A Second Consideration of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius

Having in my late defence of the doctrine of the Gospel, from the corruptions of the Socinians, been occasioned to vindicate the testimonies given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, from their exceptions, and finding that Hugo Grotius in his Annotations had (for the most part) done the same things with them, as to that particular, and some other important articles of the Christian faith, that book of his being more frequent in the hands of students, than those of the Socinians, I thought it incumbent on me, to do the same work in reference to those Annotations, which it was my design to perform towards the writings of Socinus, Smalcius, and their companions and followers. What I have been enabled to accomplish by that endeavour, with what service to the Gospel has been performed thereby, is left to the judgment of them who desire [in non-Latin alphabet]. Of my dealing with Grotius I gave a brief account in my Epistle to the Governors of the University, and that with reference to an Apology made for him, not long before. This has obtained a new Apology under the name of a second defence of Hugo Grotius; with what little advantage either to the repute of Grotius, as to the thing in question, or of the Apologist himself, it is judged necessary to give the ensuing account: for which I took the first leisure hour I could obtain, having things of greater weight, daily incumbent on me. The only thing of importance by me charged on those Annotations of Grotius, was this; that the texts of Scripture both in the Old Testament and New, bearing witness to the Deity, and Satisfaction of Christ, are in them wrested to other senses and significations, and the testimonies given to those grand truths, thereby eluded. Of those of the first kind I excepted one, yet with some doubt, lest his expressions therein, ought to be interpreted according to the analogy of what he had elsewhere delivered: of which afterwards.

Because that which concerns the Satisfaction of Christ will admit of the easiest dispatch, though taking up most room, I shall in the first place insist thereon. The words of my charge on the Annotations, as to this head of the doctrine of the Scripture are these. The condition of these famous Annotations as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same. Not one text in the whole Scripture, wherein testimony is given to that sacred truth, which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the doctrine in it, concealed and obscured by them.

This being a matter of fact, and the words containing a crime charged on the Annotations, he that will make a defence of them, must either disprove the assertion by instances to the contrary, or else granting the matter of fact, evince it to be no crime. That which is objected in matter of fact, aut negandum est aut defendendum, says Quintilian (lib. 5. cap. de refut.), and extra haec in judiciis fere nihil est. In other cases, Patronus, neget, defendat, transferat, excuset, deprecetur, molliat, minuat, avertat, despiciat, derideat; but in matters of fact, the two first only have place. Aristotle allows more particulars for an Apologist to divert to, if the matter require it: he may say of what is objected, [in non-Latin alphabet] (Rhet. lib. 3. cap. 15.), all which in a plain matter of fact may be reduced to the former heads. That any other Apology can or ought to take place in this, or any matter of the same importance will not easily be proved. The present Apologist takes another course. Such ordinary paths are not for him to walk in. He tells us of the excellent book that Grotius wrote de satisfactione Christi, and the exposition of sundry places of Scripture, especially of divers verses of Isaiah 53, given therein; and then adds sundry inducements to persuade us, that he was of the same mind in his Annotations. And this is called a defence of Grotius. The Apologist I suppose knows full well, what texts of Scripture they are, that are constantly pleaded for the Satisfaction of Christ, by them who do believe that doctrine. I shall also for once take it for granted, that he might without much difficulty, have obtained a sight of Grotius' Annotations; to which I shall only add, that probably if he could from them have disproved the assertion before mentioned, by any considerable instances, he is not so tender of the Prefacer's credit, as to have concealed it on any such account. But the severals of his plea for the Annotations in this particular, I am persuaded are accounted by some, worthy consideration; a brief view of them will suffice.

The signal place of Isaiah 53, he tells us, he has heard taken notice of by some; (I thought it had been probable the Apologist might have taken notice of it himself,) as that wherein his Annotations are most suspected; therefore on that he will fasten a while. Who would not now expect that the Apologist should have entered upon the consideration of those Annotations, and vindicated them from the imputations insinuated: but he knew a better way of procedure, and who shall prescribe to him, what suits his purpose and proposal.

This I say is the instance chosen to be insisted on; and the vindication of the Annotations therein, by the interpretation given in their Author his book de Satisfactione Christi is proposed to consideration. That others, if not the Apologist himself, may take notice of the emptiness of such precipitate Apologies, as are ready to be tumbled out, without due digestion, or consideration, I shall not only compare the Annotations and that book as to the particular place proposed, and manifest the inconsistency of the one with the other; but also to discover the extreme negligence and confidence, which lie at the bottom of his following attempt, to induce a persuasion, that the judgment of the man of whom we speak, was not altered (that is, as to the interpretation of the Scriptures relating to the Satisfaction of Christ) nor is others in his Annotations, than in that book; I shall compare the one with the other, by sundry other instances, and let the world see how in the most important places contested about, he has utterly deserted the interpretations given of them by himself in his book de Satisfactione, and directly taken up that which he did oppose.

The Apologist binds me in the first place to that of Isaiah 53, which is ushered in by (1 Peter 2:24).

From 1 Peter 2:24 (says the Apologist) Grotius informs us that Christ so bore our sins, that he freed us from them, so that we are healed by his stripes.

This thus crudely proposed, Socinus himself would grant it, is little more than barely repeating the words; Grotius goes farther, and contends that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] the word there used by the Apostle, is to be interpreted, tulit sursum eundo, portavit, and tells us that Socinus would render this word abstulit, and so take away the force of the argument from this place. To disprove that insinuation, he urges sundry other places in the New Testament, where some words of the same importance are used, and are no way capable of such a signification. And whereas Socinus urges to the contrary (Hebrews 9:28), where he says [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] signifies nothing but auferre peccata, Grotius disproves that instance, and manifests that in that place also it is to be rendered by tulit, and so relates to the death of Christ.

