Review of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius, Treatise

Review of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius · Treatise

A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HƲGO GROTIƲS, 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 foreign. Of my dealing with Grotius I gave a briefe account in my Epiſtle to the Governours of the Ʋniverſity, 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 p. 2this 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, foreign. (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 p. 3that 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 foreign 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 foreign 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 p. 4the Reader the words of his Annotations on that place: it is as followes:

foreign &c:] foreign hic eſt, abſtulit, quod ſequentia oſtendunt, quomodo idem verbum ſumi not avimus, Heb. 9. 28. eodem ſenſu foreign Ioh. 1. 29. & foreign & foreign Isa. 53. 4. ubi Graeci foreign: 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 foreign; 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 foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign, 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 foreign 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 p. 5the 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 11^th verſe of the chapter which he firſts conſiders (in my booke) page 14: he thus propoſes and expounds: juſtificabit ſervus mens juſtus multos & iniquitates ipſorum bajulabit. in Heb. eſt: foreign vox autem foreign iniquitatem ſignificat, at que etiam iniquitatis poenam. 2. Reg. 7. 9. vox autem foreign 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 foreign, is as much as bajulare, portare, and that joyned with iniquity (in all languages, eſpecially in the Hebrew) that phraſe of bearing iniquity, ſignifies to undergoe the puniſhment due to it; in his Annotations on the place, as alſo in thoſe on 1 Pet. 2. 24. he tells you the word ſignifies auferre, which with all his ſtrength he had contended againſt. Not to draw out this particular inſtance into any greater length, I make bold to tell the Apologiſt (what I ſuppoſe he knowes not) that there is no one verſe of the whole chapter, ſo interpreted in his Annotations, as that the ſenſe given by him, is conſiſtent with, nay is not repugnant to, that which from the ſame verſes he pleads for in his booke de Satisfactione Chriſti. If notwithſtanding this information, the Apologiſt be not ſatiſfied, let him if he pleaſe conſider what I have already animadverted on thoſe Annotations, and undertake their vindication. Theſe looſe diſcourſes are not at all to the purpoſe in hand, nor the Queſtion between us, p. 6which 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 p. 7of 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, foreign, 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 foreign: 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 & foreign pro foreign, quomodo circumciſio pro circumciſis: & ſubauditur foreign: nam Chriſtus it a cruciatus eſt, quaſi eſſet Deo foreign, 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 foreign, manifeſting the end of the ſuffering of Chriſt, is by him chiefely inſiſted on. That by foreign 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 p. 8Crellius 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 foreign malim hic de bonitate interpretari, quam de fide in promiſſis praeſtandis, quia quae ſequuntur non ad Judaeos ſolos pertinent, ſed etiam ad Gentes, quibus promiſſio nulla facta erat. He rather (he tells you) embraces the interpretation of Crellius then of Socinus; but for that which himſelf had contended for, it is quite ſhut out of doors: as I have elſwhere manifeſted at large.

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

That ſignall place of Heb. 2. 17. in this kind, deſerves particularly to be taken notice of; Cap. 7 pag. 141. of his booke de Satisfactione, he pleads the ſenſe of that expreſſion, foreign, to be, foreign: 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: foreign, 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 foreign 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 cou…hed the whole Doctrine of the Socinians, about the Mediation of Chriſt, and our Iuſtification thereby, is utterly p. 9ignorant 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 urgendū 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, foreign: 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 foreign 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 p. 10he 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 foreign, to be foreign: liberatio à jugo peccati, to be redemptio à reatu peccati: Subire poenas ſimpliciter, to be ſubire paenas nobis debitas: to be foreign, and foreign 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) p. 11muneris 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 abſolutám que 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 foreign, as to ſay, ſemet obtulit patri. Beſides, though he do acknoledge elſewhere, that this victima was foreign, & foreign, yet he ſayes in another place (on ver: 3.) Sequitur Chriſtum quo que obtuliſſe proſe foreign; 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. foreign, he thus comments; foreign, Ʋt 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 28^th 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 p. 12other 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 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 p. 13that 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 cōmended to the care of foreign? and anſwers himſelfe, not that laſt part or volume of Annotations, but opus integrum, the whole volume or volumes that contained his foreign 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 p. 14in 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 ſol…; 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, foreign, ut & Symmachi & Theodoſionis, reſ…pondet que benè Haebraeo foreign, & Caldaeus habet foreign, & 70 foreign, 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: foreign.

