execution, he met with that great and hidden power in him which he knew not, and was utterly conquered. And this, as it gives us a particular consideration of the excellency of our redemption, wherein Satan, our old enemy, who first foiled us, who always hates us, and seeks our ruin, is conquered, spoiled, and chained; so it teacheth us how to contend with him, by what weapons to resist his temptations, and to repel his affrightments, even those whereby he hath been already subdued. Faith in the death of Christ, is the only way and means of obtaining a conquest over him. He will fly at the sign of the cross, rightly inade.

VER. 16.-HAVING asserted the incarnation of the Lord Christ, the Captain of our salvation, and shewed the necessity of it, from the ends which were to be accomplished by it, and therein given the reason of his concession, that he was for a season made less than the angels; the apostle proceeds in this verse, to confirm what he had taught before, by testimony of the Scripture, and adds an especial amplification of the grace of God in this whole dispensation, from the consideration of the angels, who were not made partakers of the like love and

mercy.

VER. 16.—Ου γαρ δήπου αγγελων επιλαμβάνεται, αλλα σπέρματος Αβρααμ επιλαμβανεται.

6

Πε,

Ου γαρ δήπου. The Syriac quite omits δήπου, and reads only , non enim, for he did not.' V. L. nusquam enim. he renders usquam, any where;' and on the consideration of the negative particle, &, nusquam, no where.' Beza, non enim utique as ours, for verily (he took) not; not reaching the force or use of day. Arias, non enim videlicet, which answers not the intent of this place. Erasmus fully and properly, non enim sane usquam, for verily not any where; that is, in no place of the Scripture is any such thing testified unto, which way of expression we observed our apostle to use before, ch. i. 5.

A[yeλwy exiλæμbæveтal: Syr. D x 1, ex angelis assumpsit, he took not of, or from among, the angels; that is, of their nature. V. L. Arias, angelos apprehendit, he doth not take hold of angels." Beza, angelos assumpsit, he assumed not, he took not angels to himself: επιλαμβάνεται, for επέλαβε, by an enallage of time; which ours follows, he took not on him the nature of angels.' But this change of the tense is needless. For the apostle intends not to express what Christ had done, but what the Scripture saith and teacheth concerning him in this matter. That no where affirms that he takes hold of angels.

The remaining words are generally rendered by translators,

6

according to the analogy of these. Sed apprehendit, assumit, assumpsit, semen Abraha, he laid hold of, he takes, he took the seed of Abraham: only the Ethiopic reads them, Did he not exalt the seed of Abraliam? departing from the sense of the words, and of the text.

The constant use of this word aμbave, in the New Testament, is to take hold of. And so in particular it is elsewhere used in this Epistle, ch. viii. 9. naboμers μs tas xeigos mutay, ill the day that I took them by the hand. In other authors, it is so variously used, that nothing from thence can be determined, as to its precise signification, in this, or any other place. The first and proper sense of it is acknowledged to be, to take hold of, as it were with the hand. And however the sense may be interpreted, the word cannot properly be translated any otherwise than to take.' For what some contend, that the effect or end of taking hold of, that is, to help, to vindicate into liberty, whence, by Castalio, it is rendered opitulatur, yet it belongs to the design of the place, not the meaning of the word, which in the first place is to be respected.

VER. 16.-For verily not any where doth he take angels, but he takes the seed of Abraham.

In the words, there is first the reference that the apostle makes unto somewhat else, whereby that which he declareth is confirmed. For verily not any where; that is, that which he denieth in the following words, is no where taught in the Scripture: as, ch. i. 5. "For unto which of the angels said he at any time;" that is, there is no testimony extant in the Scripture concerning them to that purpose. So here, no where is it spoken in the Scripture, that Christ taketh angels. And what is so spoken, he is said to do. And thus also the affirmative clause of his proposition, "but he taketh the seed of Abraliam," is to be referred to the Scripture. There it is promised, there it is spoken, and therein it is done by him.

