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.  
OXFORD, Printed by H. HALL, Printer to the UNIVERSITY, for THOM. ROBINSON. 1656.   

A second Consideration of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius.  
HAving in my late defence of the doctrine of the gospel, from the corruptions of the Socinians, been occasioned to vindicate the testimonies given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, from their exceptions, and finding that Hugo Grotius in his Annotatios had (for the most part) done the same things with them, as to that particular, and some other important Articles of the Christian faith, that book of his being more frequent in the hands of Students, than those of the Socinians, I thought it incumbent on me, to do the same work in reference to those Annotations, which it was my design to perform towards the writings of Socinus, Smalcius, and their companions and followers. What I have been enabled to accomplish by that endeavour, with what service to the gospel hath been performed thereby, is left to the judgement of them who desire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Of my dealing with Grotius I gave a brief account in my Epistle to the governors of the university, and that with reference to an Apology made for him, not long before. This hath obtained a new Apology under the name of a second defence of Hugo Grotius; with what little advantage either to the repute of Grotius, as to the thing in Question, or of the Apologist himself, it is judged necessary to give the ensueing account: for which I took the first leisure hour I could obtain, having things of greater weight, daily incumbent on me. The only thing of importance by me charged on those Annotations of Grotius, was this; that the Texts of Scripture both in the Old Testament and New, bearing witness to the deity, and Satisfaction of Christ, are in them wrested to other senses and significations, and the Testimonies given to those grand truths, thereby eluded. Of those of the first kind I excepted one, yet with some doubt, lest his expressions therein, aught to be interpreted according to the Analogy of what he had elsewhere delivered: of which afterwards.  
Because that which concerns the Satisfaction of Christ will admit of the easiest dispatch, though taking up most room, I shall in the first place insist thereon. The words of my charge on the Annotations, as to this head of the doctrine of the Scripture are these. The condition of these famous Annotations as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same. Not one Text in the whole Scripture, wherein Testimony is given to that sacred truth, which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the Doctrine in it, concealed and obscured by them.  
This being a matter of fact, and the words containing a crime charged on the Annotations, he that will make a defence of them, must either disprove the Assertion by instances to the contrary, or else granting the matter of fact, evince it to be no crime. That which is objected in matter of fact, aut negandum est aut defendendum, says Quintilian: lib. 5. cap. de refut: and extra haec in judiciis fere nihil est. In other cases, Patronus, neget, defendat, transferat, excuset, deprecetur, molliat, minuat, avertat, despiciat, derideat; but in matters of fact, the two first only have place. Aristotle allows more particulars for an Apologist to divert unto, if the matter require it: he may say of what is objected, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. (Rhet. lib. 3. cap. 15.) all which in a plain matter of fact may be reduced to the former heads. That any other Apology can or aught to take place in this, or any matter of the same importance will not easily be proved. The present Apologist takes another course. Such ordinary paths are not for him to walk in. He tells us of the excellent book that Grotius wrote de satisfactione Christi, and the exposition of sundry places of Scripture, especially of divers verses of Isa. 53: given therein; and then adds sundry inducements to persuade us, that he was of the same mind in his Annotations. And this is called a defence of Grotius. The Apologist I suppose knows full well, what Texts of Scripture they are, that are constantly pleaded for the Satisfaction of Christ, by them who do believe that doctrine. I shall also for once take it for granted, that he might without much difficulty, have obtained a sight of Grotius 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 account. 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 Is. 53. 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 a while▪ 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 his book de Satisfactione Christi is proposed to consideration. That others, if not the Apologist himself, may take notice of the emptiness of such precipitate Apologyes, as are ready to be tumbled out, without due digestion, or consideration, I shall not only compare the Annotations and that book 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 judgement 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 in his Annotations, then 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 Is. 53. which is ushered in by the 1 Pet. 2. 24.  
