Continuation of the Defense of Hugo Grotius, Text

Continuation of the Defense of Hugo Grotius · Text

A CONTINUATION OF THE DEFENCE OF HƲGO GROTIƲS, IN AN ANSWER TO The Review of his ANNOTATIONS.

Whereto is ſubjoyned a REPLY to ſome paſſages of the REVIEWER in his late Book of Schiſme, concerning his charge of Corruptions in the Primitive Church, and ſome other particulars.

By H. Hammond D. D.

LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Richard Royſton, at the Angel in Ivy. Lane, M. DC. LVII.

To the STATIONER.

Mr Royſton,

I Have been ſo often called on for the Reply to the Review of Grotius's Annotations, that I am at length inclined to change my former purpoſe, and permie thoſe few ſheets (prepared as ſoon as the Review came to my hands, but then laid aſide, on a perſwaſion that they might be ſafely ſpared) to follow the former on that ſubject, rather then deny to any ſo eaſie a requeſt. I am

Your Friend, H. H. Septemb. 4. 1656.

p. 1A CONTINVATION OF THE DEFENCE OF HƲGO GROTIƲS, In ANSWER to the REVIEW of his Annotations.

1. IF he that hath read the Review of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius, which is offered as a Reply to the ſecond Defence of that learned man; ſeem from thence to have any new ſcruples infuſed into his mind, it will not coſt him many minutes to depoſite them, by obſerving with me this method.

2. First, by adverting (on the firſt head that of the ſatisfaction p. 2of Christ) not onelyonly what fair and large characters of his thoughts lie legible to all men in his Book De ſatisfactione, written on purpoſe againſt Sosinus on this ſubject, but alſo how thoſe have been ſince back'd with indubitable evidences of a later and freſher date, taken from his own expreſs words in his Diſcuſſio (the laſt thing he wrote) and in a letter under his own hand (dated after the time of his ſurmiſed change) written on purpoſe to foreſt all this ſurmiſe, and to aſſure us of his constant adhering to that ſenſe which he had delivered in his Book De ſatisfactione. Which two as they are moſt irreſrugable proofs of the matter in hand, being teſtimonies of him that certainly beſt knew his own thoughts, whether he were changed or no, ſo to neither of theſe is the leaſt word of Reply here offered by the Reviewer, and ſo ſtand in full force againſt all that is here ſuggeſted.

3. Secondly, by remembring that from the aaSee Anſ. to Animad. verſ: p. 132.beginning of this debate, the poſthumous Annotations on the Epiſtles were expreſly renounced and reiected by me, as departing manifeſtly from the judgment of that learned man, formerly expreſſed in thoſe writings which he had completed and publiſhed in his life time, and conſequently as unſufficient arguments, or teſtimonies of his change, when produced againſt his own repeted and expreſs declarations to the contrary; And yet from theſe are the proofs now principally brought in this Review, and by the contrariety betwixt theſe and his Book De ſatisfact: his change concluded, with what appearance of reaſon the Reader will ſoon diſcern, when he hath conſidered the premiſſes, and what ſhall now occaſionally be added thereto.

4. For this manner of dealing two things onelyonly are pleaded in the Review, which here muſt be regarded, before I proceed: 1. That the Accuſer having to deal with that book 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 him.]

5. To this I reply, firſt, that it is in the Reviewer a manifeſt diverſion, a courſe which is ſure to render all debates infinitet In my anſwer to his Preface of Animadverſions on Iguntius's Epiſtles, &c. I inſerted, ex abundanti, one, and onelyonly one Digreſſion, A Defence of the learned H. Grotius. And ſtreightwayes p. 3the whole ſtream of the Controverſie is diverted into that one narrow chanel, removed from the queſtion of Epiſcopacy, to the inquiry into Grotius's his opinions; and that is one compitent diverſion. After this, when both in that my Digreſſion, and alſo in my ſecond Defence, I had confined my plea to Grotius himſelf, and thoſe writings publiſhed by him in his life time, and known to be written, and perfected by him, expreſly rejecting this book of poſthumous Annotations on the Epistles, the Reviewer is now pleaſed principally to inſiſt, and found his charge againſt Grotius, on thoſe his poſthumous Annotations; which is a perfect diverſion again, inſtead of a reply, and to the waving evidently, becauſe changing of the whole queſtion.

6. Secondly, as uneffectual at this plea it, it is yet much more unreaſonable, if circumſtances be conſidered, being evidently prevented, and ſuperſeded by that which hath paſt in this debate. For if there were any truth in thoſe words of his Epiſtle to the Oxford Heads, [My Defenſative as to my dealing with Grotious's Annotations is ſuited to what the Doctor pliads in his behalf] then certainly he muſt be concern'd in this, which yet he reſolves to be none of his concernments; For it is ſure that my plea was framed in Defence of Grotius himſelf, (not of thoſe incomplete if not falſe images of him, thoſe parts of the Annotations, which I profeſſed to reject, and not to plead for.) Accordingly my words in the firſt propoſal of this matter to debate, were theſe, [This very pious, learned, and judicious man hath of late among many fallen under a very unhappy Fate, being moſt unjuſtly calumniated ſometimes as a Socinian, ſometimes as a Papiſt—] And then how can this Defenſative be, according to his promiſe, conformed or ſuited to my plea, if it refer not to the ſame ſubject, viz. to Grotius, or thoſe Books of his, which are acknowledged to be his completed, genuine writings? ſuch alone being competent teſtifications of his ſenſe, and ſo meaſures to judge of his perſwaſions, whether he were a Socinian or no.

7. A ſecond part of his plea is by reflecting again on that evidence, which, ſaith he, he had formerly offered from the Printers Preface to the volume of Annotations on the Epiſtles.] But here, in the very entrance, is a mistake, which, for the clearing of my ſelf, more then on apprehenſion of any advantage the p. 4Reviewer can gain by it, I muſt firſt take notice of. The Evidence was by him bbEpiſt. to the Oxford Heads.cited from ſome words of the Preface to the laſt part of the Annotations, beginning thus, Jam vero ſciendum eſt—To thoſe words there found, I gave anſwer in my ſecond Defence, p. 7. and he now tels me that a ſlight in spection will ſerve to manifeſt how ill it, i. e. my anſwer or the ſenſe I gave of the words produced) agrees with the intention and words of the Prefacer, who, ſaith he, tells us, that Grotius had himſelf publiſhed his Annotations on the Gospel five years before, and ſo proceeds, reciting the words of the Prefacer for eight lines together; and concluding, that if the Apologiſt read this Preface, he ought 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.]

Who would not think there were ſomewhat herein really miſtaken by me, which called for this ſo ſolemn rebuke? But the Reader is intreated to conſult the place, or if it be not worth his pains, he may believe me, who made the inſpection more then ſlightly, and can aſſure him, that there is no part of what he thus now recites, to be met with in that Preface, whence he hath formerly drawn his teſtimony. I ſay in that Preface to the laſt part of the Annotations under Gretius's name, from whence it was, that the words [Jam viro ſciendum—] were (truly) cited, and to which Words it was viſible, that I gave that anſwer, which he now pretends to refute from the intention and words of the Prefacer.

9. The ſhort is, There being two volumes of Annotations ſet out ſince Grotius's death; the former on the Acts, and ſo on through the Epiſtles of Saint Paul and Saint James, the later on the other ſix Catholick Epiſtles and the Revelation, and before the former of theſe the Printers Epiſtle, inſcribed, Typographus Lectori, before the latter a Praemonitio ad Lectorem: From the latter of theſe it is that the words formerly by him produced, Jam verò ſcieudum—and to which (conſequently) I gave anſwer, were cited. And I that obediently and diligently read over that to which I was directed, and there finding the words which were cited, gave my anſwer to them, ſuch as I thought the words capable of, am now unexpectedly rebuked p. 5for not reading it, and more then ſo for despiſing thoſe with whom I had to do; when indeed what is now in the Reply cited from it, is not to be found there, but in the Printers Epistle to another volume. By what means he fell into this miſtake, and was by that led into this cauſeleſs ſeverity, I leave him upon recollection to conſider.

