"One cause of the Charge of SOCINIANISM being preferred against him, has been already mentioned, (p. xxxiii.) and it is more fully explained in pages 637, 642. The reader will not require many additional reasons to convince him of the untenable ground for such an accusation, when he is told that VOETIUS, one of the most violent of his enemies, laid down this grand axiom--'To place the principal part of religion in an _observance of Christ's commands is_ RANK SOCIANISM!' To such a _practical observance of the_ requisitions of the Gospel, by what name soever it might be stigmatized, Grotius pleaded guilty. He says (p. 637) 'I perceive this was accounted the principal part of religion by the Christians of the primitive ages; and their various assemblies, divines, and martyrs taught, 'that the doctrines _necessary to be known_ are exceedingly few, but that God forms his estimate of us from the purpose and intention of an obedient spirit.' I am likewise of the same opinion, and shall never repent of having maintained it.'
"But as the charge of POPERY is of the utmost consequence, I have discussed this topic at great length, (pp. 566, 746), and have proved (pp. 549, 561), that Grotius was as little attached to the principles or the practice of the Romish church as the most zealous of his accusers. Whatever tends to vindicate the conduct of Grotius in this matter, will operate still more powerfully in favour of Archbishop Laud. The design of Grotius is well described by Dr. Hammond, in a _Digression_ which he added to his _Answer_ to the _Animadversions on his Dissertations_; in which he says,
"'For the charge of Popery that is fallen upon him, it is evident from whence that flows,--either from his _profest opposition to many doctrines of some Reformers, Zuinglius and Calvin, &c_. or from his _Annotations on Cassander, and the Debates with Rivet consequent thereto, the Votum pro pace and Discussio_.'
"For the former of these, it is sufficiently known what contests there were, and at length how profest the divisions betwixt the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants; and it is confessed that he maintained (all his time) the Remonstrants party, vindicating it from all charge, whether of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, which was by the opposers objected to it, and pressing the favourers of the doctrine of Irrespective Decrees with the odious consequences of making God the _author and favourer of sin_, and frequently expressing his sense of the evil influences that some of those doctrines were experimented to have on men's lives. And by these means it is not strange that he should fall under great displeasure from those who, having espoused the opinion of Irrespective Decrees, did not only publish it as the THE TRUTH and TRUTH OF GOD, but farther asserted the questioning of it to be injurious to God's free grace and his Eternal Election, and consequently retained no ordinary patience for or charity to opposers. But, then, still this is no medium to to infer that charge. The doctrines which he thus maintained were neither branches nor characters of Popery, but asserted by some of the first and most learned and pious Reformers. Witness the writings of Hemingius in his _Opuscula_, most of which are on these subjects. Whereas on the contrary side, Zuinglius and others, who maintained the rigid way of Irrespective Decrees, and infused them into some of this nation of ours, are truly said, by an excellent writer of ours, Dr. Jackson, to _have had it first from some ancient Romish Schoolmen_, and so to have had as much or more of that guilt adherent to them, as can be charged on their opposers. So that from hence to found the jealousy, to affirm him a papist because he was not a contra-remonstrant, is but the old method of speaking all that is ill of those who differ from our opinions on any thing; as the Dutchman in his rage calls his horse an ARMINIAN, because he doth not not go as he would have him. And this is all that can soberly be concluded from such suggestions, that they are displeased and passionate that thus speak.