However much Grotius was employed in the business of his embassy, he still found time for study, which was one of the greatest pleasures of his life. He has even been accused of applying too much to literature for an Ambassador; but his letters testify that he did not go to study till he had finished what his duty to the crown of Sweden required of him, and spent in it the time only which other Ministers give to their pleasures, to conversations often useless, and visits sometimes unnecessary.

Eight days after making his entry into Paris in quality of Ambassador, he wrote to Salmasius, March 9, 1635, informing him of the happy change in his affairs. He acquaints him, that when he shall be a little used to business, he hopes to have leisure enough to continue the cultivation of learning. “How desirous soever I may be of serving the public in this respect, he says, I know not where I ought to begin. My Commentaries on the Evangelists would be apt to expose me to hatred in the present age, when every one maintains his opinions with obstinacy. The History of the Low-Countries, tho’ written with great simplicity, will find malevolent readers. Shall I return again to trifles, such as are not unworthy men of learning, and turn into Latin the Epigrams collected by Planudas? One thing hinders me: I know you have made several corrections in the Manuscripts, and I am unwilling to translate from a faulty copy. Yet I cannot expect that you should interrupt your studies, to send me the corrections you have made.”

“My greatest relief from the languors of the Court, he writes to Schmalz, is the conversation of men of learning, to whom I chearfully give all the time that I can spare from business.”

II. Neither his serious studies, nor his public occupations, ever made him relinquish the Muses: Amidst his embarrassments and anxiety in the beginning of his embassy, he put his tragedy of Joseph to the press, which had all the success that could be hoped for; and wrote several Latin Epigrams. June 26, 1637, he sent some to his brother that were just finished; observing to him that he would possibly one day add to them a Greek translation in verse of the Latin verses in Suetonius; and a Latin translation of Euripides’s Iphigenia in Tauris.

He wrote to Gronovius, February 17, 1638, that he unbended himself at times, after his weightier business, in the company of the Muses. “However much I am busied, he writes to Freinshemius, I still preserve my affection for the Muses, and look upon them as the most agreeable of all Amusements.”

III. He made Tacitus his particular study, and, writes to Vossius, July 6, 1635, to inform himself, whether a new edition of that celebrated Historian, was any where printing, because he had a mind to communicate his notes to the Editors. “They are neither,” says he, “political dissertations, nor a commentary; but corrections which may be useful. I call them, to speak modestly, conjectures, tho’ I am persuaded most of them will appear to be well grounded.” However, as they filled but a few sheets, he did not think proper to print them, at Paris; but sent them, in 1640, to his brother, who communicating them to the Elzevirs, they were published the same year in their edition of Tacitus, and have been several times reprinted.

IV. The learned Gronovius, intending to publish an edition of Statius, requested Grotius to send him his remarks on that Poet: this he complied with, in a letter of the 28th of October, 1636, containing the several corrections he had made in the margin of this author, whom he had often read with pleasure and application. The edition of Statius was published: and Gronovius, without receiving Grotius’s letter, had made most of the remarks that were sent to him: Grotius, however, suspected Gronovius had perhaps been persuaded to pretend that he did not receive his letter, that he might be under no obligation of commending a man, whose name was odious to those in power.

V. Grotius also wrote notes on Lucan, which he offered to any bookseller who would make use of them. He wrote to his brother, to enquire when any new edition of that Poet should be printed, that he might contribute to make it better by communicating his remarks. They are to be found in some of the editions printed in Holland, and are very highly commended by Vossius, who says the learned world is much obliged to their author.

A letter from Grotius to his brother informs us, that the latter part of the notes of Lucan were by William Grotius.

VI. A work, which he had much at heart, was the collection of Greek Epigrams, known by the name of Anthologia: he was long about it, and thought to publish it soon after his return to Paris in quality of Ambassador. As he knew that Salmasius had made this collection his particular study, he requests him, June 11, 1635, to communicate to him the corrections he had made in the Greek text, either by the assistance of manuscripts, or from his own conjectures. He gives a long account of his design to Gerard Vossius, in a letter of the 20th of December, 1635. “When I was here a private man, says he, in order to be useful to the lovers of learning, after translating Stobaeus and the Maxims of the Comic and Tragic Poets, I also translated the Collection of Greek Epigrams by Planudas; adding several Epigrams which are not in Henry Stephens’s edition: on coming here Ambassador, I thought I should do well to finish what I had begun; and knowing that the great Salmasius had collated these Epigrams with ancient manuscripts, I prevailed on him to communicate to me his remarks; and I had the satisfaction to find my conjectures confirmed by the authority of manuscripts. The whole is now ready to be printed in the same form as Stobaeus and the Extracts from the Greek Tragedies and Comedies. When I think of a Bookseller, Blaeu first occurs to me: he loves me and all my friends: but one thing vexes me; if I give him my manuscript, I shall not know when it will be published: besides, I doubt whether he has any one that can correct the Greek proofs, and make the Indexes which are necessary for rendering the book useful to youth. If I could be assured of this, I would readily give him the preference. I shall afterwards think of publishing more considerable works.” New reflections on Blaeu’s dilatoriness set him against him, especially as he was not satisfied with his Greek types: he therefore wrote to his brother, to consult with Vossius what he ought to do. “I would not, he adds, have recourse to the Elzevirs, not so much on account of this book, as of some others which I am preparing for the press, and which will not be to their taste.” It is unlucky for the republic of letters, that Grotius was obstinately bent on printing his Anthologia in Holland; Morelle would gladly have printed it at Paris; Cramoisi would not have refused it. Grotius writes to his brother, June 26th, 1637, “I am deliberating, whether to make use of Cramoisi, the eminent Bookseller; but I have some reason to question the abilities of his corrector.” He once thought to send it to England; but he was diverted from this by reflecting, that Franciscus Junius, who resided in that country, printed his works out of the kingdom. The answers he received concerning the printing of the Anthologia not satisfying him, he wrote to his brother, April 20, 1639, “If my Anthologia cannot be printed, or not printed correctly, I would have it sent back to me; Cramoisi, the richest Bookseller in this country, will undertake it.” He was kept in hopes of its appearing in Holland; but the printing of it was put off from time to time: he wrote to several of his friends about it; however no progress was made. Isaac Vossius, son of the famous Gerard, who inherited his father’s sentiments for Grotius, making an offer of his service for his literary commissions, Grotius thanked him most affectionately, in a letter of the 12th of November, 1644, in which he says a great deal about his Anthologia. “I cannot sufficiently thank you for the kind offer of your good services in relation to the printing of my works. No body can be of more use to me than you: for who has more friendship for me, or better understands those matters? I would have the Anthologia printed directly; and have desired my brother to shew you my Prolegomena, and inform you in what manner I would have the Indexes made. I shall repeat it, for fear that I have not sufficiently explained myself in what I wrote to my brother. I would first have an Index of the Poets, expressing exactly from what places the Epigrams are taken. There must also be another Index of the persons who are the subject of the Epigrams, and of those to whom they are addressed: there should be a third, which may be called Chorographical, containing the mountains, rivers, towns, baths, bridges, and other public works mentioned in the Epigrams. There must be an Historical one for the great actions which have happened in war or peace. To the two last Indexes I would have the names of the authors added, who have mentioned such of those actions as are least known; as Strabo, Pausanias, Procopius, and others. After these Indexes there must be another, comprehending the natural history, morality, and other particulars omitted in the preceding ones. This work may be useful; but I would not, however, charge any one with it, who could employ his time better. If, without losing too much time, you could do it yourself, it would give me the highest satisfaction, not only on my own account, but on the reader’s, to whom these Indexes would render the edition much more useful: for it is proper to observe, that these Epigrams contain what is most important in history, from the time of Plato to that of Justinian, and even later.”

This was the subject of the Preface, or Prolegomena, that was to be prefixed to the work, and which, with his usual modesty, he says will not be wholly useless.

The Anthologia appears to have been put to press in Jan 1645, under the inspection of Isaac Vossius: for, on the 21st of that month, Grotius writes thus to him. “I have seen a proof of the Anthologia, and like the type very well. I would absolutely have it printed in quarto, like Stobaeus, and the Extracts from the Tragic and Comic Poets: but if it will make too large a volume, it may be divided into two, and the Greek and Latin printed to face one another.”

Grotius left France a little after the date of this letter; and his death, which soon followed, was no doubt the greatest obstacle to the publication of the Anthologia, the printing of which Blaeu discontinued. Grotius’s copy falling into Le Clerc’s hands, he gave hopes that he would publish it with considerable additions. He has a great deal about it in his Bibliotheque Choisie. “Those who shall read Grotius’s version, says he, will equally admire the happy genius, and the uncommon patience of that excellent man, who translated the whole book in the same number of verses as in the original, which he very often equals, and sometimes even surpasses. There will be an excellent Preface by Grotius, treating of the Anthologia and his version of it.”

Unhappily M. le Clerc did not fulfil the engagement he entered into with the public. Father Berthier, a famous Jesuit, who, to solid piety joins extensive learning, has lately given us, in the Memoirs de Trevoux, a very curious article relating to Grotius’s Anthologia. It is entitled, An Account of a Manuscript version of the Greek Anthologia by Grotius. He tells us, that the original, in Grotius’s own hand, is in the library of the Jesuits College at Paris, where it was deposited in the year 1665 by Edmund le Mercier, Grotius’s Secretary. This work, the learned Jesuit observes, is valuable on three accounts. First, because the Latin verses are excellent, and of the same measure with the Greek; so that if the text be Elegiac verses, or pure Hexameters, or Iambics of six feet, or Anacreontics, the version is always of the same species of poetry. Secondly, he has every where confined himself to the number of verses in the original, being never more laconic nor more prolix; which discovers a very ready genius, and a singular patience. Thirdly, he corrects the text from time to time by short notes placed in the margin.

Father Berthier gives afterwards Grotius’s translation of several Epigrams; which makes it earnestly to be wished, that the learned Jesuit would publish the whole work: but the present prevailing taste for trifles gives us ground to apprehend, that the booksellers of France dare not undertake this work, which deserves so well to be transmitted to posterity.

Besides the Epigrams that are to be found in all the editions, Grotius’s manuscript contains, first, those which were collected by Henry Stephens, and are placed at the end of his edition of the Anthologia 2dly, A very large number of inscriptions from Gruter 3dly, A collection made by Grotius himself from manuscripts.

A note at the beginning of this valuable manuscript informs us, that the version of the seven books of the Anthologia was begun by Grotius in September, 1630, and finished before next September: which shews the wonderful ease with which this great author wrote.

VII. He was so sensible of his obligations to Sweden, that, as a public testimony of his gratitude, he undertook to throw light on the History of the Goths, in hopes of doing honour to the Swedes, who regarded them as their ancestors. He wrote to Rome to get what was wanting in Heschelius’s Greek edition of Procopius communicated to him, and obtained it by the recommendation of Messieurs du Puis; as we learn from a letter to the celebrated Nicholas Peyresc, dated April 8, 1636, in which he adds, “I have translated the History of the Goths and Vandals by Procopius, in honour of a nation who adopted me after being thrice sold by my Country.”

He communicated this project to Schmalz, July 24, 1636, “The time, says he, which I am not obliged to spend in public business, I devote to an enquiry into the antiquities of Sweden. Be so kind to send me, for this work, a Swedish Dictionary, a New Testament in Swedish, and the ancient inscriptions in that language, which are to be met with on tombs, or in other places. I have seen a Latin translation of the Swedish laws, which I should be glad to see again if possible. If you can procure me all these, I shall think myself highly obliged by you; and I hope you will not find me ungrateful.”

He explains his project more at large in a long letter to Oxenstiern, Aug 28, 1636. “Your Sublimity, he writes to him, shews me so much favour, and you interest yourself so much in what concerns me, that I think it my duty to give you an account, not only of my negotiations, but of my leisure hours. As I intend to devote the time that is not employed in the affairs with which I am charged, to the honour of a kingdom which has loaded me with honours, I had begun to read all that has been written on the great Gustavus in Latin, Italian, German, and French: but soon perceiving that these writers did not know the intentions of the ministry, were unacquainted with the places of which they speak, and were ignorant of the art of war, I concluded that it was impossible, with such materials, to complete a work that might deserve the approbation of posterity. This has made me turn again to antiquities. Of all the Ancients Procopius has best handled the History of the Goths and Vandals: he was an able man, was Secretary to Belisarius, had been on the spot, and speaks not only of what happened in his own time, but also of the facts which happened before his time. The Latin version is very faulty, imperfect, and inelegant: I have made a new translation from the Greek Edition of Heschelius; with the assistance of two manuscripts in the King’s library, which enabled me to make several corrections in the text; others I made by conjecture. I intend to extract all that has relation to this subject from the Secret History of Procopius, printed by Alemannus at Rome, and from Agathias. Being informed, that the manuscript of the History of the Goths and Vandals, in the Vatican library, was more complete than what Heschelius followed, I have asked my friends at Rome to fill up the gaps in the printed copies: which I hope they will do. That nothing may be omitted, which has a relation to the antiquities of Scandinavia, I intend to add what is contained in Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemaeus, and those who have written since, as Helmoldus, Eginhart, Adam of Bremen, and others. I shall farther add the Gothics of Jornandes, the Epistle of Sidonius Apollinaris on the manners of Theodoric King of the Wisigoths; the Panegyric of Ennodius of Pavia in honour of Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths and Italy; the Laws of the Ostrogoths, Westrogoths, and Lombards, with the Book of Paulus Diaconus, who was himself a Lombard, and makes his nation come from Scandinavia. We shall add, at the end, the appellative names contained in the laws, with their original and explication. I would beg of your Sublimity, that being now returned to Sweden, you will give orders for communicating to me the old inscriptions, the ancient laws, and, in fine, whatever is not printed and may contribute to throw light on the antiquities of Sweden; that the work which I am about may be the more perfect. I earnestly intreat your Sublimity to be assured, that I will do all that depends on me, not only to procure the advantage of Sweden, but also to contribute to her glory.”

Schmalz going to Rome about this time with Reigersberg, son to Grotius’s wife’s brother, Grotius took that opportunity of renewing his acquaintance with Holstenius, his ancient friend, who resided at Rome; and to ask of him what was wanting in the printed editions of Procopius. On receiving these valuable additions, he communicates the good news to the High Chancellor, whom he entertains with a further account of his work, in a letter dated June 25th, 1637. “Your Sublimity, he says, will pardon me, if, having little public business on my hands, I give you an account how I employ my time. I send you a pretty long Preface, in which I inscribe the new translation of Procopius, which differs greatly from the old one, to your Sublimity, who have deserved so well of Sweden, and to whom I am under so great obligations. The work itself will include the authors who have written of the antiquities of the Goths, Vandals, Wisigoths, and Lombards. Two reasons induced me to make the Preface so long: the first, that I was obliged to answer Cluverius, who, either from envy, or hired by the Danes, first sought to darken our glory; but I have confuted him by such clear evidence, that I think no person of sense will now attempt to repeat the same falsities. The other was, that, the testimonies in favour of a nation being liable to suspicion when built only on the assertions of the natives, I have collected the authorities of foreigners, who have spoken honourably of the Swedes and of the nations sprung from them.”

Thus in appears that his design was to dedicate this work to the High Chancellor, who heard with infinite pleasure of this new occupation of Grotius. He liked the Preface much; spoke of it with the highest esteem, and wrote to Grotius, thanking him in his own name and in the name of the whole nation, and pressing him to publish the work.

However he was in no hurry, because he wanted to exhaust the subject, and to make all proper enquiries for enabling him to treat it thoroughly. He imagined he should find in Gallia Narbonensis, and the neighbouring places, several things that might contribute to embellish his work; and that the French, from envy to the Swedes, hindered his friends from communicating them.

This work was finished before Grotius died; but it was not printed till after his death: and whether it was that the intended Dedication to the High Chancellor was never written, or was suppressed, it is not now to be found. The title of the work is: Historia Gothorum, Vandalorum, & Longobardorum, ab Hugone Grotio partim versa, partim in ordinem digesta: praemissa sunt ejusdem Prolegomena; ubi Regum Gothorum ordo e Chronologia, cum elogiis; accedunt nomina appellativa & verba Gothica, Vandalica, Longobardica, cum explicatione. Auctorum omnium ordinem tabula centenorum indicat. Amstelodami, apud Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1655.

At the head of this work is a very learned Preface, in which the author acquaints us, that he revised the Gothics and Vandalics of Procopius by the Greek manuscripts; that he new-translated them because there were many things omitted in the old translations, which were otherwise badly done; and that, by the assistance of the Vatican manuscripts, he filled up large gaps. There follows a geographical description of the ancient country of the Goths, a character of the people, much in their favour; a catalogue of their Kings; a chronological table of the time when they lived; a list of the Lombard Kings, and another of the Kings of the Vandals; the testimonies of the Ancients in favour of the people of Sweden and the nations which derive their origin from the Swedes.

