by Crellius and Volkelius. But in the next words, 'cum semet offerret patri victimam,' he seems to leave them; but he seems only so to do. For Volkelius acknowledgeth that he did slay the sacrifice in his death, though that was not his complete and perfect oblation, which is also afterward affirmed by Grotius; and Crellius expressly affirms the same. Nor doth he seem to intend a proper, expiatory, and satisfactory sacrifice in that expression; for if he had, he would not have been guilty of such an akupoλoyía, as to say, 'semet obtulit patri.' Besides, though he do acknowledge elsewhere, that this victima' was DWN, and vπéρ åμaρtiõv, yet he says in another place, (on ver. 3.) 'Sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse pro se vπèo àμаprov" giving thereby such ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν a sense to that expression, as is utterly inconsistent with a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin. And which is yet worse, on chap. ix. 14. he gives us such an account why expiation is ascribed to the blood of Christ, as is a key to his whole interpretation of that epistle: Sanguini,' saith he, 'purgatio ista tribuitur: quia per sanguinem, id est, mortem Christi, secuta ejus excitatione et evectione, gignitur in nobis fides, quæ deinde purgat corda.' And therefore, where Christ is said to offer himself by the eternal Spirit, he tells us, 'Oblatio Christi hic intelligitur illa, quæ oblationi legali in adyto factæ respondet, ea autem est, non oblatio in altari crucis facta, sed in adyto cælesti:' So that the purgation of sin is an effect of Christ's presenting himself in heaven only; which how well it agrees with what the apostle says, chap. i. 3. the reader will easily judge. And to manifest that this was his constant sense, on those words, ver. 26. ɛiç ádéτησιν ἁμαρτίας, διὰ τῆς θυσιάς αὐτοῦ, he thus comments: εἰς álérnoi àμaprías Ut peccatum in nobis extinguatur; fit ἀθέτησιν autem hoc per passionem Christi, quæ fidem nobis ingenerat, quæ corda purificat.' Christ confirming his doctrine by his death, begets faith in us, which doth the work. Of the 28th verse of the same chapter, I have spoken before. The same he affirms again, more expressly, on chap. x. 3. and verses 9. 12. he interprets the oblation of Christ, whereby he took away sin, to be the oblation or offering himself in heaven, whereby sin is taken away by sanctification, as also in sundry other places, where the expiatory sacrifice of Christ

on earth, and the taking away of the guilt of sin by satisfaction, is evidently intended. So that notwithstanding the concession mentioned, I cannot see the least reason to alter my thoughts of the Annotations, as to this business in hand.

Not farther to abound in causa facili, in all the differences we have with the Socinians, about Christ's dying for us, concerning the nature of redemption, reconciliation, mediation, sacrifice, the meaning of all the phrases and expressions, which in those things are delivered to us, the annotator is generally on the apostate side throughout his Annotations; and the truth is, I know no reason why our students should with so much diligence and charge, labour to get into their hands the books of Socinus, Crellius, Smalcius, and the rest of that crew, seeing these Annotations, as to the most important heads of Christian religion, about the Deity, sacrifice, priesthood, and satisfaction of Christ, original sin, free will, justification, &c. afford them the substance and marrow of what is spoken by them; so that as to these heads, upon the matter, there is nothing peculiar to the annotator, but the secular learning which in his interpretations he hath curiously and gallantly interweaved. Plautus makes sport in his Amphitruo with several persons, some real, some assumed, of such likeness one to another, that they could not discern themselves by any outward appearance; which caused various contests and mistakes between them. The Poet's fancy raised not a greater similitude between Mercury and Sosia, being supposed to be different persons, than there is a dissimilitude between the author of the book 'de Satisfactione Christi,' and of the Annotations, concerning which we have been discoursing, being one and the same. was the contest of those different persons so like one another, so irreconcilable, as are these of this single person, so unlike himself in the several treatises mentioned. And I cannot but think it strange, that the apologist could imagine no surer measure to be taken of Grotius's meaning in his Anno tations than his treatise of the 'Satisfaction of Christ' doth afford, there being no two treatises that I know, of any different persons whatever, about one and the same subject, that are more at variance. Whether now any will be persuaded by the apologist to believe, that Grotius was constant

Nor

in his Annotations to the doctrine delivered in that other treatise, I am not solicitous.

For the reinforced plea of the apologist, that these Annotations were not finished by him, but only collections that he might after dispose of, I am not concerned in it; having to deal with that book of Annotations that goes under his name; if they are none of his, it is neither on the one hand or other, of any concernment unto me. I say not this, as though the apologist had in the least made good his former. plea, by his new exceptions to my evidence against it, from the printer's preface to the volume of Annotations on the Epistles. He says, 'what was the opus integrum that was commended to to the care of ô deiva?' and answers himself, 'not that last part or volume of Annotations, but opus integrum, the whole volume or volumes that contained his ȧvékdoтa adversaria on the New Testament.' For how ill this agrees with the intention and words of the prefacer, a slight inspection will suffice to manifest. He tells us, that Grotius had himself published his Annotations on the Gospels, five years before; that at his departure from Paris, he left a great part of this volume (that is this on the Acts and Epistles) with a friend; that the reason why he left not opus integrum that is, the whole volume, with him, was because the residue of it was not so written, as that an amanuensis could well understand it. That therefore in his going towards Sweden, he wrote that part again with his own hand, and sent it back to the same person (that had the former part of the volume committed to him) from Hamburgh. If the apologist read this preface, he ought, as I suppose to have desisted from the plea insisted on. If he did not, he thought assuredly he had much reason to despise them, with whom he had to do. But as I said, herein am I not concerned.