That we may put this instance given us by the Apologist, to vindicate the Annotations from the crime charged on them to an issue, I shall give the Reader the words of his Annotations on that place: it is as follows:

How well the Annotator abides here by his former interpretation of this place, the Apologist may easily discover. 1 There he contends that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is as much as tulio, or sursum tulit: and objects out of Socinus, that it must be abstulit, which quite alters the sense of the testimony. Here he contends with him, that it must be abstulit. 2 There (Hebrews 9:28) is of the same importance with this (1 Peter 2:24) as there interpreted: here, as here; that is in a quite contrary sense, altogether inconsistent with the other. 3. For company [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] used (Isaiah 53) is called in to the same signification, which in the book de satisfactione he contends is never used in that sense, and that most truly. 4. Upon this exposition of the words, he gives the very sense contended for by the Socinians; non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia nostra abstulit, sed causas dedit per quas auferreretur: what are these causes; he adds them immediately, Nam crux Christi fundamentum est praedicationis, praedicatio verò poenitentiae, poenitentia verò aufert vitia. He that sees not the whole Socinian poison wrapped up and proposed in this interpretation, is ignorant of the state of the difference, as to that head, between them, and Christians. (5) To make it a little more evident, how constant the Annotator was to his first principles, which he insisted on in the management of his disputes with Socinus about the sense of this place, I shall add the words of Socinus himself, which then he did oppose. Verum animadvertere oportet primùm in Graeco, verbum, quod interpretes verterunt pertulit, est [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], quod non pertulit sed abstulit vertendum erat, non secus ac factum fuerit in epistola ad Hebraeos cap. 9. 28. ubi idem legendi modus habetur, unde constat [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] non perferre peccata, sed peccata tollere, sive auferre, significart. Socin. de Jes. Christ. sat. lib. 2. cap. 6.

What difference there is between the design of the Annotator, and that of Socinus, what compliance in the quotation of the parallel place of the Hebrews, what direct opposition and head is made in the Annotations against that book de Satisfactione, and how clearly the cause contended for in the one, is given away in the other; needs no farther to be demonstrated. But if this instance makes not good the Apologist's assertion, it may be supposed, that that which follows, which is ushered in by this, will do it to the purpose; let then that come into consideration.

This is that of Isaiah 53. Somewhat of the sense which Grotius in his book de Satisfactione contends for, in this place, is given us by the Apologist.

The 11th verse of the chapter which he first considers (in my book) page 14: he thus proposes and expounds: justificabit servus mens justus multos & iniquitates ipsorum bajulabit. in Heb. est: [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] vox autem [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] iniquitatem significat, atque etiam iniquitatis poenam. 2. Reg. 7. 9. vox autem [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] est sustinere, bajulare, quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniquitatis, id in omni lingua & maximè in Hebraismo significat poenas ferre, with much more to this purpose. The whole design of the main dispute in that place, is, from that discourse of the Prophet to prove, that Jesus Christ properly underwent the punishment due to our sins, and thereby made satisfaction to God for them.

To manifest his constancy to this doctrine, in his Annotations he gives such an exposition of that whole chapter of Isaiah 53 as is manifestly, and universally inconsistent with any such design in the words, as that which he intends to prove from them in his book de Satisfactione. In particular (to give one instance of this assertion) he contends here that [in non-Latin alphabet], is as much as bajulare, portare, and that joined with iniquity (in all languages, especially in the Hebrew) that phrase of bearing iniquity, signifies to undergo the punishment due to it; in his Annotations on the place, as also in those on 1 Peter 2:24, he tells you the word signifies auferre, which with all his strength he had contended against. Not to draw out this particular instance into any greater length, I make bold to tell the Apologist (what I suppose he knows not) that there is no one verse of the whole chapter, so interpreted in his Annotations, as that the sense given by him, is consistent with, yes, is not repugnant to, that which from the same verses he pleads for in his book de Satisfactione Christi. If notwithstanding this information, the Apologist be not satisfied, let him if he please consider what I have already animadverted on those Annotations, and undertake their vindication. These loose discourses are not at all to the purpose in hand, nor the question between us, which is solely; whether Grotius in his Annotations have not perverted the sense of those texts of Scripture, which are commonly, and most righteously pleaded as testimonies given to the satisfaction of Christ. But as to this particular place of Isaiah, the Apologist has a farther plea, the sum whereof (not to trouble the reader with the repetition of a discourse so little to the purpose) comes to this head; that Grotius in his book de Satisfactione Christi gives the mystical sense of the chapter, under which consideration, it belongs to Christ and his sufferings; in his Annotations the literal, which had its immediate completion in Jeremiah, which was not so easily discoverable or vulgarly taken notice of. This is the sum of his first observation on this place to acquit the Annotator of the crime charged upon him. Whether he approve the application of the prophecy to Jeremiah or no, I know not. He says, Grotius so conceived. The design of the discourse seems to give approbation to that conception. How the literal sense of a place should come to be less easily discovered than the mystical, well I know not. Nor shall I speak of the thing itself concerning the literal and mystical sense supposed to be in the same place and words of Scripture, with the application of the distinction to those prophecies which have a double accomplishment in the type and thing or person typified, (which yet has no soundness in it) but to keep to the matter now in hand, I shall make bold for the removal of this engine applied by the Apologist for the preventing all possible mistake, or controversy about the Annotator's after-charge in this matter, to tell him, that the perverting of the first literal sense of the chapter, or giving it a completion in any person whatever, in a first, second, or third sense, but the Son of God himself, is no less than blasphemy; which the Annotator is no otherwise freed from, but by his conceiving a sense to be in the words, contrary to their literal importance, and utterly exclusive of the concernment of Jesus Christ in them. If the Apologist be otherwise minded, I shall not invite him again to the consideration of what I have already written in the vindication of the whole prophecy from the wretched corrupt interpretation of the Annotator, (not hoping that he will be able to break through that discouragement he has from looking into that treatise, by the prospect he has taken of the whole by the Epistle) but do express my earnest desire, that by an exposition of the several parts of that chapter, and their application to any other (not by loose discourses foreign to the question in hand) he would endeavour to evince the contrary; if on second thoughts he find either his judgment, or ability, not ready or competent for such an attempt, I heartily wish he would be careful hereafter of engendering apprehensions of that nature, in the minds of others, by any such discourses as this.

