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 burnt 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 explaius 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.'

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 Genevan 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 Manichean 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 insurrectious 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 himself 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 bad regard to the more mature sentiments of that great man; but a Calvinist would find no great difficulty in adopting the early creed of Melancthon, 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 I 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,

labours as displaying sufficient liberality and moderation. But it is my desire to render myself serviceable to all men, as well as to the English and the Scotch, not to those of our own times

I unfolding or disclosing, or by what name soever he may choose to call the Son's generation that cannot be declared.' (Isai. liii, 8.)

"The books of Servetus were through the assiduity of Calvin burnt, not only at Geneva, but likewise at other places: I confess, that during the whole of my life I have never yet seen more than one copy of his book in Latin; in which I certainly did not discover those allegations which were urged against him by Calvin. Michael Servetus was, by Calvin's management, burut alive at Geneva, in the year 1553; Melancthon received from Calvin whatever he afterwards wrote about Servetus. Before that period (Ecolampadius seems to have been acquainted with him in Switzerland; but he considered him a proper subject for rejection and exposure, though not to be murdered. Calvin, however, could declare: I freely confess and avow, that I provided the accuser myself.' He adds: The magistrates are not only permitted to inflict punishment on the corrupters of the heavenly doctrine, but they ⚫ have the Divine command thus to act, how unwilling soever ignorant per'sons may be to grant them such a liberty.' And, in his letter to Farel, concerning the same Servetus, he says: I hope he will at least receive a capital 'punishment.'-But the courteous and humane treatment which Calvin usually bestowed on those who differed from him, is evident in his writings. He calls Castellio a knave and Satan, because he opposed that Predestination which Calvin inculcated; Koornhert, both a knave and a dog; and the author of The Duty of a Pious Man in the Midst of this Religious Dissension,' (who was Cassander, but whom Calvin thought to be Baldwin,) is called a fellow of an iron front, devoid of piety, profane, impudent, an impostor, without natural affection,and devoted to petulance. When Baldwin had written an answer to this production, Calvin called him a man of no character, an obscene dog, a disreputable falsifier, a fellow that cunningly plots wicked devices, and that enters into a conspiracy with wicked knaves, a cynic, a buffoon, a perfidious and infatuated wretch, of beastly madness and devoted to Satan. He called Cassander self-complaisant and morose, a sorcerer, ghost, serpent, plague, and hangman! I will again declare the truth, how displeasing soever it may prove to Rivet: These circumstances so vexed Bucer as to compel that mild man to address him in the following words, which are by far too true : 'You form your judgment according to the love or the hatred which you have conceived; but your love or hatred is formed ac'cording to the pleasure of your passions.' Nay, on account of his atrocious sayings, Bucer bestowed on him the name of FRATRICIDE. In a letter to Bucer, Calvin calls this passion for evil-speaking by the softened epithet of impatience;' and says, that he maintained a great conflict with it, and that he had obtained some advantages over it, but they were not such as completely to tame the monster.' If any one will read what Calvin wrote after that period, he will find that the advantages said to have been obtained were all on the wrong side; so mightily was he pleased with that passage, I do that which I would not! (Rom. vii, 16.) Thus likewise does Beza confess, that for the space of fifteen years, during which he had instructed others in the way of righteousness, he was himself neither rendered sober, liberal, nor addicted to speaking the truth, and that he still remained fast in the miry clay.-1 do not adduce these things as though it were at all pleasing to me to maintain a contest with the dead; the reason why I state them is, because I perceive it generally happens, that every one imitates the manners of him whom he chooses for his master. You may commonly see the followers of Melancthou and John Arndt, men of good and kind dispositions; and, on the contrary, the disciples of Calvin are full of asperity, and manifest such a disposition as they imagine God entertains towards the greatest portion of mankind. Of what immense consequence therefore is it to be judicious in the choice of the teacher whom you employ! I advise all those who have leisure, to read both Cassander's and Baldwin's answer to Calvin : For they are of great service in exhibiting the man's real disposition."

alone, but I bestow the chief part of my attention on posterity; and if I should refuse to avail myself of those opportunities which are constantly occurring, a proper season for declaring the

Such were the expressions of Grotius in his Wishes for the Peace of the Church, from which we have already (page 208) given some interesting extracts. In his Discussion of Rivet's Apology, he introduces some judicious remarks on the railing to which the Calvinists had accustomed themselves. He adduces the instance of the COMMONITORY of Vincentius Lirinensis, a new edition of which and of St. Augustine on the Christian Doctrine, had then been recently published in Germany by the famous Lutheran Divine, George Calixtus, for which pacific deed he obtained a plentiful share of abuse from the doctors of the Genevan School, who were always remarkable for their aversion to antiquity. On this subject Grotius says: "Those persons in France, who were desirous of making such an assertion, have lately said, that Vincentius, the author of the Commonitory, was a Semi-Pelagian; but they have produced no proof except from their own judgment. For they account all those who do not agree with Calvin, as Pelagians; or, when inclined to a more lenient course, they call them Semi-Pelagians.' If Rivet be not terrified with the epithet Sesqui-Manicheism, no reason whatever exists for real Catholics being afraid of the term Semi-Pelagianism. The Manichees declared, that evil actions proceeded from necessity. For they were deniers of the freedom of the human will, like some other persons in this age. But since they durst not deny that God is good, they preferred to deduce that necessity of evil actions from some other origin than from the Deity. Yet men have been found, who proceeded far beyond this point; and, while they agreed with the Manichees respecting that inevitable necessity, they had the audacity to ascribe the cause of it to no other source than to our gracious God: These are the men, who, for the best reason in the world, are called Sesqui-Manichees. It would be difficult for me to say, whether or not Rivet be one of their number: For they are accustomed to varnish over their sentiments in a marvellous manner, when they see them liable to incur odium from good men. And they manage all this with such consummate art, as never openly to condemn or to acknowledge the objections made against them.

"Baldwin has quoted, from Beza's answer to Castellio, the expressions which Beza uses when he says, that for the space of fifteen years he was neither rendered sober, liberal, nor addicted to speaking the truth, but that he still remained in the miry clay. Such a confession ought not to be considered disgraceful to those persons who suppose, that St. Paul, even after he had become an Apostle, was brought into captivity to the law of sin, by means of the law in his members; and that he was carnal and sold under sin;' (Rom. vii, 14, 23.) and who declare, that certain sins have dominion over the regenerate, and that the most holy persons on earth daily sin against their own consciences.' Holy men do not utter against themselves such calumnies as these phrases import: St. Paul declares himself to be the chief of sinners;' but this expression refers to the period before his conversion when he was a persecutor of the Church. But, after receiving the knowledge of salvation,' St. Paul and those who resemble him, do not say, that they live without sin; neither do they say, that they are held captive by their sins,' which, as we have before declared, are destroyed at a single blow. St. Augustine is himself a witness that such sins as sacrilege, murder, adultery, false testimony, theft, rapine, pride, envy, avarice, and even anger, itself though long cherished, and drunkenness after frequent indulgence,are all destroyed. How many of Rivet's associates, who style themselves the elect, have been detected in the commission of wicked actions and flagitious crimes! He will say, 'These evil deeds are also found among other 'denominations.' He will speak the truth: But, among those others, there are likewise causes which nourish vicious conduct. Cardinal Gropper also spoke truly, when he said, in the Institution of Catechumens,' It cannot be denied, for facts proclaim this truth, that by the neglect of penitence all ' ecclesiastical discipline, which is the sole foundation of religion, is at once 'forgotten and grown into disuse; and that, in its stead, the foulest and