all other writers where it is properly used? But yet neither is the word used there for to help and relieve, but to take and receive; wisdom, suscipit, receiveth,' or taketh to itself, suo more, those that seek it; which is the sense of the word we plead for, and so is it rendered by translators. So the Lord Christ, suo modo, took to himself the seed of Abraham, by uniting it to his person as he was the Son of God. In the very entrance also of his discourse, this author acknowledgeth that Exiλaußavirai doth not directly or properly signify to help or to relieve, but signifying to take hold of,' is transferred to that use and sense. I ask, where?, by whom? in what author? If he says in this place by the apostle, that will not prove it; and where any will plead for the metaphorical use of a word, they must either prove that the sense of the place where it is used enforces that acceptation of it, or at least that in like cases in other places it is so used, neither of which are here pretended.

But he proceeds. Quod hic dicit, siλaußavida, ver. 18. per Bontncas, effert, de eadem enim re utrobique agitur, et rationem consequentia argumenti, quod in hoc versiculo proponit illic explicat. This is but imagined; the contrary is evident to every one, on the first view of the context. Here the apostle discourseth the reason of the humiliation of Ch: ist, and his taking flesh; there the benefit of his priestly oflice to them that do believe.

Exidaμßavouai, is therefore properly assumo, accipio, to take unto,' or 'to take upon; and the apostle teacheth us by it, that the Lord Christ took to him, and took on him our human nature of the seed of Abraham.

That the genuine sense of the place may be yet more fully vindicated, I shall farther consider the exceptions of a very learned man to our interpretation of the words, and his answers to the reasons whereby it is confirmed.

First, he says, that waßavera, being in the present tense, signifieth a continued action, such as Christ's helping of us is; but his assumption of human nature was a momentaneous action, which being past long before, the apostle would not express it as a thing present." It is generally answered to this exception, that an enallage is to be allowed, and that außavera

put for T, which is usual in the Scripture. So John i. 31. xxi. 13. But yet there is no just necessity of supposing it in this place. The apostle in his usual manner disputing with the Hebrews on the principles wherein they had been instructed from the Old Testament, minds them that there is nothing said therein of his taking on him the nature of angels, but only of the seed of Abraham. So that he takes,' is, he doth so in the Scripture,' that affirms him so to do; and in respect hereunto the expression in the present tense is proper to his purpose,

This way of arguing and manner of expression we have manifested on chap. i. 5.

6

Again he adds this expression, "He took not on him angels,” for the nature of angels,' is hard and uncouth, as it would be in the affirmative to say, assumpsit homines, or hominem, he took men,' or a man; which, we say not, although we do that he took human nature. But the reason of this phrase of speech is evident. Having before affirmed that he was partaker cxgxes xaxaros, of flesh and blood,' whereby the nature of man is expressed, repeating here again the same assertion with respect to the promise, and a negation of the same thing in reference to angels, because their nature consisteth not of flesh and blood, he expresseth it indefinitely and in the concrete; he took not them, that is, not that in, and of them, which answers to flesh and blood in the children, that is, their nature. So that there

is no need to assert, as he supposeth some may do, that cagues xai aixτos, ought to be repeated x T xo, and referred to those bodies which the angels assumed for a season in their apparitions: under the Old Testament, there being only an ellipsis, easy to be supplied, of that in them which answers to flesh and blood in the children.

Thirdly, The apostle,' he saith, sheweth ver. 17. that Christ ought in all things to be made like to us, by this reason, Quod non assumpsit angelos, sed semen Abrahe. But if this be to take on him the nature of man, he comes to prove the same thing by the same. For to be made like to us, and to assume human nature, differ only in words, and not really, or indeed. But, take außatα, to help or relieve," and all things agree. For because he came to help us and not angels, it became him to be made like to us. But herein lies a double mistake. First, in the scope and argument of the apostle, for those words in the beginning of the 17th verse are not an inference or conclusion from what is asserted in this verse, but an affirmation of the necessity of what is there asserted, from that which follows in the same verse, "that he might be a faithful High Priest." Secondly, those words "like unto us," do not intend his conformity to us in his participation of human nature, which he had on other reasons before confirmed, but in the sufferings and temptations which there he insists on.

6

Fourthly, The seed of Abraham,' he says, is a collective expression, and denotes many, at least it must denote the person of some man, which Christ did not assume. And therefore it is the spiritual seed of Abraham that is intended, that is, believers. And the apostle so calls them, because the Hebrews were well pleased with the mention of that privilege. But this will not abide the examination. The great promise of old to Abraham was, that " in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed." The intendment of that promise was, that

the Messiah should be his secd, of his posterity. That by this seed one individual was intended, our apostle declares, Gal. iii. 16. As Christ in like manner is said to be of the seed of David according to the flesh, Rom. i. 3. Of this promise the apostle reminds the Hebrews. So that his taking on him the seed of Abraham, is not the assuming of many, nor of the person of any one of them, but merely his being made of the seed of Abraham according to the promise. And to bend these words unto any other sense, than the accomplishment of the promise made to Abraham, that Christ should be of his seed, is plainly to pervert them. And this is all of weight that I can meet with, which is objected unto our interpretation of this place, which being removed, it is further established.