10. I need add no more for the vindicating my ſelf in this matter, yet if I ſhall now (having till now no occaſion) attend to this other teſtimony, now newly alledged by him out of that other Preface, it will ſoon appear that it neither (as is pretended) diſproves the anſwer, which I gave to the words formerly cited from the premonition, nor refutes what I had firſt ſaid concerning the Poſthumous Annotations, and then ſurely I ſhall not be much concern'd in it: Not the first; for my Anſwer being no more but this, that Opus Integrum ſignified not that volume completed, and ſo made integrum intire by Grotius's own hand, but the whole volume or volumes which contained all his foreign Adverſaria on the New Teſtament.] This is no way refuted, but rather confirmed by theſe other words of the Typographus Lectori, for there alſo Opus integrum ſignifies the whole volume or volumes, as that is oppoſed to the Magna pars voluminis in the line before, without any reſpect to its being completed or made intire; Which alone having been denied by me, my anſwer is ſtill ſecured from any force of this Teſtimony.

11. Not the ſecond; For if I ſhall now grant the Printer to have in that Preface delivered the whole and naked truth, (which I had no obligation to be confident of) and conſequently that Grotius committed to a Friend thoſe Annotations, in order to Printing, yet this no way proves that they were completed and perfected by him; There is a middle, truly ſuppoſable, betwixt theſe two, viz. that they were by occcaſion of the Authors unexpected diverſions, delivered to him imperfect. This Remainder of Annotations now by the Reader expected to follow thoſe on the Gospels, and on the Old Teſtament, and the learned Compiler being now at ſome leiſure to ſet about it, was ſuddenly called back from Paris to Sweden, a long voyage, not certain whether ever he ſhould return again (as indeed he did not) or whether God would ſpare him life and vacancy to perfect that p. 6work: Having therefore communicated his notes to a learned man (one by the way, much more addicted to the doctrine of Calvin then Socinus) going now thence, he left them in his hand, and committed the publiſhing of them to his care, taking onelyonly with him thoſe ſheets which were not legible, which he haſtily tranſcribed in his journey, and, as the Printer tells us, returned them from Hamburge, and theſe, as by his words appears, belonging to the laſt volume, that on the Revelation, which therefore had truly thus much of his laſt hand, as this haſty tranſcribing comes to; ſo haſty that M. who was prepared to write them again for the preſſe, did almoſt deſpair of decyphering them. The reſt, thoſe on the Epiſtles remained in the firſt rude draught, and are not pretended to have been (ſo much as haſtily) tranſcribed by him, and ſo never obtained that perfecter growth, that fulneſs of limbs and lineaments, which I did and do ſuppoſe his foreign, and greater leiſure would have afforded them. Which therefore cannot with any juſtice be balanced againſt the contrary evidences and plain words either of his Diſcuſſio (the laſt thing, as I ſaid, written before his death) or of his later, dated after his reading of Crellius's and the Socinians interpretations (to which his ſuppoſed change is imputed) and avowing his continued adherence to his former doctrine, much leſs of the ſeveral paſſages producible out of his undoubted writings, maturely compoſed, and publiſht by him, which poſitively and profeſſedly ſet down his ſenſe, and cannot be prejudiced by ſuch uncertain, feeble ſuggeſtions as theſe, drawn from his ſuppoſed miſunderſtanding of ſome few pages in the Epiſtles. And let this ſerve for a ſecond ſtage in my propoſed method.

12. Thirdly, That adhering to my former method, and, upon the grounds premiſed, abſtracting from or ſetting aſide (as 'tis viſible I have done from the firſt riſe of this debate) theſe poſthumous Annotations, upon account of ſome heterodox mixtures in them diſcernible, eſpecially in the matter of our juſtification, and the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, and ſome other particulars, elſewhere noted, and confining our diſcourſe (more reaſonably) to thoſe Annotations, which he perfected and publiſhed in his life time, i. e. to thoſe on the Gospels and on the Old Teſtament, p. 7taking in alſo all his other writings whatſoever; There cannot be any ground of ſuspicion concerning his change, nor want of inſtances (which the Reviewer now requires) to diſprove his Ʋniverſal Negative, and to invalidate the charge brought againſt that learned man, of his wreſting to another ſenſe every text of Scripture, wherein teſtimony is given to that ſacred truth, or at leaſt concealing and obſcuring the doctrine of them.]

13. I ſhall therefore, being now admoniſhed of Quintilians rule of aut negandum aut defendendum, do my duty in obſerving it, and formally deny his poſition, of every text, &c. and for contrary inſtances, begin with Matth. 20. 28. where the ſon of man is ſaid to give his life a foreign, or ranſome for many. Here, ſaith Grotius, Puto respici vaticinium, Iſa. 53. 10. ubi dicitur, ſi Chriſtus vitam ſuam dediſſet foreign, quod hic rectè foreign vertitur, fore, ut ſui cognitione multos juſtificaret, & poſtea, ipſe peccata multorum tulit. Here firſt, the parallel is ſet by Grotius betwixt the Evangeliſt and the Prophet Iſaiah, and to that 53 of that Prophecy is brought this ſenſe, of Chriſt's giving his life a ranſome for many, i. e. of his ſatisfaction, and yet farther explained by that other phraſe of the Prophet there uſed, his bearing the ſins of many, and the like, Heb. 9. 28. his being offer'd to bear the ſins of many.

14. Secondly, The foreign or ranſome here is interpreted by the Hebrew foreign or ſacrifice for ſin there, and after more fully, by ſacrificium piaculare, foreign, an expiatorie, propitiatorie ſacrifice for ſin, victima luſtralis—and the giving his life a ranſome, the offering it up ſuch a ſacrifice for many, and this as the ground or condition of his juſtifying many by the knowledge of him, which what is it but the founding of our juſtification in the propitiatory ſacrifice of Chriſt's death, i. e. in the ſatisfaction wrought by it for us?

15. So Mat. 26. 28. Where Chriſts bloud of the New Teſtament is ſaid to be ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins. Here, ſaith he, Puto Danielis oraculum respici, in quo de Meſſiâ dictum eſt, foreign, cum praeceſſiſſet foreign ad expianda peccata. Adde quae Rom. 5. 15. (it ſhould be 10.) ſic & in Barnabae quae dicitur Epiſtola, foreign p. 8foreign. Adding, Simul autem tranſit Chriſtus à comparatione foederum ad comparationem ſacrificiorum piacularium, in quibus anima pecudis offerebatur, velut ſuccedanea anima hominis qui mortem meruiſſes, unde victima ferre peccata dicebatur in lege. Hinc mo…i victima pro homine—Here again, i. e. the words of Daniel of making reconciliation for iniquity, and confirming the covenant with many, c. 9. 24. 27. are ſet as a Prophecy parallel to this Evangelical truth of Chriſts bloud of the New Teſtament being ſhed for the expiating of our ſins. So likewiſe Rom. 5. 10. of our being reconciled to God, when we were enemies, by the death of his Son. And all theſe three illuſtrated by the plain words of Barnabas's Epiſtle, that Chriſt offered up himſelf the veſſel of the Spirit, a ſacrifice for our ſins. 2. It is here affirmed of his bloud, that it was an expiatory ſacrifice, ſuch as wherein one is offered up in ſtead of the other which had deſerved death, and is accordingly ſaid to bear the ſin of the other. And then what could be more expreſſe to the doctrine of ſatisfaction, then theſe three places of Prophet, Evangeliſt, and Apoſtle, thus interpreted, which being added to the former, and now laid before the Reviewer (willing to have perſwaded the Reader theſe were none ſuch, becauſe I formerly thought it needleſs to produce them) will ſure now paſſe for foreign, inſtances as competent as any Quintilian would exact, to diſprove the Ʋniverſal propoſition of the [not one text in the whole Scripture—which is not wreſted to another ſenſe, or at leaſt the doctrine concealed and obſcured by theſe Annotations.]

16. But here on this ocaſion the place in his Annotations on Iſa. 53. is by the Reviewer reſumed, as hopeful to yield ſome colour to infer his charge; Where, ſaith he, he gives ſuch an expoſition of the whole Chapter, as is manifeſtly and univerſally inconſiſtent with any ſuch deſign on the words, as that which he intends to prove from them in his Book De ſatisfact and in particular tels you in his Annotations on the place, as alſo on 1 Pet. 2. 24. that foreign ſignifies auferre, which with all his ſtrength he had there contended againſt.

