he says, that he went to "his God and Father," John xx, 17; and he rules in the name and majesty of God, Mic. v, 4. This, and not the eternal and natural relation that subsists between the Father and Son, which neither is nor can be the subject of any promise, is intended. And this is the apostle's first argument, whereby he proves that the Son, as the re

vealer of the mind and will of God in the gospel, is made more excellent than the angels, whose glory was a refuge to the Jews in their adherence to legal rites. According to our proposed method we shall,

§9. (IV.) Draw hence some instructionsfor our use and edification.

Obs. 1. Every thing in the scripture is instructive. The apostle's arguing in this place is not so much from the thing spoken, as from the manner wherein it is spoken. Nothing in scripture is useless, nothing needless, because it proceeds from infinite wisdom, which hath put an impress of itself upon it, and filled all its capacity; it being full of wisdom as the sea is of water, which fills and covers all the parts of it. The inspired volume contains, directly or by consequence, the

God hath given it

whole revelation of God to men. to his servants for their continual exercise day and night, and requires of them their utmost diligence and endeavors. A constant awe of the majesty, authority, and holiness of God in his word is the only teachable frame, and the humble are made wise therein; it is an endless storehouse, a bottomless treasure of Divine truth: there is gold in every sand of it; all the wise men in the world may, each one for himself, learn some important lesson out of every word, considered in its proper connexion, and yet leave enough still behind for the instruction of all that shall come after them. The fountains and springs of wisdom in it are deep, and will never be dry. We may have much truth and power out of a word; sometimes enough, but never all that is in it. There will still be enough remaining to exercise and refresh us anew for ever. So that we may attain a true sense, but we can never attain the full sense of any place.