Secondly, That which he asserteth, hath the nature of a discrete axiom, wherein the same thing is denied, and affirmed of the disparates expressed, and that univocally in the same sense: ⚫he took not angels, but he took the seed of Abraham.' And this, we being referred to the Scripture for the proof and confirmation of, gives light and perfect understanding unto the meaning of the words. For how doth Christ in the Scripture take the seed of Abraham in such a sense, as that therein nothing is spoken of him in reference unto angels? It is evident, that it was in that he was of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; that he was promised to Abraham, that he should be of his seed, yea, that he should be his seed; as Gal. iii. 16. This was the great principle, the great expectation

of the Hebrews, that the Messiah should be the seed of Abraham. This was declared unto them in the promise, and this accordingly was accomplished. And he is here said to take the seed of Abraham, because in the Scripture it is so plainly, so often affirmed that he should so do; when not one word is any where spoken that he should be an angel, or take their nature upon him. And this, as I said, gives us the true meaning of the words. The apostle in them confirms what he had before affirmed, concerning his being made partaker of flesh and blood, together with the children. This, saith he, the Scripture declares, wherein it is promised that he should be of the seed of Abraham, which he therein takes upon him, and which was already accomplished in his being made partaker of flesh and blood; see John i. 14. Rom. ix. 5. Gal. iv. 4. iii. 16. This then the apostle teacheth us, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, according to the promise, took to himself the nature of man, coming of the seed of Abrabam, that is, he took the nature of man into personal union with himself; but took not the nature of angels, no such thing being spoken of him, nor concerning him, any where in the Scripture. And this exposition of the words will be farther evidenced and confirmed by our examination of another, which, with great endeavour, is advanced in opposition unto it.

6

Some then take the meaning of this exposition to be, that the Lord Christ, by his participation of flesh and blood, brought help and relief, not unto angels, but unto men, the seed of Abraham. And they suppose to this purpose, that μ is put for avarai (artidaubarstαi), to help, to succour, to relieve, to vindicate into liberty. Of this mind are Castalio, and all the Socinians: among those of the Roman church, Ribera. Estius also, and A Lapide speak doubtfully in the case. Of Protestants, Camero, and Grotius, who affirms moreover, that Chrysostom and the Greek scholiasts so interpret the place and words, which I should have marvelled at, had I not long before observed him (Grotius) greatly to fail or mistake in many of his quotations. Chrysostom, whom he names in particular, expressly referreth this whole verse unto the Lord Christ's assumption of the nature of man, and not of the nature of angels. The same also is insisted on by Theophylact and Oecumenius, without any intimation of the sense that Grotius would impose upon them.

The Socinians embrace and endeavour to confirm this second exposition of the words, and it is their concernment so to do. For if the words express that the Lord Christ assumed human nature, which necessarily infers his pre-existence in another nature, their persuasion about the person of Christ is utterly overthrown. Their exceptions in their controversial writings unte