17. To this I anſwer, 1. (as to his expoſition of the whole chapter) that I have already told him, that Grotius endeavoured to find a firſt ſenſe of the words of that Prophecy, ſo as to belong peculiarly p. 9to the Jews uſage of the Prophet Jeremy, and that I acknowledge not to be appliable alwayes to their uſage of Christ. But beſide this, ſaith he, there is a more principal and ſublime ſenſe, and that oft the more literal of the two, wherein the whole chapter belongs to Chriſt, but this ſenſe being more vulgarly markt by others, is onelyonly in general, once for all, pointed at by him, in thoſe ſhort Annotations, being alſo more fully explicated elſewhere, in a ſet diſcourſe on that ſubject.

18. This anſwer being formerly given by me, the Reviewer is now pleaſed to miſtake, and to change it into a diſtinction betwixt the literal and myſtical ſenſe of a place, and then to undertake that his perverting the firſt literal ſenſe of the chapter, or giving it a completion in any perſon but Chriſt, is no leſſe then blaſphemy. But to this I reply, that my words are miſreported by the diſputant, and agreeably my ſenſe alſo. For I diſtinguiſht not betwixt the literal and myſtical ſenſe of the place (or if I had, I muſt much have wronged Grotius, who reſolved the words to belong oft more literally or foreign to Christ, than to any other) but betwixt the firſt and literal interpretation, which had its immediate completion among the Jews, near that time, wherein it written, and the more remote, concerning Chriſt: that indeed myſtical, becauſe veiled under the firſt, but literal alſo, becauſe that to which the very words belonged as properly, oft more properly, than to the other; As when the foreign or plain word without any figure belongs to Chriſt, and onelyonly the figurative interpretation of it, the foreign to Jeremy. Of theſe two ſenſes Grotius makes frequent mention in his interpretations. See the note on Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King ſhall come, which, ſaith he, primo & maxime obvio ſenſu, in the firſt and moſt obvious ſenſe belongs to Zorobabel, but ſublimiore quodam ſenſu, in a more ſublime ſenſe to the Meſſias; And many the like.

19. If thus the Reviewer had underſtood my words (which I then thought plain enough, till I ſaw them miſapprehended) I am in charity to think he would not have deemed it little leſſe then blaſphemy, thus to interpret words of ſome other in a firſt, but that leſſe principal ſenſe, which belong to the Son of God in the more principal and ſublime ſenſe, more remote in time of completion, but not in reſpect of the propriety of the words.

p. 1020. This the instance did evince, which I gave from the words, [out of Egypt have I called my Son] which evidently had a firſt ſenſe in the Iſraelites, a ſecond, equally literal in Chriſt, and ſo 'tis applied in the New Teſtament; and many more might be brought of affinity with it, if there were need of them.

21. It will be more to the purpoſe of vindicating Grotius's intention, and clearing the whole matter, that I give the Reader one ſignall paſſage from him, by which his ſenſe muſt in all reaſon be judged, being by him premiſed before his interpretation of the latter part of this Prophecy, from chap. 40. which he generally interprets in a firſt ſenſe, of matters that belonged to the Jews from the time of their deportation, to the Maccabees, &c. but acknowledges to contain alſo, and that more ſimply and more clearly the matters of Chriſt.

22. The words are in the prooeme to Iſa. 40. Cum autem omnia Dei beneficia umbram in ſe contintant corum quae Chriſtus praſtitit, tum praecipuè iſta omnia quae deincept ab Iſaiâ praenuntiabantur, verbis ſaepiſſime à Deo ſic directis, ut ſimplicius limpidiuſ que in res Chriſti, quam in illas quas primò ſignificare Eſaias voluit, convenirent. Whereas all Gods bleſſings have in them a ſhadow of thoſe things which Chriſt performed, this is especially applicable to all thoſe things which in the enſuing chapters (this of chap. 53. muſt needs be comprehended in that ſtyle) are foretold by Iſaiah; the words moſt often being ſo directed by God, that they agree more ſimply and clearly to the matters of Chriſt, than to thoſe which Iſaias would firſt ſignifie by them.

23. Here is the ground of what I ſaid of the firſt ſenſe of theſe prophecies, viz. that which Iſaias firſt meant to ſignifie by them, ſuppoſing that there was ſomewhat elſe, belonging to Chriſt, which in a ſecond ſenſe or later completion he ſignified alſo, and the words ſo directed by God the wiſe diſpoſer, that they moſt ſimply and clearly, i. e. without figures (which are uſual in prophecies) belonged to him. This being by him ſaid once for all, of all thoſe prophecies that follow, doth by perfect equivalence, (a collective being as full and …fficacious as a diſtributive) conclude of every particular, and conſequently of this fifty third before us (of which he again gives the ſame account as hath been ſaid, particularly, when he comes unto it) and of p. 11every verſe in it, that it moſt clearly & literally belongs to Christ, though in Jeremy he ſuppoſed it had another interpretation. And ſo this, I now hope, will be deemed ſatisfactory, as to the general, to vindicate his expoſition of the whole chapter, and the having mention'd it may be in ſome degree neceſſary to the preſerving of them from miſpriſions who read not thoſe notes intirely, that they may comprehend the ſenſe of the whole prophecies, (which is the proper'ſt uſe of them) but caſt their eyes upon ſome particular texts, to ſatisfie their preſent wants, or curioſities.

24. But then ſecondly, for the particular verſe 11. I anſwer, 1. that in the Annotation on 1 Pet: 2. 24. I cannot be concern'd, having oft reſolved that, as the reſt on the Epiſtles, to be unſufficient to give us his ſenſe. As for that on Iſaiah, if it were true, that he had there interpreted foreign auferet, 1. this could not have been juſtly charged upon him, as a Socinian interpretation, Tertullian having given him authority for it, as he cites it, on Mat. 8. 17. and indeed that Evangeliſt too having there applied that prophecy to foreign, the bearing their bodily diſeaſes, which ſure was ſo to be underſtood, as ſhould denote his curing, (i. e. his auferet, taking them away) and not his bearing them in their ſtead, taking upon him all the diſeaſes which he cured in any. But then 2. 'tis clear, that he doth not ſo interpret it [auferre to take away] as to exclude, but expreſly to include the ferre, or bearing alſo; Auferet, ſaith he, as applied to Jeremy, by a metonymie, but that founded in the other of bearing, as the literal, quia qui ſordes auferunt, ſolent …as collo ſuppoſito portare; ſo that the literal of bearing, or carrying our iniquities, is (by the former obſervation) left to be completed in Chriſt, who did both bear and take away the ſins of the world, and nothing by Grotius is here affirmed, or interpreted to the contrary of that. And ſo much for the other part of the Objection, and ſo for the third part of my method.

25. Fourthly, when I had propoſed to conſideration two things for the preventing all jealouſie of any after change in Grotius, and the Reviewer had taken notice of one of them, under the ſtyle of my firſt obſervation, and offered ſome ſemblance of anſwer to it, pag. 6. before he comes to the ſecond, he cannot, as he p. 12ſaith, but ſuppoſe, that he is already abſolved from a neceſſity of farther procedure—] by that means freeing himſelf from giving any heed to that argument which I had laid greateſt weight on, as that which of all others was most conſiderable in this buſineſs, viz. Grotius's own words (who certainly knew his own heart, better then any accuſer, or diviner can be ſuppoſed to do, and ought to be believed, rather then any contrary ſurmiſes concerning him) expreſly teſtifying his conſtancy in adhering ſtill (now after the time of his ſuppoſed change) to what he had delivered in his Book De ſatisfactione. Herein I ſhall leave the Reader to paſs the judgment, whence that abſolution was derived to the Reviewer, by which he could not but ſuppoſe himſelf freed from any neceſſity of conſidering this evidence, when yet he was at leiſure (by way of commutation) to heap up contrary appearances from the Annotations on the Epistles, which I profeſt not to allow to be his, and therefore could not be concern'd in the producing of them.

26. Here onelyonly I had expreſt my opinion that the Notes on the Apocalypſe, had (as I ſtill think I have been informed, and have already premiſed ſome proof of it) received from his own pencil the very lineaments, and colours, wherein they appear; And therefore when he pitches on one Annotation on that Book Rev. 1. 5. Chriſt's waſhing us from our ſins in his bloud, where he thinks the ſatisfaction of Chriſt concealed, and the Socinian interpretation taken up by Grotius, contrary to his manner of explicating and applying it in his Book De ſatisfactione; This will require to be a while conſidered by me.