From 1 Pet. 2. 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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. 9 28. where he says {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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:  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} etc:] {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hic est, abstulit, quod sequentia ostendunt, quomodo idem verbum sumi not avimus, Heb. 9 28. eodem sensu {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Ioh. 1. 29. & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Isa. 53. 4. ubi Graeci {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: vitia nostra it a interfecit, sicut qui cruci affiguntur interfici solent. Simile loquendi genus Col. 2. 14. vide Rom. 6. 6. Gal. 2. 20. 24. est autem hic {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; non enim proprie Christus cum crucifigeretur, vitia nostra abstulit. Sed causas dedit per quas auferrerentur. Nam crux Christi fundamentum est predicationis; praedicatio verò poenitentiae, paenitentia verô 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is as much as tulio, or sursum tulit: and objects out of Socinu●, that it must be abstulit, which quite altars the sense of the Testimony. Here he contends with him, that it must be abstulit. 2 There Heb. 9 28. is of the same importance with this 1 Pet. 2. 24. as there interpreted: here, as here; that is in a quite contrary sense, altogether inconsistent with the other. 3. For company {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used Is. 53. is called in to 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 auferreretur: what are these causes; he adds them immediately, Nam crux Christi fundamentum est praedicationis, praedicatio verò poenitentiae, poenitentia verò 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 primùm in Graeco, verbum, quod interpretes verterunt pertulit, est {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quod non pertulit sed abstulit vertendum erat, non secus ac factum fuerit in epistola ad Hebraeos cap. 9 28. ubi idem legendi modus habetur, unde constat {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non perferre peccata, sed peccata tollere, sive auferre, significart. Socin. de Jes. Christ. sat. 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 Apologists 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. 53. Somewhat of the sense which Grotius in his book de Satisfactione contends for, in this place, is given us by the Apologist.  
The 11th verse of the chapter which he firsts considers (in my book) page 14: he thus proposes and expounds: justificabit servus mens justus multos & iniquitates ipsorum bajulabit. in Heb. est: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} vox autem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} iniquitatem significat, atque etiam iniquitatis poenam. 2. Reg. 7. 9 vox autem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} est sustinere, bajulare, quoties autem bajulare ponitur cum nomine peccati aut iniquitatis, id in omni lingua & maximè in Hebraismo significat poen as far, 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 Isaiah 53. 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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. 2. 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 consideration, it belongs to Christ and his sufferings; In his Annotations the literal, which had its immediate completion in Jeremy, 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 then 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 Annotators 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 (not by loose discourses foreign to the Question in hand) he would endeavour to evince the contrary; if on second thoughts he find either his judgement, 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.  
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 further 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. 2. 21. laying weight on this, that the word, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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 servator. lib. 2: cap. 24. His departure into the tents of Socinus on Gal. 3. 13. is much more pernicious. page 25, 26, 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 factumesse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: hoc est poenae à Deo irrogatae, & quidem ignominiosissimae obnoxium. To make good this, in his Annotations, he thus expounds the words: duplex hîc figura; nam & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} pro {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quomodo circumcisio pro circumcisis: & subauditur {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: nam Christus it a cruciatus est, quasi esset Deo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, quo nihil homini pessimo in hâc vitâ 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 judgement of the Annotator, with that of the Author of the book de Satisfactione Christi.  
Pages 32, 33, etc: are spent in the exposition and vindication of Rom. 3. 25, 26. that expression {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, manifesting the end of the suffering of Christ, is by him chiefly insisted on. That by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is 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 Servator. cap. 2. (ut ostenderet se veracem & fidelem esse.) but Crellius in his vindication of him places it rather on the goodness & 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} malim hic de bonitate interpretari, quam de fide in promissis praestandis, quia quae sequuntur non ad Judaeos solos pertinent, sed etiam ad Gentes, quibus promissio nulla facta erat. He rather (he tells you) embraces the interpretation of Crellius then 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. 5. 10. which he insists on pag. 26. and 2. Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20, 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.  