After the translation of all that Procopius has concerning the Goths and Vandals there follows an Index, with this title: Nomina appellativa & verba Gothica, Vandalica, & Longobardica, quae in hoc volumine reperiuntur. It appears from the author’s researches, that almost all the appellative names of the Lombards had, like those of the Greeks, some signification. This collection concludes with the following pieces: Jornandes De Getarum sive Gothorum origine & rebus gestis; the Chronicle of St. Isidorus, and Paulus Wanefridus De Gestis Longobardorum. The Prolegomena acquaint us, that Grotius intended to expound the ancient laws of the Goths and Vandals: but unhappily death prevented his executing this design, for which no one was better qualified.

VIII. The nomination of Grotius, when very young, to be Historiographer of the States, led him to enquire particularly into the troubles of the Low Countries and their consequences with regard to the Seven Provinces. He was employed about this in the year 1614, as appears by a letter, written on the 8th of February, to the President de Thou. He informs him, that love to his Country had engaged him in a work very like his, but as much inferior as Holland is to France. “I own, indeed, the work is above my abilities, but I shall not publish it till years and judgment enable me to mend it.” Communicating this work to Heinsius, with whom he was then very intimate, that learned youth wanted words to express his admiration. Balzac informs us of these particulars in a letter to Chapelin, dated Sept 20, 1640, in which he mentions a letter from Heinsius concerning this History when Grotius was very young.

An author, more fond of his works than Grotius, would have made haste to publish this, which appears to have been finished in 1636; for that year he wrote to Martinus Opitius, “My Belgic annals are transcribing.” He writes to his brother the year following, “My Annals and my History of the Low Countries are transcribed: but I think I must still keep them a while.” He consulted several of his friends on this subject, and among others Gerard Vossius.

The sudden deaths of many of his acquaintance leading him to reflect on the uncertainty of life, he wrote to his brother, May 21, 1639, “I would have my works printed before my death, that I may be useful to those that shall come after me; and would therefore have my Annals correctly printed as soon as possible; but I would not have them printed by those, who, from a party spirit, would tell what was in them before they were published, and thereby prevent perhaps their ever appearing. I therefore beg of you to find out some honest man to whom I may intrust my copy.”

In the mean time he was still revising them; and near two years after he wrote to his brother, March 23, 1641, “Till I put the last hand to my History, I would not have any one see it: you must therefore find a handsome excuse to those who ask you for it. Read it, however, yourself, and send me your remarks.” Grotius had not the satisfaction to see his History printed: it was not published till twelve years after his death, by his two sons Cornelius and Peter, who dedicated it, in 1657, to the States of Holland and West-Friesland.

This work is divided into two parts, Annals and History, in imitation of Tacitus. The Annals begin with the year 1566, and contain five books: there are eighteen of the History, which begins with the year 1588, that is, when Prince Maurice had the greatest influence in the affairs of the United Provinces, and concludes with the year 1609, when the twelve years truce was made. Had his love to truth and honesty been less, he had a fine opportunity of revenging himself on Prince Maurice. But he every where does him justice, and even speaks of him as if he had been always satisfied with his conduct to him.

M. Baillet thinks very advantageously and at the same time very justly of this work. “That great man (says he, speaking of Grotius) has discovered in this work all the capacity, accuracy, judgment, solidity, industry, perspicuity, honesty, and integrity, of a true historian. His impartiality would almost make him pass for a foreigner, who had no interest in what he relates: he appears a Dutchman, only by his thorough knowledge of the causes, motives, ends, and other circumstances of the subject he has undertaken to handle.”

The only thing for which he can be censured, is the stiffness of the style, by affecting to make it resemble that of Tacitus, which renders it obscure and unnatural. We are assured, that the eminent Advocate-general, Jerom Bignon, took notice of this fault to Grotius, with whom he was very intimate; and that learned man, yielding to his friend’s advice, promised to do his work over again, and had even begun it, but could not finish it; and his sons published it as it was at first.

Peter Grotius tells us this History was his father’s favourite work. Grotius intended to dedicate it to the Queen of Sweden. Dec 5, 1637, he writes to the High Chancellor, “I have written a great part of the History of the Low Countries: what I have done till the truce in 1609 is ready to appear with some advantage. I purpose to dedicate it to our Queen, unless your Sublimity determine otherwise. Of all the histories of our time, it appears to me the most useful. It presents us with the speedy rise of a republic, whose forces in its weak beginning were scarce able to defend its small frontier; and which afterwards carried its arms to the extremity of the globe: we no where find the art of besieging or defending towns brought to such a height; in fine, we see her Mistress of the Sea after her marine had been long neglected.”

It should not be forgot, that the celebrated Peyresc was of great use to Grotius in compiling this work: he communicated to him several important papers, and procured him the memoirs collected by Antonius Querengius, who purposed to write the History of the famous Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma. Grotius’s History was translated into French by M. L’Heritier, father of Mademoiselle L’Heritier, famous for her writings: but it deserves a new translator to turn it into better French.

IX. It was during his embassy that Grotius revised and enlarged his book Of the Truth of the Christian religion. He had written a treatise on this subject in Dutch whilst a prisoner; and turning it afterwards into Latin, it had prodigious success. In the year 1637 it had been translated into all languages, French, German, English, and even Greek. The universal approbation this book met with, did not hinder Grotius’s enemies from doing all they could to depreciate it. They said it contained the venom of Socinianism. Voetius, among others, distinguished himself by his rage against it. “It is surprising, says Grotius in a letter to his brother, October 22, 1637, that Voetius should think he sees what the Doctors of the Sorbonne, who examined the book, before it was printed, could not find in it. Doth Cardinal Barbarinus, who recommended this work, and constantly carries it with him, favour Socinianism? The Bishops of England have caused it to be translated into their language; the Ministers of Charenton have approved of it; a Lutheran has translated it; will he say these are all favourers of Socinianism?”

After this letter was written, Grotius learnt that his book had been translated into Swedish. He justifies himself again in a long letter written to Reigersberg December 19, 1637, “I have often doubted which was best, to answer the censures of fools and knaves, or resting in a good conscience to despise them. I have constantly done the last; but your example makes me at present prefer the first: you have defended me with so much friendship and steadiness, that if I should sit still, I might justly be accused of indolence. My book of the Christian Religion is read with applause by pious and learned men, not only in the languages in which I composed it, but also in Swedish, French, German, and English. Those who think it their interest that I should not pass for a good Christian, seek every pretext to hurt me: they censure me for making use of Castellio’s version; but it is very certain that I had not seen it when I wrote my book. I translated myself from the Hebrew and Greek all the passages of Scripture I employed. They say I have interpreted something in the fifth Chapter of St. Mathew in the same manner as Socinus. These simple people know not that my explanation is the same with what almost all the Greeks and Latins of greatest abilities and piety have adopted. How many things are there in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, which I have explained quite different from Socinus?”

The great argument of those who wanted to hinder the success of his book was, that the author sufficiently shewed his inclination to Socinianism by his silence concerning the Trinity. He opens his mind about this matter to his brother, September 25, 1638, “The book of the truth of the Christian Religion will live and flourish in spite of the envy of my enemies. It was not proper for me to speak directly of the Trinity; and such as have heretofore brought their arguments to prove it from natural reason or the authority of Plato, have done more hurt than service to Christianity.” The men who since Grotius’s time have acquired the greatest reputation in France by writing for the truth of the Christian Religion, such as Abbadie and Houteville, have followed his example, and avoided the discussion of questions which suppose the Divinity of the Scriptures.

Grotius had the satisfaction to find the Roman Catholics very well pleased with this treatise: he writes to his brother, December 4, 1638, “My book of the Truth of the Christian Religion, which the Voetians look upon as Socinian, is so far from being Socinian here, that Roman-Catholic Monks are translating it into Persian, in order to make use of it in converting the Mahometans. I have not attempted a direct proof of the Trinity (he writes to Gerard Vossius) for I always remembered what I heard Junius your father-in-law say, who was a great man, that Du Plessis, and those who, like him, in their disputes with Atheists, Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, endeavoured to establish the Trinity by arguments drawn from the light of nature, and by passages from Plato often misapplied, acted very imprudently, because they ought first to have convinced them of the truth of the Scriptures, which alone contain the doctrines which God has been pleased to reveal.”

A new edition of the book on the truth of the Christian Religion, with considerable additions, was published in 1639, which Grotius dedicated to his illustrious friend Jerom Bignon; and this great Magistrate, in returning him his thanks, gives the most favourable testimony to the work. He says, that tho’ the subject had already been well handled by several learned men, none of them had acquitted himself so well, nor discovered so great knowledge of the learned languages, and so much erudition, as Grotius. He admires the order and conciseness of the work, and congratulates himself on living in Grotius’s time, and sharing in the friendship of so great a man. Some time after the publication of this work, an Englishman who had lived long in Turky, came to see Grotius, and acquaint him that he had translated it into the Turkish language, thinking no book more proper for instructing Christians who live in Turky, and converting the Mahometans. He promised to use his endeavours to get it printed in the Turkish language in England.

Besides the translations already mentioned, and which came to Grotius’s knowledge, there were others in Greek, in Chinese, in Flemish, in Danish, in the language of Malacca, and five French translations. An Arabic translation of it by the learned Pococke was printed at London in 1660. We are assured that there have been three translations of it into Arabic, which gave occasion to Spon and Vehler to say that Grotius copied an Arabic treatise, taking the very version of his book for an ancient work: in fine, it had such a great run, that the history of it makes the subject of a treatise.

This work of Grotius has been equally esteemed by dispassionate Protestants and Roman Catholics. “Few pieces, says Colomiers, have succeeded better than the treatise On the Truth of the Christian Religion. It is an excellent book, and ought to be the Vade mecum of every Christian. I have read it several times, and always with new pleasure.”

“Grotius’s book, says the Abbe Houteville, is the first in which we find these great characteristics, just reasoning, accuracy, and strength; he is extremely concise, but even this brevity will please us when we find it comprehends so many things without confounding them, or lessening their evidence or force: it is no wonder the book should be translated into so many languages.”

X. In the midst of his greatest occupations and most serious studies, Grotius still found time to study Civil Law. Blaeu printed, in 1643, his Remarks on Justinian’s Laws. They are chiefly philological notes, drawn from the Poets and Philosophers, serving to illustrate some passages of the Corpus Juris. “This book, the author modestly tells us, is not of much use to those who frequent the bar: but it is entertaining: and though I set no great value on it, I think it is better to publish it, than suffer it to be lost. It will possibly give pleasure to men of learning, and some such in this place are not dissatisfied with it, because they love to see Grammar and History united with Law.”

What we cannot sufficiently admire in a man of so great learning, and so much business as Grotius, is, that he should make the Holy Scriptures his favourite study in every period of his life. They were his consolation in prison; he always devoted a part of the day to them: and they were his principal study during a great part of his embassy. His Commentary on the Evangelists was finished in 1637; but before he printed it, he wanted to see the Aristarchus Sacer which Heinsius was going to put to press. This was a Commentary on the New Testament, which Grotius imagined to be much in the manner of his, and which piqued his curiosity the more as Heinsius was Grotius’s rival in literature, and his secret enemy. Heinsius’s credit with the Elzevirs, who were his booksellers, was one of the reasons which hindered Grotius from employing them. “We must not think of the Elzevirs, he writes in confidence to Vossius, on account of that man who has so much credit with them, and bears us ill-will. I should be glad to know whereabouts are his notes on the sacred books, and when they will be published, for I postpone till then the revisal of mine.” There was at that time in Holland a Jew very famous for his learning, Manassah Ben-Israel. Grotius consulted him sometimes, and always with profit. In a letter to him without date he tells him, “The answer you have given to my difficulties about some places of the law of Moses and the historical books of Scripture, has yielded me great pleasure; and I do not think any one would have given an answer more solid. I have read many Interpreters; but I see that you know them better than I, and that you have read many more, and are master of them. I return you therefore my sincere thanks; and encouraged by this favour shall take the liberty to apply to you when I have any difficulty, being ever ready to return you the like, when it lies in my power. Your books, which I have mentioned to several persons here, are read with pleasure and profit: I would therefore beg and conjure you to employ the leisure you may have in explaining the obscurities of the Law, which will be a signal service to all men of learning.”

This was not a compliment void of truth, but his real sentiment of this learned Jew: he speaks in the same manner in a private letter to Gerard Vossius. “I have written again, he says, to Manassah, and beg of you to deliver to him my letter. I esteem very highly not only his erudition, but also his judgment. He treads successfully in the steps of Abenezra, Maimonides, and Abrabanel. I have made his works known here, and they are much read and valued.”

Grotius foresaw that his Commentary on the New Testament would occasion him some disputes. “I am at a loss, says he, to Vossius, what to do with my Notes on the New Testament. I shall easily find a bookseller here; but I am afraid of meeting with some difficulties from the Divines, who will have nothing of this kind published without their approbation: and for my own part, I cannot submit in every thing to either of the two parties, nor can I be silent when I have something that may be of use to deliver. I shall see how to remedy this inconveniency. I have no hopes, says he to his brother, that the Divines of the Sorbonne will give their approbation to my Notes, especially since they censured Milletiere. It remains to be considered whether I shall print them in my own house without approbation, of which there have been examples.”

Heinsius’s work, which was expected with so much impatience, had no success. Salmasius (his declared enemy indeed) said publicly, he was ready to shew, that, abstracting what he had borrowed, there would not remain one remark of importance: and it was held in no higher esteem by others of the first rank in learning. Cardinal Richelieu, being informed that Grotius leaned more to the sentiments of the Roman Catholics, than to those of the Ministers of Charenton, gave orders that his work should be printed without being obliged to pass the censors. He kept measures however with Heinsius; and desired his brother William Grotius to tell him, that he had always said there were several things in his Notes which pleased him much; and that he had made the same remarks in some places that Heinsius had done, by mere chance.

As Grotius had a very great esteem for the learned Father Petau, he communicated to him his works. On sending him his Notes on the Old Testament, he desired him to hint what alterations he thought necessary.

When his Commentary on the Evangelists was printed at Amsterdam, he sent a copy to Father Petau, desiring him to read it, if he had time, and acquaint him what ought to be omitted, added, or changed, that the second edition might appear with more advantage. “The booksellers of Amsterdam offer to print what I have written on the Old Testament: but I chose rather to have it printed here, that I may see the last proofs. I shall expect your remarks, or those of the persons to whom you have communicated what I have written on the first part of the Old Testament. I would have come for them myself had I not been confined by sore eyes. I have a high sense of your goodness, he writes again to Petau, in taking the trouble to revise my Annotations on the Old Testament, in giving them to those who have time to examine them more strictly, and in contributing by your recommendation to the success of the work. As I have now an opportunity of putting them to press, I must beg of you to return them as soon as may be with your remarks. When the rest is transcribed, relying on your goodness I shall take the liberty to interrupt your occupations, however important and useful, by sending it.”

The Dutch Booksellers had prefixed to Grotius’s Commentary on the New Testament his head, with a high elogium annexed to it; which vexed him much. He wrote very seriously to his brother that it was the more improper, as this effect of vanity was prefixed to a book designed to inspire humility; that he had tore out the picture in his own copies, and desired that he would endeavour to get the same done to all the rest, because it concerned his reputation; and he chose rather to suppress his Preface, than publish it with this picture. A short advertisement before his Notes on the New Testament acquaints us that he began them when a prisoner, that he finished them when a private man, and printed them when Ambassador. Though this work was far advanced before he was employed by the Court of Sweden, it is evident from his letters that he made many additions and amendments to it during his embassy.

He met with new difficulties after Cardinal Richelieu’s death from the Chancellor Seguier, who never loved him. “The Chancellor of France, he writes to his brother, August 27, 1644, will not grant a privilege for printing my Commentary on the Old Testament, though very able Doctors have assured him that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Catholics; but he refuses to give any even for good books, if the authors are not of his communion.”

Cramoisi however printed it, but he was afraid of being a loser by the great expence of a handsome edition in folio if he did not obtain a privilege, because the Dutch, who could print it much cheaper, would bring it into France, and undersell him.

The refusal of a privilege did not hinder another Paris bookseller from undertaking an edition of the Notes on the New Testament, which Grotius calls his favourite work.

M. Simon, whose opinion is not always agreeable to the strictest justice, judges very favourably, however, of Grotius: “His Notes, says he, are esteemed by every body; and stand in no need of a particular recommendation from us. We shall only observe that he abounds too much in quotations from the Poets, and many profane authors; in which he seems rather to affect appearing a man of learning and erudition, than a man of judgment and a critic. Had he avoided this fault, his Notes would have been much shorter, and not less excellent. They are chiefly valuable for his frequent collation of the ancient Greek translation of the bible with the Hebrew text, and his freedom from prejudice in favour of the Masoretic version: though he generally chuses the best explanation of the text, he sometimes multiplies the various readings without necessity. After all (adds the author of the Critical history) though I blame Grotius for quoting too frequently the profane authors, these quotations contain some very good things, serving to explain the difficulties in Scripture. I could only have wished, that, agreeable to the rules of criticism, he had not adduced the testimonies of profane authors, and especially the Poets, except in places that required those elucidations.”