27. The words of Grotius he hath rightly ſet down, but I ſuppoſe not ſufficiently conſidered the latter part of them, which runs thus, Dicitur Chriſtus ſuo ſanguine nos laviſſe, quia & ipſe omnia praeſtitit, quae ad id requirebantur; Chriſt is ſaid to have waſht us with his bloud, becauſe he performed all things which were required to it, i. e. to the waſhing of the ſoule. Which words are certainly of competent largeneſſe to contain (and ſo exclude not) the doctrine of ſatisfaction, that being of the number of thoſe things, which in Gods counſel, were appointed, and ſo required to the waſhing of our ſouls; This being conſidered, it will be no prejudice to that learned man, that in the former p. 13words he took in Socinus's interpretation of [morte ſuâ certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat, quae talia ſunt, ut nihil ſit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos—] For of that there is no queſtion, but that Chriſt by his death did give us aſſurance of the truth of his doctrine, and that this aſſurance is very apt to purge us from our evil and vitious courſes. In reſpect of which purgation Saint Paul himſelf ſaith, Tit. 2. 4. that Chriſt gave himſelf (that is ſurely even to dye) for us, that he might redeem us from all in quity (the power as well as guilt of it) and purifie unto himſelf a peculiar people, zealous of good works. And Gal. 1. 4. he gave himſelf for our ſins (and thereby, I ſuppoſe, made a ſatisfaction for us) that he might deliver us from this preſent evil world, from the vices and abominations thereof. And Eph. 5. 25. Chriſt gave himſelf for the Church, that he might ſanctifie and cleanſe it, that he might preſent it unto himſelf a glorious Church; not having ſpot or wrinkle or any ſuch thing. From whence I conclude that the Socinians errour conſiſts not herein, that they affirm this, but that they ſay this is all that Chriſt did by his death, and ſo exclude his ſatisfaction; which can by no means be affirmed of Grotius, who, as he wrote a Book in defence of it, ſo in this very place aſcribes to Chriſt the performing omnia all things, indefinitely, which were required to the waſhing of our ſouls, from which number his expiatory ſacrifice was never excluded by Grotius?

28. And then it may be fit to be remembred, that as the denying the ſatisfaction of Chriſt is one great errour juſtly charged on the Socinians, ſo the confining the effects of the death of Chriſt, to that one head of ſatisfaction, is an errour alſo, very carefully to be averted by him, that deſires to reap benefit by Christs death.

29. After his view of this place he is pleaſed (to prevent the Readers farther trouble) to refer him to Grotius's Annotation on one place more of the Revelation, chap. 13. 9. and I have obſerved his directions, and can aſſure him, there is not there one word to this matter. OnelyOnly that Arethas rightly applies the phraſe [from the foundation of the world] to the word [book] not to the word [ſlain] evincing it from the parallel place, chap. 17. 8. where ſo it is joyned [Whoſe names are written in the p. 14book of life from the foundation of the world] the book of life, in one place, and the book of life of the lamb ſlain, or the ſlain lambs book of life, in the other, being perfectly aequipollent.

30. The remainder of the Catalogue of Texts, that is added, is all again out of the Epiſtles, and ſo hath already more then once been accounted for, by denying the Annotations on them to have been perfected by Grotius. And this is all that need to be conſidered, in reference to the firſt branch of the ſuggeſtion, that concerning the doctrine of the ſatisfaction of Chriſt.

31. On the ſecond Socinian head of doctrine, that concerning the Deity of Chriſt, whereon the Diſputer had affirmed [that of all the texts of the Old and New Testament, whereby the Deity of Christ is uſually confirmed,—Grotius hath not left any more then one, if one, ſpeaking any thing clearly to this purpoſe.] I thought I had given ſome matter of conviction, by referring to that learned man's. Annotations on John 1. when both that one ſignal text is left by him ſpeaking clearly to this purpoſe, and many other places of Scripture are mentioned, and interpreted, and applied to the ſame ſenſe, as parallel, and anſwerable to that. To this he replies, that this of John 1. was the one place by him expreſly excepted, and therefore this inſtance would not evade the charge. And for the other places, Prov. 8, &c. he is pleaſed to ſuppoſe, that on the view of my defence men muſt needs ſuppoſe that in the Annotations on the places repeted; Grotius muſt give their ſenſe, as bearing witneſs to the Deity of Chriſt; Hereupon he will turn to the ſeveral places, and give the Reader an account of them.]

32. But before he proceed to that, and to ſave the pains of many of them, it may be ſoon conſidered, that what Grotius doth in the Notes on John 1. is as truly his act, as any thing that is done by him in any other place, much more ſo, than what is publiſht under his name, in the Annotations on the Epiſtles, and conſequently that as many places as he hath there affirmed to be parallel to John 1. 1. ſo many places he hath left ſpeaking clearly to this purpoſe. Grotius had not at that time publiſht any other Notes on any part of the Bible, but thoſe onelyonly on the Gospels. On the reſt of the New Teſtament he never lived to publiſh any, yet here on John 1. hath affirmed the words of Saint Paul, Col. 1. 16. [all things were created by Christ—] p. 15to be agreeable to the words of Saint John, that without him was nothing made that was made. Is it not now as viſible, that he hath left that place of Col. 1. 16. ſpeaking clearly to the Deity and creative power of Chriſt, by which all things were at firſt made, as if he had lived to ſet out Annotations purpoſely on that place, and had therein ſo interpreted it? This certainly is ſo clear, that I cannot yet doubt (what ever the Reviewers ſarcaſme would ſuggeſt) of being a ſucceſsful advocate in this matter.

33. The ſame is again as clear of 2 Pet. 3. 5. and of the two places brought by him, in concent with it, from the Chaldee Paraphraſt on Iſai. 45. 12. & 48. 13. to teſtifie that by this foreign, i. e. by the word of the Lord, Chriſt, the whole world was founded; which again (though he never ſhould mention them again in all his writings) are yet ſolemnly left by him, to teſtifie clearly to the Deity of Chriſt; And ſo more than that one of John 1.

34. But the place more largely recited by Grotius to this purpoſe, is that of Prov. 8. from verſe 23. A ſeculo habui principatum, I was ſet up from everlaſting, to verſe 27. when he prepared the heavens I was there; And this the Reviewer thinks fit to examine, by repairing to his Annotations on the Old Teſtament, and there 1. he finds his firſt note on the Wiſdome there ſpoken of to be [Haec de eâ ſapientiâ quae in lege apparet exponunt Hebraei, & ſane ei, ſi non ſoli, at praecipuè haec attributa conveniunt] and this he thinks a very advantageous diſcovery, for if they agree ſolely or principally to the wiſdome that ſhines in the Law, how can they be the attributes of the perſon of the Son of God?

35. But I anſwer, that note of his is on the firſt verſe of that chapter, far enough from verſe 23. where the citation in his Note on John 1. begins. And why might not many parts of the character of wiſdome be by the Jews duly applied to the Law (as will appear if you read the former part of the chapter for above twenty verſes together) and yet the latter and ſublimer part of its character be competible onelyonly to Chriſt, the eternal wiſdome of the Father? And why ſhould not Grotius's [haec] on verſe 1. rather belong to thoſe former 20 verſes, than to the 23 &c. p. 16which he there (as in the Notes on the Gospels) expreſly interprets ſo, as that verſe 27. and 30. be all one with John 1. 1. and ſo Prov. 9. 1. Wiſdome built her an houſe, i. e. ſaith he, corpus humanum, a mans body, which is not applicable to any thing, but Chriſt in his incarnation. And ſo I hope this artifice hath ſtood the Reviewer in little ſtead.

36. But then, ſaith he, On verſe 22. Grotius affirmes of foreign that it is rendred not amiſs by the Chaldee foreign and by the Septuagint foreign, though he knew that ſenſe was pleaded by the Arrians, and expleded by the ancient Doctors of the Church.]