That signal place of Heb. 2. 17. in this kind, deserves particularly to be taken notice of; Cap. 7 pag. 141. of his book de Satisfactione, he pleads the sense of that expression, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to be, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: and adds, significat ergoibi expiationem quae fit placando: But Crellius 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: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, hoc quidem loco, ut ex sequentibus apparet, est auferre peccata, sive purgare à 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. 4 last, Cap. 1. pag. 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 dioere qui & mortuus est, & resurrexit ut nos à peccatis justificaret, id est, liberaret. Sed amans {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} morti conjunxit peccata, quae sunt mors animi, resurrectioni autem adeptionem Iustitia, quae est animi resuscitatio: mirè nos & à peccatis retrahit & ad justitiam ducit: quod videmus Christum mortem non formidâsse pro doctrinâ suâ peccatis contrariâ, & ad justitiam nos vocanti Testimonio; & à Deo suscitatum, ut eidem doctrinae 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 cou●hed 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 linedments 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 tampred 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, & chap. 17. gives us this account of those words of the holy Ghost, Rev. 1. 5. who hath loved us, and washed us in his own blood: Johannes in Apocalyp. cap. 1. v. 5. alia Metaphorâ seu Translatione, (quae nihil aliud est quam compendiosa quaedam comparatio) utens, dixit de Christo & ejus morte, qui dilexit nos & lavit nos à peccatis in sanguine suo, nam quemadmodum aquâ abluuntur sordes corporis, sic sanguine Christi, peccata, quae sordes animi sunt absterguntur. Absterguntur, inquam, quia animus onster ab ipsis mundatur, &c. This interpretation is opposed and exploded by Grotius lib. de Satisf. c. 10. p. 208, 209. the substance of it being, that Christ washed us from our sins by his death, in that he confirmed his doctrine of Repentance & newness of life thereby, by which we are turned from our sins; as he manifests in the close of his Discourse, hoc saepius urgendun est, (saith Socinus) Iesum Christum eâ ratione peccata nostra abstulisse, quod effecerit, ut à 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 tells us, received their very lineaments and colours from his own pencil. There then he gives us this Account thereof, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: Sanguine suo, id est, morte toleratâ, certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat, quae talia sunt, ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos. Humidae naturae, sub quâ est sanguis, proprium est lavare. Id vero per egregiam {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ad animum transfertur. Dicitur autem Christus suo sanguine nos lavisse, quia & ipse omnia praestitit quae ad id requirebantur & 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 further Trouble in perusing transcriptions of this kind, consider Rev. 13. 8, pag. 114. Heb. 9 25. to the end; which he calls an illustrious place in the same page and forward: I John 2. 2. pag. 140, Rom. 5. 10, 11. page 142, 143. Eph. 2. 16. page 148, 149, Col. 1. 20, 21, 22. Tit. 2. 14. page 156. Heb. 9 14, 15. pag. 157, 158. Act. 20. 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 judgement 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 nostrâ vice, and nostro loco: causa {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: liberatio à jugo peccati, to be redemptio à reatu peccati: Subire poenas simpliciter, to be subire paenas nobis debitas: to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in respect of the event, to be so as to the proper nature of the thing; offerre seipsum in coelo, 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 Annotions 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 Socinians. In his Annotations on chap. 5. vers. 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 Niemoievius, as I have showed elsewhere. Smalcius seems to be of the same judgement 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 foederis mediator seu sponsor, partim quidem ut Sacerdos, Deo ipsum oblaturus: de causis mortis Christi pag. 6. And so Volkelius fully to the same purpose. parts (saith he) muneris Sacerdotis, haec sunt potissimum; mactatio victimae, in tabernaculum ad oblationem peragendam, ingressio, & ex eodem egressio: Ac mactatio quidem mortem Christi, violentam sanguinis profnsionem continet: de Relig. lib. 3. cap. 47. pag. 145. and again: Hinc colligitur solam Christi mortem nequaquam illam perfectam absolutámque ipsius oblationem (de qua in epistola ad Hebraeos agitur) fuisse, sed principium & praeparationem quandam ipsius Sacerdotii in caelo demum administrandi extitisse, ibid. So that nothing is obtained by Grotius his munus Sacerdotale aliquo modo erat auspicatus, but what is granted 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 afterwards 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as to say, semet obtulit patri. Besides, though he do acknowledge elsewhere, that