66

all controversy, that a Roman Emperor was designated by this number." This pamphlet was answered in 1640, by Samuel Marets, Professor of Divinity at Boisleduc in Brabant, who vindicated in a passionate style the common interpretation of those passages of scripture. Contrary to his usual practice, Grotius did not make any mention of the name of Marets in the Appendix to his tract De Antichristo, which he published early in 1641; but, sporting with the French mode of pronouncing this man's name, which is exactly the same as that of marais, a swamp," Grotius styled his malevolent adversary Borborita, "dirty fellow," in allusion to the Greek word BopBopos, and its French derivative bourbe, "mud" or "slime." The reader may judge how well this term suited Marets, by perusing the first sentence of his Preface, which originally commenced in the following manner, till the Amsterdam printer refused to prostitute his types by giving publicity, in the very first sentence, to what he regarded as an untruth: A small work on Antichrist has lately "been printed, the author of which is he who was the editor of "the book of those two Socinians, Crellius and Volkelius." Marets is the person who had the famous dispute with Voetius, whether the Synod of Dort decided in favour of the Supralapsarians or the Sub-lapsarians. He was a man of good sense, yet rather deficient in classical learning, as may be seen by his mistaking Borborita for a word of Latin extraction: Grotius says in one of his private letters, "that, when he heard of the course of life which Marets had pursued in France, he perceived that this Greek appellative was not misapplied." In his two works against Grotius, he was assisted by the rest of the Calvinian brotherhood -a practice very usual with the French pastors of that age. But, though professedly a reply to Marets, and to an author who had written against him under the fictitious name of FRONTO, this Appendix, it will be seen by the following extract of a letter to his brother, was designed by Grotius to operate as a check to the English and Scotch Puritanic Levellers, who, according to the prophetic annunciation of their own seers, had begun to hail the arrival of the days when they could reward Babylon double according to her works, in the persons of the English Arminians. This letter is dated January 5, 1641 : "I am now afraid lest, through the tardiness of the printer, a longer delay should be disagreeable to those who with the greatest justice expect a sight of my answer to Marets and Fronto. Since this answer was due from me, the very necessity of the argument led me to shew that many things are placed among the marks of Antichrist, which can plead antiquity in their favour. But this very circumstance smooths the way to concord, if at any period Kings and Bishops be wishful to indulge serious considerations about it. In completing this work, it was necessary incidentally to demonstrate, that the party which thus severely chastises other people, is not

itself without fault: Yet I have shewn this with such moderation, as not even to subjoin the names of those whom I intend to point out by this description. But though that turbulent spi

* The Calvinists thought that much moderation was displayed in every part of the Appendix, except at its conclusion, a quotation froin which is here subjoined:

"I do not deny, that the sayings which are recorded in the Revelations, although they may have been truly fulfilled, are of great service to our own times,-not only by creating within us a more confirmed belief of God's providence and foreknowledge, after we have beheld the predictions and the events which exactly corresponded with them,-but likewise by teaching us to beware of those persons who contract a portion of that spirit which is censured in the Revelations: For, mankind are accustomed frequently to relapse into offences, that are either the very same, or nearly equal. It is my hearty desire, that all the Roman [Catholics], who are placed on the chief watch-towers of their church, may derive this kind of instruction; and that Borborita [Marets] and his associates may be benefitted by similar reflections. I will not accuse them of idolatry who much too frequently evince their abhorrence even of rites that are excellent and have been long received; and yet, if the name be deduced from things to their resemblances, there is something allied to idolatry in addicting themselves to the opinions of new masters in such a manner, as ueither to venture on an accurate examination of such opinions themselves, nor permit them to be examined by others. But undoubtedly, many of this party [the Calvinists] cannot clear themselves from the criminal charge of attacking the rights of kings, and of seeking the horns of the bull rather than those of the lamb,-whether we have regard to the [seditious] dogmas of Junius Brutus and many others, or to the factions, seditions, conspiracies, and the private assumption of arms, under the surreptitious name of the Christian Religion. The kings of France and Great Britain, as well as other kings and legitimate authorities, have declared, that such foul deeds seem to have derived their origin from those dogmas, or to have received from them the greatest encouragement. But how is it possible for them to repel the charge of cruelty against those who differ from them, when they are of opinion, that the laws of Moses concerning punishments [against idolaters, &c.] ought to be adopted by Christian princes, while, at the same time, they themselves reckon in the number of idolaters all the Pope's adherents? It is unnecessary to state the fatal consequences that would ensue from such a doctrine, if they were Besides, how can the very possessed of strength equal to their inclination.