I cannot but suppose that I am already absolved from a necessity of any farther procedure, as to the justifying my charge against the Annotations, having sufficiently foiled the instance produced by the Apologist for the weakening of it. But yet lest any should think, that the present issue of this debate, is built upon some unhappiness of the Apologist in the choice of the particulars insisted on; which might have been prevented, or may yet be removed, by the production of other instances: I shall for their further satisfaction, present them with sundry other, the most important testimonies given to the satisfaction of Christ, wherein the Annotator has openly prevaricated, and does embrace and propose those very interpretations, and that very sense, which in his book, de Satisfactione Christi, he had strenuously opposed.

Page 8 of his book de Satisfactione, he pleads the satisfaction of Christ, from (Galatians 2:21), laying weight on this, that the word, [in non-Latin alphabet], signifies the want of an antecedent cause, on the supposition there made. In his Annotations he deserts this assertion, and takes up the sense of the place given by Socinus de servator. lib. 2: cap. 24. His departure into the tents of Socinus on (Galatians 3:13) is much more pernicious. Page 25, 26, 27, urging that place and vindicating it from the exceptions of Socinus, he concludes, that the Apostle said Christ was made a curse, quasi dixerit Christum factum esse [in non-Latin alphabet]: hoc est poenae à Deo irrogatae, & quidem ignominiosissimae obnoxium. To make good this, in his Annotations, he thus expounds the words: duplex haec figura; nam & [in non-Latin alphabet] pro [in non-Latin alphabet], quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis: & subauditur [in non-Latin alphabet]: nam Christus ita cruciatus est, quasi esset Deo [in non-Latin alphabet], quo nihil homini pessimo in hâc vitâ pejus evenire poterat: which is the very interpretation of the words given by Socinus which he opposed; and the same that Crellius insists upon in his vindication of Socinus against him. So uniform was the judgment of the Annotator, with that of the author of the book de Satisfactione Christi.

Pages 32, 33, &c. are spent in the exposition and vindication of Romans 3:25, 26. That expression [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], manifesting the end of the suffering of Christ, is by him chiefly insisted on. That by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is there intended that justice of God, whereby he punishes sin, he contends and proves from the nature of the thing itself, and comparing the expression with other parallel texts of Scripture. Socinus had interpreted this of the righteousness of Christ's fidelity and veracity: Lib. 2. de Servator. cap. 2. (ut ostenderet se veracem & fidelem esse.) But Crellius in his vindication of him places it rather on the goodness & liberality of God, which is, says he, the righteousness there intended. To make good his ground, the Annotator thus expounds the meaning of the words: vocem [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] malim hic de bonitate interpretari, quam de fide in promissis praestandis, quia quae sequuntur non ad Judaeos solos pertinent, sed etiam ad Gentes, quibus promissio nulla facta erat. He rather (he tells you) embraces the interpretation of Crellius than of Socinus; but for that which himself had contended for, it is quite shut out of doors: as I have elsewhere manifested at large.

The same course he takes with Romans 5:10, which he insists on pag. 26, and 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19, 20, 21, concerning which he openly deserts his own former interpretation, and closes expressly with that which he had opposed, as he does in reference to all other places, where any mention is made of reconciliation. The substance of his Annotations on those places, seeming to be taken out of Socinus, Crellius, and some others of that party.

That signal place of Hebrews 2:17, in this kind, deserves particularly to be taken notice of. Cap. 7 pag. 141 of his book de Satisfactione, he pleads the sense of that expression, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to be, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]: and adds, significat ergo ibi expiationem quae fit placando. But Crellius' defence of Socinus had so possessed the man's mind before he came to write his Annotations, that on that place he gives us directly his sense, and almost his words in a full opposition to what he had before asserted: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], hoc quidem loco, ut ex sequentibus apparet, est auferre peccata, sive purgare à peccato, id est, efficere ne peccetur, vires suppeditando pro modo tentationum. So the Annotator on that place, endeavoring further to prove his interpretation. From Romans 4 last, Cap. 1 pag. 47 of his book de Satisfactione, he clearly proves the satisfaction of Christ: and evinces that to be the sense of that expression, traditus propter peccata nostra: which he thus comments on in his Annotations: poterat dicere qui & mortuus est, & resurrexit ut nos à peccatis justificaret, id est, liberaret. Sed amans [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] morti conjunxit peccata, quae sunt mors animi, resurrectioni autem adeptionem Iustitiae, quae est animi resuscitatio: mirè nos & à peccatis retrahit & ad Iustitiam ducit: quod videmus Christum mortem non formidâsse pro doctrinâ suâ peccatis contrariâ, & ad Iustitiam nos vocanti Testimonio; & à Deo suscitatum, ut eidem doctrinae summa conciliaretur Authoritas. He that sees not, not only that he directly closes in with what before he had opposed, but also that he has here couched the whole doctrine of the Socinians about the mediation of Christ, and our justification thereby, is utterly ignorant of the state of the controversy between them and Christians.