37. To this I anſwer, That Grotius's words, [ſenſu non malo ſi creare ſumas pro facere ut appareat] ſignifie not, that that rendring is not amiſſe, for he had formerly expreſt his opinion of that, that Aquila and Symmachus and Theodeſian their rendring it by foreign, was well agreeing or anſwerable to the Hebrew foreign but that the other which was not the right rendring, might yet bear a tolerable, or not ill ſenſe, if it were interpreted to ſignifie no more than that which he there names, viz. [making to appear] a ſenſe which the Fathers never exploded, nor was fit to be pretended by the Arrians, or favoured by any in kindneſs to them.

38. This therefore was but a weak foundation of that confidence, with which the Reviewer concludes, that of the Son of God, the eſſential wiſdome of God, ſubſiſting with the Father, we have not one word] eſpecially when he had himſelf confeſt that [on verſe 27. he addes, aderam, i. e. foreign John 1. 1.] for certainly if thoſe words of wiſdome, when he prepared the heavens I was there, and the ſame again verſe 30. (to which alſo he refers the Reader, though the Reviewer pleaſed not to ſee it) When he appointed the foundations of the earth, then was I by him] be all one with [the word was with God] John 1. 1. there is then ſome word of the Son of God, the eſſential wiſdome, in thoſe Notes, and perfectly as much as is proportionable to the manner of thoſe very ſhort Annotations on the Old Teſtament.

39. To which may be added, that by interpreting the phraſe [his wayes.] verſe 22. by operationes Dei, the operations of God, the ſenſe of that verſe (which the Reviswer thinks perverted or obſcured) muſt in his rendring run thus, In the beginning of his p. 17operations God poſſeſſed this eternal wiſdome, the Son of God, which will be ſtill to the ſame ſenſe; And then the Note on chap. 9. 1. ſets down the incarnation of this eternal word, or wiſdome; And what could have been more punctual againſt the Socinian intereſt, than all this, being thus briefly amaſſed together, if the Reviewer would have but the patience to diſcern it?

40. What he adds by way of wonderment, that I ſhould add the places of Iſa. 45. 12. and 48. 13. to the number of texts interpreted by Grotius to this matter of the Deity, is ſoon ſatisfied, by remembring (what was viſible enough before) that the Chaldee Paraphraſt in thoſe and many other places rendring the word [God] by [God and his word] is fitly brought by Grotius, as a witneſs, that the world was created by the word of God, as that is God, and that that is the ſenſe of thoſe places. Which if it be, then are thoſe texts of Scripture left by Grotius, to teſtifie to this truth of the Deity of the word of God, i. e. of Chriſt.

41. Now for the principal place that of John 1. 1. the Reviewer hath expreſt his diſlikes alſo to that, and mention'd ſome grounds thereof, 1. that Grotius is very careful of aſcribing an foreign] But if by this phraſe he would ſignifie him unwilling to aſcribe an hypoſtaſis to the word, this is miſrepreſented by him; for 'tis evident, Grotius expreſſes no diſlike to that ſtyle, all that he ſaith that way, is, vecem foreign —non à primis Chriſtianis uſurpatam, cùm contra foreign dixerit Athanaſius, Synodi Nicaena, Sardicenſis, & Romanae aliquot, that that word, and ſome others was not uſed by the firſt Chriſtians, that Athanaſius, and the Nicene, Sardicene, and ſome Roman Councels affirmed, that there was one hypoſtaſis. And all theſe, I hope, are ſo contrary to the Arrian, that if Grotius ſhould chuſe to ſpeak with them, he could with no juſtice be accuſed of that hereſie, or obſcuring the Deity of Christ by ſo ſpeaking.

42. And yet it is farther clear, that from Origen & others after him, he cites the diſtinction of hypoſtaſes, and what could he have done more to obtain the Reviewers favour, then to cite it from them, that uſed, and not pretend it from them, that uſed it not?

p. 1843. That he hath interweaved many Platonick interpretations of foreign is alſo in the ſecond place ſuggeſted, and at once, that he hath darkened the whole counſel of God in that place.] But I hope there is no hereſie in letting the Chriſtian Reader know, how much Platoniſts and hethen Philoſophers have by groping diſcoverd of divine truths, and to me it is not imaginable, that when the Chriſtian doctrine is once declared, ſuch additions as theſe ſhould by being ſubjoyned ex abundanti, obſcure what was once made clear, and ſo darken the whole counſel of God.

44. Thirdly, It may not be amiſſe, ſaith he, to obſerve, that not onelyonly the Arians, but Photinus himſelf acknowledged that the world was made foreign] And to this I anſwer, that what is wide of the mark, to which it is directed, no way ſufficient to infer the deſired concluſion, is (in the managing of a controverſie) amiſs to be obſerved; And ſuch will this obſervation appear to be; For the matter of the queſtion being a charge againſt Grotius, of Socinian doctrine, what can be concluded (to that) from the bare mention of the Arians, and Photinus his acknowledgments, unleſs firſt it be proved, that Grotius was an Arian, or Photinian, and ſecondly that all Arians and Photinians are Socinians? Either of which, as they have not the leaſt appearance of truth in them, ſo are they not ſo much as attempted here to be proved by the author of this obſervation. On the contrary, there are theſe five ſhrewd prejudices againſt it. 1. That what the Arians ſay in this matter, Photinus doth not ſay, and ſo they were not fit to be put together. 2. That what the Arians ſay, Grotius doth not ſay. 3. That what the Photinians ſay, neither the Arians, nor Grotius do ſay. 4: That the Socinians do in this differ much both from Arians and Photinians; and yet 5. That Grotius differs as much (or more) from the Socinians herein, as he doth from either of the other two.

45. All this will appear by viewing ſeverally the Arians, and Photinians, and Socinians doctrine in this point, and the diſtance of Grotius's interpretation from each of theſe. For the firſt, Arius did indeed acknowledge in hisddEpiph. l. 2. Haer. 49. Epiſtle, that God did by his onelyonly Son make foreign, the worlds and the reſt, and in the words of the text, foreign, that all things were made by him, and without him was nothing p. 19made that was made. But ſure this was no part of his hereſie, (if it were, the Scripture as well as Grotius, muſt be involved in it, who affirmed it equally) but that he firſt affirmed Chriſt to be himſelf a creature, foreign, ſaith he, he by whom God created the world was a perfect creature of Gods, though created foreign, before all ages; and again ſaith Epiphanius, foreign, though they call him a creature, yet they confeſs him above all his creatures. So again ſpeaking of the Holy Ghoſt, they will have him to be foreign, the creature of a creature, where ſtill that is Arius his hereſie, in this matter, that he made Chriſt a creature, and to that applied the Septuagints rendring of the place Prov. 8. of foreign, God created me, and conſequently would not allow him to be foreign, of the ſame ſubſtance, or equal with the Father. And when Grotius ſaith any thing in favour of this doctrine, of Chriſt's being a creature, or denies his equality with the Father, then he muſt paſs for an Arian; (Of which he hath not yet had the luck to be accuſed, that I know of;) But 'tis certain he hath not done ſo, nay on the other ſide, 'tis competently evident, if but by the notion which he applies to foreign in his Annotations on Prov. 8. (to reſcue that rendring from an evil ſenſe) that he utterly rejects that notion wherein the Arian took it, viz. for creating, and ſo that he is herein profeſtly free from that hereſie.