The consideration of the charge on the Annotations, relating to their tampering with the testimonies given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, being another head of the whole, may now have place.

The sum of what is to this purpose by me affirmed, is, that in the Annotations on the Old and New Testament, Grotius hath left but one place giving testimony clearly to the Deity of Christ. To this assertion I added both a limitation, and also an enlargement, in several respects. A limitation that

I could not perceive he had spoken of himself, clearly on that one place. On supposition that he did so, I granted that perhaps one or two places more, might accordingly be interpreted. That this one place is John i. 1. I expressly affirmed; that is the one place wherein, as I say, he spake not home to the business. The defence of the apologist in the behalf of Grotius, consists of sundry discourses. First, to disprove that he hath left more than that one of John free from the corruption charged; he instances in that one of John i. 1. wherein as he saith, he expressly asserts the Deity of Christ: but yet wisely foreseeing, that this instance would not evade the charge, having been expressly excepted (as to the present inquiry), and reserved to farther debate; he adds the places quoted by Grotius in the exposition of that place; as Prov. viii. 21-27. Isa. xlv. 12. xlviii. 13. 2 Pet. iii. 5. Col. i. 16. from all which he concludes, that the Annotations have left more testimonies to the Deity of Christ untampered withal and unperverted, than my assertion will allow; reckoning them all up again, section the 10th, and concluding himself a successful advocate in this case, or at least under a despair of ever being so in any, if he acquit not himself clearly in this. If his failure herein be evinced by the course of his late writings, himself will appear to be most concerned; I suppose, then, that on the view of this defence, men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeated, and mustered a second time by the apologist, Grotius does give their sense as bearing witness to the Deity of Christ. Others may be pleased to take it for granted without farther consideration; for my part being a little concerned to inquire, I shall take the pains to turn to the places, and give the reader a brief account of them.

For Prov. viii. his first note on the wisdom there spoken of is; Hæc de ea sapientia quæ in lege apparet exponunt Hæbræi, et sane ei, si non soli, at præcipue hæc attributa conveniunt.' Now if the attributes here mentioned, agree either solely or principally to the wisdom that shines in the law, how they can be the attributes of the person of the eternal Son of God, I see not. He adds no more to that purpose, until he comes to the 22d verse, the verse of old contested about with the Arians. His words on that are: Græcum Aquilæ, est, Kréσaró μɛ, ut et Symmachi et Theo

dosionis, respondetque, bene Hæbræo p, et Chaldæus habet , et LXX. EKTIσɛ, sensu non malo, si creare sumas pro facere ut appareat: viæ Dei sunt operationes ipsius; sensum hujus loci et sequentium non male exprimas cum Philone de Colomis ; ὁ λογὸς ὁ πρεσβύτερος τῶν γένεσιν εἰληφώτων, οὗ καθάπερ οἴακος ἐνειλημένος ὁ τῶν ὅλων γυβερνήτης πεδαλιουχεῖ τὰ σύμπαντα, καὶ ὅτε ἐκοσμοπλαστει χρησάμενος ὀργάνῳ τούτῳ πρὸς τὴν ἀνυπαίτιον τῶν ἀποτελουμένων σύστασιν.

On verse 27, he adds ‘aderam, id est, ñv πpòc ròv Oeòv, ut infra John Evang. i. 1.' What clear and evident tesimony by this exposition is left in this place to the Deity of Christ, I profess myself as ignorant as I was before I received this direction by the apologist. He tells us, that p is rendered not amiss by the Chaldee П, and the LXX. EKTIGE, though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arians, and exploded. by the ancient doctors of the church. To relieve this concession, he tells us that creare,' may be taken for 'facere ut appareat,' though there be no evidence of such a use of the word in Scripture, nor can he give any instance thereof. The whole interpretation runs on that wisdom that is a property of God, which he manifested in the works of creation: of the Son of God, the essential wisdom of God, subsisting with the Father, we have not one word: nor doth that quotation out of Philo relieve us in this business at all. We know in what sense he used the word ó λóyos; how far he and the Platonics, with whom in this expression he consented, were from understanding the only begotten Son of God, is known. If this of Philo has any aspect towards the opinion of any professing themselves Christians, it is towards that of the Arians, which seems to be expressed therein. And this is the place chosen by the apologist to disprove the assertion of none being left, under the sense given them by the Annotations, bearing clear testimony to the Deity of Christ; his comparing ibi ego, which the Vulgar renders 'aderam,' with v πpòs ròv Oɛòv, seems rather to cast a suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of the Evangelist, than in the least to give testimony to the Deity of Christ in this. If any one be farther desirous to be satisfied, how many clear unquestionable evidences of the Deity of Christ are slighted by these Annotations on this chapter, let him consult my vindication