M. Le Clerc, after examining this judgment, speaks thus of Grotius: “If you desire to know what is chiefly valuable in Grotius’s Notes on the Old Testament, and not to be found elsewhere, it is first his explanation of an infinite number of passages of Scripture by the assistance of Pagan antiquity. Secondly, an admirable knowledge of the different manners of speaking used in Scripture, which he so happily compares with one another, that no interpreter ancient or modern has thrown so much light on them; and in fine, an extraordinary penetration in discovering the true sense of the prophecies.”

M. Fabricius tells us, that one thing which highly recommends Grotius’s Commentary on the New Testament is the design, which he happily executed, of proving the truth of the Christian Religion by the Scripture itself.

Before we conclude this article we must take notice that it has been pretended by some learned men, who otherwise do him justice, that Grotius is frequently mistaken in his quotations from the Rabbis, because he took them at second-hand. Esdras Edzardi, well skilled in these matters, made a small collection of his mistakes, which he shewed to Morhof.

XII. This deep study of the Holy Scriptures led Grotius to examine a question which made much noise at that time. Some Protestant Synods had ventured to decide that the Pope was Antichrist; and this extravagance, gravely delivered by the Ministers, was regarded by the zealous Schismatics as a fundamental truth. Grotius undertook to overturn such an absurd opinion, that stirred up an irreconcileable enmity between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, and of consequence was a very great obstacle to their reunion, which was the sole object of his desires. He entered therefore upon the consideration of the passages of Scripture relating to Antichrist, and employed his Sundays in it.

It was this work that raised him up most enemies. We see by the letters he wrote to his brother that his best friends were afraid lest they should be suspected of having some hand in the publication of the books in which he treated of Antichrist. “If you are afraid of incurring ill-will, he writes to his brother, you may easily find people that are far from a factious spirit who will take care of the impression. Nothing has incensed Princes against those who separated from the Church of Rome more than the injurious names with which the Protestants load their adversaries; and nothing is a greater hindrance to that reunion which we are all obliged to labour after in consequence of Christ’s precept and the profession we make of our faith in the Creed. Perhaps the Turk, who threatens Italy, will force us to it. In order to arrive at it we must first remove whatever obstructs a mutual quiet hearing. I hope I shall find assistance in this pious design. I shall not cease to labour in it, and shall rejoice to die employed in so good a work.”

Reigersberg, Blaeu, Vossius himself, however much devoted to Grotius, beheld with concern the printing of this book, because they did not doubt but it would increase the number of his enemies. Grotius informs his brother of the uneasiness which Vossius gave him on this subject: “Among those who wish this work destroyed, says he, I am astonished and grieved to see Vossius. Whence could he have this idea? I imagine somebody has told him, that it would injure the fortune of his children if he approved of such books; and that, on the contrary, he would find favour by hurting me. We must, therefore, have recourse to Corcellius or Corvinus.” He elsewhere complains of the too great timidity of this old friend, who at bottom approved of Grotius’s sentiments, but durst not own them publicly because he was not so independent as Grotius.

The treatise on Antichrist made much noise among all the declared enemies of the Romish Church. Michael Gettichius wrote to Ruarus, that he had only glanced over Grotius’s book on Antichrist; but as far as he could judge by the first reading, that learned man, who was possessed of such an excellent genius, and such singular erudition, had no other intention than to engage the Learned in a further enquiry concerning Antichrist; and to determine them to attack with greater strength the Romish Antichrist; or, if he wrote seriously, he wanted to cut out a path for going over, without dishonour, to the Papists. Ruarus answers this letter, Dec 16, 1642, from Dantzic. “I have always, he says, looked on Grotius as a very honest, and at the same time a very learned man. I am persuaded that love of peace engaged him in this work. I don’t deny but he has gone too far; the love of antiquity perhaps seduced him: no Remonstrant, that I know of, has as yet answered him; but he has been confuted by some learned Calvinists, particularly Desmarets, Minister of Boisleduc, who has written against him with much bitterness.”

Grotius’s work was printed in 1640, with this title: Commentatio ad loca quaedam Novi Testamenti, quae de Antichristo agunt aut agere putantur, expendenda, eruditis.

It contains an explanation of the second chapter of the second epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, in which he undertakes to prove, that the Man of Sin, there mentioned, is the Emperor Caius Caligula, who wanted to place his statue in the temple of Jerusalem, as may be seen in Philo; and was desirous to be thought a God, as Philo and Josephus relate. He afterwards explains the eighteenth verse of the second chapter of the first epistle of St. John. You know that Antichrist is come, and that there are many Antichrists. He thinks the Antichrist already come was Barchochebas, and that the other Antichrists are Simon the Magician and Dosithaeus.

The beast, in the thirteenth chapter of the Revelation, is, according to him, Rome pagan; the power, which is given to it for forty-two months, signifies Domitian’s persecution, which lasted three years and a half. The beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit, mentioned chap. xi. ver 7. is magic, and Apollonius Thyanaeus: in fine, he finds the famous number 666, mentioned in the last verse of the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse, in Trajan’s name, who was called Ulpius, of which the numeral letters form the number 666.

The Reformed were strangely scandalized at this work. Samuel Desmarets answered it with great bitterness, which drew another piece from Grotius in defence of the former, with this title: Appendix ad interpretationem locorum Novi Testamenti, quae de Antichristo agunt, aut agere putantur, in qua via sternitur ad Christianorum concordiam. Desmarets is never mentioned in it but under the name of Borboritus. It has been observed, that Grotius was guilty of a slight inaccuracy in this treatise: he says the Emperor Barbarossa’s enemies ascribed to him the pretended book De tribus Impostoribus: he confounds the grandson with the grandfather, for it was Frederic II. against whom this calumny was advanced, as appears from the letters of Peter Desvignes, his Secretary and Chancellor, and as Grotius himself remarks in his observations on Campanella’s philosophy.

He printed at the same time his treatise Of Faith and Works against Desmarets, and against the error of the inadmissibility of grace, under the title of Explicatio trium illustrissimorum locorum Novi Testamenti, Capitis I. Pauli ad Ephesios posterioris, Capitis II. Jacobi Commatis XIV. & sequentium, Capitis III. Epistolae I. Johannis, in quibus agitur de fide & operibus. This work shews, that faith is not sufficient for Justification; and that if those who have faith live in sin, they are hated by God.

Via ad pacem ecclesiasticam was printed in 1642: it contains the Consultation of Cassander presented to the Emperors Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. accompanied with remarks by Grotius. He expected that these works, which were compiled solely with a view to promote union among Christians, would procure him many enemies; and he adopted, on this occasion, what was said in 1557 by an author who laboured in the same design, That for persons to endeavour to make mankind live in peace, was commendable; that they might indeed expect a recompence from the blessed Peace-maker, but they had great reason to apprehend the same fate with those, who, attempting to part two combatants, receive blows from both. “Perhaps, by writing to reconcile such as entertain very opposite sentiments, I shall offend both parties: but if it should so happen, I shall comfort myself with the example of him who said, If I please men I am not the servant of Christ.”

Grotius, content with gratifying his pacific desires, expected his reward from posterity; which he clearly intimates in some verses written by him on this subject

Accipe sed placidis, quae si non optima, certe,
Expressit nobis non mala pacis amor.
Et tibi dic, nostro labor hic si displicet aevo,
A grata pretium posteritate feret.

Rivetus, the Clergyman, treated Grotius with as much indignity, as if he had attempted to destroy the foundations or Christianity. Grotius answered him in a tract, entitled: Animadversiones in animadversiones Andreae Riveti.

This work was followed by two others on the same subject: Votum pro pace ecclesiastica, contra examen Andreae Riveti, and Rivetiani Apologetici Discussio: this last did not appear till after the author’s death.

He wrote, in 1638, a small piece, entitled: De Canae administratione ubi Pastores non sunt, item an semper communicandum per symbola. The design of this pernicious work is to shew, that Laymen, in the absence of Priests, and in cases of necessity, may do their office.

Rigaut had already maintained this error, and been smartly attacked by M. De l’Aubepine, Bishop of Orleans: all the defenders of the hierarchy were scandalized at it, and Father Petau, among the Roman Catholics, and Dodwell, among the English Clergy, have refuted it.

In the tract, An semper communicandum per symbola, the Arminians endeavour to maintain, that we are not obliged to communicate with such as require subscriptions to which we cannot assent without acting against our consciences. Grotius’s design was to shew, that the Arminians might dispense with communicating with the Contra-Remonstrants, if these insisted on retractions.

Another theological work of Grotius (of whose publication we cannot fix the time) is entitled: Dissertatio historica ac politica de dogmatis & ritibus & gubernatione Ecclesiae Christianae, de dogmatis quae reipublicae noxia sunt, aut dicuntur. In this piece he treats of the end of the priesthood, and the duties of the Priests: he places what relates to the distinction and unity of the three Persons, the two Natures, and their properties, among the points of which we may be ignorant without ceasing to be good Christians. It is probable this piece was written before those concerning Antichrist, the author appearing in it less favourably disposed towards the Roman Catholics and the Pope.

It is apparent that Grotius had not sufficiently examined this subject, since he speaks of it in a manner so heterodox. He would not have held a language so opposite to Christianity, at, or after the time of his dispute with Rivetus.

XIII. Grotius, even whilst engaged in the dispute against the zealous Protestant Ministers, undertook to clear up the origin of the Americans; which enquiry involved him in a controversy that gave him much uneasiness. John de Laet of Antwerp, who had much studied these matters, printed Grotius’s work, with Notes, under this title: Joannis de Laet Antverpiani Notae ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii de Origine gentium Americanarum, & Observationes aliquot ad meliorem indaginem difficillimae illius questionis. Amstelodami apud Ludovicum Elzevirium, anno 1643.

Grotius first confutes those, who think that the people of America came from Great Tartary, because they had no horses before the Spanish conquest, and that it is impossible the Scythians, who abounded in horses, should bring none with them; besides the Tartars were never seamen. His opinion is, that North-America was peopled by persons from Norway, from whence they passed into Iceland, afterwards into Greenland, from thence to Friseland, then to Estotiland, a part of the American continent, to which the fishers of Friseland had penetrated two centuries before the Spaniards discovered the New World. He pretends, that the names of those countries end with the same syllables as those of the Norwegians; that the Mexicans and their neighbours assured the Spaniards they came from the North; and that the country which the Norwegians inhabited, after quitting Estotiland, has retained almost the name of Norway; that there is yet a town in it called Norembega; in fine, that there are many words in the American language, which have a relation to the German and Norwegian; and that the Americans still preserve the customs of the country from whence they are originally sprung. As to the people of Jucatan, and the neighbourhood, Grotius makes them come from Ethiopia by the way of the Ocean. He grounds this opinion on the practice of circumcision among these nations of America, which was also used by the Ethiopians. He pretends that the Peruvians are descended from the Chinese, because the wrecks of Chinese vessels have been found, he says, on the coasts of the Pacific Ocean, and they worship the sun: besides, the Peruvians, he adds, write from the top to the bottom of the page like the Chinese.

Laet easily shewed that Grotius’s conjectures were ill founded, and that he had even advanced several facts which were not strictly true: he denied the existence of the city of Norembega, and maintained that Jucatan is too distant from Africa for the Ethiopians to penetrate into America, it being at least two months sail from Ethiopia to Jucatan. He refutes the pretended traces of Christianity, which Grotius said were found in that part of America before the discovery of the Spaniards, supporting his confutation on the authority of Spanish writers; in fine, he denies that any Chinese wrecks have been found on the coasts of the Pacific Ocean, and censures, as a very great inaccuracy in Grotius, what he advances concerning the Peruvian manner of writing.

After doing justice to the excellent judgment and profound erudition of Grotius, he ventures to assert, that he found nothing in his Dissertation that could satisfy a man moderately acquainted with the History of America; and approves of what was observed by Joseph Acosta, that it was easier to confute what was written on the origin of the Americans, than to know what to hold; because there were no monuments among them, nor any books of Europeans to throw light on this matter: and hence concludes, that it is rashness to promise truth on such an obscure subject.

Laet’s answer vexed Grotius: he replied to it in a second Dissertation, entitled, Adversus obtrectatorem, opaca quem bonum facit barba. Printed at Paris by Cramoisi, in 1643. Laet answered in a piece, printed in 1644, by Lewis Elzevir, in which he inserts Grotius’s second Dissertation. There is nothing new in these two last books: and it were to be wished that they had been written with less bitterness. It has been observed, that Grotius’s system is not new; and that it had been already advanced by Myl, whom Grotius does not once quote.

XIV. It now remains to give some account of the other works of Grotius, which hitherto we have not had occasion to mention. In 1629, he printed at William Blaeu’s the History of the Siege of Grolla: Grollae obsidio cum annexis anni 1627. This piece would have been brought into his History if he could have continued it. He speaks of it with great modesty in his letters to his brother. “I don’t expect, he says, much honour from such a small tract.”

He published, in 1631, An Introduction to the Laws of Holland, in Dutch. Simon Groenovegius de Madin, a Lawyer, wrote Notes on this work, which Grotius thought well done and very useful; and sent the author a letter of thanks.

He left several manuscripts prepared for the press, which were published after his death.

Lewis Elzevir printed, in 1652, a small collection in twelves with this title: Hugonis Grotii quaedam hactenus inedita, aliaque ex Belgice editis Latine versa, argumenti Theologici, Juridici, Politici. It contains, among other Dissertations, Remarks on the Philosophy or rather on the Politics of Campanella; and a tract entitled: Hugonis Grotii Responsio ad quaedam ab utroque judicum consessu objecta, ubi multa disputantur de Jure Summarum Potestatum in Hollandia, Westfrisi[^ae], & Magistratuum in oppidis. The disputes of the Province of Holland with the States-General probably gave occasion to this treatise. Grotius intended to publish the Golden verses of Pythagoras, with a translation by himself: but what he could not do in his life-time was done in England after his death, in the year 1654.

Of all the tragic Poets, his favourite was certainly Euripides. We have already seen that he translated the Phoenissae in 1630. He afterwards revised and corrected it, as appears by a letter to his brother, September 3, 1639. His translation of the Iphigenia in Tauris is mentioned in several letters. He likewise turned into Latin the Supplicantes of Euripides, of which he speaks to his brother. The learned Father Berthier has lately informed us, that this translation still exists in the library of the Jesuits college at Paris. “One of the most precious pieces, and which alone would have been sufficient to give value to this manuscript, is the entire translation of Euripides’s piece, entitled Supplicantes, added at the end of the volume by way of desert: the whole is in excellent Iambic verses: we would cite some part, if we had not already trespassed too far on the complaisance of the reader.”

In 1629, Grotius wrote to his brother, that he had finished a piece, proving that the war between different Princes ought not to injure the free trade of the powers not engaged in it. This is all we know of the treatise, which is now lost: we are equally ignorant of a work, entitled, The Portrait of Zeno, which he mentions in several letters, and seems very desirous of having it printed. He left several manuscripts in his closet, which, after his death, were purchased by the Queen of Sweden from his wife: among these were, Notes on some of the most difficult Laws; A Comparison of the Republics of Athens and Rome with that of Holland; Notes on the Hymns of Orpheus, and an Illustration of the Books of Moses by the Writings of the Pagans. The author of Vindiciae Grotianae speaks of a manuscript of AEschylus with Notes by Grotius. Many of his books were filled with marginal notes. He tells us, that he had collected, with great care, the remains of the apostolical Fathers, and that he had thoughts of translating that part of Josephus’s history, which relates to the law, and of adding notes to it. But probably the execution of this project was hindered by his other studies, and the information he received, that Samuel Petit, who was well skilled in the learned languages, had the same design.

XV. His Letters may be regarded as Treatises; the collection we have of them is a treasure not only of public but of literary history, and contains many dissertations on the most important subjects. The XXXIst, to Gerard Vossius, and XXXIIId, to John Utengobard, treat of Predestination and Grace, according to the Arminian system. We have already spoken of the LIVth, addressed to Du Maurier, the French Ambassador in Holland, and containing a method of study for grown persons. The LXIId, to the Baron de Langerac, the Dutch Ambassador in France, is a formal treatise on a piece of Du Moulin concerning the government of the ancient Church; the means of reconciling Grace with Free-will; and the authority of Sovereigns in matters ecclesiastical. He treats in the XCIst, to Vossius, of the effects of Christ’s death. The CCLXIVth, to the celebrated Nicholas Peyresc, Counsellor of the Parliament of Aix, is rather a book than a letter, being a collection of all that the Ancients have said of Nicholas Damascenus, which leaves us at a loss with regard to nothing that could be known concerning that celebrated writer.

The CCCXXIXth, to John Descordes, Canon of Limoges, treats of the power of Bishops over the Monks, and several other points of the ancient Church discipline. He proves, in the CCCLVIIth, to Jerom Bignon, Advocate-General, that the letter ascribed to Pope Clement, which was published in 1633, is really his. His letters to his brother treat of the Law of Nature and several points of Civil Law: and a letter, addressed to John Isaac Pontanus, contains his remarks on what Cluverius has said of the antiquities of Germany.

