« PreviousContinue »
et signe et Sap, Esa. liii. 4, ubi Græci çépes
. Vitia nostra ita interfecit, sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent. Simile loquendi genus, Col. ii. 14; vide Rom. vi. 6, Gal. ii. 20, v. 24. Est autem hic μετάληψις. Νon enim proprie Christus cum crucifgeretur vitiα nostra abstulit, sed causas dedit per quas auferrentur. Nam crux Christi fundamentum est prædicationis; prædicatio vero pænitentiæ: pænitentia vero 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 avhvsyxe is as much as “tulit ανήνεγκε
or "sursum tulit," and objects out of Socinus that it must be “abstulit," which quite alters the sense of the testimony; here he contends, with him, that it must be
abstulit." 2. There, Heb. ix, 28 is of the same importance with this 1 Pet. ii. 24, as there interpreted; here, “as here,"—that is in a quite contrary sense, altogether inconsistent with the other. 3. For company, sap, used Isa. liii. 4, is called into the same signification, which in the book De Satisfactione he contends is never used in that sense, and that most truly. 4. Upon this exposition of the words he gives the very sense contended for by the Socinians: "Non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia nostra abstulit, sed causas dedit per quas auferrentur.” What are these causes? He adds them immediately: “Nam crux Christi fundamentum est prædicationis; prædicatio vero pænitentiæ: pænitentia vero aufert vitia." He that sees not the whole Socinian poison wrapped up and proposed in this interpretation is ignorant of the state of the difference as to that head between them and Christians. 5. To make it a little more evident how constant the annotator was to his first principles, which he insisted on in the management of his disputes with Socinus about the sense of this place, I shall add the words of Socinus himself, which then he did oppose :-" Verum animadvertere oportet primum in Græco, verbum, quod interpretes verterunt pertulit, est á veveyxew, quod non pertulit sed abstulit vertendum erat, non secus ac factum fuerit in epistola ad Hebræos, cap. ix. 28, ubi idem legendi modus habetur, unde constat dvsveyxes deju apoias non perferre peccata, sed peccata tollere, sive auferre, significare," Socin. de Jes. Christ, Serv. lib. ii. cap. vi.
What difference there is between the design of the annotator and that of Socinus, what compliance in the quotation of the parallel place of the Hebrews, what direct opposition and head is made in the Annotations against that book De Satisfactione, and how clearly the cause contended for in the one is given away in the other, need no farther to be demonstrated. But if this instance make not good the apologist's assertion, it may be supposed that that which follows, which is ushered in by this, will do it to the purpose. Let, then, that come into consideration.
This is that of Isa. liii. Somewhat of the sense which Grotius in his book De Satisfactione contends for in this place is given us by the apologist :
The 11th verse of the chapter, which he first considers in my book, p. 14), he thus proposes and expounds:-“Justificabit servus meus, justus multos et iniquitates ipsorum bajulabit, in Heb. est, Sap? niz onjiyn. Vox autem fiy iniquitatem significat, atque etiam iniquitatis pænam, 2 Reg. vii. 9; vox autem Sap est sustinere, bajulare, quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniquitatis, id in omni lingua et maxime in Hebraismo significat pænas ferre;" with much more to this purpose.
The whole design of the main dispute in that place is from that discourse of the prophet to prove that Jesus Christ “ properly underwent the punishment due to our sins, and thereby made satisfaction to God for them."
To manifest his constancy to this doctrine, in his Annotations he gives such an exposition of that whole chapter of Isaiah as is manifestly and universally inconsistent with any such design in the words as that which he intends to prove from them in his book De Satisfactione.
