« السابقةمتابعة »
out much difficulty, have obtained a sight of Grotius's 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 But the severals of his plea for the Annotations in this particular, I am persuaded are accounted by some, worthy consideration; a brief view of them will suffice.
The signal place of Isa liii. 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 himself), as that wherein his Annotations are most suspected; therefore on that he will fasten awhile. Who would not now expect that the apologist should have entered 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 proposal?
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's book 'de Satisfactione Christi' is proposed to consideration. That others, if not the apologist himself, may take notice of the emptiness of such cipitate apologies, as are ready to be tumbled out, without due digestion or consideration, I shall not only compare the Annotations and that bock 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 persuasion, 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 others [different] in his Annotations, 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 interpretations 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 the 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 avýveyKev 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. ix. 28. where he says åvnvɛykeiv åμapTías 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 this instance given us by the apologist, to vindicate the Annotations from the crime charged on them to an issue, I shall give the reader the words of his Annotations on that place: it is as follows:
Ος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν, &c.] ἀνήνεγκεν ‘hic est, abstulit, quod sequentia ostendunt, quomodo idem verbum sumi notavimus,' Heb. ix. 28. eodem sensu' aipa áμapTíav, John i. 29. et NW et 3D Isa. liii. 4. ubi Græci' pépe 'vitia nostra ita interfecit, sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent. Simile loquendi genus, Col. ii. 14. vide Rom. vi. 6. Gal. ii. 20. 24. 'est autem hic μɛráλnis; non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur, vitia nostra abstulit. Sed causas dedit per quas auferrerentur. Nam crux Christí fundamentum est prædicationis; prædicatio vero pœnitentiæ, pœnitentia 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 άvývуke 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. here, Heb. ix. 28. is of the same importance with this Pet. ii. 24. as there interpreted: here, as here; that is in quite contrary sense, altogether inconsistent with the
3. For company used Isa. liii. 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 auferrerentur:' what are these causes; he adds them immediately, 'Nam crux Christi fundamentum est prædicationis, prædicatio vero pœnitentiæ, pœnitentia 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 avηveykɛv, 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 avnveyket̃v åμaprias non perferre peccata, sed peccata tollere, sive auferre, significare.' Socin. de Jes. Christ. Serv. lib. 2. cap. 6.
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; needs no farther to be demonstrated. But if this instance makes 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 eleventh 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 ha
iniqui עון vox autem ועונתם הוא יסבל :julabit, in Heb. est
tatem significat, atque etiam iniquitatis pœnam, 2 Reg. vii. 9. vox autem est sustinere, bajulare, quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniquitatis, id in omni lingua et maxime in Hebraismo significat pœnas 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 Isa. liii. 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, is as much as 'bajulare, portare,' and that 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 verses 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 in hand, nor 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 consi
deration, 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, for the preventing all possible mistake, or controversy about the annotator's after-charge in this matter, to tell him, 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 (nor 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 as this.