The most interesting literary occurrences of his time are to be found in his letters, always accompanied, with instructing reflections: in fine, his negotiations, and the great events of the last ten years of the reign of Lewis XIII, are very particularly, and, for the most part, very truly related in them.

We must not conceal that Du Maurier, the son, whose anecdotes are full of blunders, advances that, when Grotius desired to be recalled, the High Chancellor readily took him at his word, because, says he, Grotius sent him only the news that every body knew. Father Bougeant repeats this passage with great complacency; but he would have done much better to have read Grotius’s letters with attention, than to censure them without reason. By their assistance he might have rectified several dates in his work, which, otherwise, deserves the public esteem. Another author, whose history is written with indiscretion and partiality, but who was nevertheless well acquainted with the events of the age of Lewis XIII, sets a high value on Grotius’s letters: I mean Le Vassor, whose judgment deserves the more regard as he had little turn for panegyric. He refutes those who advanced that Grotius employed his fine Latin to send Oxenstiern the lies of the day; and maintains that such as say this, have either never read Grotius’s letters, or are unacquainted with the history of Lewis XIII. He does not deny, that, among the many pieces of news contained in them, there are some without foundation; but he excuses him, because a Minister is obliged to write what is generally reported. He adds, “Those, who shall read Grotius’s letters with a little discerning, will find in them the most secret affairs of the times of his embassy touched upon in few words, with great delicacy and moderation.” Grotius himself acquaints us, that he used great circumspection in writing news to the High Chancellor. “I must beg, says he, of your Sublimity, to pardon the shortness of my letter: I chuse rather to say little, than write what is false; and would fain send you nothing that is uncertain: but this is attended with much difficulty amidst so great obscurity. Living among people, he says in another letter, who are very close, and receiving news which are often mixed with falshood, I am sorry to be obliged to give you my conjectures in the room of certainty; but there is nothing to apprehend from such an equitable Judge, who has regard to the good intention.”

This made him easy; and what ought to give us a high idea of his Letters, is, that they greatly pleased the High Chancellor; and Muller, the Swedish Ambassador, set a high value on them.

The author of Vindiciae Grotianae assures us, after Morhof, that Grotius’s Letters are not all printed; and he adds, that he knew a cabinet in which were preserved upwards of two hundred and sixty, written to Queen Christina and the High Chancellor. Bunau, a Privy Counselor at Dresden, is said to have had many of them. Puffendorf saw several in cypher, to which he had a key. Among those, which are printed in the collection of Grotius’s letters, there are some in cypher, relating to the general affairs and secret intrigues of the Court of France. M. de Boze has a copy of these letters in his curious cabinet, with an explanation of the cypher, given him by a Swedish gentleman, which he communicates to those who desire it, with a politeness that it were to be wished were common to all men of learning.

XVI. One of the most interesting parts of Grotius’s life is the knowledge of his sentiments in religion, and the ardent zeal with which he undertook to reunite Christians in one belief. Brought up in the principles of Protestantism, he had in the former part of his life a great aversion to Popery. A letter to Antony Walaeus, Nov 10, 1611, in which he opens all his mind, acquaints us, that however much he might be attached to the prevailing religion in the State wherein he lived, he was persuaded that the Roman Catholics held all the fundamental truths; but they superadded, he thought, several other articles, which he treated as new opinions. The zeal of the Jesuits for the Roman Catholic religion, and their attachment to the Pope, had rendered them extremely odious to all the enemies of the Romish church. Grotius viewed them in the same light, agreeably to the sentiments which had been instilled into him in his infancy, as we find in a letter written, April 1, 1617, to his brother then in France; but when he came to riper years, he did them justice, highly valuing their society, and receiving many of them into his confidence, particularly the learned Dionysius Petavius.

XVII. Even when farthest removed from the Roman Catholic Church, he paid the greatest regard to the decisions of the ancient councils, to the discipline of the primitive Church, and the authority of the Fathers. He writes, June 6, 1611, to John Utengobard, that he highly respected the ancient councils which condemned Manicheism and Pelagianism. He declared to Vossius, July 17, 1616, that none held the doctrine condemned by the ancient Church in greater detestation. “Besides the hatred, says he to Antony Walaeus, which I profess to the tenets that were unknown to pious antiquity, nothing more engages me to condemn, and overturn, as far as I can, this sort of opinions, than their being an obstacle to peace.”

In the explanation of Holy Scripture he would have the sentiments of the ancient Church adhered to. This point he treated at a conference with the Prince of Conde, in the beginning of 1639; in which he shewed, that to be a Christian, and have a right to the surname of Catholic, one must receive the Sacred Scriptures, and explain them not according to the interpretation of private persons, which had often given occasion to seditions, schisms, and even wars, but according to the sentiments of the ancient Churches, chiefly to be found in the Creeds, and in the acts of General Councils.

He was so persuaded of the truth of these principles, that in an advertisement, prefixed to his Commentary on the New Testament, he declares that if he had written any thing inconsistent with the interpretation of Holy Scripture by the ancient Church, which he hoped he had not, he would chuse to have it neglected, and was most ready to alter it.

XVIII. This profound veneration for antiquity contributed greatly to render him more favourable to the Roman Catholics. At a time when it was looked upon by the Protestants as a kind of Apostacy, to speak with decency and temper of the sovereign Pontiffs, he ventured to commend Pope Urbin VIII in some verses made in honour of the blessed Virgin. He speaks thus of him in a Letter to his brother of the 21st of February, 1625. “I send my father the Poem on the Mother of God. I would not however have it published, not only because the honour, distinct from superstition, given to the saints offends several of our people; but also because Pope Urbin is commended in it. He is an excellent Poet, as appears from his elegant Pindaric odes. God grant he may be able to unite Christians, who are too much divided, in one faith.”

The Reformers were held by him in no great esteem. In 1633 he wrote to Gerard Vossius, “I think nothing can be truer than your judicious remark, that the best way to prevent good men from approving of so many different sects would be to shew them, without animosity or passion, from the sole motive of love to truth, that those who avail themselves so much of antiquity have it not always on their side, and that such as promised to restore the Church to its primitive state have not at all times succeeded.” He no doubt meant the pretended Reformed.

“The Protestants, says he to his brother, go too far when they accuse the Roman Catholics of error; they attack at the same time the whole Greek and Latin Churches, those of Syria, Arabia, and Egypt, and thereby very imprudently furnish arms to their adversaries. I see, he writes to Vossius, that those who have erected new Churches among us, have followed their own ideas, but have not always advanced the affairs of Religion.”

Salmasius was as zealous for the pretended reformed religion, as he was become indifferent to Grotius. However they visited one another, but it was with much coldness. “Salmasius (he writes to his brother, February 10, 1641) came to see me: he is ready to defend the most outrageous opinions; among others, that St. Peter never set foot in Italy. It is surprising what a party spirit will do.”

Grotius looked upon almost all the Reformed as factious men. He had no esteem for Calvin; speaking of Cassander, he says he was a very excellent, and at the same time a very able man, and therefore most worthy of Calvin’s hatred: he advised James Laurentius to read, instead of Calvin’s Institutions, Vincent de Lerins. “I hear, says he to him, that you are less seditious than most of your order (that is, the Protestant Clergy) and that you only suffer yourself to be drawn away by others: wherefore I will give you one good counsel: read the Scriptures in the original, the confessions of faith of the ancient Christians, instead of the Belgic Confession, the Catechisms of Cyril in the room of Ursinus’s Catechism, and the acts of the General Councils, and not those of the Synod of Dort: you will then easily perceive that Grotius is not become a Papist, but Laurentius turned a Calvinist.” Laurentius wrote against him: but Grotius took his revenge by silence. He did not approve of the separation of the Protestants; he thought these new Churches, these new Rites had not at all contributed to the promoting of piety. “It is just, said he, to reform our manners: but would it not have been better for us, after reforming ourselves, to have prayed to God for the reformation of others; and for the Princes and Bishops, who desired a reformation to have endeavoured to procure it by general councils, without breaking the unity.” A Minister called D’Or, turning Roman Catholic, Grotius discovered little concern at it, and speaks of it with great calmness in a letter to his brother. “What D’Or has just done, says he, the learned Pithou did before him: Casaubon was resolved to do the same had he remained longer in France, as he assured several persons, and among others Descordes. I would fain, continued he, have the abuses that have crept into the church remedied, and will always say so; but is it just, or are there any examples, that it should be done by schism? This ought to be the more weighed, as we easily perceive that those who have formed new parties had not always the Spirit of God; that they have propagated new abuses, and that this licence to separate themselves has given rise to different parties which will never be united.” He speaks in another place of Casaubon’s sentiments, and pretends that this learned man thought the Roman Catholics of France better informed than those of other countries, and came nearer to truth than the Ministers of Charenton.

He explained himself very frequently and very sharply against the schism of the Protestants. “Viretus, and the rest, says he, ought not to have erected new churches: yet they have done it before they were excommunicated: even an unjust excommunication would not have entitled them to erect altar against altar.” He recites several passages from the Fathers on this subject, by which he pretends to confute the first reformers. He came so near the Roman Catholics in the end, that in a letter to his brother he has these words: “It cannot be denied that there are several Roman Catholic pastors here who teach true religion, without any mixture of superstition: it were to be wished that all did the same.” In his later works he speaks of Calvin with the highest indignation: “I know, he says, with what injustice and bitterness this Calvin treated Cassander, Baudoin, and Castellio, who were much better men than himself.”

In refuting the apology of Rivetus he speaks with all the zeal of a Roman Catholic Disputant, and proves that the Calvinists are Schismatics, and had no mission; that they neither had miracles for them, nor any particular command from God: that the Ministers are factious spirits, who seek only to disturb the State: that their religion is new, and has not antiquity on its side. In his youth he had commended Beza in some anapest verses; extolling him as one of the most zealous defenders of the truth: he afterwards retracted this elogium, and wished it buried in eternal oblivion.

In fine, the Jesuits, who were the objects of his aversion before he knew them, became his friends. He was reproached with this; and mentions the accusation in a letter to his brother. “I am not, says he, the common defender of Jesuits; but the King looks on them as good subjects and employs them on several occasions.” He publicly took their part in some of his works. He maintains in his pieces against Rivetus that the Society had produced very able men of an irreproachable life, and that there were more such among them than among others. “I know many of them, he says, who are very desirous to see the abuses abolished, and the church restored to its primitive unity. The King entrusts them with his most valuable concerns.” Father Petau, among others, possessed his confidence, as we have already observed, and shall see again.

XIX. His great knowledge of antiquity and that singular veneration which he always paid to the primitive church made him even in his youth look upon the abolition of episcopacy, and of a visible head of the church, as something very monstrous. He went much farther in the sequel; shewing that Melancton himself wanted the Pope to be left in the Church, and that King James of England and several able Protestants acknowledged the utility of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome: adding, “If several Protestants had made the same reflection, we should have had a church more reformed.”

He thinks that this Monarchy (these are his own terms) is of use in the church for maintaining its unity. In fine, in a piece against Rivetus, he proves the primacy of the Pope from a passage of St. Cyprian, and adds, “You see that the primacy is hereby established; and this name in every society implies some jurisdiction. The Bishop of Rome, says he, is Prince of the Christian Aristocrasy, as it has been called before our time by the Bishop of Fossombrone. This primacy is under Jesus Christ, and may be exercised without tyranny, and without destroying the rights which the Bishops have over the churches committed to them.” He entertained favourable sentiments of the Episcopal authority even before his embassy; and thought it necessary to preserve the unity of the Church. “It is a question only in name(says he to his brother some years after) to ask whether Episcopacy be of divine right: it is sufficient that Jesus Christ has set the example in the college of Apostles; that the Apostles have followed it, and that this establishment has been approved by the universal consent of the Church, excepting some innovators of the present age.”

He handles this point in the eleventh Chapter of the treatise Of the power of Sovereigns in matters of Religion; he says it is fanaticism to advance that a Bishop has nothing above a simple Priest. “Episcopacy, says he, that is to say the preheminence of a Pastor, is not contrary to the Divine right. It is incumbent on him who thinks otherwise, that is, who accuses the whole ancient Church of folly and impiety, to prove his opinion. That Episcopacy was received by the whole Church appears from the general councils, which have always had great authority with all devout men; witness the national and provincial councils, where we find certain marks of the Episcopal precedency; witness all the Fathers without exception. Episcopacy began with the Apostles: to be convinced of this we need only have recourse to the catalogues of Bishops in Irenaeus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, and others, who all make them begin with the Apostles. It would be very great obstinacy or disrespect to reject authors of so great weight, who unanimously agree in an historical fact. The history of all ages informs us of the advantages which the Church has derived from Episcopacy.” However he did not yet venture to say that Episcopacy was of Divine establishment: he contented himself with maintaining that it was of Apostolical institution. This was sufficient to offend a party among whom there were some who carried their fury and ignorance so far, as to maintain that Episcopacy was an invention of Satan: an expression which scandalized Grotius even in his youth, as appears by a letter written in 1614 to Daniel Heinsius. He became more bold afterwards; and was not afraid to maintain in the face of the pretended reformation, that Episcopacy was established by Christ, and that it were to be wished it were restored wherever it had been abolished.

It was in consequence of this respect for the Episcopal College, and its head, that he exposed himself to the indignation of the whole Protestant party, and the bitter invectives of the Ministers, by maintaining that nothing was more absurd than what they had written against the pretended Romish Antichrist.

One of his principal reasons for writing on this subject was a persuasion not only of the truth of his sentiments, as he writes to his brother, but that it was his duty to remove every obstacle that obstructed the reunion, “of which I have greater hopes than ever, he says, December 3, 1639. If it is not granted us to enjoy that great blessing (he adds) it is our duty to throw water on the flames, and not oil; and to plant trees that will bear fruit perhaps in another age.” He was so pleased with himself for breaking the ice in this matter, that he tells his brother in a private letter, he is persuaded God inspired him with the thought: that he returns him his most humble thanks for it, and that he thought himself in consequence obliged to labour in it with all his might, not only to support the truth, but also because he judged nothing was more capable to appease mens minds and prepare the way to the reunion. “I hope, he says to Vossius, to find at least among posterity equitable readers who will thank God for the light which he has been pleased to communicate to me for the understanding several obscure passages of Holy Scripture. I owe all that I have written on Antichrist that is good, not to my own researches, says he to his brother, but to my prayers, and to the goodness of God, who has been pleased to enlighten me, though I did not deserve it.” He flattered himself that his works on this subject had undeceived several Protestants, and that Rivetus, his grand adversary, was looked upon even by his collegues as a Divine of little judgment and a moderate share of erudition.

XX. He had been at first much prejudiced against the opinion of the Romish Church concerning the real presence. We may judge of it by the letter which he wrote June 7, 1622, to Episcopius. “I think, says he to him, that you would do well to confute those who with Cassander believe that one may disapprove the errors of the Romish Church, and yet not be obliged to separate from her communion. Two points especially appear to me to deserve discussion: the first is, whether an action lawful in itself, as the adoration during the time of the supper, ceaseth to be so on account of the error of the Ministers of the Church, who would have this adoration referred to the visible signs.”

In process of time he departed from the manner of speaking at least of the Ministers. He acknowledged that in the Eucharistical bread some change is made, which the ancient Latin Church called Transfiguration, and the modern Transubstantiation: when Jesus Christ, being sacramentally present, favours us with his substance, as the Council of Trent speaks, the appearances of bread and wine remain, and in their place succeed the body and blood of Christ.

It is certain that he did not approve of the sentiments of the Calvinists concerning the Eucharist: he reproached them with their contradictions. “The Disciples of Calvin, says he, speak very differently on this subject in their Confessions and in their disputes: you will hear them say in their confessions, that they really, substantially, and essentially partake of Christ’s body and his blood; in their disputes they maintain that Christ is received only spiritually by faith. The ancients go much farther, admitting a real incorporation of Jesus Christ with us, and the reality of Christ’s natural body, as St. Hilarius speaks.”

Thus Grotius was persuaded the term transubstantiation, adopted by the Council of Trent, was capable of a good interpretation: but it is not clear however, that, though he admitted the expressions used by the Catholic Church, he was of her opinion. After approving the term transubstantiation, he adds, “And because what is spiritual among the Jews is called real, the terms really, substantially, and essentially, are used in the Protestant Confessions, and by their Doctors.” It is plain from what he subjoins, that he sought rather to unite different sentiments by means of equivocal expressions, than by an exact Creed, which might be susceptible of only one sense. “We must not condemn, says he, those who assure us that the Eucharist is but the sign of the body of Jesus Christ, since St. Augustine, with several other Fathers, speak in this manner; and the sacrament is defined to be the visible sign of an invisible grace.”

