A REVIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS. 637
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, Me- lancthon, Calvin, and others ; but as to Calvin's expositions of Scrip- ture, they insist not on them. Possibly the apologist may have seen Paroeus' " Calvinus Orthodoxus," in answer to Hunnius' " 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 suitable- ness of this kind of defence. The sum of that which I affirmed (which alone gives occasion to the defensative now under considera- tion) 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 disprovement of my assertion, I should very gladly and readily have acknowledged 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 ani- madverted on their corruptionin 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, namely, 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 deserve not the reader's 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, Avhere he says that " I thus state the jealousies about H. G. as far as it is owned by me, namely, that being in doctrine a Sociniau, he yet closed in many things with the
638 A EEVIEW OF THE ANNOTATION'S OF HUGO GROTIUS.
Roman interest :" to which he repUes, that " this does not so much as pretend that he was a Pajoist;" as though I vmdertake 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, whether 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 ob- served by others, I desire the apologist to consider his observation on Rev. xii. 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, etc., nor any person whatever not born of God, or united to Christ, the head, by the same Spiiit 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 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: —
Eeverendo summwque eruditionis ac piefatis viro, Domino Johanni Crellio, pastori Eacov. H. G. S,
Libro tuo quo ad eum quem ego quondam scripseram (eruditissime Crelli) respondisti, adeo offensus non fui, ut etiam gratias tunc intra animum meum egei-im, nunc et hisce agam literis.^ Primo, quod non tantum humane, sed et valde officiose mecum egeris, ita ut queri nihil possini, nisi quod in me prtedi- cando, modum interdum excedis, deinde vero, quod multa me docueris, pai-tim utilia, partim jucunda scitu, meque exemplo tuo incitaveris ad penitius expenden- dum sensus sacroi'um Ubrorum. Bene autem in epistola tua qute mihi longe gra- tissima advenit, de me judicas, non esse me eorum in numero qui ob sententias salva pietate dissidentes ahcno a quoquam sim animo, aut boni alicujus amicitiam repudiem. Equidem in libro " De Vera Religione," quem jam percurri, relecturus