46. As for Photinus in the ſecond place, 'tis certain his hereſie, like that of Paulus Samoſatenus, conſiſted in denying that Chriſt had a being, or ſubſiſtence from the beginning, or before the Holy Ghoſt's coming upon Mary, ſo ſaith b Epiphanius, foreign—Now though this heretick was content to acknowledge that the Father made the world foreign, by the foreign which was in him, yet that it was not Chriſt which he underſtood by that ſtyle, is moſt clear, both by his denying Chriſt to have had then any ſubſiſtence, and 2. by the ſimilitude, by which he expreſt himſelf, foreign, as a man by foreign doth what he will (by foreign p. 20meaning a kind of Idea in the agents mind, by, or according to which he doth any thing) ſo by his own foreign, or by the foreign which is in him the Father hath made all things; but eſpecially by Epiphanius's way of confuting him, foreign—The foreign in man, whether the word of the mind within, or the word spoken cannot be called man, but the foreign of man, whereas the foreign in Saint John is ſaid to be God. And ſo as Photinus ſaying [all things were made by the foreign, which was in God] ſaid quite another thing from what Arius had ſaid (and therefore this Reviewers obſervation was in that reſpect guilty of that fallacy, which Ariſtotle calls plurium interrogationum) ſo is it moſt certain, that Grotius's interpretation of the Evangeliſt, it no way conſonant to Photinus (any more then to Arius) his notion. For when to thoſe words of the Evangeliſt [In the beginning was the word] his note is, Jam ium erat, ſic mos eſt Hebraeis aternitatem populariter deſcribere] which defines the eternity of his being, he brings for explication of that forme of ſpeech, the words of Juſtine, foreign, he was ſubſiſtent before the worlds. So again on thoſe words [the word was with God] he ſaith this was in oppoſition to his being ſeen in the world in his incarnation, vult enim dicere, antè eum fuiſſe inconspicuum, he would expreſs that before his incarnation, he was inviſible; adding for proof, Dicitur enim Deus foreign, 1 Tim. 1. 17. for God is ſaid to be inviſible, and to inhabit the light which none approcheth; by all which it is clear, that by [the word] he underſtands inviſible God himſelf, being or ſubſiſting eternally with the Father, which is in every part contrary to Photinus's doctrine, as hath been ſhewed.

47. Thirdly, for the Socinians their interpretation is known to differ toto coelo in this particular both from Arius, and Photinus, being after this manner, that c In the beginning of the spiritual Socin. in John 1.John 1world, or the Gospel, the word, that Son of God, which was born of Mary in Auguſtus's reign, ſo called in reſpect of his office, which was to make known Gods word to men, was with God, i. e. before John's preaching, was, as the word, or in reſpect of this office, known to none but to God: That this word is God, i. e. that Chriſt was ſo called (as Angels and Princes are) in respect of the great p. 21benefits which we receive from him, and the dignity to which he is by God advanced, (diſtinctly denying that he is the ſupreme God, the author of all things, or creator of the world) that all things were created by him, i. e. all the new ſpiritual and divine things, which are under the Gospel done in the world, and ſo on in concerdance with this Foundation. From every part of which Grotius's explications of that text are moſt remote, as hath already appeared, and have not the leaſt infuſion of this leven diſcernable in them, as will be evident to any, who ſhall but caſt an eye on his Notes on that place. Of the Notes on the Epiſtles which came out ſince his death, this cannot be ſaid, for there many of theſe, or the like Socinian interpretations are crept in, ſome words of the Epiſtles expounded in a ſenſe expreſly contrary to what he hath here incidentally ſaid of the ſame words. This I have pointed at in one eminent inſtance, the place to the Coloſſians, chap. 1. 16. of the worlds being made by Chriſt, and thereon founded my reſolution, that they were none of his, not conſequently did I ever permit my plea for him, to be extended to the juſtifying of them. Thus much may ſuffice for the ſupernumerary obſervation, which being ſure, meant to inſinuate ſomewhat, it now appears with what justice it was produced by him. By the way I ſuppoſe my account alſo given, why the interpretations of John 1. and Prov. 8. of the world being made by foreign the word of God, were by me formerly produced, as irrefragable evidences, that this learned man inclined not to the Socinians in this matter of the Deity of Chriſt. The Reviewer may now judge what reaſon I had for it.

48. Laſtly, there being a threefold foreign, 'tis ſuggeſted that nothing but foreign was by Grotius intended in thoſe Annotations on John 1. 1. but withall 'tis confest, that much from ſome quotations there uſed may be ſaid againſt it.] And if there may, and if thoſe quotations be ſo clear, as thoſe out of Juſtine Martyr, and Athenagoras, of Christ's preſubſiſting before the worlds, of his being God before the worlds, that from the beginning God being an eternal mind, foreign, had the word in himſelf eternally, and if the negative [nothing but foreign] be not reconcileable with any one mention of any thing elſe, p. 22ſuch as Chriſt's being God, and with God from all eternity; upon theſe grounds, I ſay I ſhall confeſs it the prudenteſt courſe, which the Reviewer here hath taken, viz. to defer the undertaking of this task, and to add no more, than the unproved ſuggeſtion, till ſpace of greater leiſure.

49. In reproching of me for a triumphant cloſe, he is now pleaſed to give an Eſſay of his own humility, in heaping theſe ſeverals into one period, 1. That he ſaid not Grotius was a Socinian. 2. That in his Annotations on the 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, Grotius speaks not one word to the purpoſe. 3. That he doth not interpret Chriſt's eternal ſubſiſtence with God, ſo as to a perſonal ſubſiſtence.

50. To theſe three I briefly anſwer. To the firſt, That the onelyonly thing that in my firſt Digreſſion (or ſecond Defence of Grotius) I undertook in behalf of that learned man, being the injuſtice of the charge, of his being ſometimes a Socinian, ſometimes a Papiſt, ſometimes both; This is by the Reviewer in his Epiſtle to the Oxford Heads undertaken to be refuted, which can never be done, unleſs he both ſay and prove, that Grotius was a Socinian. To the ſecond, That, as hath now appeared, Grotius hath ſpoken to the purpoſe of the Deity of Chriſt, on the eighth of the Proverbs (as of his incarnation on the ninth) as well as on John 1. And for the other places, as it is ſufficient that he hath recited them to that purpoſe on John 1. ſo the account is clear why he is not found to do it elſwhere. On Iſaiah keeping himſelf to the literal Hebrew, he had no occaſion in thoſe conciſe notes, to take notice of that, which onelyonly the Chaldee there had ſaid. The other two are in the Epiſtles, on which the Annotations, which are publiſhed under his name, are by me deemed imperfect, and not to carry his full ſenſe with them. To the third as before, That he cites out of Origen, and others after him, the uſe of the word hypoſtaſes, and the diſtinction of them. OnelyOnly he ſaith the word was not uſed à primis Chriſtianis, by the firſt Chriſtians, any more then foreign &c. And ſo it is certain it was not.

51. In the next place, I am reproved that I neither make inquiry into his Treatiſe, for the places in the Old Teſtament, wherein the Deity of Chriſt is teſtified to, and are corrupted by that learned man, nor yet will look into Grotius's Annotations on thoſe texts, which I remember at all times to be pleaded to that purpoſe. To this I anſwer, 1. That I never undertook the vindicaton of all Grotius's Annotations, nor ever ſaid any thing, which ſhould ingage me in ſuch a long task as this. 2. The diſcouragements, which I mentioned to have already received from making inquiry into this Reviewers former Treatiſe, were taken from what had appeared from Grotius on John 1: compared with, and found evidently to ſuperſede this Authors ſuggeſtions of [but one, if one place, in all the Bible, left by Grotius clearly teſtifying this truth] For when, beſide that of John 1. I found there ſo many more, put together, particularly Prov. 8. verſe 23.—largely ſet down, and in the Annotations on the Proverbs, found the ſame ſenſe adhered to, and a reference back again to John 1. where he had ſpoken ſo largely on this matter, what need was there of farther inquiry for that, which had thus readily offered it ſelf?

52. Now to my two ſuppletory conſiderations, he hath his replies alſo; To the firſt, by confeſſing, what I deſire, that one expreſs text of Scripture, is ſufficient for the confirmation of a divine truth] but then, denying that five places have been by me produced out of the Annotations of Grotius for the confirmation of the truth pleaded about.]