He made a draught of a kind of Formulary, in which the Catholics and Protestants were to join: it was this. “We believe that in the use of the supper we truly, really, and substantially, that is to say, in its proper substance, receive the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ in a spiritual and ineffable manner.” Grotius informs us that this formulary was approved of by the Roman Catholic Doctors and by Protestants: which is not surprising of the Catholics, since the expressions he employs, when taken in their natural sense, comprehend the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church: it is more surprising of the Protestants; but it must be observed that Calvin himself said, that under the Eucharistical signs we receive truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that Christ’s flesh is distributed in this sacrament; that it enters into us; that we are partakers not only of Christ’s spirit, but also of his flesh; that we have its proper substance, and are made partakers of it; that whole Christ is united to us, and therefore is united to us in body and spirit, that we must not question our receiving his proper body, and that if there is any man upon earth who sincerely acknowledges this truth, it is he.

These expressions of Calvin were certainly favourable to the opinion of the Roman Catholics: he found himself obliged to make use of such terms, because they had been so long authorised, that he was afraid of appearing desirous to change the ancient doctrine; but the sense he gave them took away their force. The Protestants whom Grotius consulted, agreeable to the opinion of their Master, thought the expression, substantial presence, might be reconciled with their confession of faith; which, denying the real presence, teaches that Christ is united to us only in a figure in the sacrament, and in spirit by faith.

Though Grotius believed that one receives substantially Jesus Christ in the use of the supper, there is no proof of his admitting the real presence in the sense of the Council of Trent: for, besides that his Formulary scarce makes stronger mention of it than Calvin, he seems not to condemn those who admitted only the sign of Christ’s body: an indulgence which will never be approved of by a Roman Catholic.

XXI. He justifies the decision of the Council of Trent concerning the number of the sacraments in his works against Rivetus. “The word sacrament, though sometimes taken in a more general signification, may nevertheless, says he, be understood in a more limited one of these seven external signs, which are designed for the good of our souls, and more distinctly mentioned in Scripture; Baptism in St. Matthew xxviii 19. Confirmation, Acts viii 17. Penance, Matthew xvi 19. the Eucharist, Matthew xxvi 26. Ordination, 1 Tim. iv 22. Extreme Unction, Mark vi 13. James v 14. and Marriage; Ephes. v 32.”

XXII. In the examination of the other articles, which divide the Roman Catholics from the Protestants, Grotius continued to lean towards the Romish Church. In 1638 he acknowledges in a letter to Corvinus, that pious and able men, who were well disposed towards the Protestants, owned they were mistaken in the decision of the principal controversies between the Protestants and the Romish Church.

After the year 1640 he took no offence at the use of images in churches, and prayers for the dead. He writes to his brother this year, “The Lutherans have images, and there are some in several places of England. Montaigue and others have proved that it is not idolatry to have recourse to the prayers of the Apostles and Martyrs.”

He explains himself afterwards much more strongly in favour of the Romish Church. He was persuaded that the Cherubims of Moses clearly shewed that images were not forbid. “The honour due to Martyrs, says he, in his Via ad pacem, is much greater than what we owe to living Saints, because the Apocalypse tells us, that the Martyrs reign with Jesus Christ: there is therefore no harm in publicly testifying our esteem for them, and celebrating their memories on days set apart for that purpose, and in the places where they suffered martyrdom. The Protestants acknowledge that they pray for the Church: they are in the wrong therefore to look on those as Idolaters; who, agreeable to the opinion of several ancients, think the knowledge of our wants and our prayers may be communicated to the Martyrs by a revelation from God, or by the ministry of Angels. Such, he says in another place, as think it idolatry to address, the Martyrs, that they may pray for us, accuse St. Chrysostom, and the other holy Doctors of the Greek and Latin Church, of a horrible crime. For my part, I dare not do this; neither would I blame those who abstain from praying to the Saints. I have also said that true Relics of true Martyrs deserve to be respected.”

In fine, in his Votum pro pace, he proves by a long series of passages from the Fathers, that the invocation of saints was used by the ancient Church, and therefore cannot be treated as idolatry; that there is no law in the Gospel against the use of Images in Churches, that it cannot be said they are forbid by the law of nature, and that in the times of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine the relics of Martyrs were honoured in the Church. He defends in several places Praying for the Dead, which was practised in all the Churches of the East, as well as of the West: he proves that the ancient Church prayed for the Dead, and that St. Augustine regarded the opposers of this practice as heretics. He maintains that every ancient liturgy has prayers for the Dead, and that as Tertullian relates, they were used in all the Churches in his time. He asserts, that the Jews knew and admitted of a Purgatory. One of the articles which made most noise in the beginning of the grand Schism in the sixteenth Century was that of justification, Grotius declares, that the more he examined the Scriptures, the greater agreement he discovered between them and the tradition of the Roman Church concerning justification. He was persuaded that it had the same idea of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, as the ancients entertained. He would have men submit to the decisions of general councils; and maintains that a pious and peaceable man ought not to contradict them when their decrees are received by almost all the Churches, especially those which were founded by the Apostles. He means no doubt the Council of Trent.

Grotius must have supposed that the Church could not err, when he wrote, “The Bishops of Rome may be in an error, but they cannot long remain, in it, if they adhere to the universal Church.” He was persuaded that we run no danger in embracing a doctrine taught by the Greek and Latin Churches: “For, says he, the points in which these two Churches agree have been decided by the Apostles or by general Councils.” He maintains that expressions tho’ new, ought to be received in Theology, when they are supported by the authority of General Councils. This was in opposition to the Protestants, who maintained that the term transubstantiation ought to be rejected on account of its novelty. He is positive that such as depart from what was practised by the whole Church, and confirmed by Councils, are guilty of a most insolent folly, as St. Augustine said. He acknowledged the utility of tradition. Had he lived in the time of the Apostles he would have believed, he tells us, what they said, as well as what they wrote. He was persuaded that the goodness of God had not permitted the doctrine of the universal Church to be corrupted, though the manners of the Pastors of the Church might be reprehensible. He entertained the same opinion, he tells us, concerning the authority of the Fathers as the illustrious Father Petavius in the Prolegomena prefixed to his most useful body of Divinity.

The works of the Apostolical Fathers were, next to the Scriptures, Grotius’s favourite study. When he heard that the Epistle of St. Clement, which had been long lost to the world, was published in England by Junius, from a Manuscript brought from Egypt, and written about the time of the Council of Nice, he expressed his satisfaction to Descordes, in a letter from Hamburg, dated June 1, 1633. “You gave me great pleasure by informing me of the discovery of the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome. No pains should be spared to recover those Fragments, which partake much of the nature of the apostolical Writings: and they ought not to be wholly rejected on account of interpolations: we must do with them as with metals, separate the dross from the pure metal. Would to God that Father Sirmond, or some one of his society like him, would give us the Epistle of Barnabas, from which there are some quotations in Clement of Alexandria. I remember to have heard Father Sirmond himself say that the Jesuits have this letter.”

St. Clement’s Epistle was not sent to Grotius till after his departure from Hamburg, and arrival at Francfort. He examined it immediately, and wrote his thoughts of it, July 17, to the famous Jerom Bignon, Advocate-General: After reading it over and over, he remained satisfied that it was the same which Photius had seen, and which St. Jerom, Clement of Alexandria, and before them St. Irenaeus, had; and which was written in the end of Nero’s reign, or some years before that of Vespasian; and that it was most authentic, without the least interpolation. As to the second Epistle, ascribed to St. Clement, he did not think it written by that Pope: but at the same time did not question its being a work of the first Century. Grotius agrees in this with the most learned Critics even among the Roman Catholics.

He obtained a sight of St. Barnabas’s Epistle, of which he was so desirous; but he had not the satisfaction to see it printed. Usher undertook to publish it in 1643; but before it was finished a fire consumed at Oxford what was already printed. Two years after, Father Menard’s edition appeared: but this was the year of Grotius’s death. To return to his opinion concerning the points controverted between the Roman Catholics and Protestants: he speaks with great contempt of the inadmissibility of grace. His treatise Of faith and works is written against this error. He maintains that it is the most pernicious system that can be introduced; that it is not to be found in any of the Fathers; and was not so much as tolerated in ancient times.

He proves that fasting was very early observed in the Church, as we may be convinced by reading St. Irenaeus; that Lent was always observed by the ancient Church; that the sign of the Cross has something respectable in it, and was used in the first ages, as Tertullian, and others after him, observe; that Virginity is a more perfect state than marriage, as the Fathers taught; that the Romish Church preserved the ancient discipline of the Western Church with regard to the celibacy of the Priests; that Jesus Christ himself taught that such as lived in celibacy were more proper for the ecclesiastical functions; that the African Church agreed in this point with that of Rome; and that, besides, the Romish Church did not refuse to communicate with Churches which permitted Priests to marry. Of all the religious orders he approved most of the congregation of the Fathers of the Oratory, and the institution of the Jesuits, because the first retired when they pleased; and the others might leave the society with permission of their Superiors.

In fine, he speaks of the Council of Trent with great respect. “Those, he says, who shall read its Decrees with a mind disposed to peace, will find that every thing is wisely explained in them, and agreeable to what is taught by the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers, as may be seen by the passages cited in the margin.”

Such as were displeased with these pacific sentiments, objected to him that he had formerly thought otherwise. Laurentius wrote a piece on this subject, which is mentioned by Grotius in a letter to his brother, “Laurentius, says he, objects to me that what I have formerly written contradicts my later works: however, if they be examined by the true rules of criticism, no such contradiction will be found. Farther, if, as I have advanced in years, conversation with able men, and a more perfect examination, have made me change my sentiments, I ought not on that account to be accused of inconstancy, no more than St. Augustin, who retracted many things.” He again touches on this point in his Votum pro pace. “If in my youth, says he, having less knowledge than now, the prejudices of education, or a blind attachment to authors of same, carried me too great lengths, shall I not be permitted at present, when I am old, to adopt more reasonable sentiments, after long enquiry and a renunciation of all party spirit?”

It is not surprising that after such a declaration the zealous Clergy sought to render him odious. They printed a book against him, under the title of Grotius papista. It is certain that he gave the preference to the Roman Catholic religion above all the others, and it has even been reported that he promised to M. Bignon, before leaving Paris, to declare himself openly a Roman Catholic. It has also been said that M. Arnaud asserted, that he was informed by a man of honour, who had it from M. Bignon, that Grotius, on setting out for Sweden, declared to this last Gentleman, that as soon as he came back he would make profession of the Roman Catholic Religion. The Jesuits have published a Flemish book under the title of the Testament of Grotius, in which they advance that he was ready to turn Roman Catholic: the Author of Vindiciae Grotianae has pretended to confute this assertion by some passages in Grotius’s earlier works: but his reasoning must appear absurd, since it was only in the latter part of his life that he preferred the Romish Religion. A Protestant, who could not deny that Grotius gave the preference to the Roman Catholic religion, has ventured to advance, that it was perhaps with a view to be made a Cardinal: this wretched conjecture is Osiander’s; but besides that Grotius had a wife of whom he was very fond, he was a man incapable of embracing an opinion from motives of interest.

It is very certain that Grotius was most intimate with Father Petau, who cultivated his friendship (as this learned Jesuit tells us himself in one of his letters) in hopes of bringing him to an open profession of the Roman Catholic faith. This gave M. Varlois occasion to say, in his elogium of Father Petau, “What did he not do to gain over the illustrious Grotius to the Catholic Religion? He did not dislike us, he was even almost one of us, since he publicly declared his acceptance of the doctrine of the Council of Trent. One thing only was wanting to him, to resort to our Churches, which he only deferred till he could bring many with him to the unity of the Catholic faith.” Father Briet says much the same in his Annals of the World for the year 1645. “This year died Hugo Grotius, the honour and glory of men of learning: his intention was to die a Catholic, but he wanted time; for, as he assured me, he believed as we do.”

We read in the Menagiana, that when Grotius’s death was known at Paris, Father Petau, persuaded that he was a Catholic at heart, said mass for his soul: it was even reported at that time, if we may believe the compiler of those Anecdotes, that Grotius wanted to declare himself before his journey to Sweden, but was advised by Father Petau to go there first, and return afterwards to Paris to settle, and fulfil his resolution. It is improbable that such a zealous Catholic as Father Petau would advise Grotius to defer for a moment the edification of all the Catholics by his return to the Church; but it is certain that Father Petau said mass for his friend. The tradition of this fact is preferred among the Jesuits, and there are people of credit alive who remember to have heard it affirmed for certain by Father Harduin and M. Huet Bishop of Avranches.

As Grotius’s religion was a problem to many, Menage wrote an Epigram on this occasion, the sense of which is, that as many different sects claimed his religion, as there were towns which contended for the birth of Homer:

Smyrna, Rhodes, Colophon, Salamis, Argos, Athenae,
Siderei certant vatis de patria Homeri:
Grotiadae certant de religione Socinus,
Arrius, Arminius, Calvinus, Roma, Lutherus.

XXIII. That which contributed to the removal of Grotius’s prejudices against the Catholic Church was undoubtedly the project he had formed of reconciling all the different parties which divide Christendom. He saw well the necessity of having the Catholics on his side; and he flattered himself that having gained them, he would easily bring over the rest. M. Huet did not think such a project absolutely chimerical: “The religious differences, says he, which have long disturbed the peace of Christians, are not impossible to be accommodated. If the parties would set about it sincerely, without obstinacy or private interest, they would soon find ways of accommodation; but some of all parties are so warm, that they censure such of their own party as seek to accommodate differences, with no less severity than they do their adversaries. With what presumptuous rigour did Rivetus the Minister treat Grotius for proposing the means of peace? Grotius, in a modest answer, humbles his pride without naming him; humorously pointing him out by that title taken from Catullus, Adversus quemdam opaca quem facit bonum barba.”

M. Bayle differed from M. Huet concerning the attempt to unite the different religions: he thinks it as great a chimera as the Philosophers stone, or the quadrature of the circle. The truth is, to hope for success in such a project, one must suppose in all men a sincere love of truth, and a readiness to renounce their prejudices, good understandings, and upright hearts.

In this undertaking one essential thing, which must not be forgot, is, that if the Catholic Church, by a condescendance worthy of her charity and her desire that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth, should remit some point of her discipline, she cannot shew this indulgence with regard to any tenet condemned by the Council of Trent, without betraying her principles: there is therefore only one way of reunion, namely, that those who separated from the Catholic Church acknowledge that they have no argument that can justify their schism, and humbly praying to be received into the bosom of their mother, seek to obtain this favour by sacrificing their errors.

It was very common in the last age for men to busy themselves in finding out ways of reconciliation between the Protestants and Roman Catholics: the Reformed set about it; and I cannot forbear relating here the extravagance of Cregutius, Minister of Montelemar, who in a small treatise, which I have in Manuscript, on the question, Whether an union with the Romish Church is to be hoped for or not? decides it in the affirmative, provided (says he) the Church of Rome begin with renouncing the doctrine of transubstantiation: of which he doth not despair. Grotius with more good sense laboured from his youth in the grand project of reconciling all the parties into which Christians are divided. His good intentions were known to Europe before his escape from Louvestein: Du Vair, Keeper of the Seals, complimented him on his design. “God, says he, has ordered it so that you should owe your deliverance entirely to him, to the end that being delivered from worldly distractions, you may employ the rare talents with which he has entrusted you, in promoting that work which is no doubt most agreeable to him, namely the common peace of Christendom by a reunion of all the members which have separated from their spiritual mother, in whom they or their fathers were conceived. And for as much as it is the thing which many men of honour expect from you, I cannot forbear rejoicing with them, and accelerating by my applause such a happy course.” Grotius’s answer confirmed the Keeper of the Seals in the idea he had entertained. “God is my witness, says he, how much I am afflicted when I compare the first ages of the Church with our unhappy times, in which the people, differing in articles of faith, have divided into factions, and thereby given occasion to wars of which even the nations of the heathen would have been ashamed. There are doubtless many good men, who grieve to see such a great evil; and, preserving charity for all Christians, ardently desire to see union restored; and are disposed to procure this great blessing by following the Apostle’s counsel, to bear with the infirmities of others, and extend their patience and candour to their utmost length: but those rigid notions, which a party spirit has instilled into many, is a great obstacle to the obtaining of this happiness. May God pour out a spirit of charity and meekness on the heads of the Church, on Kings and Potentates, that, surmounting every difficulty, they may without delay restore to the Church her primitive beauty, and above all a solid peace, without prejudice to truth. Many thousands, of whom I am one, pray without ceasing for the execution of this pious design, and desire nothing more than to be employed in it.”

Filled with this idea, he proposed to Lewis XIII, in his dedication Of the Rights of War and Peace, to compose the differences of the Churches, and direct the age in which he lived how to terminate them in conformity to the sentiments of that time, when all allow that Christianity was in its purity. He imagined the alliance between France and England would facilitate the execution of a project worthy of such mighty Kings: he had it so much at heart, that he thought himself destined to labour in it from his mother’s womb. “It is a vocation, says he to his brother, which God has given me. I have many witnesses, he writes to Duraeus, who knew me in my native country, and can attest not only how much I have desired, but also how much I have laboured to lessen the disputes among Christians, in order to promote gradually the restoration of unity. I might even appeal to yourself, in relation to what has since been done both in Germany and Sweden. I shall never cease, he says to his brother, my utmost endeavours for establishing peace among Christians; and if I should not succeed, it will be honourable to die in such a pious enterprize.”