On verſe 27, he addes aderam, id eſt, foreign, 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 foreign is rendred not amiſſe by the Chaldee foreign and the 70 foreign, 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 Creatiō: p. 15of the Son of God, the eſſentiall wiſdome of God, ſubſiſting with the father, we have not one words nor doth that Quotation out of Philo releive us in this buſineſſe at all. We know in what ſenſe he uſed the word foreign: 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 foreign ibi ego, which the vulgar renders aderam, with foreign 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. foreign: 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.

p. 162. 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 foreign, and affirmes all things to be made thereby; yet conſidering how carefull he is, of aſcribing an foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign, is threefold, foreign and foreign. The foreign or foreign is Chriſt, mentioned Iohn 1. 1. his perſonall or eternall ſubſiſtence, with his omnipotency, being there aſſerted. Whether Chriſt be ſo called any where 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 foreign Pſal. 33. 6. is to me alſo evident. foreign is better rendred foreign, or foreign, then foreign. 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 foreign 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 any where ſo called. foreign amongſt men is that which Ariſtotle calls foreign ſaies Heſichius. foreign is that which we ſpeake in our hearts, ſaies Damaſcen. de Orthod. fid. Lib. 1. cap. 18. So Pſalm 14. foreign. 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 foreign & melteth the Ice, and Pſal. 148. 8. the ſame word is uſed. In both which places the Septuagint renders it by foreign. This is that which is called foreign, Heb. 1. 2. and Heb. 11. 3. where the Apoſtle ſaies the heavens were p. 17made foreign: which is directly paralell to that place of 2 Pet. 3. 5. where it is expreſſed foreign: for though foreign more properly denotes foreign, 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 foreign. 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 which the Platonicks, and Philo with them harped on, nener once dreaming of a coeſſentiall and hypoſtaticall word of God, though the word foreign occurre amongſt them. This they thought was unto God, as in us, foreign or foreign. and particularly it is termed by Philo▪ foreign: de Agric. That this was his foreign is moſt evident: Hence he tells us foreign: de Mund. opific. and a little after, foreign. The whole tendency of his diſcourſe is, that the word of God, in his mind, in the creation of the world, was the image of himſelfe; and that the idea or image of the things to be made, but eſpecially of light. And whereas (if I remember aright, for I cannot now find the place) I have ſaid ſomewhere, that Chriſt was foreign, though therein I have the conſent of very many learned Divines, and uſed it meerly in oppoſition foreign; yet I deſire to recall it: nor doe I thinke there is any propriety in that expreſſion of foreign uſed of Chriſt, but only in thoſe of foreign and foreign, which the Scripture (though not in the very termes) will make good. In this ſecond acceptation, foreign, Photinus himſelfe granted that the world was made by the word of God. Now if it be thought neceſſary, that I ſhould give an account of my feare that nothing but foreign in this ſenſe decked with many Platonicall encomiums was intended in the Annotations on Ioh. 1. (though I confeſſe much from ſome quotations there uſed, may be ſaid againſt it) I ſhall readily undertake the Taske; but at preſent in this running Courſe, I ſhall adde no more.

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

If one Text acknowledged to aſſert Chriſts eternall Divinity (which one was granted to doe it, though not clearly,) will not ſuffice to conclude p. 18him no Socinian) which I ſaid not he was, yea expreſſely waved the management of any ſuch charge) If ſix verſes in the Proverbs, two in Iſaiah; one in St. Peter, one in St. Paul added to many in the beginning of St. Iohn, (In his Annotations on all which, he ſpeaks not one word to the purpoſe) will not yet amount to above one Text; or laſtly if that one may be doubted of alſo, which is by him interpreted to affirme Chriſts eternall ſubſiſtence with God before the Creation of the world (which he doth not ſo interpret, as to a perſonall ſubſiſtence) and that the whole world was created by him; I ſhall deſpaire of ever being a ſucceſſfull Advocate for any man; from which Condition I hope ſome little time will recover the Apologiſt.

This is the Summe of what is pleaded in cheife, for the defence of the Annotations: wherein what ſmall cauſe he hath to acquieſce, who hath been put to the labour and trouble of vindicating nere 40 Texts of Scripture in the old Teſtament, and new, giving expreſſe Teſtimony to the Deity of Chriſt from the Annotators perverſe interpretations, let the Reader judge. In the 13th Section of the Apologiſt's diſcourſe, he addes ſome other Conſiderations to confirme his former vindication of the Annotations.

1 He tells us, that he profeſſeth not to Divine, what places of the old Teſtament, wherein the Deity of Chriſt is evidently teſtified unto, are corrupted by the learned man, nor will he upon the diſcouragement already received make any inquiry into my Treatiſe.

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

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

That the word of God being all and every part of it of equall truth, that doctrine which is founded on five places of Divine writ; muſt by all Chriſtians be acknoledged to be as irrefragably confirmed, as an 100 expreſſe places would be conceived to confirme it.

