especially upon the account of Socinianism and Popery.' That is, not as though he would reconcile those extremes, but being in doctrinals a Socinian, he yet closed in many things with the Roman interest: as I no way doubt, but thousands of the same persuasion with the Socinians, as to the person and offices of Christ, do live in the outward communion of that church (as they call it) to this day; of which supposal I am not without considerable grounds, and eminent instances for its confirmation. This, I say, is their charge upon him. For his being a Socinian, he tells us, 'Three things are made use of, to beget a jealousy in the minds of men of his inclinations that way. 1. Some parcels of a letter of his to Crellius. 2. Some relations of what passed from him at his death. 3. Some passages in his annotations.' It is this last alone wherein I am concerned. And what I have to speak to them, I desire may be measured and weighed by what I do premise. It is not that I do entertain in myself any hard thoughts, or that I would beget in others any evil surmises of the eternal condition of that man, that I speak what I do. What am I, that I should judge another man's servant? He is fallen to his own master. I am very slow to judge of men's acceptation with God, by the apprehension of their understandings. This only I know, that be men of what religion soever that is professed in the world, if they are drunkards, proud, boasters, &c. hypocrites, haters of good men, persecutors and revilers of them, yea, 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.

But for the passages in his annotations, the substance of the doctor's plea is, that the 'passages intimated are in his posthuma, that he intended not to

publish them, that they might be of things he observed, but thought farther to consider:' and an instance is given in that of Col. i. 16. which he interprets, contrary to what he urged it for, John i. 1—3. But granting what is affirmed as to matter of fact, about his collections (though the preface to the last part of his annotations will not allow it to be true); I must needs abide in my dissatisfaction as to these annotations, and of my resolves in these thoughts give the doctor this account. Of the Socinian religion there are two main parts; the first is Photinianism, the latter Pelagianism: the first concerning the person, the other the grace of Christ. Let us

take an eminent instance out of either of these heads: out of the first, their denying Christ to be God by nature; out of the latter, their denial of his satisfaction.

For the first, I must needs tell the apologist, that of all the texts of the New Testament and Old, whereby the Deity of Christ is usually confirmed, and where it is evidently testified unto, he hath not left any more than one, that I have observed, if one, speaking any thing clearly to that purpose. I say, if one, for that he speaks not home to the business in hand on John i. I shall elsewhere give an account; perhaps some one or two more may be interpreted according to the analogy of that. I speak not of his annotations on the Epistles, but on the whole Bible throughout, wherein his expositions given, do for the most part fall in with those of the Socinians, and oftentimes consist in the very words of Socinus and Smalcius, and alway do the same things with them, as to any notice of the Deity of Christ in them. So

b Jam vero sciendum est, multo quidem citius, quam nunc demum temporis eam resumi, obsolvique potuisse, et quo minus id jampridem factum sit, per eum non stetisse virum, cujus fideli curæ opus integrum ab authore ipso primum creditum fuit et sedulo commendatum. Præmon ad Lect.

that I marvel the learned doctor should fix upon one particular instance, as though that one place alone were corrupted by him, when there is not one (or but one) that is not wrested, perverted, and corrupted, to the same purpose. For the full conviction of the truth hereof, I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of his interpretations of the places themselves. The condition of these famous annotations, as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same: not one text of 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. I do not speak this with the least intention to cast upon him the reproach of a Socinian; I judge not his person; his books are published to be considered and judged. Erasmus, I know, made way for him, in most of his expositions about the Deity of Christ; but what repute he hath thereby obtained among all that honour the eternal Godhead of the Son of God, let Bellarmine on the one hand, and Beza on the other evince. And, as I will by no means maintain or urge against Grotius any of the miscarriages in religion, which the answerer of my animadversions undertakes to vindicate him from; nor do I desire to fight with the dust and ashes of men; yet what I have said, is, if not necessary to return to the apologist, yet of tendency, I hope, to the satisfaction of others, who may inquire after the reason of my calling the annotations of the learned man to an account in this discourse. Shall any one take liberty to pluck down the pillars of our faith, and weaken the grounds of our assurance, concerning the person and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall not we have the boldness to call him to an account for so sacrilegious an attempt? With those then who love the Lord Christ in sincerity, I expect

no blame or reproach for what I have endeavoured in this kind; yea, that my good will shall find acceptance with them, especially if it shall occasion any of greater leisure and abilities farther and professedly to remark more of the corruptions of those annotations, I have good ground of expectation, The truth is, notwithstanding their pompous shew and appearance (few of his quotations, which was the manner of the man, being at all to his purpose), it will be found no difficult matter to discuss his assertions, and dissipate his conjectures.

For his being a Papist, I have not much to say; let 'his epistles (published by his friends), written to Dyonysius Petavius the Jesuit, be perused, and you will see the character which of himself he gives; as also what in sundry writings he ascribes to the pope.

What I have performed through the good hand of God in the whole, is humbly submitted to your judgment. You know, all of you, with what weight of business and employment I am pressed; what is the constant work that in this place is incumbent on me, how many and how urgent my avocations are; the consideration whereof cannot but prevail for a pardon of that want of exactness, which perhaps in sundry particulars will appear unto you. With those who are neither willing nor able to do any thing in this kind themselves, and yet make it their business to despise what is done by others, I shall very

c Grotius, in lib. 5. de veritat. Relig: Christian. in notis R. Sel. Aben Ezra et Onkelos adducit: sed alienis oculis hic vidit, aut aliena fide retulit (forte authoribus illis aut non intellectis, aut propter occupationes non inspectis) aut animositati et authoritati in citandis authoribus, et referendis dictis aut factis, ut ipsi hoc usui veniebat, nimium in scriptis theologicis indulserit. Voet. disput. de advent. Messi.

d Reverende Domine, sæpe tibi molestus esse cogor.... sumpsi hanc ultimamoperam, mea antehac dicta et famam quoque a ministris allatratam tuendi, in eo scripto si quid est, aut Catholicis sententiis discongruens, aut cæteroqui a veritate alienum, de eo abs te viro eruditissimo, &c. cujus judicium plurimi facio moneri percupio. Epist. Grot. ad Dionys. Pelat. Epist. 204.

little trouble myself. That which seems in relation hereunto, to call for an apology, is my engagement into this work, wherein I was not particularly concerned, suffering in the meantime some treatises against me to lie unanswered. Dr. Hammond's answer to my animadversions on his dissertations about episcopacy; Mr. Baxter's objections against somewhat written about the death of Christ; and a book of one Mr. Horn against my treatise about universal redemption, are all the instances that I know of, which in this kind may be given. To all that candidly take notice of these things, my defence is at hand. I do not know that I am more obliged to answer a treatise written against myself, than any other written against the truth, though I am not particularly named, or opposed therein. Nor do I intend to put any such law of disquietness upon my spirit, as to think myself bound to reply to every thing that is written against me, whether the matter and subject of it be worth the public ventilation, or no. It is neither name nor repute, that I eye in these contests; so the truth be safe, I can be well content to suffer. Besides, this present task was not voluntarily undertaken by me, it was, as I have already given account, imposed on me by such an authority as I could not wave. For Mr. Horn's book, I suppose you are not acquainted with it, that alone was extant before my last engagement. Could I have met with any one uninterested person, that would have said it deserved a reply, it had not have laid so long unanswered. In the meantime I cannot but rejoice, that some like minded with him, cannot impute my silence to the weakness of the cause I managed, but to my incompetency for the work of maintaining it. To Mr. Baxter, as far as I am concerned, I have made a return in the close of this treatise; wherein