taken of Grotius's meaning in his Annotations then his treatise of the Satisfaction of Christ doth 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 Whither now any will be perswaded by the Apologist to believe that Grotius was constant in his Annotations to the Doctrine delivered in that other treatise I am not sollicitous 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 unto 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 coÌ„mended to the care of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and answers himselfe not that last part or volume of Annotations but opus integrum the whole volume or volumes that contained his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 hath 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 Ioh. 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 hath left more then that one of John free from the corruption charged he instances in that one of Iohn 1. 1. wherein as he saith 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 Prov. 8. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. Isa. 45. 12. 48. 13. 2 Pet. 3. 5. Col. 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 Prov. 8. his first note on the wisdome there spoken of is Haec de easapientia quae in Lege apparet exponunt Haebraei sane ei si non solâ— 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ut Symmachi Theodosionis resâ—pondetque benè Haebraeo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Caldaeus habet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 70 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} On verse 27 he addes aderam id est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 professe my selfe as ignorant as I was before I received this Direction by the Apologist He tells us that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is rendred not amisse by the Chaldee {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the 70 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arrians and exploded by the antient 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 wisdome that is a property of God which he manifested in the workes of CreatioÌ„ of the Son of God the essentiall wisdome of God subsisting with the father we have not one words nor doth that Quotation
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.
out of Philo releive us in this businesse at all We know in what sense he used the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} how farr he and the Platonicks 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 cleare Testimony to the Deity of Christ his comparing {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ibi ego which the vulgar renders aderam with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seems rather to cast a Suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of the Evangelist then in the least to give Testimony to the Deity of Christ in this If any one be further desirous to be satisfyed how many cleare 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 tendred to him to that purpose What the Apologist intended by adding these two places of Isaiah Chap. 45. 12. and the 48. 13. when in his Annotations on those places Grotius not once mentions the Deity of Christ nor any thing of him nor hath occasion so to do nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or purpose but only to shew that the Chaldee paraphrase doth 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 Epistle 3. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} he addes indeed vide quae diximus ad initium Evangelii Iohannis but neither doth that place intend the naturall Son of God nor is it so interpreted by Grotius To these he addes in the close Col. 1. 16. in the exposition whereof in his Annotations he expressely prevaricates and goes of to the interpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions which the Apologist well knew Without farther search upon what hath been spoken the Apologist gives in his Verdict concerning the falsnesse of my assertion before mentioned of the Annotators speaking cleare and home to the Deity of Christ but in one if in one place of his Annotations But 1. What one other place hath 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 clearely 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and affirmes all things to be made thereby yet considering how carefull he is of ascribing an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} how many Platonicke interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his expositions how he hath darkned the whole councell of God in that place about the subsistence of the word its omnipotency and incarnation so clearely asserted by the holy Ghost therein I see no reason to retract the assertion opposed But yet as to the thing it selfe about this place I will not contend only it may not be amisse to observe that not only the Arians but even Photinus himselfe acknoledged that the world was made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is threefold {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is Christ mentioned Iohn 1. 1. his personall or eternall subsistence with his omnipotency being there asserted Whether Christ be so called anywhere else in the New Testament may be disputed Luk. 1. v. 2. compared with the 1 of Iob. 1. 1. 2 Pet. 1. 16. and Act. 20. 32. Heb. 4. 12. are the most likely to give us that use of the word Why Christ is so termed I have shewed elsewhere That he is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Psal. 33. 6. is to me also evident {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is better rendred {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Where that word is used it denotes not Christ Though 2 Sam. 23. 2. where that word is is urged by some to that purpose He is also called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Hag. 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 anywhere so called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst men is that which Aristotle calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} saies Hesichius {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is that which we speake in our hearts saies Damascen de Orthod. fid. Lib. 1. cap. 18. So Psalm 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This as spoken in respect of God is that egresse of his power whereby according to the eternall conception of his mind he worketh any thing So Gen. 1. 2. God said let there be light and there was light Of this word of God the Psalmist treats 147. v. 18. he sedeth out {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} melteth the Ice and Psal. 148. 8. the same word is used In both which places the Septuagint renders it by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This is that which is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Heb. 1. 2. and Heb. 11. 3. where the Apostle saies the heavens were made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is directly paralell to that place of 2 Pet. 3. 5. where it is expressed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for though {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} more properly denotes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yet in these places it signifies plainly that egresse of Gods power for the production and preservation of things being a persuite of the eternall conception of his mind which is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Now this infinite wise and eternall conception of the mind of God exerting its selfe in power wherein God is said to speake he said let there be light is that
