we are healed by his stripes This thus crudely proposed Socinus himselfe would graunt it is little more then barely repeating the words Grotius goes farther and contends that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Heb. 9. 28. where he saies {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies nothing but auferre peccata Grotius disproves that instance and manifests that in that place also it is to be rendred 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 followes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hic est abstulit quod sequentia ostendunt quomodo idem verbum sumi not avimus Heb. 9. 28. eodem sensu {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Ioh. 1. 29. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Isa. 53. 4. ubi Graeci {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vitia nostra it a interfecit sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent Simile loquendi genus Col. 2. 14. vide Rom. 6. 6. Gal. 2. 20. 24. est autem hic {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia nostra abstulit Sed causas dedit per quas auferrerentur Nam crux Christi fundamentum est predicationis praedicatio verò poenitentiae paenitentia verô aufert vitia How well the Annotator abides here by his former interpretation of this place the Apologist may easily discover 1 There he contends that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is as much as tulio or sursum tulit and objects out of Socinu◠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 Heb. 9. 28. is of the same importance with this 1 Pet. 2. 24. as there interpreted here as here that is in a quite contrary sense altogether inconsistent with the other 3. For company {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used Is 53. is called in to the same signification which in the booke 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 immediatly Nam crux Christi fundamentum est praedicationis praedicatio verò poenitentiae poenitentia verò aufert vitia He that sees not the whole Socinian poyson 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 adde the words of Socinus himselfe which then he did oppose Verum animadvertere oportet primùm in Graeco verbum quod interpretes verterunt pertulit est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non perferre peccata sed peccata tollere sive auferre significart Socin. de Jes Christ sat lib. 2. cap. 6. What difference there is between the designe of the Annotator and that of Socinus what complyance in the quotation of the paralell place of the Hebrewes what direct opposition and head is made in the Annotations against that booke 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 Apologists assertion it may be supposed that that which follows which is ushered in by this will doe it to the purpose let then that come into consideration This is that of Isa. 53. Somewhat of the sense which Grotius in his booke 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 booke page 14 he thus proposes and expounds justificabit servus mens justus multos iniquitates ipsorum bajulabit in Heb. est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vox autem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} iniquitatem significat atque etiam iniquitatis poenam 2. Reg. 7. 9. vox autem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} est sustinere bajulare quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniquitatis id in omni lingua maximè in Hebraismo significat poen as ferre with much more to this purpose The whole designe of the maine dispute in that place is from that discourse of the Prophet to prove that Iesus Christ properly underwent the punishment due to our sinnes 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 designe in the words as that which he intends to prove from them in his booke de Satisfactione In particular to give one instance of this assertion he contends here that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is as much as bajulare portare and that joyned with iniquity in all languages especially in the Hebrew that phrase of bearing iniquity signifies to undergoe the punishment due to it in his Annotations on the place as also in those on 1 Pet. 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 knowes 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 nay is not repugnant to that which from the same verses he pleads for in his booke 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 hath a farther plea the summe 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 booke de Satisfactione Christi gives the mysticall sense of the chapter under which consideration it belongs to Christ and his sufferings In his Annotations the literall which had its immediate completion in Ieremy which was not soe easily discoverable or vulgarly taken notice of This is the summe of his first observation on this place to acquit the Annotator of the Crime charged upon him Whether he approve the application of the prophesie to Jeremiah or no I know not He saies Grotius so conceived The designe of the discourse seems to give approbation to that conception How the literall sense of a place should come to be lesse easily discovered then the mysticall well I know not Nor shall I speake of the thing it selfe concerning the literall and mysticall sense supposed to be in the same place and words of Scripture with the application of the distinction to those Prophesies which have a double accomplishment in the Type and thing or person typified which yet hath no soundnesse in it but to keep to the matter now in hand I shall make bold for the removall of this engine applyed by the Apologist for the preventing all possible mistake or controversie about the Annotators after-charge in this matter to tell him that the perverting of the first literall sense of the chapter or giving it a completion in any person whatsoever in a first second or third sense but the Son of God himselfe is no lesse then Blasphemy which the Annotator is no otherwise freed from but by his conceiving a sense to be in the words contrary to their literall importance and utterly exclusive of the concerment of Jesus Christ in them If the Apologist be otherwise minded I shall not invite