« PreviousContinue »
towards those who call themselves 'the Reformed,' testifies that Peter du Moulin was the author of such counsels. But, because the King pardoned the criminality of those very wicked attempts, let not M. Rivet suppose, that on this account historical and other writers are deprived of all the right of recording such transactions, even when their sole purpose is to teach people to avoid Divines of this description."
“ With regard to the decrees of the Pope, it is the opinion of both the [French7 King and Parliament, that they are not bound by those of them which are repugnant to the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the common consent of the Ancient Fathers, or if they be contrary to those constitutions of Coun. cils or of the Fathers which have been received in France. The man who inspects the Acts of the French Parliament, will perceive several decrees of this kind to have been rejected both now and formerly, by the Parliaments at the advice of Bishops and Divines, when such rejection was required by circumstances. No reason therefore exists for any one to veil his encouragement of party-disputes under a pretended dread of the Pope's omnipotency. * Grotius has not made mention even of local constitutions without some design: For when many speak of them as of burdens oppressive beyond measure to the conscience, it was necessary to shew the estimation in which real Catholics hold such constitutions, and the nature of the obligation arising from them, which is by no means intolerable.
“ The Pastors of the Church, whatever may be the title which they bear, act contrary to the Canons, in the opinion of Grotius, when they are in warlike actions: This opinion he recorded long ago in writing, at the close of his First Book On the Laws of War and Peace. He also thinks, that it is the duty of ministers, not to excite the flame of new wars between Christian princes,-a practice which too many of them pursue, drawing a parallel between Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, adjudged the superiority to the Virgin : This gave Milletiere such a shock, that he declared, wiib his usual frankness, rather than be frequently compelled to hear sermons of that kind he would return to the bosom of the Protestant Church.-In favour of his plan of pacification and re-upion between the two churches, be continued for some years to write books, which are commended by many of the moderate members of both communions. Some further account of him will be found in the subsequent extracts from the letters of Grotius.
* But what good effects did all these checks produce on the omnipotence of the Pope," when the realın was governed by an imbecile Monarch, whose prime minister was a Cardinal ? The horrid massacre of the Protestants of France on St. Bartholomew's day, and the cruel as well as impolitic Revocation of the Edict of Nantz, are, of themselves, sufficient answers to this question.
No cousiderate Protestant can approve of all the palliations which Grotius offers in behalf of Popery. On this point he was evidently misled by his great learning, by which be traced some of the originally innocent observances of the Romish Church up to the purest ages of Christian Antiguity. At that period, too, he saw the Catholic Religion assume a milder aspect, and supported by such moderate reformers of it as Thuanus, Cassander, &c.
to the great injury of nations; but, on the contrary, to extinguish those which have already arisen : This topic likewise he has briefly noticed in the Second Book of the work just mentioned, chap. 23.-I6 M. Rivet entertains a different opinion, he gives a demonstration that he either is or has been in the number of those pastors who excite wars; if his opinion is not different, then why does he carp at expressions uttered with a pious intent? Though M. Rivet is sufficiently audacious when fortune favours him, yet we could not have conceived that he would venture to deny those facts which have transpired in the view of all men, and the recollection of which is still vivid in the minds both of Governors and People. Who are the individuals that compelled sixteen thousand men to perish by famine at Rochelle, rather than experience the clemency of their King ?' They were ministers who called themselves Reformed.— Who are they that inflamed all Languedoc and the contiguous provinces with addresses and libels?' They were the same ministers.—' Who are they that brought down the hatred of the populace upon CAMERON," because he was not equal to them in madness and extravagance, and thus caused him to be treated in such a cruel manner as produced disease and death?' They were men who call themselves Ministers of the word of God. The chariot steeds have heard too many of the smacks of these [exciting) whips.