offences objected against others be removed from themselves by the disciples of Beza and Calvin, both of whom have written books on punishing heretics with the sword? Beza's book was translated even into the Dutch language by [two] ministers, [Bogerman and Geldorp,] and recommended to the magistrates: Look also at the comment of this same Beza on Titus ini, 10, in relation to this subject. But when Servetus, prior to his coming to Geneva, had desired to obtain Calvin's opinion about his writings, Calvin was the person who wrote to Farel, (and his own hand-writing is yet extant at Paris,) that, if his authority was of any avail, he would prevent Servetus from returning alive. He adhered to his promise: For, having suborned his own baker as the accuser, (of which fact he makes great boasts in his printed correspondence,) by the authority which he possessed be easily caused Servetus to be burned alive,-a very dangerous example, according to the judgment of the famous Father Paul, [author of the History of the Council of Trent,] and one which might readily be quoted as a precedent against its authors, and recoil upon themselves.

But it is objected, Servetus held sentiments about the Trinity that were not correct in every particular. This is very possible; because a mistake is easily committed in matters that so greatly transcend the grasp of the human understanding. Is not he, who was the cause of Servetus being And have all men been satisfied with those burnt, the real burner? opinions on the Trinity which were held by this burner of Servetus ?-By no means: Many of the doctors of the Sorbonne impute heretical opinious

rit will excite great commotions not in Scotland only, but likewise in England; yet, if I do not deceive myself, I think I ought not any longer to delay my answer, lest I be considered as hav.

to Calvin; and nearly all the Lutherans accuse him of Arianism. He must therefore have been burut himself, if he had fallen into the hands of judges on whose minds the authority of the Doctors of the Sorbonne or of the Lutherans had as much influence as Calvin's had on those of Geneva.

"That we may not imagine Calvin to have been unmerciful on the subject of the Trinity only, he himself relates, in a letter addressed to Farel in 1536, that a certain Anabaptist had been seized, at his instigation,' (this is his own expression,) and he adds the reason, For he had promulged the execrable axiom,-that the Old Testament was abolished.' He then subjoins another reason by saying, I declared that I brought a capital accusation against him for stealing; and I offered [to lose] my head if he denied the 'charge.' What can be the sum of this grievous crime? Calvin explains it : It was made evident that he had sold for two shillings and sixpence four leaves which had only cost him four-pence. Therefore,' such is the phraseology of the letter, when this Anabaptist had sufficiently displayed his obstinacy, he was driven into banishment.' Well, what besides? Calvin adds, Two days afterwards he was caught in the city, and received a public whipping.'

6

"Melancthon had heard only of the former part of this transaction, about the imprisonment of the Anabaptist. But he had a right understanding of the case when he wrote about the same time to the very excellent Camerarius, and said: Behold the fury of the times! The Genevau contests about Stoical Necessity are so high, as to inclose in a prison a cer'tain person who differs from Zeno.'-I believe you know, Borborita, who this Zeno is: But, on this point, Melancthon thus explains himself, in his Reply to the Bavarian Articles: For I openly reject and detest the Stoical and Manicheau furies, which affirm that all things happen necessarily, both good actions and those which are evil. On these subjects I omit all further discussions, for they are reproachful towards God and pernicious to good morals.' I repeat the same admonition to those who may peruse these and others of my productions; and I pray God, that all dogmas which are reproachful to him and injurious to good manners may be extirpated, and that a way may thus be opened for an equitable peace," &c.