53. To this I anſwer, 1. that if any one be ſufficient to confirm this divine truth, then Grotius hath been demonſtrated ſufficiently to have confirmed it, who hath evidently brought John 1. which is one ſuch text. Secondly, that that text, and Prov. 8. 23—he hath certainly not depraved, nor kept back from teſtifying to this truth; So likewiſe Col. 1. 18. and 2 Pet. 3. 5. if we may judge by his own words on John 1. and not by the poſthumous Annotations, which I deem not competent meaſures to judge him by, and ſo there are four of the five. Thirdly, he hath there alſo applied to it the places of Iſaiah, in the Chaldee reading, and theſe ſuperadded to the former, are very ſufficient to confirme a divine truth, and that is all I ſaid in this matter. But then Fourthly, as the conciſeneſs of his Notes on the Old Teſtament, and his deſire to clear the firſt, and neareſt p. 24ſenſe of the Prophecies, ſuch as pertain'd to the then approching affairs of the Jews, are a competent account of his not inlarging to the more remote and ultimate completions in Jeſus Chriſt. So his general advertiſements, more then once given (ſuch as hath been produced from his Preface to Iſa. 40. and to Iſa 53.) are ſufficient to teſtifie his acknowledgment of Chriſt's being predicted in thoſe places of the Prophets, where his Annotations on the ſeveral verſes make no particular mention of him. And ſo, when he gives a ſenſe of Iſa. 9. 6. which immediately belonged (in his opinion) to Hezekiah, and according to that, interprets every part of that verſe, he yet thus prefaceth it, ſic tamen ut multò excellentius haec ad Meſſiam pertinere non Chriſtiani tantum agnoſcant, ſed & Chaldaeus hoc loco] thus giving onelyonly a lower notion of the words to Hezekiah, and reſerving the ſublimer and more excellent to Christ. So again chap. 11. 1. Redit ad Hezechiae. laudes, ſub quibus ſenſu ſublimiore latent laudes Meſſiae; and many paſſages there are to the ſame purpoſe: As others alſo of referring to the Annotations on the Gospels, wherein he hath ſpoken ſo largely of this ſublimer completion of ohe Prophecies, that he would not repete them in the places of the Prophets, to which they belonged.

54. In the next place he comes to the compariſon betwixt Calvin's and Grotius's dealing in this matter, and makes many offers of anſwer, to which I am concern'd to make particular replies.

55. Firſt, he denies Mr Calvine equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion with Grotius. To which I anſwer, that whether he be, or be not truly chargeable, in any degree, I am not concern'd to examine, having not accuſed him, but onelyonly made the parallel betwixt that learned man and Grotius, in this, that each of them have by ſome been deemed chargeable. 2. The compariſon which I made, was not of the equality, or indeed of the degree of proportion, but expreſt with ſuch caution, as ſufficiently prevented that reply, my words being theſe, that it will upon inquiry be found in ſome degree; if not equally chargeable, on the learnedſt and moſt valued of the Reformers, particularly on Mr Calvin himſelf, &c. Here I ſaid, in ſome degree, but proceeded not to define the equality, or to conſider what proportion that degree held with that wherein Grotius was chargeable, p. 25not indeed believing that either Grotius or Calvin had given any reaſons for that charge, which I ſee lie heavy on both of them.

56. 3. The compariſon of equality, which I made between theſe two learned men, referred onelyonly to the bitterneſs and injuſtice of the accuſations and contumelies that fell upon them, on that account, in theſe words, [Calvin himſelf hath been as bitterly and unjuſtly accuſed and reviled on this account, as ever Eraſmus was by Bellarmine or Beza, or is probably Grotius can b.] And there will be no way to disprove my compariſon in this, but by heaping far more unjuſt reproches on Grotius, then yet this Reviewer hath done, which if others are reſolved to do, yet ſhall I not thereby be refutable, who, as juſtice and charity obliged me, affirmed it onelyonly not probable that they would.

57. In the next place he requires me to prove of Mr Calvin that he hath in all his Commentaries on the Scripture, corrupted the ſenſe of any text, giving expreſſe testimonies to the Deity of Chriſt, and commonly pleaded to that end and purpoſe, although he 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.]

58. To this I anſwer, 1. That the latter part of this (his not denying &c.) is in effect the confeſſing all that I had ſaid of Mr Calvin, which was but this, that he was by ſome charged of diſarming the Church of her defences againſt adverſaries, by diverting thoſe places of Scripture which had formerly been uſed to aſſert the great myſteries, to other inferior ends; And then I need undertake no farther tasks of ſupererogation, ſuch as the proving Mr Calvin to have corrupted the ſenſe of any text &c. which he knows I never affirmed of him. Yet remembring him that I am not now to ſpeak my own ſenſe, but onelyonly to juſtifie the truth of my report, that Mr Calvin and ſome of the firſt Reformers have been ſeverely accuſed and reviled on this account. I ſhall now 2. (inſtead of ggLutherani penè omnes Ariani ſmi eum accuſant. Grot. Appendi. de Antich, p. 85.many) refer the Reader to Schluſſetburgius a Lutheran ſuperintendent, in his Second Book De Calviniſt. Theolog. and 6. Article; or to Fr. Fevardentius, a Doctor of Paris, either in his Comment on Saint Paul to Philemon, or in his Excerpta out of that Lutheran. Not: in Iren: Var: Fragm: p. 508, 509. In the latter of theſe he will p. 26find a Catologue of twenty paſſages affixt to thoſe eminent firſt Reformers, eſpecially to Mr Calvin, as 1. that the enmity betwixt the Scrpent and the ſeed of the Woman, Gen. 3. is ſimply to be interpreted of the hoſtility of Men and Serpents; that the prophecies of the Scepters not departing from Judah till Shiloh comes, Gen. 49. expounded of Chriſt, gives the Jews occaſion to ſcoff; that the words of Balaam, Num. 24. A ſtar ſhall riſe out of Jacob, muſt not properly be expounded of Chriſt; nor that of the Lord by Moſes, Deut. 18. 18. I will raiſe them up a Prophet, which yet Saint Peter Acts 3. 22, and Saint Stephen Acts 7. 37: affirmed to belong to Chriſt; that Mich. 5. 2. Out of thee Bethleem ſhall he come forth to me that is to be a ruler in Iſrael] muſt not be expounded preciſely and properly of the divinity of Chriſt. That Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King cometh lowly—is by interpreters triflingly and in a falſe manner expounded of his entrance into Jeruſalem, which yet Saint Matthew and Saint John have applied to it. Theſe are a few eſſayes whereby to judge of many others. And the leſs Mr Calvin and the Reformers are guilty of theſe, (as truly in many that I have had the convenience to examin, I cannot but think him guiltleſs) the more evident is the parallel betwixt Grotius and them in this matter.

59. Thirdly, he affirmes that what the Papiſts raved againſt Mr Calvin, was chiefly from ſome expreſſions in the Inſtitutions about the Trinity, (wherein he is acquitted by the moſt learned of themſelves) and not from the expoſitions of Scripture.] But 1. the truth of this will be judged by what was laſt ſaid, for all thoſe twenty paſſages are fetcht from the expoſitions of Calvin &c. on thoſe ſo many places of Scripture. And 2. 'tis certain I ſpecified not the Book, wherein he had written what was thus chargeable, and ſo had not been reproveable, if they had been all out of the Inſtitutions, thoſe being as acknowledgedly his, as the Commentaries, and both much more then the Annotations on the Epiſtles are Grotius's; and 3. if he ſtand by learned men acquitted of the charge, then as I ſaid, that may make the parallel more exact betwixt him and Grotius, though I undertake not that every learned man hath been thus just to acquit him.

60. But then fourthly, for Calvino-Turciſmus by me mentioned p. 27in a parentheſis, he tels me, I have forgotten the deſign of it, and that 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 Apoſtacies of ſome, that they compare it with Turciſme, adding, that ſomething indeed in a chapter or two they speak about the Trinity, from ſome expreſſions of Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and others.

61. To all this I anſwer, 1. that 'tis viſible I ſpeak not of Mr Calvin alone, but of the learnedſt and moſt valued of the Reformers, and of Mr Calvin onelyonly, as one of them. 2. That although the forgetting the deſign of Reynolds and Giffords Book, would be far from a crime in me, had I been guilty of it, (the ſubject matter of it is not ſo much worth remembring) much leſſe any indication that Grotius were inſufficiontly vind cated; yet when the Reviewer confeſſes, that in a chapter or two it ſpeaks about the Trinity, from ſome expreſſions of Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, and others: this clearly evidences, that theſe Reformers were there thus accuſed in the matter of the Trinity, as now it ſeems Grotius is; And 3. if Hunnius's Calvinus Judaizans, which is home to the buſineſs, be anſwered by Pareus, and an account of the calumny given by him] this ſtill renders the parallel more complete. An account of the calumny and the firſt author, and grounds of it againſt Grotius, being happily rendred by himſelf alſo in the Diſcuſſio, p. 17.

62. The Reviewer concludes this matter with a ſignification of his conſtant adhering to his propoſition formerly aſſerted, with one limitation expreſſed (of his own obſervation.) But I that firſt gave the occaſion of the debate in my Digreſſion concerning Grotius, did never propoſe it with reference to that limitation, not being able to foreſee, how much this Reviewer had read, or obſerved of Grotius's writings, nor can I yet paſs judgment, whether what hath now been offered to him by another, will be yielded to come within the compaſs of that limitation, or no. And ſo I muſt be content to leave it at this time.

