I cannot but suppose that I am already absolved from a necessity of any farther procedure, as to the justifying 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 Swpeàv, 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. 2. cap. 24. His departure into the tents of Socinus on Gal. iii. 13. is much more pernicious, p. 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 τῷ Θεῷ ἐπικατάρατον : hoc est pœnæ a Deo irrogatæ, et quidem ignominiosissimæ obnoxium.' To make good this, in his Annotations, he thus expounds the words; duplex hic figura; nam et κατάρα pro κατάρατος, quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis: et subauditur ç: nam Christus ita cruciatus est, quasi esset Deo кaráρarоç, quo 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, &c. are spent in the exposition and vindication of Rom. iii. 25, 26. that expression siç vdeiživ tñs diκαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, manifesting the end of the suffering of Christ, is by him chiefly insisted on. That by dialoσúvŋ is δικαιοσύνη there intended that justice of God, whereby he punisheth

sin, he contends and proves from the nature of the thing itself, and comparing the expression with other parallel texts of Scripture; Socinus had interpreted this of the righteousness of Christ's fidelity and veracity, lib. 2. 'de Servatore,' cap. 2. (ut ostenderet se veracem et fidelem esse);' but Crellius in his vindication 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 Sikaloσúvnç 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 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 on those places, seeming to be taken out of Socinus, Crellius, and some others of that party.

6

That signal place of Heb. ii. 17. in this kind, deserves particularly to be taken notice of; cap. 7. p. 141. of his book 'de Satisfactione,' he pleads the sense of that expression, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, to be ἱλάσκεσθαι Θεὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν : and adds, significat ergo ibi expiationem quæ fit placando:' But Crellius's 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: ἱλάσκεσθαι ἁμαρτίας, ' hoc quidem loco, ut ex sequentibus apparet, est auferre peccata, 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. last, 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 mortuus est, et resurrexit ut nos a peccatis justificaret, id est, liberaret. Sed amans avrilera morti conjunxit peccata, quæ sunt mors animi, resurrectioni autem adeptionem justitiæ, quæ est animi resuscitatio: mire nos et a peccatis retrahit et ad justitiam ducit: quod videmus Christum mortem non formidasse pro doctrina sua peccatis contraria, et ad justitiam nos vocanti testimonio ; et a Deo suscitatum, ut eidem doctrinæ summa conciliaretur authoritas.' 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 Revelations (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. 17. gives us this account of those words of the Holy Ghost, Rev. i. 5. who hath loved us, and washed us in his own blood: Johannes in Apocalyp. chap. i. 5. alia metaphora seu translatione (quæ nihil aliud est quam compendiosa quædam comparatio), utens, dixit de Christo et ejus morte, qui dilexit nos et lavit nos a peccatis in sanguine suo, nam quemadmodum aqua abluuntur sordes corporis, sic sanguine Christi, peccata, quæ sordes animi sunt absterguntur. Absterguntur, inquam, quia animus noster ab ipsis mundatur,' &c. This interpretation is opposed and exploded by Grotius, lib. 'de Satis.' c. 10. pp. 208, 209. The

mos.

substance of it being, that Christ washed us from our sins by his death, in that he confirmed his doctrine of repentance and newness of life thereby, by which we are turned from our sins; as he manifests in the close of his discourse: 'hoc sæpius urgendum est,' saith Socinus, 'Jesum Christum ea ratione peccata nostra abstulisse, quod effecerit, ut a peccando desistamus.' This interpretation of Socinus, being reinforced by Crellius, the place falls again under the consideration of Grotius, in those Annotations on the Revelations; which as the apologist tell us, received their very lineaments and colours from his own pencil. There then he gives us this account thereof, καὶ λούσαντι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὑτοῦ· Sanguine suo, id est, morte tolerata, certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quæ docuerat, quæ talia sunt, ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos a vitiis aniHumidæ naturæ, sub qua est sanguis, proprium est lavare. Id vero per egregiam åλλnyoρíav ad animum transfertur. Dicitur autem Christus suo sanguine nos lavisse; quia et ipse omnia præstitit quæ ad id requirebantur et apparet secutum in plurimis effectum.' I desire the apologist to tell me what he thinks of this piece thus perfected, with all its lineaments and colours, by the pencil of that skilful man; and what beautiful aspect he supposeth it to have. Let the reader, to prevent farther trouble in perusing transcriptions of this kind, consider Rev. xiii. 8. p. 114. Heb. ix. 25. to the end; which he calls an illustrious place in the same page and forward; 1 John ii. 2. p. 140. Rom. v. 10, p. 142, 143. Eph. ii. 16. p. 148, 149. Col. i. 20–22. Tit. P. 156. Heb. ix. 14, 15. p. 157, 158. Acts xx. 28. and many others; and compare them with the Annotations on those places, and he will be farther enabled to judge of the defence made of the one, by the instance of the other; I shall only desire that he who undertakes to give his judgment of this whole matter, be somewhat acquainted with the state of the difference, about this point of the doctrine of the gospel, between the Socinians and us; that he do not take auferre peccata,' to be 'ferre peccata;? 'nostri causa,' to be nostra vice,' and nostro loco: causa προεγουμένη, to be προταρκτική : libe ratio a jugo peccati,' to be 'redemptio a reatu peccati :'' su bíre pœnas simplicitur,' to be 'subire pœnas nobis debitas: to be λúrpov, and Dwx in respect of the event, to be so as to

11.

14.

the proper nature of the thing; 'offerre seipsum in cœlo,' to be as much as offerre seipsum in cruce,' as to the work itself; that so he be not mistaken to think that, when the first are granted, that the latter are so also. For a close of the discourse relating to this head, a brief account may be added, why I said not positively, that he had wrested all the places of Scripture giving testimony to the satisfaction of Christ, to another sense; but that he had either done so, or else concealed or obscured that sense in them.

Though I might give instances from one or two places in his Annotations on the Gospels, giving occasion to this assertion, yet I shall insist only on some taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews, where is the great and eminent seat of the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction. Although in his Annotations on that Epistle, he doth openly corrupt the most clear testimonies given to this truth, yet there are some passages in them, wherein he seems to dissent from the Soci ́nians. In his Annotations on chap. v. 5. he hath these words; 'Jesus quidem sacerdotale munus suum aliquo modo erat auspicatus; cum semet patri victimam offerret.' That Christ was a priest when he was on the earth, was wholly denied by Socinus, both in his book 'de Servatore,' and in his Epistle to Niemojevius, as I have shewed elsewhere. Smalcius seems to be of the same judgment in the Racovian catechism. Grotius says, 'Sacerdotale munus erat aliquo modo auspicatus ;' yet herein he goes not beyond Crellius, who tells us mortem Christus subiit duplici ratione, partim quidem ut fœderis mediator seu sponsor, partim quidem ut sacerdos, Deo ipsum oblaturus: de Causis mortis Christi,' p. 6. And so Volkelius, fully to the same purpose; Partes' saith he, muneris sacerdotis, hæc sunt potissimum; mactatio victimæ, in tabernaculum ad oblationem peragendam, ingressio, et ex eodem egressio: Ac mactatio quidem mortem Christi, violentam sanguinis profusionem continet: De Relig. lib. 3. cap. 47. p. 145. and again: 'Hinc colligitur solam Christi mortem nequaquam illam perfectam absolutamque ipsius oblationem (de qua in Epistola ad Hebræos agitur) fuisse, sed principium et præparationem quandam ipsius sacerdotii in cælo demum administrandi extitisse,' ibid. So that nothing is obtained by Grotius's 'munus sacerdotale aliquo modo erat auspicatus,' but what is granted