Anſ. It is confeſſed, that not only five, but any one expreſſe Text of p. 19Scripture, is ſufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth. But that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by the Apologiſt for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about, is but pretended, indeed there is no ſuch thing. The Charge on Grotius was, that he had depraved all but one; if that be no crime, the defence was at hand; if it be, though that one ſhould be acknowledged to be clear to that purpoſe, here is no defence againſt that which was charged, but a ſtrife about that which was not. Let the places be conſulted, if the aſſertion prove true, by an induction of inſtances, the Crime is to be confeſſed, or elſe the charge denied to contain a crime: but

Secondly he ſaies, That this charge upon inquiry will be found in ſome degree, if not equally, chargeable on the learnedſt and moſt valued of the firſt Reformers, particularly upon Mr. Calvin himſelfe, who hath been as bitterly and injuſtly accuſed and reviled upon this account (witneſſe the booke intituled Calvino Turciſmus) as ever Eraſmus was by Bellarmine and Beza, or as probably Grotius may be.

Though this at the beſt be but a diverſion of the Charge, and no defence, yet not containing that truth which is needfull to countenance it, for the end for which it is propoſed; I could not paſſe it by. It is denied (which in this caſe untill further proofe muſt ſuffice) that any of the learnedſt of the firſt Reformers, (and particularly Mr. Calvin) are equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion with Grotius, as to the Crime inſiſted on. Calvin being the man inſtanced in, I deſire the Apologiſt to prove that he hath in all his Commentaries on the Scripture corrupted the ſenſe, of any Texts of the old Teſtament or new, giving expreſſe Teſtimony to the Deity of Chriſt, & commonly pleaded to that end & purpoſe. Although I deny not, but that he differs from the cōmon judgment of moſt, in the interpretation of ſome few propheticall paſſages, judged by them to relate to Chriſt. I know what Genebrard and ſome others of that faction, raved againſt him; but it was cheifly from ſome expreſſiōs in his inſtitutions about the Trinity (wherin yet he is acquitted by the moſt learned of themſelves) & not from his expoſitions of Scripture, for which they raiſed their Clamours. For the booke called Calvino Turciſmus, written by Reynolds and Giffard, the Apologiſt has forgotten the deſigne of it. Calvin is no more concerned in it, then 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 Apoſtaſyes of ſome of that profeſſion, that they compare it with Turciſme. Something indeed, in a chapter or two, they ſpeake about the Trinity, from ſome expreſſions of Luther, Melancton, Calvin and others: p. 20but as to Calvin's expoſitions of Scripture, they inſiſt not on them. Poſſibly the Apologiſt may have ſeen Pareus his Calvinus Orthodoxus, in an anſwer to Hunnius his Calvinus Judaizans; if not, he may at any time have there an account of this calumny.

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

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

There are ſundry other particulars inſiſted on by the Apologiſt, and a great deale of Rhetoricke is layd out about them; which certainly deſerves not the Readers trouble in the peruſall of any other debate about them. If they did, it were an eaſie matter to diſcover his miſtakes in them all along. The foundation of moſt of them, lies in that, which he affirmes Sect. 4. where he ſaies, that I thus ſtate the Jealouſies about H. G. as farr as it is owned by me, viz. that being in doctrine a Socinian, he yet cloſed in many things with the Romane intereſt. To which he replies, that this does not ſo much as pretend that he was a Papiſt.

As though I undertake to prove Grotius to be a Papiſt, or did not expreſſely diſowne the management of the Iealouſy, ſtated as above; or that p. 21I did at all owne it, all which are otherwiſe: yet I ſhall now ſay, whither Grotius ad nocentiſſimae haereſeos atque …frenis licentiae ſcyllam, iterum que ad tyrannidis charybdin declinavit fluctuans: Eſſen.he was in Doctrine a Socinian or no, let his Annotations before inſiſted on, determine: And whether he cloſed with the Romane intereſt or no, beſides what hath been obſerved by others, I deſire the Apologiſt to conſider his obſervation on Rev. 12. v. 5. that booke, (himſelfe being judge,) having received his laſt hand. But my buſineſſe is not to accuſe Grotius, or to charge his memory with any thing but his prevarication in his Annotations on the Scripture.

And as I ſhall not ceaſe to preſſe the generall Aphoriſme (as it is called) that no drunkard &c. nor any perſon whatever not borne of God or united to Chriſt the head, by the ſame Spirit that is in him, and in the ſenſe thereof, perfecting Holineſſe in the feare of God, ſhall ever ſee his face in glory, ſo I feare not what concluſion can regularly in reference to any perſon living or dead, be thence deduced.

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