this victima was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, yet he says in another place (on ver: 3.) Sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse prose {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; giving thereby such a sense to that expression, as is utterly inconsistent with a proper expiatory Sacrifice for sin. And which is yet worse, on chap. 9 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, idest, mortem Christi, secuta ejus excitatione & evectione, gignitur in nobis fides, quae deinde purgat corda. And therefore where Christ is said to offer himself by the eternal Spirit, he tells us, Oblatio Christi hic intelligitur illa, quae oblationi legali in adyto factae respondet, ea autem est, non oblatio in altari Crucis facta, sed in adyto caelesti: 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. 1. v. 3. the Reader will easily judge. And to manifest that this was his constant sense, on those words v. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he thus comments; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Vt peccatum in nobis extinguatur: fit autem hoc per passionem Christi, quae fidem nobis ingenerat, quae cordae 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. 10. vers. 3. and on ver. 9 and verse 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 further to abound in causá 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 etc, 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. Nor was the contest of those different persons so like on 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 Annotations then 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. Whither now any will be persuaded by the Apologist to believe that Grotius was constant 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 Printers preface to the Volume of Annotations on the Epistles. He says! what was the opus integrum that was commended to the care of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}? and answers himself, not that last part or volume of Annotations, but opus integrum, the whole volume or volumes that contained his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Hamburge. 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 an other 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 Ioh. 1. 1. I expressly affirmed: that is the one place wherein, as I say, he spoke 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 1. 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 enquiry) and reserved to further debate; he adds the places quoted by Grotius in the exposition of that place as Prov. 8. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Isa. 45. 12. & 48. 13. 2 Pet. 3. 5. Col. 1. 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. 8. his first note on the wisdom there spoken of is: Haec de easapientia quae in Lege apparet exponunt Haebraei, & sane ei, si non sol●; at praecipuè haec atributa 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 22 ver. the verse of old contested about with the Arrians. His words on that are Graecum Aquilae, est, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, ut & Symmachi & Theodosionis, res●pondetque benè Haebraeo {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, & Caldaeus habet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, & 70 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, sensu non malo, si creare sumas pro facére ut appareat: viae Dei sunt operationes ipsius: sensum hujus loci & sequentium non male exprimas cum Philone de Coloniis: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
On verse 27, he adds aderam, id est, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, ut infra John Evang. 1. 1. What clear and evident Testimony, 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is rendered not amiss by the Chaldee {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and the 70 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arrians, 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 the 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 words nor doth that Quotation out of Philo relieve us in this business at all. We know in what sense he used the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ibi ego, which the vulgar renders aderam, with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} seems rather to cast a Suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of the Evangelist, then in the least to give Testimony to the Deity of Christ in this. If any one be further 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 of the place in my late Vindiciae Evangelicae, where he will find something tendered to him to that purpose. What the Apologist intended by adding these two places of Isaiah, Chap. 45. 12. and the 48. 13. (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.  
On that of Peter, 2 Epistle, 3. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: he adds indeed, vide quae diximus ad initium Evangelii Iohannis: but neither doth that place intend the natural 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  
1. What one other place hath he produced, whereby the contrary, to what I assert, is evinced? Any man may make Apologies at this rate as fast as he pleases.  
