1. IF he that hath read the Review of the Annota­tions of Hugo Grotius, which is offered as a Re­ply to the second Defence of that learned man; seem from thence to have any new scruples infused into his mind, it will not cost him many minutes to deposite them, by observing with me this method.

2. First, by adverting (on the first head that of the satisfacti­on [Page 2] of Christ) not onely what fair and large characters of his thoughts lie legible to all men in his Book De satisfactione, writ­ten on purpose against Sosinus on this subject, but also how those have been since back'd with indubitable evidences of a later and fresher date, taken from his own express words in his Discussio (the last thing he wrote) and in a letter under his own hand (dated after the time of his surmised change) writ­ten on purpose to forest all this surmise, and to assure us of his constant adhering to that sense which he had delivered in his Book De satisfactione. Which two as they are most irresrugable proofs of the matter in hand, being testimonies of him that cer­tainly best knew his own thoughts, whether he were changed or no, so to neither of these is the least word of Reply here offered by the Reviewer, and so stand in full force against all that is here suggested.

3. Secondly, by remembring that from the See Ans. to Animad. vers: p. 132. beginning of this debate, the posthumous Annotations on the Epistles were expres­ly renounced and reiected by me, as departing manifestly from the judgment of that learned man, formerly expressed in those writings which he had completed and published in his life time, and consequently as unsufficient arguments, or testimonies of his change, when produced against his own repeted and express declarations to the contrary; And yet from these are the proofs now principally brought in this Review, and by the contrariety betwixt these and his Book De satisfact: his change concluded, with what appearance of reason the Reader will soon discern, when he hath considered the premisses, and what shall now oc­casionally be added thereto.

4. For this manner of dealing two things onely are pleaded in the Review, which here must be regarded, before I proceed: 1. That the Accuser 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 to him.]

5. To this I reply, first, that it is in the Reviewer a manifest di­version, a course which is sure to render all debates infinitet In my answer to his Preface of Animadversions on Iguntius's Epistles, &c. I inserted, ex abundanti, one, and onely one Di­gression, A Defence of the learned H. Grotius. And streight­wayes [Page 3] the whole stream of the Controversie is diverted into that one narrow chanel, removed from the question of Episcopacy, to the inquiry into Grotius's his opinions; and that is one com­pitent diversion. After this, when both in that my Digression, and also in my second Defence, I had confined my plea to Gro­tius himself, and those writings published by him in his life time, and known to be written, and perfected by him, expresly reje­cting this book of posthumous Annotations on the Epistles, the Reviewer is now pleased principally to insist, and found his charge against Grotius, on those his posthumous Annotations; which is a perfect diversion again, instead of a reply, and to the waving evidently, because changing of the whole question.

6. Secondly, as uneffectual at this plea it, it is yet much more unreasonable, if circumstances be considered, being evidently prevented, and superseded by that which hath past in this debate. For if there were any truth in those words of his Epistle to the Oxford Heads, [My Defensative as to my dealing with Groti­ous's Annotations is suited to what the Doctor pliads in his behalf] then certainly he must be concern'd in this, which yet he resolves to be none of his concernments; For it is sure that my plea was framed in Defence of Grotius himself, (not of those incomplete if not false images of him, those parts of the Annotations, which I professed to reject, and not to plead for.) Accordingly my words in the first proposal of this matter to debate, were these, [This very pious, learned, and judicious man hath of late among many fallen under a very unhappy Fate, being most unjustly ca­lumniated sometimes as a Socinian, sometimes as a Papist—] And then how can this Defensative be, according to his pro­mise, conformed or suited to my plea, if it refer not to the same subject, viz. to Grotius, or those Books of his, which are ac­knowledged to be his completed, genuine writings? such alone being competent testifications of his sense, and so measures to judge of his perswasions, whether he were a Socinian or no.

7. A second part of his plea is by reflecting again on that evi­dence, which, saith he, he had formerly offered from the Prin­ters Preface to the volume of Annotations on the Epistles.] But here, in the very entrance, is a mistake, which, for the clear­ing of my self, more then on apprehension of any advantage the [Page 4] Reviewer can gain by it, I must first take notice of. The Evi­dence was by him Epist. to the Oxford Heads. cited from some words of the Preface to the last part of the Annotations, beginning thus, Jam vero sciendum est—To those words there found, I gave answer in my second Defence, p. 7. and he now tels me that a slight in spection will serve to manifest how ill it, i. e. my answer or the sense I gave of the words produced) agrees with the intention and words of the Prefacer, who, saith he, tells us, that Grotius had himself published his Annotations on the Gospel five years before, and so proceeds, reciting the words of the Prefacer for eight lines to­gether; and concluding, that if the Apologist read this Preface, he ought 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.]

Who would not think there were somewhat herein really mistaken by me, which called for this so solemn rebuke? But the Reader is intreated to consult the place, or if it be not worth his pains, he may believe me, who made the inspection more then slightly, and can assure him, that there is no part of what he thus now recites, to be met with in that Preface, whence he hath formerly drawn his testimony. I say in that Preface to the last part of the Annotations under Gretius's name, from whence it was, that the words [Jam viro sciendum—] were (truly) cited, and to which Words it was visible, that I gave that answer, which he now pretends to refute from the intention and words of the Pre­facer.

9. The short is, There being two volumes of Annotations set out since Grotius's death; the former on the Acts, and so on through the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint James, the later on the other six Catholick Epistles and the Revelation, and be­fore the former of these the Printers Epistle, inscribed, Typo­graphus Lectori, before the latter a Praemonitio ad Lectorem: From the latter of these it is that the words formerly by him pro­duced, Jam verò scieudum—and to which (consequently) I gave answer, were cited. And I that obediently and diligently read over that to which I was directed, and there finding the words which were cited, gave my answer to them, such as I thought the words capable of, am now unexpectedly rebuked [Page 5] for not reading it, and more then so for despising those with whom I had to do; when indeed what is now in the Reply cited from it, is not to be found there, but in the Printers Epistle to another volume. By what means he fell into this mistake, and was by that led into this causeless severity, I leave him upon recollection to consider.

10. I need add no more for the vindicating my self in this matter, yet if I shall now (having till now no occasion) attend to this o­ther testimony, now newly alledged by him out of that other Pre­face, it will soon appear that it neither (as is pretended) dis­proves the answer, which I gave to the words formerly cited from the premonition, nor refutes what I had first said concerning the Posthumous Annotations, and then surely I shall not be much concern'd in it: Not the first; for my Answer being no more but this, that Opus Integrum signified not that volume completed, and so made integrum intire by Grotius's own hand, but the whole volume or volumes which contained all his [...] Adversaria on the New Testament.] This is no way refuted, but rather con­firmed by these other words of the Typographus Lectori, for there also Opus integrum signifies the whole volume or volumes, as that is opposed to the Magna pars voluminis in the line before, without any respect to its being completed or made intire; Which alone having been denied by me, my answer is still secu­red from any force of this Testimony.