“But the dogmas of Paræus are injurious to M. Rivet for this reason-because he attempts to defend them by interposing the person of Paræus junior ; * those dogmas will likewise injure the reputation of that society into which he has been adopted, since he denies that the extracts were made in every instance with fidelity. But the colour with which the younger Paræus paints his father's writings, is evidently false and adulterated. He says, his father was there treating about 'those potentates who were admitted [to the exercise of sove'reign power] under conditions. But the elder Paræus was not discussing the laws of Germany. Yet even that country contains many princes who denied that they were admitted [to the sovereigntyj under limitations : But the knowledge of this matter is not the occupation of a Divine, but of lawyers. Paræus did not engage in the interpretation of Paul the Professor of Law, but of Paul the Apostle, who treats about all the higher powers. The elder Paræus, in his explanations, by various methods overturns the expressions of the apostle; and he allows to Christian subjects, even to those in private stations, the very things of which the apostle deprives such subjects. This has been demonstrated correctly and with the greatest fidelity by the University of Oxford, and by King James himself, who declares, that he was always hated by the Puritans for no other reason than that of his being a King.'*
* Philip Paræus was alive, and Priucipal of the College of Hanau in 1616, when Rivet wrote a most virulent reply to these animadversions, interspersed with the most gross slanders concerning the life and death of Grotius. Like a dutiful son, be tried various methods to vindicate the memory of his pious father. In doing this, particularly with respect to his father's E.r position on the Romans, he vindicated the positi of the old gentleman, according to M. Arnaud's statement, " in the same maliper as the Jesuits defend themselves when accused of corrupting Christian Morals,-by shewing that they are neither the first nor the only persons who have inculcated any particular doctrine."
“ But granting that Grotius during former days may, in some instances, have exceeded the bounds of moderation, either through the inexperience of youth, the influence of his great attachment to the station in which he was born and educated, or through his adherence to other writers of great reputation,and granting also, that he may have spoken some things in too general a manner, which ought on the contrary to have been uttered with restrictions, or that he has employed exam, ples which have not been at perfect agreement with each other; yet, after all these concessions, Grotius may now surely be permitted to amend and grow better, after he has by a more extensive course of reading and continued meditation become older, and attained to a state of life that is uninfluenced by party-interests. He undoubtedly always disapproved of the violence used in breaking images and altars, of warlike assemblies, and of those armed forces that were raised among the Dutch prior to any decree of the States, and merely by private enterprize. Yet these were the deeds which are called the commencement of this reformation,'—a kind of commencement with which neither Christ, his apostles, nor the Christians of the best ages were acquainted. Such actions as these accord most completely with the writings not only of Philip Mornai Lord of Plessis Marli, Hottoman, and Buchanan, but also with those of Peter Vermilius surnamed the Martyr, (on the third chapter of the Book of Judges,) Cæsman, Althusius, Lambert Danæus in the passages quoted by Arnisæus, and of as many more of this description, whose writings have never been contradicted by any of that tribe. From the words and deeds of these men we understand what is the signification of that part of the Confession, belonging to those who style themselves the ReFORMED, which says, • Tribute and obedience are due to kings, pro"vided God's supreme authority remains safe and secure.' For by this phrase God's supreme authority, they understand the liberty of their own religion,'—but such a liberty as, when they are the prevailing party, they do not grant to others.
“And for this cause, there vever rose faction in the time of my minority, nor trouble sen-syne, but they that were upon that factious part, were ever careful to persuade and allure these unruly spirits among the ministry, to spouse that quarrel as their own : Wherethrough I was oft-times calum. niated in their popular sermons, not for any evil or vice in me, but because I was a King, which they thought the highest evil."- Basilikon Doron, lib. 2.
“ M. Rivet dare not declare which of those fountains of evils that Grotius has here indicated, he will acknowledge for his own, and which of them he will disavow. The reason of his hesitation undoubtedly is, lest he should either desert such great defenders of his own cause, or lest he should expose his colleagues [the Professors 7 in France to great and deserved hatred by openly explaining the meaning of their expressions. On this account therefore he throws dust into the eyes of his readers, to prevent them from seeing through the whole matter. He is desirous, indeed, to defend the saying of M. du Moulin :* But the client exclaims against his advocate. He who does not worship God is not a just man, because the worship of God is a great part of justice (or righteousness]: But such a person is the just possessor of those things which he holds by that title which the laws approve. To discuss the righteousness of possession, is one thing; and the righteousness of THE PERSON, is another. Yet Du Moulin must not be accounted the inventor of this contrivance, which confounds two things [that are different]; for the same sentiment was one of those which were condemned in Wicliffe, and with great propriety. Because if the Elect have now a right to those things which the REPROBATEs possess, it follows, that they may claim such things for themselves."