2. As to his not speaking clearly in that one, notwithstanding the improvement made of his Expressions by the Apologist, I am still of the same mind as formerly: For although he ascribes an Eternity {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and affirms all things to be made thereby; yet considering how careful he is, of ascribing an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, how many Platonic interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his expositions, how he hath darkened the whole council of God in that place about the subsistence of the word, its omnipotency and incarnation, so clearly asserted by the holy Ghost therein, I see no reason to retract the assertion opposed. But yet as to the thing itself, about this place I will not contend: only it may not be amiss to observe, that not only the Arians, but even Photinus himself acknoledged that the world was made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that how little is obtained toward the confirmation of the Deity of Christ by that concession, may be discerned.  
I shall offer also only at present, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is threefold, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is Christ, mentioned John 1. 1. his personal or eternal subsistence, with his omnipotency, being there asserted. Whether Christ be so called anywhere else in the New Testament may be disputed, Luk. 1. v. 2. (compared with the 1 of Iob. 1. 1.) 2 Pet. 1. 16. and Act. 20. 32. Heb. 4. 12. are the most likely to give us that use of the word. Why Christ is so termed, I have showed elsewhere. That he is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Psal. 33. 6. is to me also evident. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is better rendered {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Where that word is used, it denotes not Christ: Though 2 Sam. 23. 2. where that word is, is urged by some to that purpose. He is also called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Hag. 2. 5. so perhaps in other places. Our present Quakers would have that expression of, the word of God, used nowhere in any other sense: so that destroying that, as they do, in the issue they may freely despise the Scripture, as that which they say is not the word of God, nor anywhere so called. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst men is that which Aristotle calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} says Hesichius. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is that which we speak in our hearts, says Damascen. de Orthod. fid. Lib. 1. cap. 18. So Psalm 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. This as spoken in respect of God, is that egress of his power, whereby according to the eternal conception of his mind, he worketh any thing. So Gen. 1. 2. God said let there be light, and there was light. Of this word of God the Psalmist treats, 147. v. 18. he seedeth out {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & melteth the Ice, and Psal. 148. 8. the same word is used. In both which places the Septuagint renders it by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. This is that which is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Heb. 1. 2. and Heb. 11. 3. where the Apostle says the heavens were made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: which is directly parallel to that place of 2 Pet. 3. 5. where it is expressed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: for though {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} more properly denotes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, yet in these places, it signifies plainly that egress of God's power for the production and preservation of things, being a pursuit of the eternal conception of his mind, which is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Now this infinite wise and eternal conception of the mind of God, exerting its self in power, wherein God is said to speak, (he said let there be light) is that which the Platonics, and Philo with them harped on, never once dreaming of a coessential and hypostatical word of God, though the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} occur amongst them. This they thought was unto God, as in us, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. and particularly it is termed by Philo▪ {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: de Agric. That this was his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is most evident: Hence he tells us {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: de Mund. opific. and a little after, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The whole tendency of his discourse is, that the word of God, in his mind, in the creation of the world, was the image of himself; and that the idea or image of the things to be made, but especially of light. And whereas (if I remember aright, for I cannot now find the place) I have said somewhere, that Christ was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, though therein I have the consent of very many learned Divines, and used it merely in opposition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; yet I desire to recall it: nor do I think there is any propriety in that expression of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used of Christ, but only in those of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which the Scripture (though not in the very terms) will make good. In this second acceptation, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Photinus himself granted that the world was made by the word of God. Now if it be thought necessary, that I should give an account of my fear that nothing but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in this sense decked with many Platonical encomiums was intended in the Annotations on Ioh. 1. (though I confess much from some quotations there used, may be said against it) I shall readily undertake the task; but at present in this running Course, I shall add no more.  
But now, as if all the matter in hand, were fully dispatched, we have this triumphant close attending the former discourse, and observations.  