11. Not the second; For if I shall now grant the Printer to have in that Preface delivered the whole and naked truth, (which I had no obligation to be confident of) and consequently that Grotius committed to a Friend those Annotations, in order to Printing, yet this no way proves that they were completed and perfected by him; There is a middle, truly supposable, betwixt these two, viz. that they were by occcasion of the Authors un­expected diversions, delivered to him imperfect. This Remainder of Annotations now by the Reader expected to follow those on the Gospels, and on the Old Testament, and the learned Compiler being now at some leisure to set about it, was suddenly called back from Paris to Sweden, a long voyage, not certain whe­ther ever he should return again (as indeed he did not) or whether God would spare him life and vacancy to perfect that [Page 6] work: Having therefore communicated his notes to a learned man (one by the way, much more addicted to the doctrine of Calvin then Socinus) going now thence, he left them in his hand, and committed the publishing of them to his care, taking one­ly with him those sheets which were not legible, which he hastily transcribed in his journey, and, as the Printer tells us, returned them from Hamburge, and these, as by his words ap­pears, belonging to the last volume, that on the Revelation, which therefore had truly thus much of his last hand, as this ha­sty transcribing comes to; so hasty that M. who was prepared to write them again for the presse, did almost despair of decy­phering them. The rest, those on the Epistles remained in the first rude draught, and are not pretended to have been (so much as hastily) transcribed by him, and so never obtained that per­fecter growth, that fulness of limbs and lineaments, which I did and do suppose his [...], and greater leisure would have afforded them. Which therefore cannot with any justice be balanced against the contrary evidences and plain words ei­ther of his Discussio (the last thing, as I said, written before his death) or of his later, dated after his reading of Crellius's and the Socinians interpretations (to which his supposed change is imputed) and avowing his continued adherence to his former doctrine, much less of the several passages producible out of his undoubted writings, maturely composed, and publisht by him, which positively and professedly set down his sense, and cannot be prejudiced by such uncertain, feeble suggestions as these, drawn from his supposed misunderstanding of some few pages in the Epistles. And let this serve for a second stage in my proposed method.

12. Thirdly, That adhering to my former method, and, upon the grounds premised, abstracting from or setting aside (as 'tis visible I have done from the first rise of this debate) these posthu­mous Annotations, upon account of some heterodox mixtures in them discernible, especially in the matter of our justification, and the satisfaction of Christ, and some other particulars, else­where noted, and confining our discourse (more reasonably) to those Annotations, which he perfected and published in his life time, i. e. to those on the Gospels and on the Old Testament, [Page 7] taking in also all his other writings whatsoever; There cannot be any ground of suspicion concerning his change, nor want of instances (which the Reviewer now requires) to disprove his Ʋniversal Negative, and to invalidate the charge brought against that learned man, of his wresting to another sense every text of Scripture, wherein testimony is given to that sacred truth, or at least concealing and obscuring the doctrine of them.]

13. I shall therefore, being now admonished of Quintilians rule of aut negandum aut defendendum, do my duty in observing it, and formally deny his position, of every text, &c. and for contrary instances, begin with Matth. 20. 28. where the son of man is said to give his life a [...], or ransome for many. Here, saith Grotius, Puto respici vaticinium, Isa. 53. 10. ubi dicitur, si Christus vitam suam dedisset [...], quod hic rectè [...] vertitur, fore, ut sui cognitione multos justificaret, & po­stea, ipse peccata multorum tulit. Here first, the parallel is set by Grotius betwixt the Evangelist and the Prophet Isaiah, and to that 53 of that Prophecy is brought this sense, of Christ's giving his life a ransome for many, i. e. of his satisfaction, and yet farther explained by that other phrase of the Prophet there used, his bearing the sins of many, and the like, Heb. 9. 28. his being offer'd to bear the sins of many.

14. Secondly, The [...] or ransome here is interpreted by the Hebrew [...] or sacrifice for sin there, and after more fully, by sacrificium piaculare, [...], an expiatorie, propitiatorie sacrifice for sin, victima lustralis—and the giving his life a ransome, the offering it up such a sacrifice for many, and this as the ground or condition of his justifying many by the knowledge of him, which what is it but the founding of our justi­fication in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's death, i. e. in the satisfaction wrought by it for us?

15. So Mat. 26. 28. Where Christs bloud of the New Testament is said to be shed for many for the remission of sins. Here, saith he, Puto Danielis oraculum respici, in quo de Messiâ dictum est, [...], cum prae­cessisset [...] ad expianda peccata. Adde quae Rom. 5. 15. (it should be 10.) sic & in Barnabae quae dicitur Epistola, [...] [Page 8] [...]. Adding, Simul autem transit Christus à com­paratione foederum ad comparationem sacrificiorum piacularium, in quibus anima pecudis offerebatur, velut succedanea anima homi­nis qui mortem meruisses, unde victima ferre peccata dicebatur in lege. Hinc mo [...]i victima pro homine—Here again, i. e. the words of Daniel of making reconciliation for iniquity, and con­firming the covenant with many, c. 9. 24. 27. are set as a Prophe­cy parallel to this Evangelical truth of Christs bloud of the New Testament being shed for the expiating of our sins. So likewise Rom. 5. 10. of our being reconciled to God, when we were ene­mies, by the death of his Son. And all these three illustrated by the plain words of Barnabas's Epistle, that Christ offered up him­self the vessel of the Spirit, a sacrifice for our sins. 2. It is here affirmed of his bloud, that it was an expiatory sacrifice, such as wherein one is offered up in stead of the other which had deserved death, and is accordingly said to bear the sin of the other. And then what could be more expresse to the doctrine of satisfaction, then these three places of Prophet, Evangelist, and Apostle, thus interpreted, which being added to the former, and now laid before the Reviewer (willing to have perswaded the Reader these were none such, because I formerly thought it needless to produce them) will sure now passe for [...], instances as competent as any Quintilian would exact, to disprove the Ʋni­versal proposition of the [not one text in the whole Scripture—which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the doctrine con­cealed and obscured by these Annotations.]

16. But here on this ocasion the place in his Annotations on Isa. 53. is by the Reviewer resumed, as hopeful to yield some colour to infer his charge; Where, saith he, he gives such an exposition of the whole Chapter, as is manifestly and universally inconsistent with any such design on the words, as that which he intends to prove from them in his Book De satisfact and in particular tels you in his Annotations on the place, as also on 1 Pet. 2. 24. that [...] signi­fies auferre, which with all his strength he had there contended a­gainst.

17. To this I answer, 1. (as to his exposition of the whole chapter) that I have already told him, that Grotius endeavoured to find a first sense of the words of that Prophecy, so as to belong peculi­arly [Page 9] to the Jews usage of the Prophet Jeremy, and that I ac­knowledge not to be appliable alwayes to their usage of Christ. But beside this, saith he, there is a more principal and sublime sense, and that oft the more literal of the two, wherein the whole chapter belongs to Christ, but this sense being more vulgarly markt by others, is onely in general, once for all, pointed at by him, in those short Annotations, being also more fully explica­ted elsewhere, in a set discourse on that subject.