him againe to the consideration of what I have already written in the vindication of the whole prophesie from the wretched corrupt interpretation of the Annotator not hoping that he will be able to breake through that discouragment he hath from looking into that treatise by the prospect he hath taken of the whole by the Epistle but doe expresse my earnest desire that by an exposition of the severalls of that chapter and their application to any other not by loose discourses forraigne 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 carefull hereafter of ingenerating 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 foyled the instance produced by the Apologist for the weakning of it But yet least any should thinke that the present issue of this debate is built upon some unhappinesse 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 hath openly prevaricated and doth imbrace and propose those very interpretations and that very sense which in his book de Satisfactione Christi he had strenuously opposed Page 8. of his booke de Satisfactione he pleads the satisfaction of Christ from Gal. 2. 21. laying weight on this that the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Gal. 3. 13. is much more pernitious 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 factumesse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hoc est poenae à Deo irrogatae quidem ignominiosissimae obnoxium To make good this in his Annotations he thus expounds the words duplex hîc figura nam {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} pro {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis subauditur {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nam Christus it a cruciatus est quasi esset Deo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 uniforme 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 Rom. 3. 25 26. that expression {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} manifesting the end of the suffering of Christ is by him chiefely insisted on That by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is there intended that justice of God whereby he punisheth sin he contends and proves from the nature of the thing it selfe and comparing the expression with other paralell texts of Scripture Socinus had interpreted this of the Righteousnesse of Christs 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 goodnesse liberality of God which is saith he the Righteousnesse there intended To make good his Ground the Annotator thus expounds the meaning of the words vocem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 then of Socinus but for that which himself had contended for it is quite shut out of doors as I have elswhere manifested at large The same course he takes with Rom. 5. 10. which he insists on pag. 26. and 2.
Cor. 5. 18 19 20 21. concerning which he openly deserts his owne former interpretation and closes expressely with that which he had opposed as he doth 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 signall place of Heb. 2. 17. in this kind deserves particularly to be taken notice of Cap. 7 pag. 141. of his booke de Satisfactione he pleads the sense of that expression {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and addes significat ergoibi expiationem quae fit placando But Crellius defence of Socinus had so possessed the mans 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 indeavoring farther to prove his Interpretation From Rom. 4 last Cap. 1. pag. 47 of his booke 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 dioere qui mortuus est resurrexit ut nos à peccatis justificaret id est liberaret Sed amans {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} morti conjunxit peccata quae sunt mors animi resurrectioni autem adeptionem Iustitia 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 hath here couâ—hed the whole Doctrine of the Socinians about the Mediation of Christ and our Iustification thereby is utterly ignorant of the state of the Controversie between them and Christians I suppose it will not be thought necessary for me to proceed with the comparison instituted The severall bookes 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 seemes to put some difference between his Annotations on the Revelations as having receaved their linedments and colours from his owne pencill and those on the Epistles which he had not so compleated as I have already manifested that in his Annotations on that booke he hath treacherously tampred with and corrupted the Testimonies given to the Deity of our blessed Saviour so shall I give one instance from them also of his dealing no lesse unworthily with those that concerne his Satisfaction Socinus in his second booke against Covet second part chap. 17. gives us this account of those words of the holy Ghost Rev. 1. 5. who hath loved us and washed us in his owne 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 newnesse of life thereby by which we are turned from our sins as he manifests in the close of his Discourse hoc saepius urgenduÌ„ est saith 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 againe 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 owne Pencill There then he gives us this Account thereof {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 peice thus perfected with all its lineaments and colours by the pencill of that skilfull man and what beautifull aspect he supposeth 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 I Iohn 2. 2. pag. 140 Rom. 5. 10 11. page 142 143. Eph. 2. 16. page 148 149 Col. 1. 20 21 22. Tit. 2. 14. page 156. Heb. 9. 14 15. pag. 157 158. Act. 20. 28. and many others And compare them with the Annotations on those places and he will be farther 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 poynt of the doctrine of the Gospell between the Socinians and us that he doe not take auferre peccata to be ferre peccata nostri causa to be nostrâ vice and nostro loco causa {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} liberatio à jugo peccati to be redemptio à reatu peccati Subire poenas simpliciter to be subire paenas nobis debitas to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 worke it selfe that so he be not mistaken to thinke that when