this place have been elsewhere considered. Those of Eniedinus on this text are answered by Paræus, those of Castalio by Beza, and the objections of some others by Gomarus. We shall, in the first place, consider what is proposed for the confirmation of their sense, by Schlictingius or Crellius; and then the exception of a very learned expositor unto the sense before laid down and confirmed. And Schlictingius first argues from the context, Præter ipsa verba, saith he, quæ hunc sensum nullo modo patiuntur ut postea dicemus, contextus et ratiocinatio authoris id repudiat; qui pro ratione et argumento id sumere non potuit debuitve, quod sibi hoc ipso argumento et ratione probandum sumpsisset. De eo enim crat quæstio, cur Christus qui nune ad tantam majestatem et gloriam est evectus, non angelicam sed humanam, morti et variis calamitatibus obnoxiam habuerit naturam? hujus vero rei, quo pacto ratio redderetur, per id quod non angelicam sed humanam naturam assumpserit; cum istius ipsius rei, quæ in hac quæstione continetur, nempe quod Christus homo fuit natus, nunc causa ratioque quæratur. At vero si hæc verba, de juvandis non angelis, sed hominibus, deque ope iis ferenda intelligamus, pulcherrime omnia coharent; nempe Christum hominem mortalem fuisse, non angelum aliquem, quod non angelis sed hominibus juxandis, servandisque fuerit destinatus. But the foundation of this exposition of the context is a mistake, which his own preceding discourse might have relieved him from. For there is no such question proposed as here is imagined, nor doth he in his following exposition suppose it. The apostle doth not once propose this unto confirmation, that it behoved the Lord Christ to be a man, and not an angel. But having proved at large before, that in nature and authority he was above the angels, he grants, ver. 8. that he was for a little while made lower than they; and gives at large the reason of the necessity of that dispensation, taken from the work which God had designed him unto, which being to bring many sons unto glory, he shews and proves by sundry reasons, that it could not be accomplished without his death and suffering; for which end, it was indispensably necessary that he should be made partaker of flesh and blood. And this he confirms farther, by referring the Hebrews unto the Scripture, and in especial unto the great promise of the Messiah made unto Abraham, that the Messiah was to be his seed; the love and grace whereof, he amplifies by an intimation that he was not to partake of the angelical nature. That supposition therefore which is the foundation of this exposition, namely that the apostle had before designed to prove that the Messiah ought to partake of human nature, and not of angelical, which is nothing to his purpose, is a surmise suited only to the present occasion. Wherefore Felbinger, in his Demonstrationes Evangelica, takes another course, and affirms that these words contain the end of

what was before asserted, ver. 14, 15. namely, about Christ's participation of flesh and blood, which was not to help angels, but the seed of Abraham, and to take them into grace and favour. But these things are both of them expressly declared in those verses, especially ver. 15. where it is directly affirmed, that his design in his incarnation and death, was to destroy the devil, and to free and save the children. And to what end should these things be here again repeated, and that in words and terms far more obscure and ambiguous than those wherein it was before taught and declared? For by angels they understand evil angels; and there could be no cause why the apostle should say in this verse, that he did not assist or relieve them, when he had declared in the words immediately foregoing, that he was born and died, that he might destroy them. Neither is it comely to say, that the end why Christ destroyed the devil was, that he might not help him; or the end why he saved the children was, that he might assist them. Besides, the introduction of this assertion, yg do, will not allow, that here any end is intimated of what was before expressed, there being no insinuation of any final cause in them.

The context therefore, not answering their occasion, they betake themselves to the words, Verbum aparira, (saith he), significat proprie, manu aliquem apprehendere; sive ut illum aliquo ducas, sive ut sustentes; hinc ad opitulationem significandum commode transfertur; quos enim adjutos volumus ne cadant, vel sub onere aliquo succumbunt, aut si ceciderent erectos cupimus, iis manum injicere solemus, quo sensu, Ecclesiastic. iv. 12. De sapientia dictum est, και επιλαμβάνεται των ζητώντων αυτήν, hoc est, opitulatur quarentibus se, eadem est significatio verbi artıλaubanitas, quod qui aliquem sublevatum velint illi ex adverso manum porrigere solent.

It is acknowledged that arraußavira doth frequently signify as here is alleged, namely to help and assist,' as it were by putting forth the hand to give relief. But if that were intended by the apostle in this place, what reason can be assigned why he 'should wave the use of a word proper to his purpose, and frequently so applied by himself in other places, and make use of another, which signifying no such thing, nor any where used by him in that sense, must needs obscure his meaning, and render it ambiguous? Whereas therefore arrihau Barras signifies to help and relieve,' and is constantly used by our apostle in that sense, it being not used or applied by him in this place to express his intention, but Savita, which signifies no such thing, nor is ever used by him to that purpose, the sense contended for of help and relief is plainly excluded. The place of Ecclesiasticus, and that alone, is referred to by all that embrace this exposition. But what if the word be abused in that place by that writer? must that give a rule to its interpretation in