If even some mistakes have escaped him, of which the Socinians might take advantage, these will not authorise us to accuse him of being a favourer of that heresy.  We know that never any carried a love to truth, or an abhorrence of falsehood, farther than he did:  now he always expressed the greatest aversion to Socinianism:  he writes to Gerard Vossius[686], in 1613, that there was no body of any authority in the republic, who held not Socinianism in abhorrence.  He wrote against Socinus the book entitled A defence of the Catholic faith concerning Christ’s satisfaction against Faustus Socinus of Siena, in which he proves that there is nothing contrary to justice in Christ’s suffering, though innocent, for offenders; that even the Pagans believed that God punished the crimes of the fathers on the sons; and that, in the early ages of the world, the innocent children were often punished with the guilty fathers.  In fine, he shews that the opinion of Socinus is repugnant to Scripture, which tells us that Christ’s death has reconciled us to God, according to the expressions of St. Paul, that he died for us, and that by his death our sins are expiated.

He was very orthodox on the article of original sin; for, he says, the only true opinion on this matter is that of the ancient Church, which is well set forth by the Council of Trent.

The Socinians were far from thinking Grotius so favourable to them:  Ruarus writes to one of his friends, “You have reason to think, that hitherto no body has written so learnedly against Socinus, as Grotius:  he was always much attached to the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, even in his earlier years.”  Grotius wrote to Walaeus[687], in 1611, “I do not look upon the Samosatenians, and others, like them, as Christians, nor even as heretics; for their doctrine is repugnant to the belief of all ages, and all nations.  They retain Christianity in name, but destroy it in fact.  I therefore make no great difference between them and the Mahometans, who even do not revile Christ.”  M. Bossuet, tho’ far from being prejudiced in favour of Grotius, allows however that he did not deny the divinity of Christ, nor the efficacy of his sacrifice.

In several of his letters he clears himself from the charge of Socinianism in such a manner as leaves us no room to doubt his regarding it as a very dangerous heresy.  “I give myself little trouble, he writes to his brother[688], June 4, 1639, about the calumnies spread against me by the worst of men, in relation to Socinianism.  They may be easily confuted before equitable judges by the writings which I have already published, and by those I shall yet publish.  I have defended the sentiments of the ancient Church concerning the Trinity, Christ’s satisfaction, and future punishments, by Scripture and the consent of antiquity; and have confuted the contrary opinions.  Calvin might more justly be[689] accused of Arianism, than I of Socinianism.”  Sorbiere, who had been his Secretary; discovering a great propensity to some opinions of Socinus, Grotius earnestly admonished him[690] to abstain from such dangerous innovation.