He had the consolation to be seconded in his pacific projects by Duraeus, a Clergyman in Sweden, with whom he cultivated a correspondence for advancing the coalition of Christians. “What you labour in with so much zeal is precisely what I have been employed about since I began to have any relish for divine things. Experience teaches me how many difficulties we must expect both from Statesmen and Divines bigotted to their own opinions, and averse to those of others: but all these obstacles ought not to prevent our undertaking such a good work: if we do not succeed, we shall at least enjoy the satisfaction of having entertained very sublime ideas. For my part, as I have done it already, so I shall still continue to recommend to the High Chancellor your piety, your learning, your good intentions, and your zeal, to which I ardently wish success; and the accounts of your progress from time to time will give me the greatest pleasure. Duraeus’s enterprize is attended with particular difficulties at this time, he writes to Berneggerus: but things as difficult have often had a happy issue: besides, it affords much satisfaction to a man’s conscience to have attempted what is highly useful, even though he should fail of success.”

Duraeus meeting with great obstacles, Grotius consoles him on that head, in a letter of the 21st of November, 1637. “What gives me hopes, he says, is your constancy, and the countenance of the High Chancellor. I have conferred on this subject with the two English Ambassadors, the Earl of Leicester and Lord Scudamore: they are of my opinion, that the present time, while Europe is engaged in war, is not favourable for convoking a general assembly of Protestants.”

Duraeus’s project regarding only a union among Protestants, Daille and the ablest men among the reformed Ministers approved of it, with some limitations: there was, however, little prospect of success on account of the intollerant spirit of some turbulent Ministers, such as Voetius.

Grotius had much higher views; he proposed nothing less than to reunite all Christians: in this, he said, he would not cease to labour; and, that it would yield him pleasure to die so well employed; that he gave himself little pain about the hatred he might incur, for if men gave way to this fear, never any vice would be corrected.

What encouraged him farther, in this idea, was the number of great men who entertained it before him. “I am not the only one who hath conceived this project, he writes to his brother: Erasmus, Cassander, Vecelius, and Casaubon had the same design. La Miletiere is employed at present in it: Cardinal Richelieu declares that he will protect the coalition; and he is such a happy man that he never undertook any thing in which he did not succeed: and even if there were no hopes of success at present, ought we not to sow the seed which may be useful to posterity? Even if we should only diminish the mutual hatred among Christians, and render them more sociable, would not this be worth purchasing at the price of some labour and reproaches?”

Arminius may likewise be numbered with those who were desirous of reuniting Christians. The method he proposed was to distinguish fundamental points from such as were not, and leave men at liberty to believe or disbelieve the latter. He communicated his project to Casaubon, who highly approved it: but how shall men settle what articles are fundamental? This question is a source of endless disputes. Besides, they must be able to answer the Roman Catholic Divines, who, building on the doctrine that has been always taught, justly pretend that whatever has been decided to be part of that doctrine ought to be regarded as fundamental. Men could not help approving Grotius’s intention; but even those, by whom he was held in the greatest esteem, had no confidence in the success of his project. This made him write to Baron Oxenstiern on the subject. “Even if religious differences, he says, had not given occasion to bloody wars, I should still think it the duty of Christians to restore the unity; since, as the Apostle of the Gentiles tells us, we ought to be all members of one body. But even those, who say they desire it, doubt whether the thing be practicable. I know well that all schism, the further it has extended, and the longer it has lasted, will be more difficult to heal; so many being employed to throw oil on the flames: however, there are examples of inveterate evils that have been cured in the Church. After the Council of Chalcedon there was a very great schism in the East, which continued an hundred years till the reign of Justinian, by whose authority, Pope Vigilius listening at last to terms of peace, an end was put to it. Charles V, Ferdinand, and Maximilian thought that the schism between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants of the Augsbourg confession was not incurable. Melancton and other learned men, whose writings are still extant, were of the same opinion. I have heard from great men, that Henry IV. of France said that he would undertake to obtain, for the King of England and his Protestant allies, such conditions of returning to the unity of the Church, as they could not handsomely refuse; and that he purposed to send some of his Bishops into England to confer on this subject with the Prelates of that kingdom: but this project, which had been concerted with several great men, was defeated by the King’s death. I believe the chief difference between the tenets of the Augsbourg confession and those of the Council of Trent lies in the ambiguity of some expressions, which are understood differently; but may be explained, by men of understanding and friends to peace, in such manner, that no difference will remain but in those things which may be left to the free discussions of the Learned, without any injury to the peace of the Church. It is evident, from the examples of the Maronites and Greeks, that those who communicate in both kinds, and use a liturgy different from that of the Romish Church, provided it be susceptible of a Catholic sense, even were it in the vulgar tongue, may be received into the communion of the Apostolical See; and likewise those Churches which allow the Priests to marry. What has been done in Sweden and elsewhere, for the reformation of discipline, by suppressing simony and superstition, ought not only to be retained; but there is room to hope that when unity is restored other nations will follow this example, there being many among them who ardently desire, that the abuses which have crept in may be removed according to the ancient Canons. It is very difficult to render the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome useful, or at least not hurtful to the Church: but if one considers, that the Kings and Bishops of the Romish religion are as much concerned in this matter, as the Protestants, and reflects on the precautions taken in it by France and Spain, he will not despair of finding expedients for securing the authority of Kings, their right in the election of Bishops and the prerogatives of the Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, agreeable to the Canons and the ancient Church discipline. If the Christian world could have rest from war, the Kings of the Romish communion, who are favourably disposed towards the Protestants, might prepare matters at Rome in such manner as to give hope of a happy issue. I grant that these things are attended with difficulties; but so is every great, and useful, and glorious undertaking; and in such a salutary work we may confide in the Almighty’s aid.”

After this manner did Grotius write to the Swedish Plenipotentiary, in the end of the year 1614, handling with greater delicacy, as he wrote to Protestants, the nice article of the Pope’s Supremacy, in favour of which he had spoken more strongly in the pieces he had just published.

We learn from his first letters, that he communicated his pacific ideas to his father, and that he was early sensible of the great difficulties attending a reunion. He writes to his brother, Oct 27, 1623, “What my father writes, of restoring things to the condition they were in before the Council of Trent, would be a great step; but transubstantiation, and the adoration ordained by the Lateran Council, and the invocation of Saints, which is received in all the liturgies, will be great stumbling-blocks to tender consciences.”

Some years after, he imagined that the shortest way to a coalition of Christians would be to reduce the articles of faith to a small number. “It were well, says he, if Christians would reflect how few the points are, and how clearly expressed in Scripture, which constitute the Rule of Faith laid down by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian; and as it is not allowed to doubt of these, the liberty left to men in others might contribute to the peace of the Church.”

Afterwards he went much farther. “I could wish, he says to his brother, Nov 14 1643, that Utengobard, when his health will permit, would write something, if he has not done it already, on the necessity of restoring the unity of the Church; and by what means it may be done. Many think that the true way would be to distinguish between what is necessary, and what is not; and to leave men at full liberty in the latter: but it is as difficult to know what is necessary, as to know what is true. The Scriptures, they say, are the rule: but interpreters vary on the passages referred to. I know not, therefore, whether it would not be best to adhere to the sentiments of the Catholic Church concerning faith and good works: for I think they hold all that is necessary to be believed in order to salvation. As to other articles which have been determined by Councils, or received by the first Christians, we must adopt the moderate interpretation, and such we shall find on every point. If any one cannot prevail with himself to be silent in relation to things, of which he has no certainty, but will disturb the unity of the Church, instead of labouring to restore it, matters will proceed from bad to worse.”

Sometimes Grotius imagined he should succeed. Nov 23, 1641, he writes to Gerard Vossius, that Codurus, Justellus, and Melitiere, three of the most learned Protestants, had thanked him for what he had written on the Consultation of Cassander. “I perceive, says he to his brother, by conversing with the men of most learning among the Reformed, and explaining my sentiments to them, that they are of my opinion: their number will increase if my treatises are dispersed; in which, I can truly affirm, I have said nothing from a party spirit, but followed truth as closely as I could.”

He writes to his father, that he was not without hopes of some good effect from his incessant labours to restore peace to Christendom. “That day will at length shine forth, of which we now perceive the dawn: for many great, pious, and learned men, of both parties, begin to see how unreasonable it is to neglect the reformation of manners while we are framing new tenets, and censuring old ones, which require only a good comment. This excellent design I recommend to your prayers; it was you gave me the first hint of it.”

He writes to his brother, June 15, 1641, “I have received a visit from some Catholic Counsellors of State, and Codurus the clergyman, who expect the coalition will quickly take place, and pay great regard to my opinion. May the God of peace direct the whole to the advancement of truth and piety.”

He received the agreeable account, that the pieces he had written to promote the coalition were approved of in Denmark, Sweden, England, Germany, and Poland.

He imagined several Catholics entered into his views. Divers doctors of the Sorbonne, he said, thanked him for the remarks he wrote on the Consultation of Cassander. “The ablest men among the Catholics think what I have done, he tells his brother, is written with great freedom and moderation, and approve of it.”

“We ought not, he says in another letter, to regard only the present age, but posterity also: yet I find some people who think they shall live to see the union restored.”

He imagined his manner of handling the controversy was approved of by the ablest men of the Romish Communion, and even at Rome because there were most great men in that city.

For some time he entertained hopes that Cardinal Richelieu would favour him: Jan 19, 1641, he writes thus to his brother: “When my book is published, many Protestants will see that the reconciliation of the Churches is easier than they imagined: for the principal basis of the Reformation may subsist with the Pope’s consent, provided the affair be managed with mildness and without giving him offence. I write this on good grounds: Cardinal Richelieu thinks the thing will succeed: he has said so to several.”

Grotius had either been misinformed, or the Cardinal changed his language: for the former writes to his brother, March 24, 1642, “As Cardinal Richelieu speaks differently from what he did some time ago about the peace of the churches, I am afraid this change conceals some ill design against the Reformed.”

Grotius, finding at length that the project of a coalition was impracticable without the approbation of the Catholics, contracted an intimacy with Father Petau, to whom he communicated all his works relating to religion and the reconciliation of the churches. In a letter of the 3d of December, 1640, he desires him to send him his remarks on his works, “That, says he, by your assistance I may add, suppress, or correct, as shall be most necessary for promoting truth and peace. Would to God that I had as much genius and learning as some others: I would accomplish what it is great barely to attempt.”

He communicated to Father Petau the manuscript of his answer to Rivetus, desiring him to point out what was not agreeable to truth, or had not a tendency to promote peace. “I am resolved, says he, to publish my answer as soon as I have your opinion, to which I pay great regard.”

Father Petau gives us the history of his acquaintance with Grotius, in his XIIth letter. “I had, says he, a great desire to see and converse with him; we have been long together, and very intimate. He is, as far as I can judge, a good man, and of great candour. I do not think him far from becoming a Catholic, after, the example of Holstenius, as you hoped: I shall neglect nothing in my power to reconcile him to Christ, and put him in the way of salvation.”

Father Petau mentions him again in another letter, written to Cardinal Francis Barberinus. His Eminence had applied to that learned Jesuit for information in what state Grotius had left, at his death, his work on the Antiquities of Sweden. Father Petau makes him this answer. “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is now happy. Our love to learning began our acquaintance, which I kept up in hopes of being useful to him. Accordingly I saw him often, and he also visited me, and wrote to me frequently.” He concludes with assuring the Cardinal, that he would enquire of his widow about his work relating to Sweden.

Grotius’s several attempts to restore the peace of Christendom made him be looked upon as a good man by pacific people; but they occasioned him much uneasiness from those, who, being obstinately attached to the opinions of the first Reformers, regarded all that kept any measures with the Romish Church as Apostates. He laid his account with contradictions. Feb 23, 1641, he writes to Israel Caski, “Those who had the same design that I have were generally evil-treated by both parties, and met with the fate of such as would separate combatants: but the God of peace will judge them with justice. They have also on their side pious and learned men, whose merit outweighs the number of the others. I believe, says he to his brother, my Remarks on Cassander will please few, because there are not many skilled in the Scriptures and Antiquity: most people are bigotted to their opinions. I except against such Judges; I regard them not; nor have I any desire to know what they say. I have granted nothing to the Roman Catholics, but what antiquity gives them.” The zealous Clergy, not content with writing against him themselves, every where stirred him up enemies: he speaks in his letters of one Seyffectus of Ulm, who, instigated by Rivetus and others of that party, wrote against him.

Several learned men, who had the highest esteem and the most perfect friendship for Grotius, conceived a violent hatred to him on seeing him lean towards the Catholics. He had been extremely intimate with Salmasius: he had received letters from him filled with the most expressive testimonies of friendship; and Grotius had informed him of the happy change of his fortune, because he looked upon him as one of his best friends: they had long kept up a learned correspondence by letters, in which we find a reciprocal esteem and the greatest politeness; but when Grotius set up for a Mediator, Salmasius publicly declared, that he disapproved of the way of reconciliation proposed by Grotius; and from that time his friendship changed into bitter enmity.

Sarrau, Counsellor in the parliament of Rouen, who had been one of Grotius’s best friends, as we may see by the letters that passed between them, withdrew his friendship when he thought him in the interest of the Romish Church. May 31, 1641, he writes, “What is reported for certain, that Grotius is gone over to the Popish party, is not true: but with great concern we see him every day employed in something very like it: he will not suffer us to rank him in any class of Protestants whatever, because he has used them all too ill in his Treatises on Antichrist and the Consultation of Cassander.”

Sarrau also writes to Salmasius, that it was publicly said these projects of reconciliation had set the High Chancellor and several other Lords against Grotius. He flattered himself, however, that Sarrau approved of his project: for he writes to his brother, William Grotius, “Among some others of the Reformed, Sarrau, who was a Counsellor in the parliament of Rouen, and is at present in that of Paris, praises my design.” But it is probable that Grotius took compliments for realities. It is certain that Grotius’s schemes displeased Sarrau, and that there was a coldness between them, for the latter writes thus to Salmasius, Feb 10, 1644, “I am not reconciled to the Swedish Ambassador: if I had an inclination to it I believe it might easily be done. The alteration in our friendship does not proceed from my fault, but solely from his plan of pacification, which I do not approve. I esteem him highly, on account of the great services he has done to learning; and shall even never cease to love him: but, far from commending or approving his late pieces, I am greatly dissatisfied with them: however, I would not have the many excellent things he has done slighted on that account. Every one acknowledges you to be the first man in the republic of letters; but it cannot be denied that he holds the second rank. You have no superior, nor even any equal; suffer him to be after you the first.”

The celebrated Schurman, whose extensive knowledge had at that time gained her a very high reputation, signifies to Rivetus, Jan 20, 1643, the general discontent of the greater number of the Reformed against Grotius. “Hitherto, says she, every one had a high idea of Grotius’s genius and erudition. But since he departed from sound reason, changed the object of his studies, and insulted by gross invectives the whole body of Protestants, and the principal authors of the reformation, everyone seeks for Grotius in Grotius. Nothing can be more ridiculous or foolish than to see a man, who neither agrees with others, nor with himself, as you have well shewn, undertake, without our desire or consent, to reconcile us with the Roman Catholics, and positively decide that we may, and that we ought to come into his views.”

Ruarus had predicted to Grotius himself, that he would reap no other fruit of his labours, than the hatred of both parties: but he was at the same time persuaded that no worldly interest entered into Grotius’s views, more honest in this respect than the zealous protestant clergy, who were ready to adopt the most gross and groundless calumnies, provided they were levelled against Grotius.

So much contradiction chagrined him greatly, and altered his temper: by seeking to establish peace among men, he lost the tranquility of his own mind, which he had preserved in his deepest adversity. It is said he became suspicious, and peevish, and lost that politeness towards his friends, which had so advantageously distinguished him from other men of learning. It is even reported (but by one of his enemies, indeed) that one day he abused M. du Puis in his [Grotius’s] own house, and turned him out of doors, for presuming to contradict him. Yet it is evident from his letters, that he was most intimate with the two illustrious brothers, Mess. du Puis, and was under high obligations to them. “You have always been my best friends (he writes to them, Nov 19, 1633) and almost my only ones since Rigaut went to Metz, Salmasius to Leyden, and Tilenus died.”