If one Text acknowledged to assert Christ's eternal Divinity (which one was granted to do it, though not clearly,) will not suffice to conclude him no Socinian) which I said not he was, yea expressly waved the management of any such charge) If six verses in the Proverbs, two in Isaiah; one in St. Peter, one in St. Paul added to many in the beginning of St. John, (In his Annotations on all which, he speaks not one word to the purpose) will not yet amount to above one Text; or lastly if that one may be doubted of also, which is by him interpreted to affirm Christ's eternal subsistence with God before the Creation of the world (which he doth not so interpret, as to a personal subsistence) and that the whole world was created by him; I shall despair of ever being a successful Advocate for any man; from which Condition I hope some little time will recover the Apologist.  
This is the sum of what is pleaded in chief, for the defence of the Annotations: wherein what small cause he hath to acquiesce, who hath been put to the labour and trouble of vindicating ne'er 40 Texts of Scripture in the old Testament, and new, giving express Testimony to the Deity of Christ from the Annotators perverse interpretations, let the Reader judge. In the 13th Section of the Apologist's discourse, he adds some other Considerations to confirm his former vindication of the Annotations.  
1 He tells us, that he professeth not to Divine, what places of the old Testament, wherein the Deity of Christ is evidently testified unto, are corrupted by the learned man, nor will he upon the discouragement already received make any inquiry into my Treatise.  
But what need of Divination? The Apologist cannot but remember at all times, some of the Texts of the old Testament that are pleaded to that purpose; and he hath at least as many encouragements to look into the Annotations, as discouragements from casting an eye upon that Volume (as he calls it,) wherein they are called to an account. And if he suppose, he can make a just defence for the several places so wrested, and perverted, without once consulting of them, I know not how by me he might possibly be engaged into such an inquiry. And therefore I shall not name them again, having done somewhat more than name them already.  
But he hath two suppletory considerations, that will render any such inquiry or inspection needless. Of these the first is  
That the word of God being all and every part of it of equal truth, that doctrine which is founded on five places of Divine writ; must by all Christians be acknoledged to be as irrefragably confirmed, as an 100 express places would be conceived to confirm it.  
Ans. It is confessed, that not only five, but any one express Text of Scripture, is sufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth. But that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by the Apologist for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about, is but pretended, indeed there is no such thing. The Charge on Grotius was, that he had depraved all but one; if that be no crime, the defence was at hand; if it be, though that one should be acknowledged to be clear to that purpose, here is no defence against that which was charged, but a strife about that which was not. Let the places be consulted, if the assertion prove true, by an induction of instances, the Crime is to be confessed, or else the charge denied to contain a crime: but  
Secondly he says, That this charge upon inquiry will be found in some degree, if not equally, chargeable on the learnedst and most valued of the first Reformers, particularly upon Mr. Calvin himself, who hath been as bitterly and injustly accused and reviled upon this account (witness the book entitled Calvino Turcismus) as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine and Beza, or as probably Grotius may be.  
Though this at the best be but a diversion of the Charge, and no defence, yet not containing that truth which is needful to countenance it, for the end for which it is proposed; I could not pass it by. It is denied (which in this case until further proof must suffice) that any of the learnedst of the first Reformers, (and particularly Mr. Calvin) are equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion with Grotius, as to the Crime insisted on. Calvin being the man instanced in, I desire the Apologist to prove that he hath in all his Commentaries on the Scripture corrupted the sense, of any Texts of the old Testament or new, giving express Testimony to the Deity of Christ, & commonly pleaded to that end & purpose. Although I deny not, but that he differs from the common judgement of most, in the interpretation of some few prophetical passages, judged by them to relate to Christ. I know what Genebrard and some others of that faction, raved against him; but it was chiefly from some expressions in his institutions about the Trinity (Wherein yet he is acquitted by the most learned of themselves) & not from his expositions of Scripture, for which they raised their Clamours. For the book called Calvino Turcismus, written by Reynolds and Giffard, the Apologist has forgotten the design of it. Calvin is no more concerned in it, than others of the first Reformers; nor is it from any doctrine about the Deity of Christ in particular, but from the whole of the reformed Religion, with the apostasies of some of that profession, that they compare it with turcism. Something indeed, in a chapter or two, they speak about the Trinity, from some expressions of Luther, Melancton, Calvin and others: but as to Calvin's expositions of Scripture, they insist not on them. Possibly the Apologist may have seen Pareus his Calvinus Orthodoxus, in an answer to Hunnius his Calvinus Judaizans; if not, he may at any time have there an account of this calumny.  