18. This answer being formerly given by me, the Reviewer is now pleased to mistake, and to change it into a distinction be­twixt the literal and mystical sense of a place, and then to under­take that his perverting the first literal sense of the chapter, or gi­ving it a completion in any person but Christ, is no lesse then blas­phemy. But to this I reply, that my words are misreported by the disputant, and agreeably my sense also. For I distinguisht not betwixt the literal and mystical sense of the place (or if I had, I must much have wronged Grotius, who resolved the words to be­long oft more literally or [...] to Christ, than to any other) but betwixt the first and literal interpretation, which had its im­mediate completion among the Jews, near that time, wherein it written, and the more remote, concerning Christ: that indeed mystical, because veiled under the first, but literal also, because that to which the very words belonged as properly, oft more properly, than to the other; As when the [...] or plain word without any figure belongs to Christ, and onely the figurative interpretation of it, the [...] to Jeremy. Of these two senses Grotius makes frequent mention in his interpretations. See the note on Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King shall come, which, saith he, primo & maxime obvio sensu, in the first and most obvious sense belongs to Zorobabel, but sublimiore quodam sensu, in a more sublime sense to the Messias; And many the like.

19. If thus the Reviewer had understood my words (which I then thought plain enough, till I saw them misapprehended) I am in charity to think he would not have deemed it little lesse then blasphemy, thus to interpret words of some other in a first, but that lesse principal sense, which belong to the Son of God in the more principal and sublime sense, more remote in time of comple­tion, but not in respect of the propriety of the words.

[Page 10] 20. This the instance did evince, which I gave from the words, [out of Egypt have I called my Son] which evidently had a first sense in the Israelites, a second, equally literal in Christ, and so 'tis applied in the New Testament; and many more might be brought of affinity with it, if there were need of them.

21. It will be more to the purpose of vindicating Grotius's inten­tion, and clearing the whole matter, that I give the Reader one signall passage from him, by which his sense must in all reason be judged, being by him premised before his interpretation of the latter part of this Prophecy, from chap. 40. which he gene­rally interprets in a first sense, of matters that belonged to the Jews from the time of their deportation, to the Maccabees, &c. but acknowledges to contain also, and that more simply and more clearly the matters of Christ.

22. The words are in the prooeme to Isa. 40. Cum autem omnia Dei beneficia umbram in se contintant corum quae Christus prasti­tit, tum praecipuè ista omnia quae deincept ab Isaiâ praenuntiabantur, verbis saepissime à Deo sic directis, ut simplicius limpidius (que) in res Christi, quam in illas quas primò significare Esaias voluit, conve­nirent. Whereas all Gods blessings have in them a shadow of those things which Christ performed, this is especially applicable to all those things which in the ensuing chapters (this of chap. 53. must needs be comprehended in that style) are foretold by Isaiah; the words most often being so directed by God, that they agree more sim­ply and clearly to the matters of Christ, than to those which Isaias would first signifie by them.

23. Here is the ground of what I said of the first sense of these prophecies, viz. that which Isaias first meant to signifie by them, supposing that there was somewhat else, belonging to Christ, which in a second sense or later completion he signified also, and the words so directed by God the wise disposer, that they most simply and clearly, i. e. without figures (which are usual in prophecies) belonged to him. This being by him said once for all, of all those prophecies that follow, doth by perfect equivalence, (a collective being as full and [...]fficacious as a distribu­tive) conclude of every particular, and consequently of this fifty third before us (of which he again gives the same account as hath been said, particularly, when he comes unto it) and of [Page 11] every verse in it, that it most clearly & literally belongs to Christ, though in Jeremy he supposed it had another interpretation. And so this, I now hope, will be deemed satisfactory, as to the general, to vindicate his exposition of the whole chapter, and the having mention'd it may be in some degree necessary to the preserving of them from misprisions who read not those notes intirely, that they may comprehend the sense of the whole pro­phecies, (which is the proper'st use of them) but cast their eyes upon some particular texts, to satisfie their present wants, or curiosities.

24. But then secondly, for the particular verse 11. I answer, 1. that in the Annotation on 1 Pet: 2. 24. I cannot be con­cern'd, having oft resolved that, as the rest on the Epistles, to be unsufficient to give us his sense. As for that on Isaiah, if it were true, that he had there interpreted [...] auferet, 1. this could not have been justly charged upon him, as a Socinian inter­pretation, Tertullian having given him authority for it, as he cites it, on Mat. 8. 17. and indeed that Evangelist too having there applied that prophecy to [...], the bearing their bodily diseases, which sure was so to be understood, as should denote his curing, (i. e. his auferet, taking them away) and not his bearing them in their stead, taking upon him all the dis­eases which he cured in any. But then 2. 'tis clear, that he doth not so interpret it [auferre to take away] as to exclude, but expresly to include the ferre, or bearing also; Auferet, saith he, as applied to Jeremy, by a metonymie, but that founded in the other of bearing, as the literal, quia qui sordes auferunt, so­lent [...]as collo supposito portare; so that the literal of bearing, or carrying our iniquities, is (by the former observation) left to be completed in Christ, who did both bear and take away the sins of the world, and nothing by Grotius is here affirmed, or inter­preted to the contrary of that. And so much for the other part of the Objection, and so for the third part of my method.

25. Fourthly, when I had proposed to consideration two things for the preventing all jealousie of any after change in Grotius, and the Reviewer had taken notice of one of them, under the style of my first observation, and offered some semblance of answer to it, pag. 6. before he comes to the second, he cannot, as he [Page 12] saith, but suppose, that he is already absolved from a necessity of farther procedure—] by that means freeing himself from giving any heed to that argument which I had laid greatest weight on, as that which of all others was most considerable in this business, viz. Grotius's own words (who certainly knew his own heart, better then any accuser, or diviner can be supposed to do, and ought to be believed, rather then any contrary surmises con­cerning him) expresly testifying his constancy in adhering still (now after the time of his supposed change) to what he had delivered in his Book De satisfactione. Herein I shall leave the Reader to pass the judgment, whence that absolution was deri­ved to the Reviewer, by which he could not but suppose himself freed from any necessity of considering this evidence, when yet he was at leisure (by way of commutation) to heap up contrary appearances from the Annotations on the Epistles, which I profest not to allow to be his, and therefore could not be concern'd in the producing of them.

26. Here onely I had exprest my opinion that the Notes on the Apocalypse, had (as I still think I have been informed, and have already premised some proof of it) received from his own pencil the very lineaments, and colours, wherein they appear; And therefore when he pitches on one Annotation on that Book Rev. 1. 5. Christ's washing us from our sins in his bloud, where he thinks the satisfaction of Christ concealed, and the Socinian interpretation taken up by Grotius, contrary to his manner of explicating and applying it in his Book De satisfactione; This will require to be a while considered by me.