In particular (to give one instance of this assertion) he contends here that 520 is as much as “ bajulare, portare," and that
Sap joined with “iniquity” (in all languages, especially in the Hebrew), that phrase of “ bearing iniquity” signifies to undergo the punishment due to it. In his Annotations on the place, as also in those on 1 Pet. ii. 24, he tells you the word signifies“ auferre," which
. with all his strength he had contended against. Not to draw out this particular instance into any greater length, I make bold to tell the apologist (what I suppose he knows not) that there is no one verse of the whole chapter so interpreted in his Annotations as that the sense given by him is consistent with, nay, is not repugnant to, that which from the same verse he pleads for in his book De Satisfactione Christi. If, notwithstanding this information, the apologist be not satisfied, let him, if he please, consider what I have already animadverted on those Annotations, and undertake their vindication. These loose discourses are not at all to the purpose hand nor to the question between us, which is solely whether Grotius, in his Annotations, have not perverted the sense of those texts of Scripture which are commonly and most righteously pleaded as testimonies given to the satisfaction of Christ. But as to this particular place of Isaiah, the apologist hath a farther plea, the sum whereof (not to trouble the reader with the repetition of a discourse so little to the purpose) comes to this head, that Grotius, in his book De Satisfactione Christi, gives the mystical sense of the chapter, under which consideration it belongs to Christ and his sufferings; in his Annotations, the literal, which had its immediate completion in Jeremiah; which was not so easily discoverable or vulgarly taken
notice of. This is the sum of his first observation on this place, to acquit the annotator of the crime charged upon him. Whether he approve the application of the prophecy to Jeremiah or no, I know not. He says, “ Grotius so conceived." The design of the discourse seems to give approbation to that conception. How the literal sense of a place should come to be less easily discovered than the mystical, well I know not. Nor shall I speak of the thing itself, concerning the literal and mystical sense supposed to be in the same place and words of Scripture, with the application of the distinction to those prophecies which have a double accomplishment, in the type and thing or person typified (which yet hath no soundness in it): but, to keep to the matter now in hand, I shall make bold, for the removal of this engine applied by the apologist, and for the preventing all possible mistake or controversy about the annotator's after-change in this matter, to tell bim that the perverting of the first, literal 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 himself, is no less than blasphemy; which the annotator is no otherwise freed from but by his conceiving a sense to be in the words contrary to their literal importance, and utterly exclusive of the concernment of Jesus Christ in them. If the apologist be otherwise minded, I shall not invite him again to the consideration of what I have already written in the vindication of the whole prophecy from the wretched, corrupt interpretation of the annotator (not hoping that he will be able to break through that discouragement he hath from looking into that treatise by the prospect he hath taken of the whole by the epistle), but do express my earnest desire, that, by an exposition of the severals of that chapter, and their application to any other (not by loose discourses foreign to the question in hand), he would endeavour to evince the contrary. If, on second thoughts, he find either his judgment or ability not ready or competent for such an attempt, I heartily wish he would be careful hereafter of ingenerating apprehensions of that nature in the minds of others by any such discourses
I cannot but suppose that I am already absolved from a necessity of any farther procedure as to the justifying of my charge against the Annotations, having sufficiently foiled the instance produced by the apologist for the weakening of it. But yet, lest any should think that the present issue of this debate is built upon some unhappiness of the apologist in the choice of the particulars insisted on, which might have been prevented, or may yet be removed, by the production of other instances, I shall, for their farther satisfaction, present them with sundry other the most important testimonies given to the satisfaction of Christ, wherein the annotator hath openly prevaricated, and doth embrace and propose those very interpretations and
that very sense which in his book De Satisfactione Christi he had strenuously opposed.
Page 8 of his book De Satisfactione, he pleads the satisfaction of Christ from Gal. ii. 21, laying weight on this, that the word dwpscv 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 Servatore, lib. ii. cap. xxiv. His departure into the tents of Socinus on Gal. iii. 13 is much more pernicious. Pages 25–27, urging that place and vindicating it from the exceptions of Socinus, he concludes that the apostle said Christ was made a curse: “Quasi dixerit Christum factum esse 5ã Osų itinará parov, hoc est pænæ a Deo irrogatæ, et quidem ignominiosissimæ obnoxium.” To make good this, in his Annotations he thus expounds the words: “Duplex hic figura; nam et rarépa pro xará paros, quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis, et subauditur ws: nam Christus ita cruciatus est, quasi esset Deo xatáparos. Nihil homini pessimo in hac vita pejus evenire poterat;” which is the very interpretation of the words given by Socinus which he opposed, and the same that Crellius insists upon in his vindication of Socinus against him. So uniform was the judgment of the annotator with that of the author of the book De Satisfactione Christi !
