V E ¿ ßíe to the HEBREWS. 8; fon fhoulciperform that work. This Anfwer David underftands of his iminedi itefoni and ofa material-Houfe, and thereupon makes material provifion for it, and prepara- tion in great abundance upon the encouragementhe received in this Anfwer of God. Now ifneither ofthefe were at all intended in it, neither hisfon,nor the material2emplei it is evident that he was led into a great miffake, by the Ambiguity, and Equivocation ofthe word, which wefind by the Event that he wag not, God approvingand ac- cepting ofhis Obedience in what hedid. It remains then that Solomon firffyand im- mediately is intended in thefe words. 2. Some on the other handaffirm thewhole ProphetieCo to belong unto, and Co to be fulfilled in Solomon, and in himalone, that there is no dire& refpea therein unto our Lord Jefas Chrift. Arid the reafon for their affertion they ralee from thole words which immediately follow thofe infifted on by theApofif.e, namely, If he com- mit iniquity, Iwillchaftifé him with therod of men ; which cannot, be appliedunto him who did no fin, neither was thereguile found in his mouth. They fay therefore,.that the Apoltleapplies thefe words unto Chriff, only by way ofanAllegory ; thushe deals with the Law of not muzling the Oxwhich treadethout the corn, applyingit to the provifionofcarnal things to be made for the Difpenfersof the Gofpel. As he al(ó in anotherplacerepref{enteth the two7effaments in the ItoryofSarah and Hagar. That which principally is to be infiffed 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 tobe propofed. For the prefent, I (hall onlyanfwer, thatas,the words cited by the Apatite do principally concern the Felon 'ofChrifi himfelf, yet being fpoken and givenout in formof a Covenant, they have refped alfounto him as he is the Head of the Covenant, which God makes with allthe Eleet in him. And thus whole myfficalChrift, Head and Members, are referred unto in the Prophecy ; and therefore David in his repetition and pleadingof this Oracle, Pfal. 89. 30. changeth thofewords, ifhe commit iniquity, into, ifhis children forfake my law. Notwithftanding then a fuppofitionoftranfgrcffton in him, concerningwhom thefe words are fpoken, theLord Chrift may be intended in them fuch failings and tranfgreffions as difannul not the Covenant,often fallingout on theirpart, for whom he undertaketh therein. But Ioffer this only in majorem cautelam, to fecure the teftimciny infifted on unto our Apoftles intention ; thedifficulty it [elf will beclearlyafterwards affoiled. 3. Wefay therefore with others, that both Solomon and theLord Cbriii are intended in this wholeOracle; Solomon literally and nextly, as the Type; the Lord Chriltprin- cipally and myftically, as he who was typed, figured, and reprefented by him. Andour fenfe herein !hall befartherexplained andconfirmed iii the enfuingConfiderations. r. That there never was any one Type ofChrift and his Offices, that entirelyrepre- feared him, and all that he was to dò. For as it was impoffible that any one thing or perfon fhould do fo, becaufe of the perfe&ion of hisPerfon, and the Excellency ofhis Office, which no one thing, that might be appointed to prefigure him as a Type, becaufe ofits limitednefsand imperfe&loft, could (yylly reprefent , fo had any fuch been foundout, that multiplicationof Types which God in his infinite Wifdom was pleafed to make ufe of for the revelation of him intended in them, had been altogether ufelefs and needlefs. Wherefore according as God faw goad, and as he hadmade them meetand fit ; fo He defigned one thingor perfon to figure out one thing in him, an- otherfor another end and purpofe. 2.That no Type ofChrift was in all things that he was or did a Type ofhim, but only in that particular wherein he was defigned ofGod fo tobe, and wherein he hath revealed him fo tohave been. David was a Typeof Chrift, bat not in allthings that he was and did. Inhis Conque[ts of the Enemiesof the Church, in his Throne and Kingdom he was fo ; but in his privateactions, whether as a Man, or as aKing, or Captain, hewas not Co.. The like mull be Paidof 'flute, Melchifideck, Solomon, and all other perfonal Types under theOld Teftament, and much more ofother things. 3. That not all things fpoken ofhim that was aType, even therein wherein he was a Type,arefpoken ofhimas a Type,or have any refped unto the thing fignified,butCome of themmay belong unto him in his perfonalcapacity only..And the reafonis,becaufehe, who was aTypeby God's inftitution, might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even thenand inthofe things,when and whereinhe was a Type. Hencefomewhat may befpokenof him as tohis moralperformance ofhis Duty, that may no way concern the Anti -type, orChrift prefigured by him. And this wholly removes the difficulty men- g g timed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=