Thirdly, “The apostle,” he saith, “ showeth, verse 17, that Christ ought in all things to be made like unto 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 unto us, and to assume human nature, differ only in words, and not really or in deed. But take émiauCcveras to signify ‘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 unto 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,
460 AN EXPOSITION OF THE ‘[OHAP. IT.
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, These words, “ like unto us,” do not intend his conformity unto 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 upon.
Fourthly, “‘The seed of Abraham,’” he says, “is a collective expres- sion, 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 men- tion of that privilege.” But this will not abide the examination. The great promise of old unto 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 seed, of his posterity. That by this seed one individual was imtended 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. 1. 3. Of this promise the apostle minds the Hebrews. So that his taking on him the seed of Abra- ham 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 withal which is objected unto our interpretation of this place; which being removed, it is further established.
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 anywhere 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 pecu- liar adjunct whereby they are marked out and distinguished. Now, it cannot be that this word émiAuuCdverau, 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 redemp- tion. If the first be intended, I much question the truth of the assertion, seeing the angels owe their establishment in grace unto Christ, and.also their advancement in glory, Eph.i.10. Ifit be to be taken in the latter sense, as is pretended, then the nature of the dis- crete axiom here used by the apostle requires that there be the same
VER. 16.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 461
need 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 unto 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 further in the ensuing observations from the words.
I. The Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and man in one person; and this is fully manifested in these words. For, 1. There is supposed in them his pre-ewistence 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. 11. 8, 9; as here, “he took the seed of Abraham.” He was before he did so; that is, as 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,” etc., denotes a person pre-existing unto the act of taking here as- cribéed unto him; which was no other than the Son of God. 2. He assumed, he took to himself, another nature, “of the seed of Abra- ham,” 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. 8; 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. 5. 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 mul- tiplication 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