No XXXVI.

On the Theological Writings of Grotius.

FOR THE RUMINATOR.

66

SIR,

You may, perhaps, remember to have heard, in your earlier days, the vulgar proverb, give a dog an ill name and hang him." Like most other popular maxims it has its foundation in truth; and the qualities imputed to men as well as dogs do not, in general, so much depend upon realities, a upon casual report; or, according to the elegant expression of Horace, arbitrio popularis auræ. The converse also of this proposition is equally true, and it is usually found that when a man has acquired a great reputation the world is sufficiently disposed to acquiesce in it, and not only to allow him the merit which he really has, but to ascribe to him also that which he has not. The magni nominis umbra, (if I may so apply it) becomes a covering for ignorance and presumption, and sometimes even for folly; for the greater part of the world are not capable of distinguishing between false and true pretensions; and those who

are, either are afraid of popular clamour, or think that error will at length be discovered without their assistance.

I ain almost afraid to usher in by these observations the venerable name of Grotius. "Is Grotius," it will be said, "liable to these imputations; Grotius to whom all Europe is so indebted, to whom the cause of revealed religion owes so much; Grotius, the statesman, the soldier, the civilian, and the theologian?" Had he not been a theologian, there would have been no cause for this caution concerning him; but notwithstanding the depth of his learning, the excellency of his moral character, and the sincerity of his belief, of which I am firmly persuaded, I cannot help thinking that it will admit of a doubt whether he has not done more harm than good to the Christian religion. So great is the authority of his name, and so high his character, that even among divines there is scarcely allowed an appeal from his decision; and there is hardly to be found a single work, relating to scriptural subjects, in which Grotius is not quoted. One reason for this high opinion of his judgment is, that he was not of the clerical order; for, strange as it may seem, there exists a strong prejudice in the world in favour of lay writers on divinity. Yet would a commentary on the laws carry more weight with it because written by a clergyman, or a treatise on

physic because written by a lawyer? If not, why should it be supposed that a layman can write, in a more instructive and convincing manner than a clergyman can do, upon the very subject which he has made the chief study of his life?

The principal, if not the only theological works of Grotius, are his voluminous commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, and a small treatise "On the Truth of the Christian Religion." Both these are written in good Latin, but the former is liable to many objections. One of the greatest of these arises from the too great regard which he pays to Talmudic fables and Talmudic interpretations, which may be productive of very bad consequences to the incautious. It was obviously the view of the later Jews to insert in their Talmuds such interpretations of the scriptures as might justify their rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. For this reason they appropriated a great number of the most striking prophecies which were fulfilled by different circumstances of the life of Jesus, to David, Hezekiah, Zerubbabel, Judas Maccabæus, and others, rejecting, for the most part, all typical and sccondary applications. And in this unfair and erroneous manner of interpreting prophecy, Grotius generally agrees with them, and quotes these writings as authority; although none of them were extant prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and

some of them even disagree with their oldest Targums, of which that of Jonathan, at least, was published before the coming of Christ.

Misled in this manner, even one of the clearest as well as most celebrated prophecies, contained in the fifty-second and fifty-third chapters of Isaiah, Grotius applies almost wholly to the prophet Jeremiah; nor does he ever mention the name of Christ in his notes on it, but in the first verse of the fiftythird chapter, when he says "Hæ notæ in Jeremiam congruunt prius, sed potius in Christum," and then proceeds to explain the whole chapter as relating to Jeremiah. And this is the more extraordinary, as in his book on the Truth of the Christian Religion, published afterwards, he expressly affirms that this prophecy can agree to no one but to Christ.1

But the limits of this paper will not admit of all the passages being pointed out in which this eminent scholar contradicts himself. His work on the Truth of the Christian Religion, which was written subsequent to his Commentaries, is much more valuable than they are. It has always been much and deservedly esteemed as an excellent manual, urging in a clear, forcible, easy, and popular style, the

1 Quis potest nominari aut regum, aut prophetarum in quem hæc congruunt? Nemo sane. De Veritat, Lib. V. 19.

principal arguments which establish the certainty of the divine origin of the religion of Christ; and many of these are such as he does not allow in his Commentaries to relate to him. In the fifth book of this work he mentions a very remarkable anecdote which has puzzled all his various editors, as he quotes no authority for it. He says, in speaking of the time foretold by Daniel, for the appearance of the Messiah, that it agreed so exactly with the coming of Christ, that a Jewish doctor, named Nehumias, who lived about fifty years before the birth of our Lord, said that it was impossible that the coming of the Messiah could be delayed more than fifty years from that time. Leclerc observes, in a note, that Grotius ought to have mentioned from whence he had this story; but he thinks, that in one of his letters to his brother, he says, that he was told it by a Jew. Dr. Jenkins, however, in his book "On the Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion," fifth edition, says, that Grotius took it from the Talmud, and he also refers for it to "Surrav. Epist." a work with which I am entirely unacquainted. If, however, it had been in either of the Talmuds, it would hardly have escaped the researches of the learned as well as industrious Dr. Lightfoot, who makes no allusion to it. Yet it is surprising that neither Leclerc, nor his translator, Dr. Clark, should know