I suppose it will not be thought necessary for me to proceed with the comparison instituted. The several books are in the hands of most students, and that the case is generally the same in the other places pleaded for the satisfaction of Christ, they may easily satisfy themselves. Only because the Apologist seems to put some difference between his Annotations on the Revelation, (as having received their lineaments and colors from his own pencil,) and those on the Epistles which he had not so completed; as I have already manifested, that in his Annotations on that book, he has treacherously tampered with, and corrupted the testimonies given to the deity of our blessed Savior, so shall I give one instance from them also, of his dealing no less unworthily with those that concern his satisfaction.

Socinus in his second book against Covet, second part, & chap. 17. gives us this account of those words of the holy Ghost, Rev. 1:5. who has loved us, and washed us in his own blood: Johannes in Apocalyp. cap. 1. v. 5. alia Metaphorâ seu Translatione, (quae nihil aliud est quam compendiosa quaedam comparatio) utens, dixit de Christo & ejus morte, qui dilexit nos & lavit nos à peccatis in sanguine suo, nam quemadmodum aquâ abluuntur sordes corporis, sic sanguine Christi, peccata, quae sordes animi sunt absterguntur. Absterguntur, inquam, quia animus onster ab ipsis mundatur, &c. This interpretation is opposed and exploded by Grotius lib. de Satisf. c. 10. p. 208, 209. the substance of it being, that Christ washed us from our sins by his death, in that he confirmed his doctrine of repentance & newness of life thereby, by which we are turned from our sins; as he manifests in the close of his discourse, hoc saepius urgendum est, (says Socinus) Iesum Christum eâ ratione peccata nostra abstulisse, quod effecerit, ut à peccando desistamus. This interpretation of Socinus, being reinforced by Crellius, the place falls again under the consideration of Grotius in those Annotations on the Revelations; which as the Apologist tells us, received their very lineaments and colours from his own pencil. There then he gives us this account thereof, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: Sanguine suo, id est, morte toleratâ, certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat, quae talia sunt, ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos. Humidae naturae, sub quâ est sanguis, proprium est lavare. Id vero per egregiam [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] ad animum transfertur. Dicitur autem Christus suo sanguine nos lavisse, quia & ipse omnia praestitit quae ad id requirebantur & apparet secutum in plurimis effectum. I desire the Apologist to tell me what he thinks of this piece thus perfected, with all its lineaments and colours by the pencil of that skilful man; and what beautiful aspect he supposes it to have. Let the Reader, to prevent further trouble in perusing transcriptions of this kind, consider Rev. 13:8, pag. 114. Heb. 9:25. to the end; which he calls an illustrious place in the same page and forward: 1 John 2:2. pag. 140, Romans 5:10, 11. page 142, 143. Ephesians 2:16. page 148, 149, Colossians 1:20, 21, 22. Titus 2:14. page 156. Heb. 9:14, 15. pag. 157, 158. Acts 20:28. and many others; and compare them with the Annotations on those places, and he will be further enabled to judge of the defence made of the one, by the instance of the other. I shall only desire that he who undertakes to give his judgment of this whole matter, be somewhat acquainted with the state of the difference, about this point of the doctrine of the Gospel, between the Socinians and us: that he does not take auferre peccata, to be ferre peccata: nostri causa, to be nostrâ vice, and nostro loco: causa [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], to be [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: liberatio à jugo peccati, to be redemptio à reatu peccati: Subire poenas simpliciter, to be subire paenas nobis debitas: to be [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] in respect of the event, to be so as to the proper nature of the thing; offerre seipsum in coelo, to be as much as offerre seipsum in cruce, as to the work itself: that so he be not mistaken to think that, when the first are granted, that the latter are so also. For a close of the discourse relating to this head, a brief account may be added, why I said not positively, that he had wrested all the places of Scripture giving testimony to the satisfaction of Christ, to another sense: but that he had either done so, or else concealed or obscured that sense in them.