6

Lastly, In the disparate removed, by angels, the good angels, not fallen angels, are principally regarded. Of fallen angels he had newly spoken, under the collective expression, the "devil, who had the power of death." Nor are, (it may be) the devils any where called absolutely by the name of angels, but they are termed either evil angels, or angels that sinned, that left their habitation, that are to be judged, the devil's angels, or have some or other peculiar adjunct whereby they are marked out and distinguished. Now it cannot be that this word Bantai, if it be interpreted to help, assist,' or 'relieve,' can in any sense be applied unto the angels, that must be intended if any. For the word must denote either any help, assistance or relief in general, or that especial help and assistance which is given by Christ in the work of reconciliation and redemption. If the first be intended, I much question the truth of the assertion, seeing the angels owe their establishment in grace unto Christ, and their advancement in glory, Eph. i. 10. If it be taken in the latter sense, as is pretended, then the nature of the discrete axiom here used by the apostle, requires that there be the same nced of the help intimated in both the disparates, which is denied as unto the one, and affirmed as unto the other. But now the angels, that is, the good angels, had no need of the help of redemption and reconciliation to God, or of being freed from death or the fear of it, which they were never obnoxious unto. And what remains for the clearing of the mind of the apostle, will appear yet farther in the ensuing observations from the words.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and man in one person, and this is fully manifested in these words. For, first, there is supposed in them his pre-existence in another nature, than that which he is said here to assume. He was before, he subsisted before, or he could not have taken on him what he had not. This was his divine nature, as the like is intimated, where he is said to be "made flesh," John i. 14. to be "made

of a woman," Gal. iv. 4. to be "manifested in the flesh," 1 Tim. iii. 16. to "take on him the form of a servant," Phil. ii. 8, 9. as here, he took the seed of Abraham; he was before he did so that is, the Son, the Word of God, the Son of God, as in the places mentioned, eternally pre-existing unto this his incarnation. For the subject of this proposition, he took on him, &c. denotes a person pre-existing unto the act of taking here ascribed unto him, which was no other than the Sen of God. 2. He assumed, he took to himself another nature, of the seed of Abraham according unto the promise; so continuing what he was, he became, what he was not. For, 3. He took this to be his own nature; he so took it, as himself to become truly the seed of Abraham, to whom, and concerning whom, the promise was given, Gal. iii. 16. and was himself made of the seed of David according to the flesh," Rom. i. 3. and as "concerning the flesh came of the fathers," Rom. ix. 5. and so was the son of David the son of Abraham, Matt. i. 1. And this could no otherwise be done, but, 4. by taking that nature into personal subsistence with himself, in the hypostasis of the Son of God; the nature he assumed could no otherwise become his. For if he had by any ways or means taken the person of a man to be united unto him, in the strictest union that two persons are capable of, a divine and a human, the nature had still been the nature of that other person and not his own. But he took it to be his own nature, which it could no ways be but by personal union, causing it to subsist in his own person. And he is therefore a true and perfect man; for no more is required to make a complete and perfect man, but the entire nature of man subsisting. And this is in Christ as a man, the human nature having a subsistence communicated unto it by the Son of God. And therefore, 6. This is done. without a multiplication of persons in him. For the human nature can have no personality of its own, because it was taken to be the nature of another person, who was pre-existent unto it, and by assuming of it, prevented its proper personality. Neither, 7. Did hence any mixture or confusion of natures ensue, or of the essential properties of them, for he took the seed of Abraham to be his human nature, which, if mixed with the divine, it could not be. And this he hath done, 8. inseparably and forever. Which things are handled at large elsewhere.

II. The redemption of mankind by the taking of our nature, was a work of mere sovereign grace. He took the seed of Abraham, he took not the nature of angels. And for what cause or reason? Can any be assigned but the sovereign grace, pleasure and love of God? nor doth the Scripture any where assign any other. And this will the better appear, if we consider,

First, That for a sinning nature to be saved, it was indispensably necessary that it should be assumed. The nature of angels being not taken, those that sinned in that nature must perish forever, and they that fancy a possibility of saving sinners any other way but by satisfaction made in the nature that had sinned, seem not to have considered aright the nature of sin, and the justice of God. Had any other way been possible, why doth the perishing of angels so inevitably follow the nonassumption of their nature? This way alone then could it be wrought.

Secondly, That we were carrying away all human nature into endless destruction; for so it is intimated, whence Christ's assumption of it is expressed by his putting forth his hand and taking hold of it, to stop it in its course of apostasy and ruin. Of angels, only some individual persons fell from God, but our whole nature, in every one to whom it was communicatad from and by Adam, was running headlong to destruction. In itself there could be no relief, nor any thing to commend it unto God.

Here sovereign grace interpose th. The "love of God to mankind," Tit. iii. 4. As to the angels, he "spared them not," 2 Pet. ii. 4. He spared not them, and "spared not his Son for us," Rom. viii. 32. And if we consider rightly what the Scripture informs us of the number and dignity of the angels that sinned, of their nature and ability to accomplish the will of God, and compare therewith our own vileness and low condition, we may have matter of eternal admiration suggested unto And there was infinite wisdom as well as sovereign grace in this dispensation, sundry branches whereof the apostle afterwards holds out unto us.

us.

VER. 17, 18.-HAVING declared the general reasons why the Son or Messiah was for a little while to be made lower than the angels, in his incarnation and sufferings, and shewed the ends thereof, the apostle proceeds to declare other especial ends of this divine dispensation, and therein makes way unto what he had to instruct the Hebrews in, about the priestly office of Christ, which was the principal ground and foundation of what he intended more fully afterwards to discourse with them about, and to inform them in.

VER. 17, 18.—Όθεν ωφειλε κατα παντα τοις αδελφοις ὁμοιωθήναι, ένα ελεήμων γενῆται και πιστος αρχιερευς τα προς τον Θεον, εις το έλασκεσα θαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας του λαου Εν ώ πεπονθεν αυτός πειρασθείς, δυ καται τοις πειραζομένοις βοηθήσει

'Obey @peixe, Vulg, unde debuit, whence he ought.' So Beza. Syr. puno, for which cause, or wherefore, it was just,'

VOL. III.

I i