27. The words of Grotius he hath rightly set down, but I suppose not sufficiently considered the latter part of them, which runs thus, Dicitur Christus suo sanguine nos lavisse, quia & ipse om­nia praestitit, quae ad id requirebantur; Christ is said to have washt us with his bloud, because he performed all things which were required to it, i. e. to the washing of the soule. Which words are certainly of competent largenesse to contain (and so exclude not) the doctrine of satisfaction, that being of the number of those things, which in Gods counsel, were appointed, and so required to the washing of our souls; This being considered, it will be no prejudice to that learned man, that in the former [Page 13] words he took in Socinus's interpretation of [morte suâ certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat, quae talia sunt, ut ni­hil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos—] For of that there is no question, but that Christ by his death did give us assurance of the truth of his doctrine, and that this assurance is very apt to purge us from our evil and vitious courses. In respect of which purgation Saint Paul himself saith, Tit. 2. 4. that Christ gave himself (that is surely even to dye) for us, that he might redeem us from all in quity (the power as well as guilt of it) and purifie unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. And Gal. 1. 4. he gave himself for our sins (and thereby, I suppose, made a satisfaction for us) that he might deliver us from this present evil world, from the vices and abominations thereof. And Eph. 5. 25. Christ gave himself for the Church, that he might sancti­fie and cleanse it, that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church; not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. From whence I conclude that the Socinians errour consists not herein, that they affirm this, but that they say this is all that Christ did by his death, and so exclude his satisfaction; which can by no means be affirmed of Grotius, who, as he wrote a Book in defence of it, so in this very place ascribes to Christ the perform­ing omnia all things, indefinitely, which were required to the washing of our souls, from which number his expiatory sacrifice was never excluded by Grotius?

28. And then it may be fit to be remembred, that as the denying the satisfaction of Christ is one great errour justly charged on the Socinians, so the confining the effects of the death of Christ, to that one head of satisfaction, is an errour also, very carefully to be averted by him, that desires to reap benefit by Christs death.

29. After his view of this place he is pleased (to prevent the Rea­ders farther trouble) to refer him to Grotius's Annotation on one place more of the Revelation, chap. 13. 9. and I have ob­served his directions, and can assure him, there is not there one word to this matter. Onely that Arethas rightly applies the phrase [from the foundation of the world] to the word [book] not to the word [slain] evincing it from the parallel place, chap. 17. 8. where so it is joyned [Whose names are written in the [Page 14] book of life from the foundation of the world] the book of life, in one place, and the book of life of the lamb slain, or the slain lambs book of life, in the other, being perfectly aequipollent.

30. The remainder of the Catalogue of Texts, that is added, is all again out of the Epistles, and so hath already more then once been accounted for, by denying the Annotations on them to have been perfected by Grotius. And this is all that need to be considered, in reference to the first branch of the suggestion, that concerning the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ.

31. On the second Socinian head of doctrine, that concerning the Deity of Christ, whereon the Disputer had affirmed [that of all the texts of the Old and New Testament, whereby the Deity of Christ is usually confirmed,—Grotius hath not left any more then one, if one, speaking any thing clearly to this purpose.] I thought I had given some matter of conviction, by referring to that learned man's. Annotations on John 1. when both that one signal text is left by him speaking clearly to this purpose, and many other places of Scripture are mentioned, and interpreted, and applied to the same sense, as parallel, and answerable to that. To this he re­plies, that this of John 1. was the one place by him expresly ex­cepted, and therefore this instance would not evade the charge. And for the other places, Prov. 8, &c. he is pleased to suppose, that on the view of my defence men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeted; Grotius must give their sense, as bearing witness to the Deity of Christ; Hereupon he will turn to the several places, and give the Reader an account of them.]

32. But before he proceed to that, and to save the pains of many of them, it may be soon considered, that what Grotius doth in the Notes on John 1. is as truly his act, as any thing that is done by him in any other place, much more so, than what is publisht under his name, in the Annotations on the Epistles, and consequently that as many places as he hath there affirmed to be parallel to John 1. 1. so many places he hath left speaking clearly to this purpose. Grotius had not at that time publisht any other Notes on any part of the Bible, but those onely on the Gospels. On the rest of the New Testament he never lived to publish any, yet here on John 1. hath affirmed the words of Saint Paul, Col. 1. 16. [all things were created by Christ—] [Page 15] to be agreeable to the words of Saint John, that without him was nothing made that was made. Is it not now as visible, that he hath left that place of Col. 1. 16. speaking clearly to the Deity and creative power of Christ, by which all things were at first made, as if he had lived to set out Annotations purposely on that place, and had therein so interpreted it? This certainly is so clear, that I cannot yet doubt (what ever the Reviewers sar­casme would suggest) of being a successful advocate in this matter.

33. The same is again as clear of 2 Pet. 3. 5. and of the two pla­ces brought by him, in concent with it, from the Chaldee Para­phrast on Isai. 45. 12. & 48. 13. to testifie that by this [...], i. e. by the word of the Lord, Christ, the whole world was founded; which again (though he never should mention them again in all his writings) are yet solemnly left by him, to testifie clearly to the Deity of Christ; And so more than that one of John 1.

34. But the place more largely recited by Grotius to this pur­pose, is that of Prov. 8. from verse 23. A seculo habui princi­patum, I was set up from everlasting, to verse 27. when he pre­pared the heavens I was there; And this the Reviewer thinks fit to examine, by repairing to his Annotations on the Old Testa­ment, and there 1. he finds his first note on the Wisdome there spoken of to be [Haec de eâ sapientiâ quae in lege apparet exponunt Hebraei, & sane ei, si non soli, at praecipuè haec attributa con­veniunt] and this he thinks a very advantageous discovery, for if they agree solely or principally to the wisdome that shines in the Law, how can they be the attributes of the person of the Son of God?

35. But I answer, that note of his is on the first verse of that chap­ter, far enough from verse 23. where the citation in his Note on John 1. begins. And why might not many parts of the character of wisdome be by the Jews duly applied to the Law (as will ap­pear if you read the former part of the chapter for above twenty verses together) and yet the latter and sublimer part of its cha­racter be competible onely to Christ, the eternal wisdome of the Father? And why should not Grotius's [haec] on verse 1. ra­ther belong to those former 20 verses, than to the 23 &c. [Page 16] which he there (as in the Notes on the Gospels) expresly inter­prets so, as that verse 27. and 30. be all one with John 1. 1. and so Prov. 9. 1. Wisdome built her an house, i. e. saith he, corpus humanum, a mans body, which is not applicable to any thing, but Christ in his incarnation. And so I hope this artifice hath stood the Reviewer in little stead.

36. But then, saith he, On verse 22. Grotius affirmes of [...] that it is rendred not amiss by the Chaldee [...] and by the Sep­tuagint [...], though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Ar­rians, and expleded by the ancient Doctors of the Church.]

37. To this I answer, That Grotius's words, [sensu non malo si creare sumas pro facere ut appareat] signifie not, that that ren­dring is not amisse, for he had formerly exprest his opinion of that, that Aquila and Symmachus and Theodesian their ren­dring it by [...], was well agreeing or answerable to the Hebrew [...] but that the other which was not the right ren­dring, might yet bear a tolerable, or not ill sense, if it were in­terpreted to signifie no more than that which he there names, viz. [making to appear] a sense which the Fathers never exploded, nor was fit to be pretended by the Arrians, or favoured by any in kindness to them.

38. This therefore was but a weak foundation of that confidence, with which the Reviewer concludes, that of the Son of God, the essential wisdome of God, subsisting with the Father, we have not one word] especially when he had himself confest that [on verse 27. he addes, aderam, i. e. [...] John 1. 1.] for cer­tainly if those words of wisdome, when he prepared the heavens I was there, and the same again verse 30. (to which also he re­fers the Reader, though the Reviewer pleased not to see it) When he appointed the foundations of the earth, then was I by him] be all one with [the word was with God] John 1. 1. there is then some word of the Son of God, the essential wisdome, in those Notes, and perfectly as much as is proportionable to the manner of those very short Annotations on the Old Testament.