Though I might give instances from one or two places in his Annotations on the Gospels, giving occasion to this assertion, yet I shall insist only on some taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews, where is the great and eminent seat of the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction. Although in his Annotations on that Epistle, he does openly corrupt the most clear testimonies given to this truth, yet there are some passages in them, wherein he seems to dissent from the Socinians. In his Annotations on chap. 5. vers. 5. he has these words, Iesus quidem Sacerdotale munus suum aliquo modo erat auspicatus; cum semet patri victimam offerret. That Christ was a Priest when he was on the earth, was wholly denied by Socinus both in his book de Servatore, and in his Epistle to Niemoieuius, as I have showed elsewhere. Smalcius seems to be of the same judgment in the Racovian Catechism. Grotius says, Sacerdotale munus erat aliquo modo auspicatus: yet herein he goes not beyond Crellius, who tells us: mortem Christus subiit duplici ratione, partim quidem ut foederis mediator seu sponsor, partim quidem ut Sacerdos, Deo ipsum oblaturus: de causis mortis Christi pag. 6. And so Volkelius fully to the same purpose. Partes (says he) muneris Sacerdotis, haec sunt potissimum; mactatio victimae, in tabernaculum ad oblationem peragendam, ingressio, & ex eodem egressio: Ac mactatio quidem mortem Christi, violentam sanguinis profnsionem continet: de Relig. lib. 3. cap. 47. pag. 145. And again: Hinc colligitur solam Christi mortem nequaquam illam perfectam absolutámque ipsius oblationem (de qua in epistola ad Hebraeos agitur) fuisse, sed principium & praeparationem quandam ipsius Sacerdotii in caelo demum administrandi extitisse, ibid. So that nothing is obtained by Grotius his munus Sacerdotale aliquo modo erat auspicatus, but what is granted by Crellius and Volkelius. But in the next words, cum semet offerret patri victimam, he seems to leave them: but he seems only so to do. For Volkelius acknowledges that he did slay the Sacrifice in his death, though that was not his complete and perfect oblation, which is also afterwards affirmed by Grotius: and Crellius expressly affirms the same. Nor does he seem to intend a proper expiatory and satisfactory Sacrifice in that expression; for if he had, he would not have been guilty of such an [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], as to say, semet obtulit patri. Besides, though he do acknowledge elsewhere, that this victima was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], & [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], yet he says in another place (on ver. 3.) Sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse prose[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; giving thereby such a sense to that expression, as is utterly inconsistent with a proper expiatory Sacrifice for sin. And which is yet worse, on chap. 9. 14. he gives us such an account why expiation is ascribed to the blood of Christ, as is a key to his whole interpretation of that epistle: Sanguini (says he) purgatio ista tribuitur: quia per sanguinem, idest, mortem Christi, secuta ejus excitatione & evectione, gignitur in nobis fides, quae deinde purgat corda. And therefore where Christ is said to offer himself by the eternal Spirit, he tells us, Oblatio Christi hic intelligitur illa, quae oblationi legali in adyto factae respondet, ea autem est, non oblatio in altari Crucis facta, sed in adyto caelesti: So that the purgation of sin is an effect of Christ's presenting himself in heaven only: which how well it agrees with what the Apostle says chap. 1. v. 3. the Reader will easily judge. And to manifest that this was his constant sense, on those words v. 26. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he thus comments; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Ut peccatum in nobis extinguatur: fit autem hoc per passionem Christi, quae fidem nobis ingenerat, quae cordae purificat. Christ confirming his doctrine by his death, begets faith in us, which does the work. Of the 28th verse of the same chapter I have spoken before. The same he affirms again, more expressly, on chap. 10. vers. 3. and on ver. 9. and verse 12. he interprets the oblation of Christ, whereby he took away sin, to be the oblation or offering himself in heaven, whereby sin is taken away by sanctification, as also in sundry other places, where the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ on earth, and the taking away of the guilt of sin, by satisfaction, is evidently intended. So that notwithstanding the concession mentioned, I cannot see the least reason to alter my thoughts of the Annotations, as to this business in hand.

Not further to abound in causá facili; in all the differences we have with the Socinians, about Christ's dying for us, concerning the nature of redemption, reconciliation, mediation, sacrifice, the meaning of all the phrases and expressions, which in those things are delivered to us, the Annotator is generally on the apostate side throughout his Annotations: and the truth is, I know no reason why our students should with so much diligence and charge, labor to get into their hands the books of Socinus, Crellius, Smalcius, and the rest of that crew, seeing these Annotations, as to the most important heads of Christian religion, about the deity, sacrifice, priesthood, and satisfaction of Christ, original sin, free will, justification &c, afford them the substance and marrow of what is spoken by them; so that as to these heads, upon the matter, there is nothing peculiar to the Annotator, but the secular learning which in his interpretations he has curiously and gallantly interweaved. Plautus makes sport in his Amphitruo with several persons, some real, some assumed, of such likeness one to another, that they could not discern themselves by any outward appearance; which caused various contests and mistakes between them. The poet's fancy raised not a greater similitude between Mercury and Sosia, being supposed to be different persons, than there is a dissimilitude between the author of the book de Satisfactione Christi, and of the Annotations, concerning which we have been discoursing, being one and the same. Nor was the contest of those different persons so like one another, so irreconcilable, as are these of this single person, so unlike himself in the several treatises mentioned. And I cannot but think it strange that the Apologist could imagine no surer measure to be taken of Grotius's meaning in his Annotations than his treatise of the Satisfaction of Christ does afford, there being no two treatises that I know, of any different persons whatever, about one and the same subject, that are more at variance. Whether now any will be persuaded by the Apologist to believe that Grotius was constant in his Annotations to the doctrine delivered in that other treatise, I am not solicitous.

For the reinforced plea of the Apologist, that these Annotations were not finished by him, but only collections that he might after dispose of; I am not concerned in it; having to deale with that booke of Annotations that goes under his name; if they are none of his, it is neither on the one hand or other, of any concernment to me. I say not this, as though the Apologist, had in the least made good his former plea, by his new Exceptions to my evidence against it, from the Printers preface to the Volume of Annotations on the Epistles. He saies! what was the opus integrum that was commended to the care of [in non-Latin alphabet]? And answers himselfe, not that last part or volume of Annotations, but opus integrum, the whole volume or volumes that contained his [in non-Latin alphabet] adversaria on the new Testament. For how ill this agrees with the intention and words of the Prefacer, a slight inspection will suffice to manifest. He tells us, that Grotius had himselfe publisht his Annotations on the Gospells, five yeares before: that at his departure from Paris, he left a great part of this volume (that is this on the Acts and Epistles) with a friend; that the reason why he left not opus integrum, that is, the whole volume with him, was because the residue of it was not so written, as that an Amanuensis could well understand it. That therefore in his going towards Sweden, he wrote that part againe with his owne hand, and sent it backe to the same person (that had the former part of the Volume committed to him) from Hamburge. If the Apologist read this Preface, he ought, as I suppose to have desisted from the plea insisted on: If he did not, he thought assuredly he had much reason to despise them, with whom he had to do: But as I said, herein am I not concerned.

