Grotius’s escape exercised the pens of the most famous poets of that period.  Barlaeus wrote some very good verses on it[113]:  and also celebrated his wife’s magnanimity[114].  Rutgersius composed a poem on his imprisonment, in which he places the day of his arrest among the most unfortunate for the Republic[115].  Grotius himself wrote some verses on his happy deliverance, which were translated into Flemish by the famous poet John Van Vondel.  He made also some lines on the chest to which he owed his liberty, and in the latter part of his life was at great pains to recover it[116].

Henry Dupuis, a learned man settled at Louvain, being informed that Grotius was at Antwerp, sent him a very handsome letter, to signify to him the share he took in the general joy of all good men, and offered him his house, and all that a true friend could give[117]:  but Grotius chose rather to come to France, agreeable to the advice of Du Maurier and the President Jeannin; the latter assuring him he might depend on the King’s protection, the esteem of men of the greatest consideration, and his friendship.

But previous to the account of his journey to Paris it will be proper to say something of the writings that appeared relating to the disputes which divided the church and state.

Among the Ministers who opposed the Arminians Sibrand Lubert was one of the most zealous and in greatest reputation.  This man was a Professor in the university of Francker:  he wrote against Worstius, who was suspected of Socinianism; and insinuated that the States of Holland favoured that heresy.  He also complained of their renewing the law of 1591, concerning the election of ministers, and their opposing the convocation of a National Synod.  The States, incensed at his presumption, employed Grotius to write their Apology, which he published in 1613.

In this work he undertakes to shew that the Arminians have very different sentiments on grace from the Pelagians; that they join with the Greek and many Latin Fathers in their opinion about Predestination; that the Reformed did not always entertain such rigid sentiments, particularly Melancton, inferior to none in learning or piety; that since the rise of the disputes Arminius and Gomar had declared in writing, there was no difference between them in fundamentals; that after the dispute of those two Divines in presence of the States, it was determined that the two opinions might be tolerated; that since the death of Arminius twelve Ministers of the two parties having been heard, the States recommended to them mutual toleration and charity.