39. To which may be added, that by interpreting the phrase [his wayes.] verse 22. by operationes Dei, the operations of God, the sense of that verse (which the Reviswer thinks perverted or obscured) must in his rendring run thus, In the beginning of his [Page 17] operations God possessed this eternal wisdome, the Son of God, which will be still to the same sense; And then the Note on chap. 9. 1. sets down the incarnation of this eternal word, or wisdome; And what could have been more punctual against the Socinian inte­rest, than all this, being thus briefly amassed together, if the Reviewer would have but the patience to discern it?

40. What he adds by way of wonderment, that I should add the places of Isa. 45. 12. and 48. 13. to the number of texts inter­preted by Grotius to this matter of the Deity, is soon satisfied, by remembring (what was visible enough before) that the Chal­dee Paraphrast in those and many other places rendring the word [God] by [God and his word] is fitly brought by Grotius, as a witness, that the world was created by the word of God, as that is God, and that that is the sense of those places. Which if it be, then are those texts of Scripture left by Grotius, to testifie to this truth of the Deity of the word of God, i. e. of Christ.

41. Now for the principal place that of John 1. 1. the Reviewer hath exprest his dislikes also to that, and mention'd some grounds thereof, 1. that Grotius is very careful of ascribing an [...]] But if by this phrase he would signifie him unwilling to ascribe an hypostasis to the word, this is misrepre­sented by him; for 'tis evident, Grotius expresses no dislike to that style, all that he saith that way, is, vecem [...] —non à primis Christianis usurpatam, cùm contra [...] dixerit Athanasius, Synodi Nicaena, Sardicensis, & Romanae aliquot, that that word, and some others was not used by the first Christians, that Athanasius, and the Nicene, Sardicene, and some Roman Councels affirmed, that there was one hypostasis. And all these, I hope, are so contrary to the Arrian, that if Grotius should chuse to speak with them, he could with no ju­stice be accused of that heresie, or obscuring the Deity of Christ by so speaking.

42. And yet it is farther clear, that from Origen & others after him, he cites the distinction of hypostases, and what could he have done more to obtain the Reviewers favour, then to cite it from them, that used, and not pretend it from them, that used it not?

[Page 18] 43. That he hath interweaved many Platonick interpretations of [...] is also in the second place suggested, and at once, that he hath darkened the whole counsel of God in that place.] But I hope there is no heresie in letting the Christian Reader know, how much Platonists and hethen Philosophers have by groping discoverd of divine truths, and to me it is not imaginable, that when the Christian doctrine is once declared, such additions as these should by being subjoyned ex abundanti, obscure what was once made clear, and so darken the whole counsel of God.

44. Thirdly, It may not be amisse, saith he, to observe, that not onely the Arians, but Photinus himself acknowledged that the world was made [...]] And to this I answer, that what is wide of the mark, to which it is directed, no way sufficient to infer the desired conclusion, is (in the managing of a controversie) amiss to be observed; And such will this observation appear to be; For the matter of the question being a charge against Grotius, of Socinian doctrine, what can be concluded (to that) from the bare mention of the Arians, and Photinus his acknowledgments, unless first it be proved, that Grotius was an Arian, or Photi­nian, and secondly that all Arians and Photinians are Socinians? Either of which, as they have not the least appearance of truth in them, so are they not so much as attempted here to be proved by the author of this observation. On the contrary, there are these five shrewd prejudices against it. 1. That what the A­rians say in this matter, Photinus doth not say, and so they were not fit to be put together. 2. That what the Arians say, Grotius doth not say. 3. That what the Photinians say, neither the Arians, nor Grotius do say. 4: That the Socinians do in this differ much both from Arians and Photinians; and yet 5. That Grotius differs as much (or more) from the Socinians herein, as he doth from either of the other two.

45. All this will appear by viewing severally the Arians, and Photinians, and Socinians doctrine in this point, and the di­stance of Grotius's interpretation from each of these. For the first, Arius did indeed acknowledge in hisEpiph. l. 2. Haer. 49. Epistle, that God did by his onely Son make [...], the worlds and the rest, and in the words of the text, [...], that all things were made by him, and without him was nothing [Page 19] made that was made. But sure this was no part of his heresie, (if it were, the Scripture as well as Grotius, must be involved in it, who affirmed it equally) but that he first affirmed Christ to be himself a creature, [...], saith he, he by whom God created the world was a perfect creature of Gods, though crea­ted [...], before all ages; and again saith Epipha­nius, [...], though they call him a creature, yet they confess him above all his creatures. So again speaking of the Holy Ghost, they will have him to be [...], the creature of a crea­ture, where still that is Arius his heresie, in this matter, that he made Christ a creature, and to that applied the Septuagints rendring of the place Prov. 8. of [...], God created me, and consequently would not allow him to be [...], of the same substance, or equal with the Father. And when Grotius saith any thing in favour of this doctrine, of Christ's being a creature, or denies his equality with the Father, then he must pass for an Arian; (Of which he hath not yet had the luck to be accused, that I know of;) But 'tis certain he hath not done so, nay on the other side, 'tis competently evident, if but by the notion which he applies to [...] in his Annotations on Prov. 8. (to rescue that rendring from an evil sense) that he utterly rejects that notion wherein the Arian took it, viz. for creating, and so that he is herein profestly free from that heresie.

46. As for Photinus in the second place, 'tis certain his heresie, like that of Paulus Samosatenus, consisted in denying that Christ had a being, or subsistence from the beginning, or before the Holy Ghost's coming upon Mary, so saith b Epiphanius, [...]—Now though this heretick was content to acknowledge that the Fa­ther made the world [...], by the [...] which was in him, yet that it was not Christ which he understood by that style, is most clear, both by his denying Christ to have had then any subsistence, and 2. by the similitude, by which he exprest himself, [...], as a man by [...] doth what he will (by [...] [Page 20] meaning a kind of Idea in the agents mind, by, or according to which he doth any thing) so by his own [...], or by the [...] which is in him the Father hath made all things; but especially by Epiphanius's way of confuting him, [...]—The [...] in man, whether the word of the mind within, or the word spoken cannot be called man, but the [...] of man, whereas the [...] in Saint John is said to be God. And so as Photinus saying [all things were made by the [...], which was in God] said quite another thing from what Arius had said (and therefore this Reviewers observation was in that respect guilty of that fallacy, which Aristotle calls plurium interrogationum) so is it most certain, that Grotius's interpretation of the Evangelist, it no way consonant to Photinus (any more then to Arius) his notion. For when to those words of the Evangelist [In the beginning was the word] his note is, Jam ium erat, sic mos est Hebraeis aternitatem populariter describere] which defines the eternity of his being, he brings for explication of that forme of speech, the words of Justine, [...], he was subsistent before the worlds. So again on those words [the word was with God] he saith this was in opposition to his being seen in the world in his incarnation, vult enim dicere, antè eum fuisse in­conspicuum, he would express that before his incarnation, he was invisible; adding for proof, Dicitur enim Deus [...], 1 Tim. 1. 17. for God is said to be invisible, and to inhabit the light which none approcheth; by all which it is clear, that by [the word] he understands invisible God himself, being or subsisting eternally with the Father, which is in every part contrary to Photinus's doctrine, as hath been shewed.