Pages 32, 33, etc., are spent in the exposition and vindication of Rom. iii. 25, 26. That expression, sis čvotiğin tñs diravorurns aŭtoũ, manifesting the end of the suffering of Christ, is by him chiefly insisted
That by dixanovun is there intended that justice of God whereby he punisheth sin, he contends and proves from the nature of the thing itself, and by comparing the expression with other parallel texts of Scripture. Socinus had interpreted this of the righteousness of Christ's fidelity and veracity, De Servatore, lib. ii. cap. ii. (“ Ut ostenderet se veracem et fidelem esse"); but Crellius, in his vindication of bim, places it rather on the goodness and liberality of God, “which is," saith he, “the righteousness there intended." To make good his ground, the annotator thus expounds the meaning of the words: “ Vocem dixanorú vns malim hic de bonitate interpretari, quam de fide in promissis præstandis, quia quæ sequuntur non ad Judæos solos pertinent, sed etiam ad gentes, quibus promissio nulla facta erat.” He rather, he tells you, embraces the interpretation of Crellius than of Socinus; but for that which himself had oontended for, it is quite shut out of doors, as I have elsewhere manifested at large.
The same course he takes with Rom. v. 10, which he insists on p. 26, and 2 Cor. v. 18-21; concerning which he openly deserts his own former interpretation, and closes expressly 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 VOL. XII.
on those places seeming to be taken out of Socinus, Crellius, and some others of that party.
That signal place of Heb. ii. 17 in this kind deserves particularly to be taken notice of. Cap. vii. p. 141, of his book De Satisfactione, he pleads the sense of that expression, Εις το ιλάσχεσθαι τας αμαρτίας του λαού, to be “Ιλάσχεσθαι Θεόν περί των αμαρτιών, and adds, “Signifcat ergo ibi expiationem quæ fit placando.” But Crellius' defence of Socinus had so possessed the man's mind before he came to write his Annotations, that on that place he gives us directly his sense, and almost his words, in a full opposition to what he had before asserted: "'Il.doxsodai dpaprias. Hoc quidem loco, ut ex sequentibus apparet, est auferre peccatu, sive purgare a peccato, id est, efficere ne peccetur, vires suppeditando pro modo tentationum.” So the annotator on that place, endeavouring farther to prove his interpretation! From Rom. iv. 25, cap. i. p. 47 of his book De Satisfactione,
i. he clearly proves the satisfaction of Christ, and evinces that to be the sense of that expression, "Traditus propter peccata nostra;" which he thus comments on in his Annotations: “Poterat dicere qui et mortuus est et resurrexit ut nos a peccatis justificaret, id est, liberaret. Sed amans ávsidera morti conjunxit peccata, quæ sunt mors animi, resurrectioni autem adeptionem justitiæ, quæ est animi resuscitatio. Mirè nos et a peccatis retrahit et ad justitiam ducit, quod videmus Christum mortem non formidasse pro doctrinæ suæ peccatis contrariæ et ad justitiam nos vocantis testimonio; et a Deo suscitatum, ut eidem doctrinæ summa conciliaretur auctoritas.” He that sees not, not only that he directly closes in with what before he had opposed, but also that he hath here couched the whole doctrine of the Socinians about the mediation of Christ and our justification thereby, is utterly ignorant of the state of the controversy between them and Christians.
I suppose it will not be thought necessary for me to proceed with the comparison instituted. The several books are in the hands of most students, and that the case is generally the same in the other places pleaded for the satisfaction of Christ, they may easily satisfy themselves. Only, because the apologist seems to put some difference between his Annotations on the Revelation, as having “received their lineaments and colours from his own pencil," and those on the Epistles, which he had not so completed; as I have already manifested that in his annotations on that book he hath treacherously tampered 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 less unworthily with those that concern his satisfaction.
Socinus, in his second book against Covet, second part, and chap. xvii., gives us this account of these words of the Holy Ghost, Rev. i. 5, “Who loved us,
and washed us from our sins in his own blood :" "Jo