The consideration of the charge on the Annotations relating to their tampering with the testimonies given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, being an other head of the whole, may now have place.

The summe of what is to this purpose by me affirmed, is, that in the Annotations on the old and new Testament, Grotius has left but one place giving testimony clearly to the Deity of Christ. To this assertion I added both a limitation, and also an enlargment in severall respects. A limitation that I could not perceive he had spoken of himselfe, clearly on that one place. On supposition that he did so, I granted that perhaps one or two places more, might accordingly be interpreted. That this one place is John 1:1 I expressely affirmed: that is the one place wherein, as I say, he spake not home to the businesse. The defence of the Apologist in the behalfe of Grotius consists of sundry discourses. First to disprove that he has left more then that one of John free from the corruption charged; he instances in that one of John 1:1, wherein as he says, he expressely asserts the Deity of Christ: but yet wisely forseeing, that this instance would not evade the charge, having been expressely excepted, (as to the present enquiry) and reserved to further debate; he adds the places quoted by Grotius in the exposition of that place as Proverbs 8:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; Isaiah 45:12 and 48:13; 2 Peter 3:5; Colossians 1:16, from all which he concludes, that the Annotations have left more testimonies to the Deity of Christ untampered withall and unperverted, then my assertion will allow; reckoning them all up againe section the 10th, and concluding himselfe a successfull Advocate in this case, or at least under a despaire of ever being so in any, if he acquit not himselfe clearly in this. If his failure herein be evinced, by the course of his late writings himselfe will appeare to be most concerned. I suppose then that on the view of this defence, men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeated, and mustered a second time by the Apologist, Grotius does give their sense as bearing witnesse to the Deity of Christ. Others may be pleased to take it for granted without farther consideration: for my part being a little concerned to inquire, I shall take the paines to turne to the places, and give the Reader a briefe account of them.

For Proverbs 8, his first note on the wisdome there spoken of is: Haec de ea sapientia quae in Lege apparet exponunt Haebraei, & sane ei, si non sol[illegible]; at praecipuè haec atributa conveniunt. Now if the attributes here mentioned, agree either solely or principally to the wisdome that shines in the Law, how they can be the attributes of the person of the eternall Son of God, I see not. He addes no more to that purpose, untill he comes to the 22 ver. the verse of old contested about with the Arrians. His words on that are Graecum Aquilae, est, [in non-Latin alphabet], ut & Symmachi & Theodosionis, res[illegible]pondetque benè Haebraeo [in non-Latin alphabet], & Caldaeus habet [in non-Latin alphabet], & 70 [in non-Latin alphabet], sensu non malo, si creare sumas pro facére ut appareat: viae Dei sunt operationes ipsius: sensum hujus loci & sequentium non male exprimas cum Philone de Coloniis: [in non-Latin alphabet].

On verse 27, he addes aderam, id est, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], ut infra Iohn Evang. 1. 1. What clear and evident testimony, by this exposition is left in this place to the deity of Christ I profess myself as ignorant, as I was, before I received this direction by the Apologist. He tells us that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is rendered not amiss by the Chaldee [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and the 70 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arrians, and exploded by the ancient doctors of the Church. To relieve this concession, he tells us that creare, may be taken for facere ut appareat, though there be no evidence of such a use of the word in the Scripture, nor can he give any instance thereof. The whole interpretation runs on that wisdom that is a property of God, which he manifested in the works of creation: of the Son of God, the essential wisdom of God, subsisting with the Father, we have not one word, nor does that quotation out of Philo relieve us in this business at all. We know in what sense he used the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: how far he and the Platonists, with whom in this expression he consented, were from understanding the only begotten Son of God, is known. If this of Philo has any aspect towards the opinion of any professing themselves Christians, it is towards that of the Arians, which seems to be expressed therein. And this is the place chosen by the Apologist to disprove the assertion of none being left, under the sense given them by the Annotations, bearing clear testimony to the deity of Christ; his comparing [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] ibi ego, which the vulgar renders aderam, with [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] seems rather to cast a suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of the Evangelist, than in the least to give testimony to the deity of Christ in this. If any one be further desirous to be satisfied, how many clear unquestionable evidences of the deity of Christ, are slighted by these Annotations on this Chapter, let him consult my vindication of the place in my late Vindiciae Evangelicae, where he will find something tendered to him to that purpose. What the Apologist intended by adding these two places of Isaiah, Chapter 45:12 and Chapter 48:13 (when in his Annotations on those places, Grotius not once mentions the deity of Christ, nor any thing of him, nor has occasion so to do, nor does produce them in this place to any such end or purpose; but only to show that the Chaldee paraphrase, does sundry times, when things are said to be done by God, render it, that they were done by the word of God) as instances to the prejudice of my assertion, I cannot imagine.

On that of Peter, 2 Peter 3:5, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: he addes indeed, vide quae diximus ad initium Evangelii Iohannis: but neither does that place intend the natural Son of God, nor is it so interpreted by Grotius.

To these he addes in the close, (Colossians 1:16), in the exposition whereof in his Annotations, he expressly prevaricates, and goes off to the interpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions, which the Apologist well knew. Without further search upon what has been spoken, the Apologist gives in his verdict concerning the falseness of my assertion before mentioned, of the Annotators speaking clear and home to the deity of Christ but in one, if in one place of his Annotations: But

1. What one other place has he produced, whereby the contrary, to what I assert, is evinced? Any man may make Apologies at this rate as fast as he pleases.