In this extract, the reader will find a second mention of the book entitled Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, sive de Principis in Populum, Populique in Principem legitima Potestate, AB STEPHANO JUNIO BRUTO; which furnished the Calvinists of that age with many of the dangerous political principles on which they acted. It was printed by Guarin, at Basle, in 1579; and being translated into French, in 1581, it served as a kind of political text-book to the Calvinists, in their various insurrections in that kingdom, till Rochelle was reduced and taken, and Cameronism succeeded to the place of Calvinism. On the 28th of February, 1643, Grotius informed his brother of the real author of that seditious publication: "I think I formerly told you, that Philip Mornay, Lord du Plessis Marli, was the author of Junius Brutus, and that the editor of it was Louis Villiers, Loiselerius. I repeat this, because Marets says, that this Brutus is an unknown writer, when the author's name is a circumstance well known to multitudes: And the same Du Plessis, in his last will and testament, exhorted his sons-inlaw and his friends to rise in arms, if the edicts [in favour of the Reformed] were not observed." Another reference to the will of Du Plessis is made in a preceding page (210), by Grotius. In a subsequent letter, dated March 21, he says: The account which I gave you about Mornay Du Plessis, I received from those who lived with him: And his last will plainly agrees with themaxims contained in that book." It is not improbable, that M. Daillè, the celebrated Cameronist, was his informant: For he was the Pastor of the Reformed Church at Paris, had been on terms of intimacy with Grotius, (page 222,) and had resided several years in Mornay's family as tutor to his children; he was also present when that nobleman died.-Bayle, whose excusable partiality for the French Calvinists is no secret, has written a

ing nothing to oppose. Besides, I do not despair that some of the PURITANS, after obtaining a sight of my production, may make a nearer approach to sanity, if they be not entirely cured. Dissertation on this seditious production, in which he leaves it doubtful whether Beza or Philip Mornay was the real author,-though in one part he endeavours to convince his readers, from certain documents, that it was written by Hubert Languet, of Franche Comte, a great politician and the Duke of Saxony's agent in France. One of Bayle's Commentators has written a long and able Critique to shew, that the proofs adduced for Du Plessis being the author are incontrovertible, and that it is very probable Languet was the editor and the writer of the Preface. Rivet, who was himnself a Frenchman, does not, in his answer to the Discussion of Grotius, deny this circumstance, but offers an apology for Du Plessis, on account of his age and the persecutions to which the French Protestants were then exposed.

Grotius has also briefly stated the case of Servetus. As this is a topic on which many Calvinists betray their indiscretion, I subjoin a few extracts from the answers of Grotius to Rivet. One of the late biographers of Melancthon has, in his Preface, given his readers the following information: "No one surely can mistake the purpose of this volume so much as to suppose, that the author pledges himself to believe the creed, or to vindicate all the opinions of its illustrious subject." Those persons who "suppose that. the author," who is a Calvinist Minister," pledged himself to believe the creed" of the moderate Melancthon, will indeed have "mistaken the purpose of his volume;" for, in one part of it, the prominent purpose seems to be, the partial exculpation of Calvin's foul deed against Servetus, by adducing the authority of Melancthon in its favour. By not "believing Melancthon's creed," the author may have had regard to the more mature sentiments of that great man; but a Calvinist would find no great difficulty in adopting the early creed of Melancthou, by which he and Luther gave the reins to those enthusiasts, the German Anabaptists. Melancthon soon perceived his error, discarded the fatal doctrines of Unconditional Election and Reprobation, begun sedulously to teach all men to prove their faith by their works, frequently blessed God for having instructed him in this more excellent way, and continued throughout life a greater assertor of the powers of the human will than Arminius or any of his evangelical followers. It is this amended" creed" which Melancthon's biographer does not "pledge himself to believe;" but though it was not strictly in his line of duty to "believe" it, it was his paramount duty, as an honest man and a faithful narrator of facts, to state this change, which was most honourable to the character of his author. This gentleman, and other modern Calvinistic dabblers in that odious affair, will derive some instruction from the following interesting quotation : Among the Dutch, those who were condemned at the Synod of Dort, and afterwards banished out of the country, had previously delivered to their rulers a statement of their sentiments, which are the same as those of Melancthon, and which always had in those parts many defenders. They were not the first to make a secession, but their adversaries.-The authority of the Bishop of Rome would not have appeared so formidable to [Bishop] Hall, as on that account to cast away all hopes of reconciliation, had he known how easily the remedies may be procured, both in France and Spain, to prevent the Popes from invading the rights either of kings or bishops; and especially if he had considered, that the king of Great Britain exercises no jurisdiction over ecclesiastical affairs and persons, that is not likewise exercised by the king of the Two Sicilies.-But, to return to the business of Dort, it was the principal objection which the Lutherans urged against the plan of John Duræus, who, when attempting with the best intentions to establish concord among all Protestants, received this reply from the divines of Strasburgh and Sweden, that they [the Lutherans] were as much condemned at that Synod as the Arminians.-In former days, when any quotations from Calvin, Beza, and other writers, were pressed as objections against those who account themselves better reformed than other people, they were accustomed to answer, These are but the private opinions of teachers' But all