But though much and deservedly blamed for the open manner in which he evinced the Genevan antipathy to the regal authority, Paræus seems actually to have considered that he was imparting greater stability to a proviso in Calvin's Institutes by propounding it in a more scholastic form, and deducing some of its legitimate consequences. Calvin had introduced it, with that consummate art which he evinced on some
* This expression occurs in that furious publication the Anatome of Arminianism, which was published by Peter du Moulin in 1619; and which was ably answered by Corvinus in 1621. Prior, however, to the appearance of this Reply, the banished Remonstrants addressed a letter to Moulin, of which , the subjoined paragraph is an extract :
“ There are some persons who also place a black mark of disapprobation upon the following axiom wbich you bave derived from the school of Machiavel: “He who is destitute of faith in Christ, is not a child of God ; and, * consequently, he cannot be the heir and just possessor of earthly benefits, 'whatever may be the civil virtues with which he is adorned.' If ihis be not plotting against the sceptres of Kings, we cannot certainly perccive in what tbat crime consists. Are you then beginuing to accommodate the Reformed rCalvinistic Theology to seditions, rebellions and
? What insanity is this of yours !--that Princes who do not believe in Chrisi, are not the rightful lords of their own kingdoms and dominions! By what law is this just title of possession invalidated ? Relying on the strength of this axiom, you presumptuously claim for yourself and the princes of your religion the kingdom of France : For the answers to the Heidelberg Catechism teach, that the Roman Catholics (of whom the King of France is one,) do iu reality deny Christ. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear !"
To this seditious sophism Grotius, in the text, returns an appropriate answer.
other occasions, into the doctrine which he delivers concerning the duty of subjects to their Princes and Rulers, thus: “For if the vengeance of the Lord is the correction of unrestrained domination, we must not on this account instantly suppose that such vengeance is committed to us, who have received no other command than to obey and suffer. I am [in this chapter] always speaking about men in private stations. In former days there were popular magistrates, who, as Ephori, were placed in opposition to the Spartan Kings; as Tribunes of the People, were opposed to the Roman Consuls; or, as Demarchi, to the Athenian Senate: And the same kind of power perhaps is exercised, in the present state of society, throughout different kingdoms, by the three Estales of each realm when they hold their grand assemblies. If there be now any such popular magistrates appointed to restrain the licentiousness of Kings, I am far from forbidding them, in accordance with their duty, to obstruct [or oppose] the ferocious liberty of Kings : So that if they should connive at Kings when conducting themselves tyrannically, and when they insultingly lord it over the humbled people, I would declare that their dissimulation (or connivance] is not devoid of nefarious perfidy, since they thus deceitfully betray the liberty of the people, of which they knew themselves to have been appointed the protectors by God's ordination.” Among other improvements on Calvin's doctrine, Paræus ascribes to these subordinate magistrates “a power to defend themselves, the Commonwealth, and the Church, even by arms, against the superior magistrate.” Buchanan carried this doctrine still further, by asserting, “ that the whole body of the people have as much authority over the persons of their kings as they have over every one of their own number;" and he thinks it “ unreasonable and absurd, that kings are not made amenable to the ordinary judges of their several kingdoms, as often as any of their subjects may accuse them of murder, adul. tery, neglect in government,” &c. In proof of this reforming position, Buchanan then quotes twelve instances of Scottish Kings, that had either been condemned to perpetual imprisonment, or had by voluntary death or exile escaped the punishment due to their crimes. —Cambden tells us, that John Knox, the Calvinistic Reformer of Scotland, delivered this as a political axiom, “ It is the duty of the nobles to take away idolatry by their own authority, and to reduce Kings by force within the prescribed bounds of the laws.”* To every unprejudiced reader,
• In a letter addressed by Grotius, in 1638, to the Rer. Sampson Johnson, he says: “ Those neighbours of yours (the Scotch] are actuated by the spirit of the flock to which they belong: And unless some metbod be discovered for dissolving the unlawful confederacy, I entertain apprehensions of a great wound being inflicted, I will not now say upon the EPISCOPAL, but upon the RECAL AUTHORITY. I cannot express the solicitude which this affair