2. As to his not speaking clearly in that one, notwithstanding the improvement made of his expressions by the Apologist, I am still of the same mind as formerly: for although he ascribes an eternity [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and affirms all things to be made thereby; yet considering how careful he is, of ascribing an [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], how many Platonistic interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his expositions, how he has darkened the whole counsel of God in that place about the subsistence of the word, its omnipotency and incarnation, so clearly asserted by the Holy Ghost therein, I see no reason to retract the assertion opposed. But yet as to the thing itself, about this place I will not contend: only it may not be amiss to observe, that not only the Arians, but even Photinus himself acknowledged that the world was made [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], that how little is obtained toward the confirmation of the deity of Christ by that concession, may be discerned.

I shall offer also only at present, that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], is threefold, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. The [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] or [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is Christ, mentioned John 1:1. His personal or eternal subsistence, with his omnipotency, being there asserted. Whether Christ be so called any where else in the New Testament may be disputed, Luke 1:2 (compared with 1 John 1:1), 2 Peter 1:16, and Acts 20:32, Hebrews 4:12 are the most likely to give us that use of the word. Why Christ is so termed, I have showed elsewhere. That he is called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Psalm 33:6) is to me also evident. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is better rendered [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], or [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], than [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. Where that word is used, it denotes not Christ: though 2 Samuel 23:2, where that word is, is urged by some to that purpose. He is also called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Haggai 2:5), so perhaps in other places. Our present Quakers would have that expression of, the word of God, used no where in any other sense: so that destroying that, as they do, in the issue they may freely despise the Scripture, as that which they say is not the word of God, nor any where so called. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] among men is that which Aristotle calls [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] says Hesichius. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is that which we speak in our hearts, says Damascen. de Orthod. fid. Lib. 1. cap. 18. So Psalm 14, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. This as spoken in respect of God, is that egress of his power, whereby according to the eternal conception of his mind, he works any thing. So Genesis 1:2, God said let there be light, and there was light. Of this word of God the Psalmist treats (Psalm 147:18): he sends out [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and melts the ice, and Psalm 148:8, the same word is used. In both which places the Septuagint renders it by [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. This is that which is called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Hebrews 1:2 and Hebrews 11:3), where the Apostle says the heavens were made [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: which is directly parallel to that place of 2 Peter 3:5, where it is expressed [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: for though [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] more properly denotes [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], yet in these places, it signifies plainly that egress of God's power for the production and preservation of things, being a pursuit of the eternal conception of his mind, which is [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. Now this infinite wise and eternal conception of the mind of God, exerting itself in power, wherein God is said to speak, (he said let there be light) is that which the Platonists, and Philo with them harped on, never once dreaming of a coessential and hypostatical word of God, though the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] occur among them. This they thought was to God, as in us, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] or [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; and particularly it is termed by Philo [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: de Agric. That this was his [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is most evident: hence he tells us [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: de Mund. opific. And a little after, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. The whole tendency of his discourse is, that the word of God, in his mind, in the creation of the world, was the image of himself; and that the idea or image of the things to be made, but especially of light. And whereas (if I remember aright, for I cannot now find the place) I have said somewhere, that Christ was [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], though therein I have the consent of very many learned divines, and used it merely in opposition [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; yet I desire to recall it: nor do I think there is any propriety in that expression of [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] used of Christ, but only in those of [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which the Scripture (though not in the very terms) will make good. In this second acceptation, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Photinus himself granted that the world was made by the word of God. Now if it be thought necessary, that I should give an account of my fear that nothing but [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] in this sense decked with many Platonical encomiums was intended in the Annotations on John 1 (though I confess much from some quotations there used, may be said against it) I shall readily undertake the task; but at present in this running course, I shall add no more.

But now, as if all the matter in hand, were fully dispatched, we have this triumphant close attending the former discourse, and observations.

If one text acknowledged to assert Christ's eternal divinity (which one was granted to do it, though not clearly,) will not suffice to conclude him no Socinian which I said not he was, yes expressly waived the management of any such charge; if six verses in the Proverbs, two in Isaiah; one in Saint Peter, one in Saint Paul added to many in the beginning of Saint John, (in his Annotations on all which, he speaks not one word to the purpose) will not yet amount to above one text; or lastly if that one may be doubted of also, which is by him interpreted to affirm Christ's eternal subsistence with God before the creation of the world (which he does not so interpret, as to a personal subsistence) and that the whole world was created by him; I shall despair of ever being a successful advocate for any man; from which condition I hope some little time will recover the Apologist.

This is the sum of what is pleaded in chief, for the defence of the Annotations: wherein what small cause he has to acquiesce, who has been put to the labor and trouble of vindicating near 40 texts of Scripture in the Old Testament, and New, giving express testimony to the deity of Christ from the Annotator's perverse interpretations, let the reader judge. In the 13th Section of the Apologist's discourse, he adds some other considerations to confirm his former vindication of the Annotations.

He tells us, that he professes not to divine, what places of the Old Testament, wherein the deity of Christ is evidently testified to, are corrupted by the learned man, nor will he upon the discouragement already received make any inquiry into my Treatise.

But what need of Divination? The Apologist cannot but remember at all times, some of the texts of the Old Testament that are pleaded to that purpose; and he has at least as many encouragements to look into the Annotations, as discouragements from casting an eye upon that volume (as he calls it,) wherein they are called to an account. And if he suppose, he can make a just defence for the several places so wrested, and perverted, without once consulting of them, I know not how by me he might possibly be engaged into such an inquiry. And therefore I shall not name them again, having done somewhat more than name them already.