I have also the same reasons to expect a similar result from the more moderate Papists, especially when the most learned men of their party have already expressed their approbation of my the men of that party [the Calvinists] are now bound down by the public voice of their own Synod. They have no means of escape: For there is not a man among them that is not bound to defend those horrible decrees,' as Calvin himself calls them; nor can any one believe, that the fraternal kindness expressed by Calvin's disciples, is employed with any other design, than to serve for ingratiating themselves by some means or other. When they have [in any country] become sufficiently powerful, they will banish other people, as they acted in Holland against those individuals of whom we have already spoken: They have likewise twice ejected Luther's disciples out of the territory of the Elector Palatine.-Let men of prudence now judge, whether I uttered a useless wish when 1 said, that men of such a disposition, who openly avow that the Israel of God must dwell alone, ought to be kept under restraint by kings and magistrates, lest they should make those attempts against others which may probably recoil on themselves.' But the causes which I produced, why those dogmas ought not to be approved which were formed at Dort, and then re-formed in the mountains of Cevennes, [at the French National Synod of Alez,] were not produced solely from my own judgment about them, but from the judgment of all who dissent from them,-such as the Roman Catholics, the Greek Church, and the Protestants who adhere to the Augsburgh Confession. God forbid, that I should give my assent to Calvin and Beza, for burning or punishing with death those who err about the Trinity: For an error is easily committed in that very difficult doctrine; but the punishment of the man who thus errs, should be such instruction as may cause him to acknowledge his heresy. For if the magistrates, according to the law of Moses, which Calvin and Beza adduce, ought to kill those who do not accurately distinguish the Divine Persons [in the Trinity], which is the only thing objected by Melancthon against Servetus,-what hinders the same magistrates from killing those also who confound the [two] natures of Christ, the error which Calvin's disciples charge upon the followers of Luther?, &c.

"Rivet says, on the first article, that he and his associates are led by the public authority of the Spirit in his own word, which is common to all Christians. Just such an assertion has been made by Menno and Socinus, by Bruno and many others. The reader will perceive the perplexities in which the minds of men are involved when they hear resounding on every side, This is the pure and sincere word of God, according to the meaning of the Holy Spirit? They know not whither to betake themselves, except that the greatest part of them remain in the lot assigned to them by their birth or education, or stand still in the place to which they have been conveyed by their hopes of honour and advantage, while their associates likewise express aloud their unanimous and high approval. If any one can extricate mankind out of this labyrinth, will he not perform an acceptable service? The learned Germans, who published the remarks of the Patriarch Gennadius on the Trinity, which may be considered those of the Greek Church, had discovered no discrepancy between them and the contents of the Nicene Creed. I am not certain, that on this subject other people cannot see as far as Frenchmen, though the latter possess a more subtle genius. But let them beware lest they fall into the same snare as Calvin did, who brought upon himself the most grievous accusations by his refined subtleties. It is not every man that can readily declare what things they are which differ in reality, in relation, or in modality; or that can speedily discern whether it is more correct to say, The Father begat, or The Father is always procreating; whether Keckerman spoke with propriety when he said, Persons are not entities; whether Calvin spoke with perfect correctness when he asserted, that persons are properties; and why it was displeasing to the same individual to hear the Son called God of God. When I peruse such expressions as these, and revolve them in my mind, I applaud that saying of Irenæus: If therefore any person ask us, In what monner is the Son produced by the 'Father?, we answer, No one knows this production, generation, naming,