63. On the ſecond ſort of ſuggeſtion, the Reviewer hath choſen to be brief, and hath well prepared for it by expreſſing diſlike and averſation to any ſuch undertaking, that ſeemed incumbent p. 28on him, viz. to prove that Grotius was a Papiſt.] But to this I reply, as before, that this task is ſure incumbent on him, if, as he ſaid, his defenſative be ſuited to what I pleaded in his behalf. For 'tis certain, that in the Digreſſion, I had ſo propoſed the debate, and undertaken to vindicate him from this ſuggeſtion, viz. that he was a Papiſt.

64. That he cloſed with the Roman intereſt, he is now willing to infer, from his obſervation on Rev. 12. 5. To that therefore I have turned, and there find no other premiſſes toward this concluſion than onelyonly theſe, 1. that Disperſi ex Judaeis, inſtrumenta Eccleſiae Catholicae, multos de populo Romano Chriſto genuere, that thoſe that were disperſed from Judaea—begat to Chriſt many of the people of Rome, and that theſe are there called partus maſculinus the man-childe or maſculine birth, in reſpect of the great conſtancy which appeared in the Church of Rome of thoſe times; then 2. that the Church of Rome hath this above other Churches, that no Church ſubjected more people to the word of God, ſo that her victories by the weapons of Chriſt, were not inferior to the Martial ſucceſſes of Old Rome: 3. that the regiment of other Churches after the Apoſtles death belonged to that. Now this being clearly applied by him to the infancy or firſt ages of the Church, that which is firſt ſaid of the conſtancy, is indeed much for the honour of the Primitive Roman Church, but no way for the intereſt of the preſent, which having much departed from the Primitive, cannot in any reaſon partake of thoſe elogies, which he there beſtows on that maſculine birth, at the firſt appearing of it in the world. So likewiſe 2. of the ancient Roman Church it is, that he ſaith, it converted ſo many to the faith, which is a truth known, and acknowledged in Hiſtory, but is not at this day aſſumed (witneſs S. W.) to be the foundation on which their Supremacy is built. 3. that after the Apoſtles death Rome being a chief Metropolis, and (as the Imperial See) the moſt eminent of all others, had the dominion aliarum of other (it is not omnium, of all) Churches, is not denied by any either ancient, or modern, that I know of. All the ſuburbicarian Region, and the Churches in that, were under the Primate of Rome, and that Primate was within a while lookt on, as the Patriarch of the Weſt, and the Firſt Patriarch. And the words of Grotius are not, by any circumſtance of the place, inclined to any other ſenſe. The aliae Eccleſiae, other Churches, being in no reaſon interpretable any farther, than thoſe, which Rome had converted to the faith, nor neceſſarily to all them, but to the oppida minora and Provinciae, the leſſer Cities and Provinces, unto which (as he interprets) the woman is ſaid to flie (and ſo Chriſtianity to be propagated) when Simon Magus by the favour of the Emperour had oppoſed and much oppreſſed it at Rome, and drave the profeſſion out of it, by which means thoſe aliae Eccleſiae were planted. And it may be worthy to be obſerved, that when the text before him was general, for foreign all the nations, he is not thereby moved to interpret it in that latitude of all ſimply, but (in a more reſtrained ſence, wherein all in Scripture-ſtyle oft ſignifies but a great many) onelyonly by the nulla plures, and aliarum, others and none more then that.

65. Here before he concludes, he is pleaſed to look back on a paſſage which he had uſed, [that if men be drunkards, proud, boaſters, &c. hypocrites, haters of good men, perſecutors and revilers of them, yea, and if they be not regenerate and born of God united to the head Chriſt Jeſus, by the ſame ſpirit that is in him, they ſhall never ſee God] for which, he now ſaith, he fears not what concluſion can regularly, in reference to any perſon living or dead, be deduced.] To this I reply by acknowledging the certain truth of the general Aphoriſme, and onelyonly remembring him, that the onelyonly queſtion was, whether in a particular diſcourſe concerning Hugo Grotius, after the mention of his eternal eſtate, and diſclaiming all deſign of begetting in others any evil ſurmiſes of it, or of judging him himſelf, 1. it were ſeaſonably added, that he was fallen to his own maſter, when falling in the ſtyle of that Scripture (viſibly referred to) ſignifies falling under condemnation, and 2. whether the applying this general Aphoriſme to this matter, were not apt to beget in others thoſe evil ſurmiſes, which he was willing to diſclaim: If in theſe he be not concerned, neither am I, and therefore I ſhall not further importune him in that matter.

66. To the fragments of Grotius's Epiſtles to Crellius, I had formerly ſpoken, though they were not (poſſibly) formerly printed. p. 28But having no more in them than was acknowledged, ſomewhat of civility to a civil adverſary, commendation of ſome things truly commendable (ſuch ſure is the care of good life) acknowledgment of advantage received by his writings, readineſs of performing any office of kindneſs to him, and finally praying for him; All theſe are certainly no more then due, as by Chriſt's precept to the injurious, ſo to a learned man, from whom he differed in opinion, and may onelyonly ſerve to direct us to the Chriſtian manner of dealing with adverſaries, that of never labouring their ruine or hurt in any kind, but doing them all poſſible good. And if in this matter the Reader will be moved with probable arguments; It is not well to be imagined, in caſe Grotius had at this time been changed from the opinion which he was of, at the writing of the Book De Satisfact: that having ſaid what theſe fragments ſignifie him to have ſaid, he would have concealed that, or that any ſuch paſſage, had it been in the letter, would have been left out of the fragments, or being in the fragments, would have been ſuppreſt by the Reviewer.

67. What in the ſecond Epiſtle is ſaid of Crellius's notes on the Epiſtle to the Galatians, that he had very happily found out the occaſion, and purpoſe, and whole contexture of the Epiſtle, no way concludes his imbracing the interpretation of each brief occaſional paſſage in that Epiſtle, wherein the Socinian controverſies are concern'd, or renouncing that, which he had given in his Book De Satisfact: as his ſenſe of thoſe paſſages.

68. There is no more remaining now before me, which ſeems to exact farther reply. Thus much I have once more added, leſt the Reviewer may either think his Animadverſions despiſed, or conceive that they have ſuccesfully performed what they attempted; and moreover leſt having once (though but foreign) undertaken the Defence of this learned man. I ſhould now by my ſilence ſeem to deſert my plea, and be deem'd to have conſented to, and in a manner confirm'd thoſe calumnies, which on this ſcore of his defection to hereſit, I ſee from many pens daily caſt out upon him.

69. And this, as it is an act of meer juſtice, and charity to the dead, and no leſs to thoſe, who by their ſin of uncharitable thoughts towards him, are likely to deprive themſelves of the p. 29benefit of his labours; ſo is it but a proportionable return of debt and gratitude to the ſignal value and kindneſſe, which in his life-time he conſtantly profeſt to pay to this Church and nation; expreſſing his opinion, that of all Churches in the world, it was the moſt carefull obſerver, and tranſcriber of Primitive antiquity, and more then intimating his deſire to end his dayes in the boſome, and Communion of our Mother. Of this I want not ſtore of witneſſes, which from time to time have heard it from his own mouth, whileſt he was Embaſſadour in France, and even in his return to Sweden, immediately before his death; And for a real evidence of this truth, 'tis no newes to many, that at the taking his journey from Paris, he appointed his Wife, whom he left behind, to reſort to the Engliſh aſſembly, at the Agents houſe, which accordingly ſhe is known to have practiſed. Which therefore may ſerve for a competent addition to, and concluſion of the evidences hitherto produced, (being in perfect accord and harmony with them) that as far as the Engliſh eſtabliſhment is removed from Socinian, and Popiſh, ſo far this learned man ſtands vindicated from both theſe aſperſions; which makes me the leſs wonder, that ſome others, who have endeavoured to maintain their conſtancy of adherence, and ſubmiſſion to the Church of England, are in like manner moſt injuriouſly aſperſed by thoſe who have departed from it; Lord lay not this ſin to their charge.