[Footnote 048:  Page 284, 285.]

[Footnote 049:  Page 286.]

[Footnote 050:  Page 287.]

[Footnote 051:  Page 288.]

[Footnote 052:  Page 288.]

[Footnote 053:  Page 291.]

[Footnote 054:  Page 292.]

[Footnote 055:  Page 293.]

[Footnote 056:  Page 294.]

[Footnote 057:  Page 296.]

[Footnote 058:  Page 298.]

[Footnote 059:  Page 299.]

[Footnote 060:  Page 300.  M. Le Clerc, (Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Hollande, dix-septieme Lettre) defends Grotius with great ability against the charge of Socinianism:  he justly observes, that, his abstaining from unpleasing propositions, his silence on offensive doctrines, and his conciliating expressions, should not too easily be accounted proofs, of belief of his precise sentiments of any particular tenets.  Grotius, says Le Clerc, was like an arbitrator, who, to bring to amity the parties in difference, recommends to each, that he should give something of what he himself considers to be his strict right.]

[Footnote 061:  Ep. 363. p. 364]

[Footnote 062:  Ep. 491. p. 195.]

[Footnote 063:  Ep. 494. p. 896.]

[Footnote 064:  Ep. 1706. p. 736.]

[Footnote 065:  Comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism. vol. ii. p. 560.]

[Footnote 066:  Ib.  Vol. ii. p. 609.]

[Footnote 067:  Ep. 1538. p. 573, 690, 926.]

[Footnote 068:  Ep. 528. p. 400.]

[Footnote 069:  “Those,” says Mr. James Nichols,[070]

“who wish to behold the praises to which HUGO GROTIUS or HUGH DE GROOT, is justly entitled, and which he has received in ample measure from admiring friends and reluctant foes, may consult SIR THOMAS POPE BLOUNT’s Censura celebriorum Authorum.  His well earned reputation is founded on too durable a basis to be moved by such petty attacks as those to which I have alluded in a previous part of this introduction (p. xxi.), or those of Mr. Orme in page 641.

“That a man so accomplished, virtuous, fearless, and unfortunate, should have had many enemies, among his contemporaries, is not wonderful.  But the number of those who evinced their hatred to him, or to his philanthropic labours, increased after his decease, when they could display it with impunity.  ’This very pious, learned, and judicious man,’ says Dr. Hammond, ’hath of late, among many, fallen under a very unhappy fate, being most unjustly calumniated, sometimes as a SOCINIAN, sometimes as a PAPIST, and, as if he had learnt to reconcile contradictions, sometimes as both of them together.’

“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