« السابقةمتابعة »
salvation, and glory of God thereby, centered in his person and mediation, with its emanation from thence, through the efficacy of the eternal Spirit, and all our obedience to receive life, power, and vigour from thence only, knowing that it is the obedience of faith, and hath its foundation in blood and water; so I equally abhor all doctrines that would take self out of the dust, make something of that which is worse than nothing, and spin out matter for a web of peace and consolation from our own bowels, by resolving our acceptation with God into any thing in ourselves; and those, that by any means would intercept the efficacy of the death and cross of Christ from its work of perpetual and constant mortification in the hearts of believers; or cut off any obligation unto obedience or holiness, that by the discovery of the will of God, either in the law or gospel, is put upon the redeemed ones of the Lord.
Τὰς δὲ μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσι μάχας• 2 Tim. ii. 23.
ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS,
IN REFERENCE UNTO
THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY AND SATISFACTION OF CHRIST :
A DEFENCE OF THE CHARGE FORMERLY LAID AGAINST THEM.
ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.
HAVING in my late defence of the doctrine of the gospel, from the corruptions of the Socinians, been occasioned to vindicate the testimonies given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, from their exceptions, and finding that Hugo Grotius, in his Annotations, 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 book of his being more frequent in the hands of students, than those of the Socinians, I thought it incumbent on me, to do the same work in reference to those Annotations, which it was my design to perform 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 gospel hath been performed thereby, is left to the judgment of them who desire ἀληθεύειν ἐν ἀγάπη. Οf my dealing with Grotius I gave a brief account in my epistle to the governors of the university, 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 little advantage either to the repute of Grotius, as to the thing in question, or of the apologist himself, it is judged necessary to give the ensuing account for which I took the first leisure hour I could obtain, having things of greater weight, daily 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 witness to the Deity 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, lest his expres
sions therein, ought to be interpreted according to the analogy of what he had elsewhere delivered: of which afterward.
Because that which concerns the satisfaction of Christ will admit of the easiest despatch, though taking up most room, I shall in the first place insist thereon. The words of my charge on the Annotations, as to this 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, concealed 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 de fence 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,' says Quintilian: lib. 5. cap. de Refut. and extra hæc 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, ἤ ὡς οὐκ ἐστιν, ἤ, ὡς οὐ βλαβερὸν, ἤ οὐ τούτῳ, ἢ ὡς οὐ τηλικοῦτο, ἤ οὐκ ἂδικον, ἤ οὔ μέγα, ἤ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν, ἤ οὐκ exov péyε0oç. (Rhet. lib. iii. cap. 15.) all which in a plain 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 walk in. He tells us of the excellent book that Grotius wrote 'de Satisfactione Christi,' and the exposition of sundry places of Scripture, especially of divers verses of Isa. liii. given therein; and then adds sundry inducements to persuade us, that he was of the same mind in his Annotations. And this is called a defence of Grotius. The apologist, I suppose, knows full well, what texts of Scripture they are, that are constantly pleaded for the satisfaction of Christ, by them who do believe that doctrine. I shall also for once take it for granted, that he might with