Having passed through the Consideration of the two considerable heads of this discourse, in the method called for by the Apologist (having only taken liberty to transpose them, as to first and last) I must profess myself as yet unsatisfied as to the necessity, or suitableness, of this kind of defence. The sum of that which I affirmed (which alone gives occasion to the defensative now under consideration) is: that to my observation Grotius in his Annotations had not left above one text of Scripture, if one, giving clear evidence to the Deity of Christ; of his Satisfaction I said in sum the same thing. Had the Apologist been pleased to have produced instances of any evidence for the disproovement of my assertion, I should very gladly and readily have acknoledged my mistake and oversight. I am still also in the same resolution, as to the latitude of the expression, though I have already by an induction of particulars, manifested his corrupting and perverting of so many, both in respect of the one head, and of the other, with his express compliance with the Socinians in his so doing, as that I cannot have the least thought of letting fall my Charge, which with the limitation expressed (of my own observation) contains the truth in this matter, and nothing but that which is so.  
It was indeed in my thoughts to have done somewhat more in reference to those Annotations, than thus occasionally to have animadverted on their corruption in general; namely to have proceeded in the vindication of the truths of the gospel from their Captivity under the false glosses put upon them, by the interpretations of places of Scripture wherein they are delivered. But this work being fallen on an abler hand viz. that of our learned professor of Divinity, my desire is satisfied, and the necessity of my endeavour for that end removed.  
There are sundry other particulars insisted on by the Apologist, and a great deal of rhetoric is laid out about them; which certainly deserves not the Readers trouble in the perusal of any other debate about them. If they did, it were an easy matter to discover his mistakes in them all along. The foundation of most of them, lies in that, which he affirms Sect. 4. where he says, that I thus state the Jealousies about H. G. as far as it is owned by me, viz. that being in doctrine a Socinian, he yet closed in many things with the Roman interest. To which he replies, that this does not so much as pretend that he was a Papist.  
As though I undertake to prove Grotius to be a Papist, or did not expressly disown the management of the jealousy, stated as above; or that I did at all own it, all which are otherwise: yet I shall now say, whither 
Grotius ad nocentissimae haereseos atque ●frenis licentiae scyllam, iterumque ad tyrannidis charybdin declinavit fluctuans: Essen.  he was in Doctrine a Socinian or no, let his Annotations before insisted on, determine: And whether he closed with the Roman interest or no, besides what hath been observed by others, I desire the Apologist to consider his observation on Rev. 12. v. 5. that book, (Himself being judge,) having received his last hand. But my business is not to accuse Grotius, or to charge his memory with any thing but his prevarication in his Annotations on the Scripture.  
And as I shall not cease to press the general aphorism (as it is called) that no drunkard &c. nor any person whatever not borne of God or united to Christ the head, by the same Spirit that is in him, and in the sense thereof, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, shall ever see his face in glory, so I fear not what conclusion can regularly in reference to any person living or dead, be thence deduced.  
It is of the Annotations whereof I have spoken: which I have my liberty to do: and I presume shall still continue, whilst I live in the same thoughts of them: though I should see— a third defence of the learned Hugo Grotius.   

The Epistles of Grotius to Crellius mentioned by the Apologist in his first defence of him, giving some light to what hath been insisted on, I thought it not unfit to communicate them to the Reader, as they came to my hand, having not as yet been printed that I know of. 
This book of Crellius lay unanswered by Grotius above 20 years. For so long he lived after the publishing of it. It is since fully answered by Essenius.   

Reverendo summaeque eruditionis ac pietatis viro Domino Johanni Crellio pastori Racov. H. G. S.  