But he has two suppletory considerations, that will render any such inquiry or inspection needless. Of these the first is

That the word of God being all and every part of it of equal truth, that doctrine which is founded on five places of divine writ, must by all Christians be acknowledged to be as irrefragably confirmed, as 100 express places would be conceived to confirm it.

Ans. It is confessed, that not only five, but any one express text of Scripture, is sufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth. But that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by the Apologist for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about, is but pretended, indeed there is no such thing. The charge on Grotius was, that he had depraved all but one; if that be no crime, the defence was at hand; if it be, though that one should be acknowledged to be clear to that purpose, here is no defence against that which was charged, but a strife about that which was not. Let the places be consulted, if the assertion prove true, by an induction of instances, the crime is to be confessed, or else the charge denied to contain a crime: but

Secondly he says, that this charge upon inquiry will be found in some degree, if not equally, chargeable on the learnedst and most valued of the first Reformers, particularly upon Mr. Calvin himself, who has been as bitterly and unjustly accused and reviled upon this account (witness the book intituled Calvino Turcismus) as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine and Beza, or as probably Grotius may be.

Though this at the best be but a diversion of the charge, and no defence, yet not containing that truth which is needful to countenance it, for the end for which it is proposed; I could not pass it by. It is denied (which in this case until further proof must suffice) that any of the learnedst of the first Reformers, (and particularly Mr. Calvin) are equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion with Grotius, as to the crime insisted on. Calvin being the man instanced in, I desire the Apologist to prove that he has in all his Commentaries on the Scripture corrupted the sense, of any texts of the Old Testament or New, giving express testimony to the Deity of Christ, and commonly pleaded to that end and purpose. Although I deny not, but that he differs from the common judgment of most, in the interpretation of some few prophetical passages, judged by them to relate to Christ. I know what Genebrard and some others of that faction, raved against him; but it was chiefly from some expressions in his institutions about the Trinity (wherein yet he is acquitted by the most learned of themselves) and not from his expositions of Scripture, for which they raised their clamours. For the book called Calvino Turcismus, written by Reynolds and Giffard, the Apologist has forgotten the design of it. Calvin is no more concerned in it, than others of the first Reformers; nor is it from any doctrine about the Deity of Christ in particular, but from the whole of the reformed religion, with the apostasies of some of that profession, that they compare it with Turcisme. Something indeed, in a chapter or two, they speak about the Trinity, from some expressions of Luther, Melancton, Calvin and others: but as to Calvin's expositions of Scripture, they insist not on them. Possibly the Apologist may have seen Pareus his Calvinus Orthodoxus, in an answer to Hunnius his Calvinus Judaizans; if not, he may at any time have there an account of this calumny.

Having passed through the consideration of the two considerable heads of this discourse, in the method called for by the Apologist (having only taken liberty to transpose them, as to first and last) I must profess myself as yet unsatisfied as to the necessity, or suitableness, of this kind of defence. The sum of that which I affirmed (which alone gives occasion to the defensative now under consideration) is: that to my observation Grotius in his Annotations had not left above one text of Scripture, if one, giving clear evidence to the Deity of Christ; of his satisfaction I said in sum the same thing. Had the Apologist been pleased to have produced instances of any evidence for the disproof of my assertion, I should very gladly and readily have acknowledged my mistake and oversight. I am still also in the same resolution, as to the latitude of the expression, though I have already by an induction of particulars, manifested his corrupting and perverting of so many, both in respect of the one head, and of the other, with his express compliance with the Socinians in his so doing, as that I cannot have the least thought of letting fall my charge, which with the limitation expressed (of my own observation) contains the truth in this matter, and nothing but that which is so.

It was indeed in my thoughts to have done somewhat more in reference to those Annotations, than thus occasionally to have animadverted on their corruption in general; namely to have proceeded in the vindication of the truths of the Gospel from their captivity under the false glosses put upon them, by the interpretations of places of Scripture wherein they are delivered. But this work being fallen on an abler hand, namely that of our learned professor of Divinity, my desire is satisfied, and the necessity of my endeavour for that end removed.

There are sundry other particulars insisted on by the Apologist, and a great deal of rhetoric is laid out about them; which certainly deserves not the reader's trouble in the perusal of any other debate about them. If they did, it were an easy matter to discover his mistakes in them all along. The foundation of most of them, lies in that, which he affirms Sect. 4. where he says, that I thus state the jealousies about H. G. as far as it is owned by me, namely that being in doctrine a Socinian, he yet closed in many things with the Roman interest. To which he replies, that this does not so much as pretend that he was a Papist.

As though I undertake to prove Grotius to be a Papist, or did not expressly disown the management of the jealousy, stated as above; or that I did at all own it, all which are otherwise: yet I shall now say, whether he was in doctrine a Socinian or no, let his Annotations before insisted on, determine. And whether he closed with the Roman interest or no, besides what has been observed by others, I desire the Apologist to consider his observation on Revelation 12:5, that book, (himself being judge,) having received his last hand. But my business is not to accuse Grotius, or to charge his memory with any thing but his prevarication in his Annotations on the Scripture.

And as I shall not cease to press the general aphorism (as it is called) that no drunkard &c. nor any person whatever not born of God or united to Christ the head, by the same Spirit that is in him, and in the sense thereof, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, shall ever see his face in glory, so I fear not what conclusion can regularly in reference to any person living or dead, be from there deduced.

It is of the Annotations whereof I have spoken: which I have my liberty to do: and I presume shall still continue, while I live in the same thoughts of them: though I should see — a third defence of the learned Hugo Grotius.