A letter to his brother, Nov 1, 1641, clearly shews the change of his temper. Blondius having used Reigersberg, Grotius’s friend and relation, very ill, he writes to his brother William: “If Blondius should speak to you, tell him I have a son here, who will send him a challenge, for affronting the Senator Reigersberg.” This menace, which seemed to be an approbation of duelling, much surprised William Grotius, who had read in the Rights of War and Peace, that this doctrine was clearly condemned by the gospel. Grotius proves in another part of the same book, “That honour being nothing but the opinion we have of our distinguishing qualities, he who bears with a slight injury, thereby discovers a patience above the common; and thus, instead of lessening his honour, adds to it; and that if some people, from a wrong judgment, bestow improper epithets on this virtue and turn it into ridicule; these wrong judgments change not the nature of the thing, nor lessen its real value. This has not only been acknowledged by the first Christians, but by the ancient Philosophers, who, as we have elsewhere shewn, ascribed an impatient resentment of insults to meanness of soul. Should any one even publish things capable of hurting us with good men, that will not authorise us to kill him. If there are authors who maintain the contrary, it is an erroneous opinion which clasheth even with the principles of natural law: for killing the person who attacks our reputation is a bad way of defending it.” Thus Grotius thought in his best days. We have enlarged on this head, to shew into what contradiction, and excess of weakness, great men may fall. William Grotius was no doubt astonished at his brother’s vivacity, and probably gave him some check for it; for Grotius afterwards writes to him, “What I wrote to you, relating to my son and Blondius, I did it not because I approved of such things, but because that or something worse might happen.”

XXIV. The hatred, which his projects of reconciliation drew upon him, contributed to the revival of the invidious accusation of Socinianism, which had been formerly laid against him: they founded it on his silence concerning the Trinity in his treatise Of the truth of the Christian religion, on his praises of Crellius, his connection with the Socinians, and, in fine, on his setting aside, or weakening several passages which established Christ’s divinity, particularly that in which it is said, that Christ was before Abraham; Grotius explaining it with the Socinians of Christ’s existence in the eternal decrees of God.

It was not only his declared enemies, such as Desmarets, Osiander, and many others, that wanted to make him pass for a Socinian: some celebrated Roman Catholics, among whom we may number M. Bossuet, maintained that he was a favourer of Socinianism.

It is true he did not always express himself with the greatest exactness, and sometimes enlarged more on the necessity of good works, than on that of regulating our faith according to the decisions of the Church: but besides that his expressions are susceptible of a favourable sense, it is evident that there are several tenets, the belief of which he thought necessary for salvation: this manifestly appears from the detail he enters into concerning these doctrines in his later works.

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, 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, 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, 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 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 to abstain from such dangerous innovation.

One of the principal grounds on which they went, was, as we have already seen, his silence concerning the Trinity, in his book Of the truth of the Christian religion: but he has justified his method in such a manner, that this objection cannot be sustained by an equitable judge: he seems to have foreseen it; for, writing to his brother from his prison at Louvestein whilst he was composing this treatise in Dutch verse, “My intention, he says, is not to explain the doctrines of Christianity, but to make the profane, the Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans acknowledge the truth of the Christian religion, and afterwards have recourse to our sacred books to be informed of its tenets. The Trinity, and Christ’s divinity could not be introduced into my arguments; for these doctrines will never bring over unbelievers to the Christian faith, and those who attempt to demonstrate them by other arguments than such as are drawn from scripture, absolutely lose their labour: but the authority of the scriptures being once established, these doctrines ought to be held proved.” He omitted therefore all mention of these points, not because he disbelieved them, but because he judged it more proper to prove first the divinity of the sacred books, and the mission of Christ: and, as we have already observed, the same method has been followed by the most successful writers on the Truth of Christianity.

He has been much reproached with his letter to Crellius. Grotius had written against Socinus, and Crellius, to vindicate his master, answered Grotius with a politeness and good-breeding seldom found in a polemical divine. Grotius thought it his duty to reply to him, and the measures he kept with this adversary were looked on by his enemies as a betraying of the truth. Here follows the letter, which has been so much talked of. “I was so far from being offended, most learned Crellius, with your book against mine that I inwardly thanked you at that time, and now do it by this letter, first, for treating me with so much civility, that the only thing I have left to complain of is your complimenting me in some places too much: next for informing me of many very useful and entertaining things, and exciting me by your example, to examine thoroughly into the sense of the sacred scriptures: you judge very rightly of me, that I bear no ill-will to any one who differs from me, without prejudice to religion; nor decline the friendship of any good man. I have found in your book of the True Religion, which I have already gone through, and shall read again, many judicious remarks: and I congratulate the present age, that there are men in it who make religion consist, not so much in subtle controversies as in amendment of life and a continual progress in holiness. God grant that my writings may produce these sentiments in the minds of my readers: I should then think my life not spent in vain. The treatise on the truth of the Christian religion I wrote more for my own satisfaction, than for the instruction of others. I don’t see how it can be useful, after so many other works on the same subject, but by its brevity. If there be any thing in it that pleases you, or such as you, it is a happiness beyond my expectation. My great aim, in the Rights of War and Peace, was to suppress, as much as was in my power, that savage barbarity unworthy not only of a Christian, but of a man, which, to the misfortune of nations, is now too common, of beginning and carrying on wars by caprice. I hear with pleasure that this work has got into the hands of Princes: God grant they may retain what is good in it; for that would be the most agreeable fruit I could reap from my labour. If ever any occasion should offer of serving you, of your friends, be assured that I shall be ready to give you proofs of my high esteem. Since I can do no more, I sincerely pray that God would protect you, and those who promote religion.”

There is another letter from Grotius to Crellius, which has made much noise. After thanking him for a book he had sent him, he adds, “I am resolved to read your works again and again with care, having already reaped much benefit from them. I have always loved peace, and love it still; and am grieved to see so much enmity between those, who call themselves Christians, for such trifling matters.”

Crellius having shewn these letters to several, the Socinians and Grotius’s enemies spread a report, that he favoured Socinianism: even extracts of these letters were printed. He protested against the abuse made of them, and maintained that if people would candidly read his works, they would easily be convinced of the injustice of ranking him with Socinians.

It is certain, that, notwithstanding the terms which he makes use of in writing to Crellius, he did not at bottom approve of his book: he writes thus in confidence to his brother, “I have read Crellius’s book: he writes with candour, and doth not want learning; but I cannot see how he will promote religion by departing from the Scripture manner of speaking authorised by antiquity.”

“If I have not answered Crellius, he says in another letter, it was for prudential reasons, and even by the advice of the Protestants of France, who think that the questions being unknown in this country, ought not to be made public by a confutation. It is easy to refute them with glory, though every one is not capable of it: but, it is still better that they should remain unknown.” He speaks, in the same letter, of Socinus as a man very little versed in the sentiments of antiquity, and whose errors he had confuted in many of his works. “Must I also excuse myself, he asks, for not shutting my door against Martinus Ruarus, who desired to see me? The time was not lost that I spent in conversing with him, nor am I sorry for his visit. I acquainted him with my reasons for enquiring into the opinions of the ancient Churches, and for following them: I shewed him that the doctrine of satisfaction was no ways contrary to reason, even in the judgment of the Jews, and brought him some signal proofs of it. I did not conceal what violence it was to the Scripture, and of how dangerous consequence, to deny the eternity of hell torments; and I flatter myself I advanced more with him, than those would have done who abound in reproaches; nor do I see why I should abstain from writing to him, when I find the pillars of the Greek Church corresponding by letters even with Pagans. For my part, I am resolved and accustomed to preserve friendship for all men, particularly Christians, although erring; and I shall never blush at it.”

He advances almost the same reasons to clear himself from the charge of Socinianism, in a long letter to Gerard Vossius, of which we shall make no extract to avoid repetitions.

In fine, those who knew Grotius best have defended him on this head. The celebrated Jerom Bignon, who lived in much intimacy with him, could not bear to hear him accused of Socinianism: he said he knew him perfectly, and so far from being a Socinian, he had sometimes seen him almost in a disposition to turn Roman Catholic. His intimate connection with Father Petau, whose zeal for the orthodox faith was equal to his profound learning, is a clear evidences that the Jesuit did not think him a Socinian. No man was more exposed than Grotius to groundless accusations. An anonymous piece was written against him, accusing him of being a Semi-Pelagian: he did not think proper to publish a defence; but he mentions this accusation in a letter to his brother of the 29th of May, 1618. “In my treatise De ordinum Hollandiae pietate, I have mentioned Semi-Pelagianism as a very grievous error. The sentiments of the Remonstrants are very different from Semi-Pelagianism, for the Priests of Marseilles, who were called Semi-Pelagians, or the remains of the Pelagians, in speaking of the necessity of grace, denied that grace preceded good motions in the foul, at least in some men: the Remonstrants, on the contrary, maintain, that all that is spiritually good in us, even the beginning of it flows from antecedent grace. Consult the Synod of Orange, by which the Priests of Marseilles were confuted. But those that believe predestination is a consequence of prescience, or that grace is given to all men, or in fine that it may be refilled, are certainly not Semi-Pelagians.”

They carried their calumnies so far, as even to accuse him of Judaism. We read in the Patiniana that M. Bignon, Advocate-General, affirmed that Grotius had acknowledged, if he would change his religion, he would turn Jew. John Mallet, in his book Of Atheism has not only advanced that Grotius judaised in his Commentary on the Prophets, but that if he had lived much longer he would have become a Turk.

Even the immortality of the soul, said others, he did not believe: this ridiculous tale is grounded on these words of the Chevreana: “Charles Lewis, Elector Palatine, formerly told me, that having asked the celebrated Grotius, whether the immortality of the soul could be demonstrated, he answered, Not well, my Lord; not well.”

It is universally known that these books in Ana are of little authority. We must be informed of all the circumstances of this pretended conversation before we can determine Grotius’s meaning: one thing is certain, that he has proved the immortality of the soul by arguments drawn from reason in his treatise On the Truth of the Christian Religion.

XXV. If Grotius’s merit stirred up envy, and if his projects of reconciliation procured him hatred, the more irreconcilable as it was founded on a religious pretext, he had also a great number of friends and judicious persons for him, who did justice to his virtue and his talents. We shall not enter into a detail of all the testimonies in his favour, they would fill a large volume: we shall confine ourselves to the Elogiums of those whose suffrages deserve most attention. We have already seen, that even when a boy he was highly extolled by the greatest men of his age. Isaac Pontanus, Meursius, James Gillot, Barlaeus, John Dousa, M. de Thou, the great Scaliger, Casaubon, Vossius, Lipsius, Baudius, celebrated his childhood. He justified the great hopes that were so early conceived of him, and the praises he received were an additional motive to merit the public esteem. Baudius compared him to Scaliger, who, he said, was his favourite author. This he wrote on the third of March, 1606, when Grotius was yet much under age. In a scazon, written in his praise, he calls him a great, an admirable, and an original man. “If any, says he in a letter dated October 8, 1607, can form a just notion of Grotius’s merit, which exceeds all that can be said of it, I am one; and I think him equal to any office. Ignorant people, who judge of virtue by years and a long beard, may object to him his youth; but in my opinion that makes for him, since in his earliest youth he possesses the prudence and ripeness of understanding of the most aged.”

The celebrated Peyresc having made a journey into Holland in 1606, would not leave the Hague till he had made acquaintance with Grotius, already famous for universal learning. “Though he was but very young, says Gassendi, when Peyresc heard of his arrival at Paris, he said, that France, by gaining Grotius, had a sufficient reparation for the loss of Scaliger; and that if some others had been the ornament of the age, he was the wonder of it; and it is with reason (adds M. Mesnage, after relating this story of Peyresc) that we still consider Grotius as a prodigy of learning, since he has made a greater proficiency in most of the sciences, than many of those who have wholly applied to one of them in particular.”

In the funeral Elogium of Peyresc, delivered at Rome December 2, 1637, mention is made of the learned men with whom he was connected. James Bucard, who spoke it, distinguisheth Salmasius and Grotius from the rest, styling them the Princes of literature and of the fine arts. We cannot conceive a higher idea of Grotius than the celebrated Gerard Vossius entertained, as appears from the beautiful poem written by him in honour of his friend: we would give it at length if it were not too long, but we cannot omit the last stanza:

Felici omine dicte magne, quid te
Sol majus videt? o deçus tuorum,
Delfi gloria, Patrii Deique amores,
Splendor inclute, Belgices ocelle,
Orbis delicium, Deique amores!

He never mentions Grotius without admiration. “He is, says he, one of the greatest ornaments of our times, or rather the miracle, the eternal honour, of Holland, and of his age.” He wrote to Meursius, “If we would do him justice, there is none we can place above him, nor even any we can compare with him.”

Utengobard, who had been his master, said, that to speak after Grotius, was to expose one’s self to be laughed at.

Balzac has employed his most eloquent phrases to express his thoughts of Grotius: he writes to Mesnage, “Is it true, what you tell me, of the Swedish Ambassador, and shall I be so happy to share in his esteem? I tell it you as solemnly as if I were by the altar on which we swore to be friends, that my ambition was dead, but you have revived it, and my transports would be as great as yours, if my blood were as fine and sparkling: who would not glory in the esteem of one whose birth our age ought to be proud of? he is a modern whom the President Jeannin sets in opposition to the greatest of the ancients.” In another letter written to Chapelain, he says: “Whatever comes from Grotius is a high recommendation of him to me; and besides the solidity of his learning, the strength of his reasoning, and the graces of his language, I observe in it an air of probity, that one may put entire confidence in him, excepting in what regards our Church, to which he is unhappily a stranger.”

Colomiez, in his Bibliotheque choisie, has collected some of the Elogiums which had been then made of Grotius: “The President Jeannin, says he, according to the relation of Balzac, opposes Grotius to the greatest men of antiquity. Salmasius, in his notes on Solinus, styles him Virum excellentissimae doctrinae in omni genere litterarum; Selden, in his Mare clausum, virum acuminis et omnigenae doctrinae praestantia incomparabilem; Gerard Vossius, in his Latin Poems, Seculi nostri grande ornamentum; Pricaeus, on the xivth of St. Matthew, Virum ingentem, quem non sine horrore mirati sumus: In fine, M. Blondel, who was not lavish of his praise, says of him in his Sibyls, that he was a very great man, whether we consider the sublimity of his genius, the universality of his learning, or the diversity of his writings; in fine, says Colomiez, he appears a great critic in his Martianus Capella, his Aratus, and his Stobaeus; in his Notes on Lucan and Tacitus a great historian, a great statesman, a great divine; but however excellent these different works may be, we must however acknowledge that Grotius’s Letters and Poems much surpass them; and that if he appeared great in those, in these he is incomparable. But what astonishes me is, that he should have written so many letters, and made so many verses, and all should be of equal strength, that is, that all should partake of the powerful and divine genius which animated that great man.” Episcopius, who was regarded as an oracle by his party, looked on Grotius as his oracle. “Your opinion, he writes to him, shall be to me the decision of an oracle; for I know your love to truth and friendship for me to be such, that in giving it you regard only truth.”

Christian Habsoeker and Philip Limborch speak of him with raptures in the Preface to the Letters of illustrious men: “At the name of the incomparable Grotius, who is above all praise, and even all envy, we are in a sort of transport. How shall we sufficiently praise the virtues of that most illustrious hero, whom all true scholars regard as the most learned of the Learned: we shall only relate the prophecy concerning him in 1614 by Daniel Heinsius in some verses which ought to be put under his picture.”

Those lines are in fact the most complete Elogium that can be made of a man.

Depositum Coeli, quod jure Batavia mater
Horret, et baud credit se peperisse sibi;
Talem oculis, talem ore tulit se maximus Hugo:
Instar crede hominis, caetera crede Dei.

Heinsius and Grotius had been most intimate in their youth: the divisions which happened in the Republic destroyed this close union: Heinsius joined the Contra-Remonstrants, and was Secretary to the Commissioners of the Synod of Dort. Grotius had reason to complain of him on several occasions: nevertheless, talking with Cardinal Richelieu about him, Grotius greatly commended his genius and learning. He gives an account of this conversation to his brother; adding, “In this manner I am wont to revenge myself on those who hate me.” Cardinal Richelieu, though not prejudiced in favour of Grotius, ranked him however among the three first scholars of the age: the other two were Claudius Salmasius, and Jerom Bignon. This famous Advocate-General said of Grotius, that he was the most learned man who had appeared in the world since Aristotle.

Foreigners who loved the sciences would not leave France without seeing Grotius. John Christenius, who was at Paris in 1629, had more satisfaction in seeing him, than in the whole kingdom beside: he writes thus to John Kirkman, June 20, 1629. “The pleasure I have had, received considerable addition not only from having seen, but also often conversed with that great and eloquent man who has no fellow, I mean Hugo Grotius; for whom I have the highest esteem, and have been for many years of the same opinion with all who know that he possesses singly what would be sufficient to entitle many to great praise. He is master of all that is worth knowing in sacred and profane literature. Besides the Eastern languages, there is no art nor science with which he is not perfectly acquainted: this appears from his agreeable conversation: ask him about any thing, he immediately gives you an exact answer, and in such a manner as to excite the admiration of those who hear him. After talking about the sciences, if you enquire of him what passes in this part of the world, or the other, you will imagine you heard the answer of an oracle who delivers what is most worthy to be known. His virtue is above all I can say of it, and I want eloquence sufficiently to extol so great a man.”

Sarrau, who had been prejudiced against Grotius since his leaving the Protestants, ventures not however to decide whether Salmasius or Grotius excelled in literature; and he hesitates to make the determination, even in a letter written to Salmasius, wherein he appears much dissatisfied with Grotius. “Whether the first place in literature in this age be due to you or to him, posterity will judge more equitably than this generation.”