47. Thirdly, for the Socinians their interpretation is known to differ toto coelo in this particular both from Arius, and Photinus, being after this manner, that c In the beginning of the spiritual Socin. in John 1. world, or the Gospel, the word, that Son of God, which was born of Mary in Augustus's reign, so called in respect of his office, which was to make known Gods word to men, was with God, i. e. before John's preaching, was, as the word, or in respect of this office, known to none but to God: That this word is God, i. e. that Christ was so called (as Angels and Princes are) in respect of the great [Page 21] benefits which we receive from him, and the dignity to which he is by God advanced, (distinctly denying that he is the supreme God, the author of all things, or creator of the world) that all things were created by him, i. e. all the new spiritual and divine things, which are under the Gospel done in the world, and so on in concer­dance with this Foundation. From every part of which Grotius's explications of that text are most remote, as hath already appear­ed, and have not the least infusion of this leven discernable in them, as will be evident to any, who shall but cast an eye on his Notes on that place. Of the Notes on the Epistles which came out since his death, this cannot be said, for there many of these, or the like Socinian interpretations are crept in, some words of the Epistles expounded in a sense expresly contrary to what he hath here incidentally said of the same words. This I have pointed at in one eminent instance, the place to the Colos­sians, chap. 1. 16. of the worlds being made by Christ, and thereon founded my resolution, that they were none of his, not consequently did I ever permit my plea for him, to be ex­tended to the justifying of them. Thus much may suffice for the supernumerary observation, which being sure, meant to insinuate somewhat, it now appears with what justice it was produced by him. By the way I suppose my account also gi­ven, why the interpretations of John 1. and Prov. 8. of the world being made by [...] the word of God, were by me former­ly produced, as irrefragable evidences, that this learned man inclined not to the Socinians in this matter of the Deity of Christ. The Reviewer may now judge what reason I had for it.

48. Lastly, there being a threefold [...], 'tis suggested that nothing but [...] was by Grotius intended in those Annotations on John 1. 1. but withall 'tis confest, that much from some quotations there used may be said against it.] And if there may, and if those quo­tations be so clear, as those out of Justine Martyr, and Athena­goras, of Christ's presubsisting before the worlds, of his being God before the worlds, that from the beginning God being an eter­nal mind, [...], had the word in himself eternally, and if the negative [nothing but [...]] be not reconcileable with any one mention of any thing else, [Page 22] such as Christ's being God, and with God from all eternity; up­on these grounds, I say I shall confess it the prudentest course, which the Reviewer here hath taken, viz. to defer the underta­king of this task, and to add no more, than the unproved sugge­stion, till space of greater leisure.

49. In reproching of me for a triumphant close, he is now pleased to give an Essay of his own humility, in heaping these severals into one period, 1. That he said not Grotius was a Socinian. 2. That in his Annotations on the six verses in the Proverbs, two in Isaiah, one in Saint Peter, one in Saint Paul, added to many in the beginning of Saint John, Grotius speaks not one word to the purpose. 3. That he doth not interpret Christ's eternal subsistence with God, so as to a personal subsistence.

50. To these three I briefly answer. To the first, That the one­ly thing that in my first Digression (or second Defence of Grotius) I undertook in behalf of that learned man, being the injustice of the charge, of his being sometimes a Socinian, sometimes a Pa­pist, sometimes both; This is by the Reviewer in his Epistle to the Oxford Heads undertaken to be refuted, which can never be done, unless he both say and prove, that Grotius was a So­cinian. To the second, That, as hath now appeared, Grotius hath spoken to the purpose of the Deity of Christ, on the eighth of the Proverbs (as of his incarnation on the ninth) as well as on John 1. And for the other places, as it is sufficient that he hath recited them to that purpose on John 1. so the account is clear why he is not found to do it elswhere. On Isaiah keeping him­self to the literal Hebrew, he had no occasion in those concise notes, to take notice of that, which onely the Chaldee there had said. The other two are in the Epistles, on which the Anno­tations, which are published under his name, are by me deem­ed imperfect, and not to carry his full sense with them. To the third as before, That he cites out of Origen, and others after him, the use of the word hypostases, and the distinction of them. Onely he saith the word was not used à primis Christianis, by the first Christians, any more then [...] &c. And so it is certain it was not.

51. In the next place, I am reproved that I neither make inquiry into his Treatise, for the places in the Old Testament, wherein [Page] the Deity of Christ is testified to, and are corrupted by that learn­ed man, nor yet will look into Grotius's Annotations on those texts, which I remember at all times to be pleaded to that purpose. To this I answer, 1. That I never undertook the vindicaton of all Grotius's Annotations, nor ever said any thing, which should ingage me in such a long task as this. 2. The discouragements, which I mentioned to have already received from making inqui­ry into this Reviewers former Treatise, were taken from what had appeared from Grotius on John 1: compared with, and found evidently to supersede this Authors suggestions of [but one, if one place, in all the Bible, left by Grotius clearly testify­ing this truth] For when, beside that of John 1. I found there so many more, put together, particularly Prov. 8. verse 23.—largely set down, and in the Annotations on the Proverbs, found the same sense adhered to, and a reference back again to John 1. where he had spoken so largely on this matter, what need was there of farther inquiry for that, which had thus readily of­fered it self?

52. Now to my two suppletory considerations, he hath his replies also; To the first, by confessing, what I desire, that one express text of Scripture, is sufficient for the confirmation of a divine truth] but then, denying that five places have been by me produ­ced out of the Annotations of Grotius for the confirmation of the truth pleaded about.]

53. To this I answer, 1. that if any one be sufficient to confirm this divine truth, then Grotius hath been demonstrated suffici­ently to have confirmed it, who hath evidently brought John 1. which is one such text. Secondly, that that text, and Prov. 8. 23—he hath certainly not depraved, nor kept back from te­stifying to this truth; So likewise Col. 1. 18. and 2 Pet. 3. 5. if we may judge by his own words on John 1. and not by the posthumous Annotations, which I deem not competent measures to judge him by, and so there are four of the five. Thirdly, he hath there also applied to it the places of Isaiah, in the Chaldee reading, and these superadded to the former, are very suffici­ent to confirme a divine truth, and that is all I said in this mat­ter. But then Fourthly, as the conciseness of his Notes on the Old Testament, and his desire to clear the first, and nearest [Page 24] sense of the Prophecies, such as pertain'd to the then approching affairs of the Jews, are a competent account of his not inlar­ging to the more remote and ultimate completions in Jesus Christ. So his general advertisements, more then once given (such as hath been produced from his Preface to Isa. 40. and to Isa 53.) are sufficient to testifie his acknowledgment of Christ's being predicted in those places of the Prophets, where his Annotations on the several verses make no particular mention of him. And so, when he gives a sense of Isa. 9. 6. which im­mediately belonged (in his opinion) to Hezekiah, and accord­ing to that, interprets every part of that verse, he yet thus prefaceth it, sic tamen ut multò excellentius haec ad Messiam per­tinere non Christiani tantum agnoscant, sed & Chaldaeus hoc loco] thus giving onely a lower notion of the words to Hezekiah, and reserving the sublimer and more excellent to Christ. So again chap. 11. 1. Redit ad Hezechiae. laudes, sub quibus sensu subli­miore latent laudes Messiae; and many passages there are to the same purpose: As others also of referring to the Annotations on the Gospels, wherein he hath spoken so largely of this subli­mer completion of ohe Prophecies, that he would not repete them in the places of the Prophets, to which they belonged.