A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HVGO GROTIVS In Reference unto the Doctrine of the Deity and Satisfaction of CHRIST WITH A Defence of the Charge formerly laid against them By IOHN OVVEN D. D. OXFORD Printed by H. HALL Printer to the UNIVERSITY for THOM. ROBINSON 1656. A second Consideration of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius HAving in my late defence of the doctrine of the Gospell from the corruptions of the Socinians been occasioned to vindicate the Testimonys given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ from their exceptions and finding that Hugo Grotius in his Annotatios 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 booke of his being more frequent in the hands of Students then those of the Socinians I thought it incumbent on me to doe the same worke in reference to those Annotations which it was my designe to performe 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 Gospell hath been performed thereby is left to the judgment of them who desire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Of my dealing with Grotius I gave a briefe account in my Epistle to the Governours of the Vniversity and that with reference to an Apology made for him not long before This hath obtained a new Apology under the name of a second defence of Hugo Grotius with what litle advantage either to the repute of Grotius as to the thing in Question or of the Apologist himselfe it is judged necessary to give the ensueing account for which I took the first leasure houre I could obtaine having things of greater weight dayly 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 witnesse to the Diety 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 least his expressions therein ought to be interpreted according to the Analogy of what he had elsewhere delivered of which afterwards Because that which concernes the Satisfaction of Christ will admit of the easyest dispatch though taking up most roome 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 conceald 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 sayes 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 unto if the matter require it he may say of what is objected {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Rhet. lib. 3. cap. 15. all which in a plaine 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 walke in He tells us of the excellent booke that Grotius wrote de satisfactione Christi and the exposition of sundry places of Scripture especially of divers verses of Isa. 53 given therein and then adds sundry inducements to perswade us that he was of the same mind in his Annotations And this is called a defence of Grotius The Apologist I suppose knowes full well what Texts of Scripture they are that are constantly pleaded for the Satisfaction of Christ by them who doe beleive 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 Prefacers credit as to have concealed it on any such account But the Severalls of his plea for the Annotations in this particular I am perswaded are accounted by some worthy consideration a breife view of them will suffice The signall place of Is 53. he tells us he hath heard taken notice of by some I thought it had been probable the Apologist might have taken notice of it himselfe 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 entred 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 proposall 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 booke de Satisfactione Christi is proposed to consideration That others if not the Apologist himselfe may take notice of the emptinesse of such precipitate Apologyes as are ready to be tumbled out without due digestion or consideration I shall not only compare the Annotations and that booke as to the particular place proposed and manifest the inconsistency of the one with the other but also to discover the extreame negligence and confidence which lye at the bottome of his following attempt to induce a perswasion that the judgment of the man of whom we speake was not alter'd that is as to the interpretation of the Scriptures relating to the Satisfaction of Christ nor is others in his Annotations then in that booke 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 hath utterly deserted the interpretations given of them by himselfe in his booke de Satisfactione and directly taken up that which he did oppose The Apologist binds me in the first place to that of Is 53. which is ushered in by the 1 Pet. 2. 24. From 1 Pet. 2. 24. saies the Apologist Grotius informes us that Christ so bare our sins that he freed us from them so that
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
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
the first are granted that the latter are so also For a close of the discourse relating to this head a breife 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 Annotions on the Gospells 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 Christs satisfaction Although in his Annotations on that Epistle he doth openly corrupt the most cleare 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 hath these words Iesus quidem Sacerdotale munus suum aliquo modo erat auspicatus cum semet patri victimam offerret That Christ was a Preist when he was on the earth was wholly denyed by Socinus both in his booke de Servatore and in his Epistle to Niemoieuius as I have shewed elsewhere Smalcius seems to be of the same judgment in the Racovian Catechisme Grotius saies 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 saith 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 againe 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 doe For Volkelius acknoledgeth that he did slay the Sacrifice in his death though that was not his compleate and perfect oblation which is also afterwards affirmed by Grotius and Crellius expresly affirmes the same Nor doth he seeme to intend a proper expiatory and satisfactory Sacrifice in that expression for if he had he would not have been guilty of such an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as to say semet obtulit patri Besides though he do acknoledge elsewhere that this victima was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yet he sayes in another place on ver 3. Sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse prose {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 saith 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 himselfe by the eternall 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 Christs presenting himselfe in heaven only which how well it agrees with what the Apostle sayes chap. 1. v. 3. the Reader will easily judge And to manifest that this was his constant sense on those words v. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} he thus comments {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Vt 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 doth the worke Of the 28th verse of the same chapter I have spoken before The same he affirmes againe more expressely on chap. 10. vers. 3. and on ver. 9. and verse 12. he interprets the oblation of Christ whereby he tooke away sinne to be the oblation or offering himselfe 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 sinne 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 businesse in hand Not further to abound in causá facili in all the differences we have with the Socinians about Christs 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 labour to get into their hands the books of Socinus Crellius Smalcius and the rest of that Crew seing these Annotations as to the most important heads of Christian Religion about the Deity Sacrifice Preisthood and Satisfaction of Christ originall sin free will Iustification 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 hath curiously and gallantly interweaved Plautus makes sport in his Amphitruo with severall Persons some reall some assumed of such likenesse one to another that they could not discerne themselves by any outward appearance which caused various contests and mistakes between them The Poets fancy raysed not a greater similitude between Mercury and Sosia being supposed to be different persons then there is a dissimilitude between the Author of the booke 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 on another so irreconcilable as are these of this single person so unlike himselfe in the severall treatises mentioned And I cannot but thinke it strange that the Apologist could imagine no surer measure to be