The context, therefore, not answering their occasion, they betake themselves to the words: “ Verbum zw”AapCdveros,” saith he, “sig- nificat proprie, manu aliquem apprehendere; sive ut illum aliquo ducas, sive ut sustentes; hinc ad opitulationem significandum com- modé transfertur; quos enim adjutos volumus ne cadant, vel sub onere aliquo succumbant, aut si ceciderint erectos cupimus, lis manum injicere solemus, quo sensu Kcclesiastic. iv. 11. De sapientia dictum est, Kal émiramtdverc rav Cnrolvrav airqv,—hoc est, ‘ opitulatur que- rentibus se;’ eadem est significatio verbi dyriAumCdveras, quod qui aliquem sublevatum velint illi ex adverso manum porrigere solent.”
It is acknowledged that driAuwEdveras doth frequently signify as here is alleged, namely, “to help and assist,” as it were by putting
458 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. II.
forth the hand for to give relief. But if that were intended by the apostle in this place, what reason can be assigned why he should waive the use of a word proper unto his purpose, and frequently so applied by himself in other places, and make use of another, which signifying no such thing, nor anywhere used by him in that sense, must needs obscure his meaning and render it ambiguous? Whereas, therefore, dvriAcwEdverar signifies “to help and relieve,” and is con- stantly used by our apostle in that sense, it being not used or ap- plied by him in this place to express his intention, but ém’auld- vero, Which signifies no such thing, nor is ever used by him to that purpose, the sense contended for, of help and relief, is plainly ex- cluded. The place of Hcclesiasticus, and that alone, is referred unto by all that embrace this exposition. But what if the word be abused in that place by that writer? must that give a rule unto its interpretation in all other writers where it is properly used? But
yet neither is the word used there for to help and relieve, but to
a4
take and receive. Wisdom, “ suscipit,” “receiveth,” or taketh unto 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 unto his person as he was the Son of God. In the very entrance also of his discourse this author acknowledgeth that éa- AawCdveras doth not directly or properly signify “to help” or “to re- lieve,” but signifying “‘to take hold of,” is transferred unto 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 accepta- tion 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, érirAnwCdvecdas, ver. 18, per Bonbjoc, effert; de eadem enim re utrobique agitur, et rationem consequentiee argumenti, quod in hoc versiculo proponit illic expli- cat.” This is but imagined; the contrary is evident unto every one, upon the first view of the context. Here the apostle discourseth the reason of the humiliation of Christ, and his taking flesh; there, the benefit of his priestly office unto them that do believe.
"EmihapCdévowcs is therefore properly “assumo,” “ accipio,” “ to take unto,” or, “to take upon;” and the apostle teacheth us by it,
that the Lord Christ took unto 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 vindi- cated, I shall further consider the exceptions of a very learned man unto our interpretation of the words, and his answers unto the rea- sons whereby it is confirmed.
ee a
VER. 16.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 459
First, he says that “ érram€dveros, being in the present tense, sig- nifieth 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 unto this exception, that an en- allage is to be allowed, and that émaAupCcveros is put for érercCero, which is usual in the Scripture. So Johni. 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 upon 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. 1. 5.
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 capuds xal aiwaros, “ of flesh and blood,” whereby the nature of man is expressed, repeating here again the same assertion with respect unto the promise, and a negation of the same thing in reference unto 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 unto 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 cupuds xa! ulwarog ought to be repeated zx rod xowod, and referred unto 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 unto flesh and blood in the children.