54. In the next place he comes to the comparison betwixt Calvin's and Grotius's dealing in this matter, and makes many offers of answer, to which I am concern'd to make particular replies.

55. First, he denies Mr Calvine equally chargeable, or in any de­gree of proportion with Grotius. To which I answer, that whe­ther he be, or be not truly chargeable, in any degree, I am not concern'd to examine, having not accused him, but onely made the parallel betwixt that learned man and Grotius, in this, that each of them have by some been deemed chargeable. 2. The comparison which I made, was not of the equality, or indeed of the degree of proportion, but exprest with such caution, as suffici­ently prevented that reply, my words being these, that it will upon inquiry be found in some degree; if not equally chargeable, on the learnedst and most valued of the Reformers, particularly on Mr Calvin himself, &c. Here I said, in some degree, but pro­ceeded not to define the equality, or to consider what proporti­on that degree held with that wherein Grotius was chargeable, [Page 25] not indeed believing that either Grotius or Calvin had given any reasons for that charge, which I see lie heavy on both of them.

56. 3. The comparison of equality, which I made between these two learned men, referred onely to the bitterness and injustice of the accusations and contumelies that fell upon them, on that ac­count, in these words, [Calvin himself hath been as bitterly and unjustly accused and reviled on this account, as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine or Beza, or is probably Grotius can b.] And there will be no way to disprove my comparison in this, but by heaping far more unjust reproches on Grotius, then yet this Re­viewer hath done, which if others are resolved to do, yet shall I not thereby be refutable, who, as justice and charity ob­liged me, affirmed it onely not probable that they would.

57. In the next place he requires me to prove of Mr Calvin that he hath in all his Commentaries on the Scripture, corrupted the sense of any text, giving expresse testimonies to the Deity of Christ, and commonly pleaded to that end and purpose, although he deny not but that he differs from the common judgment of most in the inter­pretation of some few prophetical passages judged by them to relate to Christ.]

58. To this I answer, 1. That the latter part of this (his not de­nying &c.) is in effect the confessing all that I had said of Mr Calvin, which was but this, that he was by some charged of disarming the Church of her defences against adversaries, by diverting those places of Scripture which had formerly been used to assert the great mysteries, to other inferior ends; And then I need undertake no farther tasks of supererogation, such as the proving Mr Calvin to have corrupted the sense of any text &c. which he knows I never affirmed of him. Yet remembring him that I am not now to speak my own sense, but onely to justi­fie the truth of my report, that Mr Calvin and some of the first Reformers have been severely accused and reviled on this account. I shall now 2. (instead of Lutherani penè om­nes Ari­ani smi eum accu­sant. Grot. Appendi. de Antich, p. 85. many) refer the Rea­der to Schlussetburgius a Lutheran superintendent, in his Second Book De Calvinist. Theolog. and 6. Article; or to Fr. Fevar­dentius, a Doctor of Paris, either in his Comment on Saint Paul to Philemon, or in his Excerpta out of that Lutheran. Not: in Iren: Var: Fragm: p. 508, 509. In the latter of these he will [Page 26] find a Catologue of twenty passages affixt to those eminent first Reformers, especially to Mr Calvin, as 1. that the enmity be­twixt the Scrpent and the seed of the Woman, Gen. 3. is simply to be interpreted of the hostility of Men and Serpents; that the prophecies of the Scepters not departing from Judah till Shiloh comes, Gen. 49. expounded of Christ, gives the Jews occasion to scoff; that the words of Balaam, Num. 24. A star shall rise out of Ja­cob, must not properly be expounded of Christ; nor that of the Lord by Moses, Deut. 18. 18. I will raise them up a Prophet, which yet Saint Peter Acts 3. 22, and Saint Stephen Acts 7. 37: affirmed to belong to Christ; that Mich. 5. 2. Out of thee Beth­leem shall he come forth to me that is to be a ruler in Israel] must not be expounded precisely and properly of the divinity of Christ. That Zach. 9. 9. Behold thy King cometh lowly—is by inter­preters triflingly and in a false manner expounded of his entrance into Jerusalem, which yet Saint Matthew and Saint John have applied to it. These are a few essayes whereby to judge of ma­ny others. And the less Mr Calvin and the Reformers are guil­ty of these, (as truly in many that I have had the convenience to examin, I cannot but think him guiltless) the more evident is the parallel betwixt Grotius and them in this matter.

59. Thirdly, he affirmes that what the Papists raved against Mr Calvin, was chiefly from some expressions in the Institutions about the Trinity, (wherein he is acquitted by the most learned of themselves) and not from the expositions of Scripture.] But 1. the truth of this will be judged by what was last said, for all those twenty passages are fetcht from the expositions of Calvin &c. on those so many places of Scripture. And 2. 'tis certain I speci­fied not the Book, wherein he had written what was thus chargeable, and so had not been reproveable, if they had been all out of the Institutions, those being as acknowledgedly his, as the Commentaries, and both much more then the Annota­tions on the Epistles are Grotius's; and 3. if he stand by learned men acquitted of the charge, then as I said, that may make the parallel more exact betwixt him and Grotius, though I under­take not that every learned man hath been thus just to acquit him.

60. But then fourthly, for Calvino-Turcismus by me mentioned [Page 27] in a parenthesis, he tels me, I have forgotten the design of it, and that 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 Apostacies of some, that they compare it with Turcisme, adding, that something indeed in a chapter or two they speak about the Tri­nity, from some expressions of Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and others.

61. To all this I answer, 1. that 'tis visible I speak not of Mr Calvin alone, but of the learnedst and most valued of the Re­formers, and of Mr Calvin onely, as one of them. 2. That al­though the forgetting the design of Reynolds and Giffords Book, would be far from a crime in me, had I been guilty of it, (the subject matter of it is not so much worth remembring) much lesse any indication that Grotius were insufficiontly vind cated; yet when the Reviewer confesses, that in a chapter or two it speaks about the Trinity, from some expressions of Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, and others: this clearly evidences, that these Re­formers were there thus accused in the matter of the Trinity, as now it seems Grotius is; And 3. if Hunnius's Calvinus Judaizans, which is home to the business, be answered by Pareus, and an account of the calumny given by him] this still renders the parallel more complete. An account of the calumny and the first author, and grounds of it against Grotius, being happily rendred by himself also in the Discussio, p. 17.

62. The Reviewer concludes this matter with a signification of his constant adhering to his proposition formerly asserted, with one limitation expressed (of his own observation.) But I that first gave the occasion of the debate in my Digression concerning Grotius, did never propose it with reference to that limitation, not being able to foresee, how much this Reviewer had read, or observed of Grotius's writings, nor can I yet pass judgment, whe­ther what hath now been offered to him by another, will be yielded to come within the compass of that limitation, or no. And so I must be content to leave it at this time.

