rule and kingdom. Neither, indeed, doth the apostle treat in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels.

The word Di, also, constantly in the Scripture denotes some signal time, one day or more. or more. And that expression, "This day have I begotten thee," following immediately upon that other typical one, "I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion," seems to be of the same importance, and in like manner to be interpreted. Thus far, then, I choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words, namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing, doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively; and that declaration to be made in his resurrection, and exaltation over all that ensued thereon. But every one is left unto the liberty of his own judgment herein.

And this is the first testimony whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.

For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same importance, in the words ensuing :—

Ver. 5.—Καὶ πάλιν· Εγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν ;

T:

Vulg.: "Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium;"_" I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son." So also the Syriac, NEN and 72, “in patrem," and "in filium;" not "pro patre," and "pro filio," as some render the words. Erasmus worse than they: "Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii;"-"Instead of a father," and "instead of a son," or, "in the place;" which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza: "Ego ero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius;" who is followed by ours, "And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son."

אני

Kai mái, “and again." That is, in another place, or "again," it is said to the Son what is nowhere spoken unto the angels. "Ey oμas,—N "IN 2 No 2. The prefixed doth not denote a substitution or comparison, but the truth of the thing itself. So it is said of Rebekah, "she was unto him," not "for," or " instead of," or "in the place of," but "his wife," Gen. xxiv. 67. And in the words of the covenant, Jer. xxxi. 33, "I will be to them, and they shall be to me?: not, "I will be unto them instead of God, and they shall be unto me instead of a people;" but, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." And the same is the signification of these words, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son.'

The quotation is from 2 Sam. vii. 14. The sis is Hebraistic, equivalent to 5. Efforts have been made to explain this passage exclusively either of Solomon or of Christ; but in vain. The context will not allow such a limitation. The "seed" predicted is a royal progeny,-not merely an individual son, but a succession of kings; and as the Messiah is the most distinguished and glorious, whatever of dignity and of honour is asserted or implied in the context is properly attributable to him.-Turner.-ED.

Ver. 5.-And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?

This is the second testimony produced by the apostle to prove the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the excellency of the name given unto him. One word, one witness, the testimony being that of God, and not of man, had been sufficient to have evinced the truth of his assertion; but the apostle adds a second here, partly to manifest the importance of the matter he treated of, and partly to stir them up unto a diligent search of the Scripture, where the same truths, especially those that are of most concernment unto us, are scattered up and down in sundry places, as the Holy Ghost had occasion to make mention of them. This is that mine of precious gold which we are continually to dig for and search after, if we intend to grow and to be rich in the knowledge of God in Christ, Prov. ii. 3, 4. Expositors do generally perplex themselves and their readers about the application of these words unto the Lord Christ. Cajetan, for this cause, that this testimony is not rightly produced nor applied as it ought, rejects the whole epistle as not written by the apostle, nor of canonical authority. Such instances do even wise and learned men give of their folly and self-fulness every day. The conclusion that he makes must needs be built on these two suppositions:-First, That whatever any man might or could apprehend concerning the right application of this testimony, he himself might and could so do; for otherwise he might have acknowledged his own insufficiency, and have left the solution of the difficulty unto them to whom God should be pleased to reveal it. Secondly, That when men of any generation cannot understand the force and efficacy of the reasonings of the penmen of the Holy Ghost, nor discern the suitableness of the testimonies thay make use of unto the things they produce them in the confirmation of, they may lawfully reject any portion of Scripture thereon. The folly and iniquity of which principles or suppositions are manifest.

The application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New depends, as to their authority, on the veracity of him that maketh use of them; and as to their cogency in argument, on the acknowledgment of them on whom they are pressed. Where we find these concurring, as in this place, there remains nothing for us but to endeavour a right understanding of what is in itself infallibly true, and unquestionably cogent unto the ends for which it is used.

Indeed, the main difficulty which in this place expositors generally trouble themselves withal ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should prove the

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 by the apostle unto any such end. His aim is only to prove that the Lord Christ hath a name assigned unto him more excellent, either in itself or in the manner of its attribution, than any that is given unto the angels, which is the medium of this first argument to prove him, not as the eternal Son of God, nor in respect of his human nature, but as the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, to be preferred above all the angels in heaven, and consequently, in particular, above those whose ministry was used in the giving of the

law.

Two things, then, are necessary to render this testimony effectual to the purpose for which it is cited by the apostle;-first, That it was originally intended of him to whom he doth apply it; secondly, That there is a name in it assigned unto him more excellent than any ascribed unto the angels.

For the first of these, we must not waive the difficulties that interpreters have either found out in it, or cast upon it. The words are taken from 2 Sam. vii. 14, and are part of the answer returned from God unto David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him a house. The whole oracle is as followeth: Verses 11-16, "The LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." (Or as 1 Chron. xvii. 11, "And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.") "He shall build an house for my name; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." (1 Chron. xvii. 12, “He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.") "I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee." (1 Chron. xvii. 13, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee.") "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever." (1 Chron. xvii. 14, "But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.")

This is the whole divine oracle from whence the apostle takes the testimony under consideration; and the difficulty wherewith it is

attended ariseth from hence, that it is not easy to apprehend how any thing at all in these words should be appropriated unto the Lord Christ, seeing Solomon seems in the whole to be directly and only intended. And concerning this difficulty there are three

opinions among interpreters:

1. Some cutting that knot, which they suppose could not otherwise be loosed, affirm that Solomon is not at all intended in these words, but that they are a direct and immediate prophecy of Christ, who was to be the son of David, and to build the spiritual house or temple of God. And for the confirmation of this assertion they produce sundry reasons from the oracle itself; as,

(1.) It is said that God would raise up to David a seed, or son, intimating that he was not as yet born, being foretold to be raised up; whereas Solomon was born at the time of this prophecy.

(2.) It is also affirmed that this son or seed should reign and sit upon the throne of David after his decease, and being gathered unto his fathers; whereas Solomon was made king and sat upon the throne whilst David was yet alive, and not entered into rest with his fathers.

(3.) The throne of this son is to be established for ever, or as the same promise is expressed, Ps. lxxxix., whilst the sun and moon continue; the throne of Solomon and his posterity failed within a few generations.

(4.) The title there given unto him who is directly prophesied of shows him, as our apostle intimates, to be preferred above all the angels; and none will say that Solomon was so, who, as he was inferior to them in nature and condition, so by sin he greatly provoked the Lord against himself and his posterity.

But yet all these observations, though they want not some appearance and probability of reason, come short of proving evidently what they are produced for, as we may briefly manifest; for,—

(1.) It doth not appear that Solomon was born at the time of the giving forth of this oracle, if we must suppose that God intimated in it unto David that none of the sons which he then had should succeed him in his kingdom; yea, it is manifest from the story that he was not. Besides, "raising up" doth not denote the birth or nativity of the person intended, but his designation or exaltation to his throne and office, as is the usual meaning of that expression in the Scripture; so that Solomon might be intended, though now born, yea, and grown up, if not yet by the providence of God marked and taken out from amongst his brethren to be king, as afterwards

he was.

(2.) Although a few days before the death of David, to prevent sedition and division about titles and pretensions to the kingdom, Solomon by his appointment was proclaimed king, or heir to the

crown, yet he was not actually vested with the whole power of the kingdom until after his natural decease. Moreover, also, David being then very weak and feeble, and rendered unable for public administration, the short remainder of his days after the inauguration of Solomon needed no observation in the prophecy.

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 for it and preparation 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 approving 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 belong 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 immediately 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 dispensers 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,