LIbro tuo quo ad eum quem ego quondam scripseram (Eruditissimè Crellî) respondisti, adeo offensus non fui, ut etiam gratias tunc intra animum meum egerim, nunc & hisce agam literis. Primò, quod non tantùm humanè, sed & valdè officiosè mecum egeris, ita ut quaeri nihil possim, nisi quod in me praedicando, modum interdum excedis, deinde verò, quod multa me docueris, partim utilia, partim jucunda scitu, meque exemplo tuo incitaveris ad penitiùs expendendum sensus sacrorum librorum. Benè autem in Epistolâ tuâ, quae mihi longè gratissima advenit, de me judicas, non esse me eorum in numero qui ob sententias saluâ pietate dissidentes alieno à quoquam sim animo, aut boni alicu jus amicitiam repudiem. Equidem in libro 
* That is the body of Socinian Divinity written by Crellius and Volkelius.  de verâ Religione, quem jam percurri, relecturus & posthac, multa invenio summo cum judicio observata. Illud vero saeculo gratulor, repertos homines qui nentiquam in controversiis subtilibus tantum ponunt, quantum in verâ vitae emendatione, & quotidiano ad Sanctitatem profectu. Utinam & mea scripta aliquid ad hoc studium in animis hominum excitandum inflammandúmque confer possint: tunc enim non frustra me vixisse hactenus existimem. Liber de veritate Religionis Christianae magis ut nobis esset solatio, quam ut aliis documento scriptus, non video quid post tot aliorum labores utilitatis afferre possit, nisi ipsâ fortè brevitate. Siquid tamen in eo est, quod tibi tuique similibus placeat, mihi supra spem●euenit. Libris de jure belli & pacis mihi praecipuè propositum habui, ut feritatem illam, non Christianis tantùm, sed & hominibus indignam, ad bella pro libitu suscipienda, pro libitu gerenda, quam gliscere tot populorum malo quotidie video, quantum in me est, sedarem. Gaudeo ad principum quorundam manus eo● libros venisse, qui utinam partem eorum meliorem in suum animum admitterent. Nullus enim mihi ex eo labore suavior fructus contingere possit. Te verò quod attinet, credas, rogo, si quid unquam facere possim tui, aut eorum quos singulariter amas, causâ, experturum te, quantum te tuo merito faciam. Nunc x aliud possim nihil, Dominum Jesum supplice animo veneror, ut tibi aliisque pietatem promoventibus propitius adsit.  
x. Maii. M. DC. XXVI. Tui nominis studiosissimus H. G.   

TAm pro Epistolâ (vir Clarissime) quam pro transmisso libro, gratias ago maximas. Constitui & legere & relegere diligenter quaecunque à te prosiciscuntur, expertus quo cum fructu id antehàc fecerim. Eo ipso tempore quo literas tuas accepi, versabar in lectione tuae interpretationis 
Let the Reader judge what annotations on that Epistle we are to expect from this man.  in Epistolam ad Galatas. Quantum judicare possum & scripti occasionem & propositum, & totam seriem dictionis, ut magnâ cum curâ indagâsti, ita feliciter admodùm es assecutus. Quare Deum precor, ut & tibi & tui similibus, vitam det, & quae alia ad istiusmodi labores necessaria. Mihi ad juvandam communem Christianismi causam, utinam tam adessent vires, quàm promptus est animus: quippe me, à primâ aetate, per varia disciplinarum genera jactatum, nulla res magis delectavit, quam rerum sacrarum meditatio. Id in rebus prosperis moderamen, id in adversis solamen sensi. Pacis consilia & amavi semper, & amo nunc quoque: eoque doleo, x video tam pertinacibus iris committi inter se eos, qui Christi se esse dicunt. Si rectè rem putamus, quantillis de causis—  
Januarii. M. DC. XXXII. Amstelodam.   
FINIS.