A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 621
the imputations insinuated? but lie knew a better way of procedure, and who shall prescribe to him what suits his purpose and proposal? This, I say, is the instance chosen to be insisted on; and the vin- dication of the Annotations therein by the interpretation given in their author's book, De Satisfactione Christi, is proposed to con- sideration. That others, if not the apologist himself, may take notice of the emptiness of such precipitate apologies as are ready to be tumbled out without due digestion or consideration, I shall not only compare the Annotations and that book as to the particular place proposed, and manifest the inconsistency of the one with the other, but also, to discover the extreme negligence and confidence which lie at the bottom of his following attempt to induce a per- suasion that the judgment of the man of whom we speak was not altered (that is, as to the interpretation of the scriptures relating to the satisfaction of Christ), nor is other [i. e., different] in his Anno- tations than in that book, 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 inter- pretations given of them by himself in his book De Satisfactione, and directly taken up that which he did oppose.
The apologist binds me, in the first place, to that of Isa. liii., which is ushered in by 1 Pet. ii, 24.
" From 1 Pet. ii. 24," says the apologist, " Grotius informs 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 himself would grant it, — is little more than barely repeating the words. Grotius goes farther, and contends that avrivsyTnv, the word there used by the apostle, is to be interpreted " tulit sursum eundo, portavit ;" and tells its 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. ix. 28, where he says dviviyxiTv a/Mapriag signifies nothing but " auferre peccata," Grotius disproves that instance, and manifests that in that place also it is to be rendered by " tulit," and so relates to the death of Christ.
That we may put tbis instance, given us by the apologist to vindi- cate the Annotations from the crime charged on them, to an issue, I shall give the reader the words of his Annotations on that place. They are as follow: —
'O5 rag a/Mupriai ^/muv aurhg dvTiviyTCSv, etc. " 'Avrivsyxsv hic est ahatulit, quod sequentia ostendunt, quomodo idem verbum sumi notavimus, Heb, ix. 28, eodem sensu; ai^ii aiMapriav, Johan. i. 29;
622 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.
et ^5^^ et ???, Esa. liii. 4, ubi Grseci <pipsi. Vitia nostra ita inter- fecit, sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent. Simile loquendi genns, Col. ii. 14; vide Eom. vi, 6, Gal. ii. 20, v. 24. Est autem hie /Mi-dXn-^ig. Non euim propria Christus cum crucifigeretur vitia nostra abstulit, sed causas dedit per quas auferrentur. Nam crux Christi fundameutum est prsedicationis ; prsedicatio vero poenitentise : poenitentia 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 dv/inyxi is as much as " tulit " 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, 7^0^ used Isa. liii. 4, is called into the same signification, which in the book De Satisfactione he contends is never tised 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 prse- dicationis; prsedicatio vero poenitentise: poenitentia vero aufert vitia." He that sees not the whole Socinian poison wrapped up and pro- posed 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 him- self, which then he did oppose : — " Verum animadvertere oportet primum in Grseco, verbum, quod interpretes verterunt pertulit, est dvivsyxuv, quod non pertulit sed abstulit vertendum erat, non secus ac factum fuerit in epistola ad Hebrasos, cap, ix, 28, ubi idem legendi modus habetur, unde constat dviviyyuTv diMapriag non perferre peccata, sed peccata tollere, sive auferre, significare," Socin, de Jes. Christ. Serv. lib. ii. cap. vi.