A90286:39
A review of the annotations of Hugo Grotius, in reference unto the doctrine of…
A review of the annotations of Hugo Grotius, in reference unto the doctrine of the deity, and satisfaction of Christ. With a defence of the charge formerly laid against them. / By John Owen D.D.A review of the annotations of Hugo Grotius, in reference unto the doctrine of the deity, and satisfaction of Christ. With a defence of the charge formerly laid against them. / By Iohn Ovven D.D.
Oxford: printed by H. Hall. printer to the University for Thom. Robinson, 1656
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
(when in his Annotations on those places, Grotius not once mentions the Deity of Christ, nor any thing of him, nor hath occasion so to do, nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or purpose; but only to show that the Chaldee paraphrase, doth sundry times, when things are said to be done by God, render it, that they were done by the word of God) as instances to the prejudice of my Assertion, I cannot imagine.
(when in his Annotations on those places, Grotius not once mentions the Deity of Christ, nor any thing of him, nor hath occasion so to do, nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or purpose; but only to shew that the Chaldee paraphrase, doth sundry times, when things are said to be done by God, render it, that they were done by the word of God) as instances to the prejudice of my Assertion, I cannot imagine.
On that of Peter, 2 Epistle, 3. 5. [Greek or Hebrew]: he addes indeed, vide quae diximus ad initium Evangelii Johannis: but neither doth that place intend the natural Son of God, nor is it so interpreted by Grotius.
On that of Peter, 2 Epistle, 3. 5. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉: he addes indeed, vide quae diximus ad initium Evangelii Iohannis: but neither doth that place intend the naturall Son of God, nor is it so interpreted by Grotius.
To these he adds in the close, Col. 1. 16. in the exposition whereof in his Annotations, he expressly prevaricates, and goes of to the interpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions, which the Apologist well knew. Without farther search upon what hath been spoken, the Apologist gives in his Verdict concerning the falseness of my assertion before mentioned, of the Annotators speaking clear and home to the Deity of Christ but in one, if in one place of his Annotations: But