63. On the second sort of suggestion, the Reviewer hath chosen to be brief, and hath well prepared for it by expressing dislike and aversation to any such undertaking, that seemed incumbent [Page 28] on him, viz. to prove that Grotius was a Papist.] But to this I reply, as before, that this task is sure incumbent on him, if, as he said, his defensative be suited to what I pleaded in his behalf. For 'tis certain, that in the Digression, I had so proposed the debate, and undertaken to vindicate him from this suggestion, viz. that he was a Papist.

64. That he closed with the Roman interest, he is now willing to infer, from his observation on Rev. 12. 5. To that therefore I have turned, and there find no other premisses toward this con­clusion than onely these, 1. that Dispersi ex Judaeis, instrumenta Ecclesiae Catholicae, multos de populo Romano Christo genuere, that those that were dispersed from Judaea—begat to Christ many of the people of Rome, and that these are there called partus mascu­linus the man-childe or masculine birth, in respect of the great constancy which appeared in the Church of Rome of those times; then 2. that the Church of Rome hath this above other Churches, that no Church subjected more people to the word of God, so that her victories by the weapons of Christ, were not inferior to the Mar­tial successes of Old Rome: 3. that the regiment of other Churches after the Apostles death belonged to that. Now this being clearly applied by him to the infancy or first ages of the Church, that which is first said of the constancy, is indeed much for the honour of the Primitive Roman Church, but no way for the interest of the present, which having much departed from the Primitive, cannot in any reason partake of those elogies, which he there bestows on that masculine birth, at the first appearing of it in the world. So likewise 2. of the ancient Roman Church it is, that he saith, it converted so many to the faith, which is a truth known, and acknowledged in History, but is not at this day as­sumed (witness S. W.) to be the foundation on which their Supremacy is built. 3. that after the Apostles death Rome being a chief Metropolis, and (as the Imperial See) the most eminent of all others, had the dominion aliarum of other (it is not omni­um, of all) Churches, is not denied by any either ancient, or modern, that I know of. All the suburbicarian Region, and the Churches in that, were under the Primate of Rome, and that Primate was within a while lookt on, as the Patriarch of the West, and the First Patriarch. And the words of Grotius are [Page] not, by any circumstance of the place, inclined to any other sense. The aliae Ecclesiae, other Churches, being in no reason interpretable any farther, than those, which Rome had con­verted to the faith, nor necessarily to all them, but to the oppida minora and Provinciae, the lesser Cities and Provinces, unto which (as he interprets) the woman is said to flie (and so Christianity to be propagated) when Simon Magus by the favour of the Emperour had opposed and much oppressed it at Rome, and drave the profession out of it, by which means those aliae Ecclesiae were planted. And it may be worthy to be obser­ved, that when the text before him was general, for [...] all the nations, he is not thereby moved to interpret it in that latitude of all simply, but (in a more restrained sence, where­in all in Scripture-style oft signifies but a great many) onely by the nulla plures, and aliarum, others and none more then that.

65. Here before he concludes, he is pleased to look back on a passage which he had used, [that if men be drunkards, proud, boasters, &c. hypocrites, haters of good men, persecutors and re­vilers of them, yea, and if they be not regenerate and born of God united to the head Christ Jesus, by the same spirit that is in him, they shall never see God] for which, he now saith, he fears not what conclusion can regularly, in reference to any person li­ving or dead, be deduced.] To this I reply by acknowledging the certain truth of the general Aphorisme, and onely remem­bring him, that the onely question was, whether in a particular discourse concerning Hugo Grotius, after the mention of his eternal estate, and disclaiming all design of begetting in others any evil surmises of it, or of judging him himself, 1. it were sea­sonably added, that he was fallen to his own master, when falling in the style of that Scripture (visibly referred to) signifies fal­ling under condemnation, and 2. whether the applying this ge­neral Aphorisme to this matter, were not apt to beget in others those evil surmises, which he was willing to disclaim: If in these he be not concerned, neither am I, and therefore I shall not further importune him in that matter.

66. To the fragments of Grotius's Epistles to Crellius, I had for­merly spoken, though they were not (possibly) formerly prin­ted. [Page 28] But having no more in them than was acknowledged, somewhat of civility to a civil adversary, commendation of some things truly commendable (such sure is the care of good life) acknowledgment of advantage received by his writings, readi­ness of performing any office of kindness to him, and finally pray­ing for him; All these are certainly no more then due, as by Christ's precept to the injurious, so to a learned man, from whom he differed in opinion, and may onely serve to direct us to the Christian manner of dealing with adversaries, that of ne­ver labouring their ruine or hurt in any kind, but doing them all possible good. And if in this matter the Reader will be moved with probable arguments; It is not well to be imagined, in case Grotius had at this time been changed from the opinion which he was of, at the writing of the Book De Satisfact: that having said what these fragments signifie him to have said, he would have concealed that, or that any such passage, had it been in the letter, would have been left out of the fragments, or being in the fragments, would have been supprest by the Reviewer.

67. What in the second Epistle is said of Crellius's notes on the Epistle to the Galatians, that he had very happily found out the occasion, and purpose, and whole contexture of the Epistle, no way concludes his imbracing the interpretation of each brief oc­casional passage in that Epistle, wherein the Socinian controver­sies are concern'd, or renouncing that, which he had given in his Book De Satisfact: as his sense of those passages.

68. There is no more remaining now before me, which seems to exact farther reply. Thus much I have once more added, lest the Reviewer may either think his Animadversions despised, or conceive that they have succesfully performed what they at­tempted; and moreover lest having once (though but [...]) undertaken the Defence of this learned man. I should now by my silence seem to desert my plea, and be deem'd to have consented to, and in a manner confirm'd those calumnies, which on this score of his defection to heresit, I see from many pens daily cast out upon him.

69. And this, as it is an act of meer justice, and charity to the dead, and no less to those, who by their sin of uncharitable thoughts towards him, are likely to deprive themselves of the [Page 29] benefit of his labours; so is it but a proportionable return of debt and gratitude to the signal value and kindnesse, which in his life-time he constantly profest to pay to this Church and nation; expressing his opinion, that of all Churches in the world, it was the most carefull observer, and transcriber of Primitive antiquity, and more then intimating his desire to end his dayes in the bosome, and Communion of our Mother. Of this I want not store of witnesses, which from time to time have heard it from his own mouth, whilest he was Embassadour in France, and even in his return to Sweden, immediately be­fore his death; And for a real evidence of this truth, 'tis no newes to many, that at the taking his journey from Paris, he appointed his Wife, whom he left behind, to resort to the English assembly, at the Agents house, which accordingly she is known to have practised. Which therefore may serve for a competent addition to, and conclusion of the evidences hitherto produced, (being in perfect accord and harmony with them) that as far as the English establishment is removed from Socinian, and Popish, so far this learned man stands vindicated from both these aspersions; which makes me the less wonder, that some others, who have endeavoured to maintain their constancy of adherence, and submission to the Church of England, are in like manner most injuriously aspersed by those who have departed from it; Lord lay not this sin to their charge.