I cannot but suppose that I am already absolved from a necessity of any farther procedure as to the justifying of ray 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 produc- tion 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 prevari- cated, and doth embrace and propose those very interpretations and
A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 625
that very sense which in his book De Satisfactione Christi he had strenuously opposed.
Page S of his book De Satisfactione, he pleads the satisfaction of Christ from Gal. ii. 21, laying weight on this, that the word dupsdv signifies the ivant 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. IS is much more pernicious. Pages 25-27, urging that place and vindicat- ing it from the exceptions of Socinus, he concludes that the apostle said Christ was made a curse: " Quasi dixerit Christum factum esse rCj &e(Z sTixardparov, hoc est poenas a Deo irrogatse, et quidem igno- miniosissimge obnoxium." To make good this, in his Annotations he thus expounds the words : " Duplex hie figura ; nam et xardpa pro xardparog, quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis, et subauditur ws: nam Christus ita cruciatus est, quasi esset Deo xardparog. Nihil homini pessirao 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 unifonn was the judgment of the annotator with that of tlie author of the book De Satisfactione Christi !
Pages 32, S3, etc., are spent in the exposition and vindication of Rom. iii. 25, 26. That expression, s/g 'ivdn^iv r^g hiKuioaxivrig ahroZ, mani- festing the end of the suffering of Christ, is by him chiefly insisted on. That by btxaiocvvn 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 os- tenderet se veracem et fidelem esse"); but Crellius, in his vindica- tion of him, 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 hixaioevn^g malim hie de honitate interpretari, quam de fide in promissis prwstandis, quia quae sequuntur non ad Judgeos solos pertinent, sed etiam ad gentes, quibus promissio nulla facta erat." He rather, he tells you, embraces the interpretation of Crel- lius than of Socinus; but for that which himself had contended 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. 40
626 A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.
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, E/'s rh ixdsxsgdai rag afiapriag rou Xaov, to he'lXdexsadai Qsov -Trtpl ruiv a,wapTioov, and adds, " Significat ergo ibi expiationem quse 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: " 'iXdaxsaOai dfiapriag. Hoc quidem loco, ut ex sequentibus apparet, est cmferre peccata, sive purgare a peccato, id est, efficere ne peccetur, vires suppeditando pro modo tentationum." So the an- notator on that place, endeavouring farther to prove his interpreta- tion! From Rom. iv. 25, cap. i. p. 47 of his book 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 dicere qui et nior- tuus est et resurrexit ut nos a peccatis justificaret, id est, liberaret. Sed amans dv-ikra morti conjunxit peccata, quae sunt mors animi, resurrectioni autem adeptionem justitice, quae est animi resuscitatio. Mirfe nos et a peccatis retrahit et ad justitiam ducit, quod videmus Christum mortem non formidasse pro doctrinse su^ peccatis contrarise et ad justitiam nos vocantis testimonio; et a Deo suscitatum, ut eidem doctrinjB 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.