On hearing of Grotius’s death, he writes to Salmasius in these terms: “Hugo Grotius was certainly a great man in name and in fact: he was the star of our age. How great a loss has learning sustained! Whilst books and sciences are held in honour his name will flourish. For my part, whilst I live I shall glory in my intimacy with him. You now reign singly (he concludes, addressing himself to Salmasius) I pray God you may reign long.” He calls him elsewhere the Coryphaeus of learning sacred and prophane.

Queen Christina, hearing of his death, wrote to his widow to make her compliments of condolence, and to get the manuscripts he left. “My Ambassador, she says, may have acquainted you in part with my high esteem for his admirable learning and the good services he did me: but he could not express how dear I hold his memory, and the effects of his great labours. If gold and silver could contribute any thing to the redeeming such a valuable life, I would chearfully employ all I am mistress of for that purpose.” She concludes with asking his widow to procure her all the manuscripts of this learned man, whose works had always given her great pleasure: assuring her that they could not fall into better hands, and that the author having been of use to her in his life-time, it was just that she should not be deprived after his death of the fruits of his illustrious labours.

Duncomius wrote to Gerard Vossius, February 2, 1646, “It is certain and beyond dispute that Grotius was a very illustrious hero, usque ad stuporem fere et miraculum; that he joined science with wisdom; that he was above all praise; and that he was deeply skilled in divine and human learning.”

Meric Casaubon, son of Isaac, had no less esteem for Grotius than his illustrious father had had before him. In his preface to Hierocles’s book Of providence and destiny, “Hugo Grotius, he says, was a great, an incomparable man: in him was seen what is very rare, a peaceable spirit, with much judgment, and infinite erudition.” Augustus Buchner calls Grotius the greatest ornament of his time, the oracle of human wisdom, and the wonder of the age.

Lewis du Moulin comparing Grotius with Salmasius, allows Grotius much more judgment, but gives to Salmasius a greater extent of knowledge. In another place, where he censures Grotius for the part he had acted with regard to religion, he bestows on him, after all, in other respects the highest praises. “Neither the present nor the last age, he says, hath produced a man superior to Grotius in judgment and erudition. He was great in everything: a very great Divine, Lawyer, Orator, Poet, Philosopher; his genius, far from being confined within the limits of the bar, was scarce bounded by those of nature.”

Guy Patin writes, February 24, 1662, “They have finished in Holland, in nine volumes in folio, an edition of all the works of Grotius, whom I formerly knew: he was the finest genius of his time; a man of surprising knowledge, and perfect master of polite and useful learning.” “He and Salmasius were the greatest scholars or their time,” he writes in another letter. And in another place, “Peter Grotius, says he, was son of the first man of his age.”

“I would not mention the most learned and greatest man of this country, says Wicquefort, were I not forced to it by the remarks published at Brussels on what I have said of him in my Memoirs: it will be readily conceived that I mean Hugo de Groot. I admire, with the rest of the world, the genius, the probity, and the works of this great man; and besides this there are particular considerations, which inspire me with a veneration for his memory.”

Morhof calls him the phoenix of his age: Hofman gives him the same commendation.

“He is the greatest of men, says Meibomius, the light and support of letters; on whom we can bestow no praise but what will fall short of his virtue and erudition. His uncommon penetration makes us compare him to an eagle in the clouds,” says Oldenburg.

In 1727 was printed at Hall in Saxony, under the false name of Delft, a book entitled Hugonis Grotii Belgarum Phoenicis manes ab iniquis obtrectationibus vindicati. The author, who was said to be M. Lehman, speaks of Grotius as the greatest man Holland ever produced, and fit to be compared with the most illustrious of other Countries, and he flatters himself that the Dutch will in the issue agree with all nations, that he was the greatest ornament of their country. He gives his thoughts of Grotius in the following lines.

Hic ille est Grotius, majus quo doctior orbis
Nil habuit; credo, nil habiturus erit:
Gallia quem stupuit, stupuit quem Suecia, verus
Qui Phoebus Delphis, orbe pharusque fuit.

Salmasius, who so unmercifully fell foul of Grotius’s memory, had formerly been one of his greatest admirers. Grotius gave him the title of Most Eminent, which Pope Urbin VIII. had a very little time before attributed to the Cardinals. Salmasius answers him August 8, 1630. “You not only offend the Cardinals, but, more than most eminent Grotius (super eminentissime) you offend me, by giving me a title which you much better deserve yourself.”

These two Princes of Literature, as they were styled, had at this time a great reciprocal esteem and friendship for each other. We learn from Grotius’s letters, that Salmasius, notwithstanding the advantageous idea he entertained of his own knowledge, sometimes consulted him. He changed all of a sudden: Grotius imagined it was to make his court to those in power in Holland; but Sarrau, who knew both, assures us that Salmasius’s coldness wholly proceeded from the change of Grotius’s sentiments in religion. The news of Grotius’s death was scarce spread over Europe, when Salmasius poured out all his venom in a letter written from Leyden, Nov 20, 1645, to Sarrau.

“You think Grotius, says he, the first among the learned; for my part, I give that rank to Vossius. I do not think it is necessary to wait for the judgment of posterity, to know whose opinion is most just: it will be sufficient to consult the learned in Italy, Germany, in this country, and even in France: but till we have their suffrages let us go through all the sciences, and examine the extent of Grotius’s capacity. There is no one whom I would desire to resemble less in divinity: he is every where a Socinian, both in his treatise On the Truth of the Christian Religion, and his Commentary on the Old and New Testament. As to Philosophy, he can scarce be compared with the moderately skilled. If we consider him with regard to the art of Disputation, I have never seen a person reason with less force, as is evident from his pieces which Rivetus and Desmarets have answered. There are several who may be ranked with him as to knowledge of polite learning, and even a great number who excel him: not a few have had as much Greek and Latin, and many of the learned have been more masters of the Oriental Languages. His Florum sparsio in jus Justinianeum shew his skill in the Law. A Professor of Helmstat has undertaken to confute his book Of the Rights of War and Peace, and has told some friends, whom I have seen, that he would prove that every page contained gross blunders. He was a great Poet; but every one here prefers Barlaeus; some even Heinsius. But besides, when the point to be decided is priority in learning, poetry is set aside by consent of all good judges. Vossius excels Grotius in every thing. This is not only my opinion, but that of all the learned in Italy, Germany, Poland, and Holland, as I have had an opportunity to know by their letters, their writings, and their conversation. If we compare their writings, which of Grotius’s works can we prefer to those of Vossius? Is it his Notes on Martianus Capella, written when he was but a boy? Is it his Aratus? in which he has ostentatiously introduced some Arabic terms, for he scarce knew the elements of that language, as he acknowledged to me himself in some letters which I keep, written in answer to my enquiry about some Arabic words that puzzled me. Will you tell me of his Notes on Lucan? what Vossius has done on the fragments of the ancient Tragic and Comic Writers appears to me of much greater value. We know from other pieces what a poor critic Grotius was, though a great man in some respects. As inconsiderable as I am, I would not have my name prefixed to his Commentary on the Old Testament; for nothing can be more childish, or unworthy a man of his great character, than many of his notes. I shall take notice in another place of his Commentary on the New Testament, and frankly declare what I think of it. Such are my sentiments of the person who merits the first place in literature. I have the suffrages of many of the learned in different branches for me, and shall name them when you inform me who are of your opinion.”

This letter, in which hatred, jealousy, and partiality openly shew themselves, rather hurt Salmasius than injured Grotius’s character: the contempt with which he speaks of the excellent treatise Of the Rights of War and Peace, which is worth all that Salmasius ever wrote, incensed the whole republic of letters against him. It has been observed that all that was good in his pieces On the power of Kings, is taken from Grotius, whom he hath not once named; and that when he departed from him, he sinks much beneath Grotius. But such was Salmasius’s character: jealous of the reputation of those who might be put in the scale against him, he had too high an opinion of himself, and too much despised others, in the judgment of the wise Gronovius. Grotius’s wife being informed of the indiscreet stories published by Salmasius against the memory of her husband, gave him to understand, that if he would not forbear, the only answer she should make to his invectives would be the publication of his former letters to Grotius, filled with elogiums. For the rest, Salmasius’s invectives injured only himself: and it was said publicly, that he plucked the hairs of a dead lion.

Two medals were struck in honour of Grotius, which we find in the end of the first volume of the History of the United Provinces by Le Clerc, one of his greatest admirers. The first has on one side the bust of that great man, with his name, HUGO GROTIUS, which is to him instead of an elogium: and on the other a chest, on which are the arms of Sweden and France, to express his retreat into France, and his embassy from Sweden at that Court: at the side of the chest is the castle of Louvestein, and opposite to it a rising sun, with these words: MELIOR POST ASPERA FATA RESURGO; I rise brighter after my misfortune. In the exergue is, natus 1583, obiit 1645. The second medal, larger than the first, also represents Grotius on one side with the time of his birth and death. HUGO GROTIUS NATUS 1583, 10 APRILIS, OBIIT 1645, 28 AUGUSTI: on the reverse is this inscription in Dutch verse: the Phoenix of his Country, the Oracle of Delft, the great Genius, the Light which enlighteneth the earth.

XXVI. It remains that we should relate what we know of Grotius’s family. After his death, his wife communicated with the Church of England; which, it is reported, she said she did in conformity to the dying intentions of her husband. It is certain that Grotius had a respect for the Church of England; but it is difficult to believe, that he should desire his wife to declare he died in the communion of that Church: for, besides that this fact is not easy to be reconciled with his later works, it has no foundation but a letter written June 23, 1707, which is supported only by a hearsay ill-circumstantiated.

Grotius’s wife died at the Hague in the communion of the Remonstrants; which, according to Le Clerc, was not contrary to her husband’s last orders, as the Remonstrants allowed of communion with the Church of England.

Grotius had three sons and three daughters by his marriage. His eldest son, Cornelius, studied in Holland under the direction of his grandfather. Grotius sent for him afterwards to Paris, where he himself superintended his studies. He wrote to his brother, William Grotius, Aug 16, 1630, that Cornelius had learned the Hebrew grammar; that he was studying the Greek and Logic; and had made himself matter of the Art of Oratory, without neglecting Poetry, for which the young Cornelius had a particular turn. Some very good verses, written by him, are published in the poems of Vincent Fabricius. Grotius made him read Vossius’s pieces on rhetoric, which he thought could not be excelled; he afterwards wanted Cornelius to study the Roman Law, and the Laws of Holland: he also made him read Physics and Metaphysics; but his progress in these sciences was inconsiderable, according to Du Maurier, on account of his indolence and love of pleasure. Grotius sent him after this to make his court to the High Chancellor, who passed the beginning of the year 1636 at Straelsund: Oxenstiern received him very graciously, and took him into his service as Latin Secretary. Grotius was at the height of his joy on seeing his son in a capacity of meriting the esteem and protection of such a great man as Oxenstiern: he flattered himself, that the honourable place, which his son held, would induce him to shake off his indolence; and he made him frequent remonstrances on this subject: but Cornelius’s natural temper prevailed, and he considered his employment as attended with too much trouble. He imagined that a military life would suit him better, and wrote to his father on that head. Grotius opposed this new turn for some time; but his remonstrances producing no effect, he wrote to Muller, April 4, 1638, that his son had preferred Mars to the Muses, and that he had thought fit to yield to his choice, as war was also a road to glory; and moreover the time, which Cornelius had spent in literature, would not be absolutely lost for war. He added, that the Duke of Weymar being the greatest and most experienced general of his age, he was very desirous that his son should serve under such an able master; and that he would send him with a reinforcement that was marching to that Prince, who, he hoped, would assist him with his advice. Cornelius was very well received by the Duke; and for some time kept up an exact correspondence with his father by letters, who complimented him on his diligence in writing. The Duke of Weymar promised to advance him, if he paid a proper regard to his father’s counsels. Cornelius was by nature so inconstant, that he soon took a dislike to the army: he had even thoughts of returning to his father, who diverted him from it as a step which would dishonour him.

On the Duke of Weymar’s death, Reigersberg advised Cornelius to write that Prince’s history. Young Grotius mentioning this project to his father, he pressed him to execute it, because it would give him an opportunity of expressing his gratitude to a Prince who had laid him under great obligations, and done such important services to Sweden. Besides, this work would be of use to the author, by obliging him to study the Art of War, in order to speak of it properly. Cornelius contented himself with projecting this design: he changed his service, and entered into the Marshal de Chatillon’s army, in which he continued not long: he made the campaign of 1640, in quality of Cornet in the Colonel’s company of a German regiment of horse in the French service. Soon after he got a company: however he wanted to serve in the Valtoline. He had not been long there before he took a fancy to enter into the Venetians service; and, without consulting his father, went to Venice to make his contract with them: but it is probable they could not agree; for Grotius writes, July 16, 1644, “Cornelius will return from the Antenorides without doing any thing.” This fickleness of temper much displeased Grotius, who in the latter part of his life spoke of his son with great indifference.

In the sequel, when the States of Holland wanted to indemnify such as were unjustly persecuted during the overgrown power of the Stadtholders, they gave Cornelius Grotius a company in the guards; to Peter, a troop of horse; and to Mombas, their brother-in-law, a regiment; with leave to dispose of them, or sell them to the best advantage: which was contrary to custom and law.

It was in 1633 that the States thus sought to repair the injuries which Grotius had formerly suffered. Cornelius died unmarried. Peter, Grotius’s second son, was more like his father. In his infancy he was very sickly: having received a hurt in his leg, the Surgeons and Physicians treated it so ill, that he remained lame all his days. His father, thinking his education would be cheaper in Holland than at Paris, sent him to his native country. The young Grotius gave great satisfaction to his parents, as we learn by a letter from Grotius to his brother William, Oct 4, 1630, “Your accounts of my son give me great pleasure: if he goes on in the same manner, he will have reason to be satisfied with me.” Gerard Vossius directed his studies; and by a letter of thanks from Grotius to him, we learn that he was of an indolent turn. “The exhortations you give Peter are worthy of the friendship you have always entertained for me and mine. I cannot think why my children should be so idle; perhaps it is because they see their father’s diligence has turned to so little account.”

In 1634 Peter Grotius was sent to Amsterdam to learn the use of the globes and navigation: Grotius intended that he should afterwards serve in some expedition at sea: he seems at this time to have designed him for a Sailor. Peter had an inclination to learn Arabic under the learned Golius at Leyden: but his Father would only suffer him to visit this eminent professor, and consult him about the pronunciation of that language, which he thought his son might learn without a master at his leisure hours.

Grotius was desirous that his son should make a voyage to the East-Indies, or, if that was too long a voyage, that he should go to the Brasils, or some other part of America, to learn what was not to be learnt at home, and might be of use to him afterwards.

Vossius, in the mean time, gave ample testimonials not only of Peter’s progress in the sciences, but also of his moral conduct. He wanted to join, to the studies recommended to him by his father, that of Law; and Grotius was not against it. He appears to have been somewhat uneasy about what this youth would do: May 17, 1635, he writes to Vossius, “I should be glad to know what my son’s health will permit him to do, and to what his inclination leads him: there are some things which will prevent his being agreeable at court, or his undertaking long journies by land. I am not against his trying the sea; but I would not force any of my children against their inclination. The make of his body would require a sedentary life; but I am afraid he has too much vivacity to bear with it. I would beg of you to consult with himself and his friends on this subject; and at the same time to give me your own opinion.”

He writes again to Vossius some time after, that if his son had a dislike to long voyages, he would nevertheless have him study Commerce and Navigation rather than the quibbles of the Law: “Not but a general knowledge of public law, and the laws of his own country, may be of use to him whatever manner of life he chuses: but I would not have him make it his principal study; and remember Horace’s precept, to keep his eye ever on the mark. If it is out of regard to me he wants to translate the Tragedy of Sophomphaneus, he deserves to be commended, even if he should make some mistakes: however I should not be sorry if it were done by one more advanced in years, and better skilled in poetry.”

This youth, uncertain what course to take, was in doubt whether he ought not to seek his fortune in Sweden under the credit of his father’s name. Grotius, hearing of this design, writes to his brother, “If my son thinks to raise himself in Sweden, I see no other way of doing it, than by a perfect knowledge of Navigation and Commerce. The profession of a Lawyer is not lucrative, nor doth it succeed with every one.”

Vossius was still well pleased with him. The ardour he discovered for the study of the Law determined Grotius to propose to him a translation of the Institutes of the Law of Holland into good Latin, like that of the Digests; and he asked his brother, William Grotius, and all his friends, to encourage and assist his Son in the execution of this design, which might be useful to the public and to the author. He wrote to Gerard Vossius to the same effect. William Grotius laboured with his nephew in this translation. Grotius, in returning him his thanks for assisting his Son, desires him to make him read, as he went on, what was contained in the Digests relating to the matter he was translating.

In summer, 1636, Peter Grotius had an offer of going to the Brasils in Count Nassau’s retinue. Grotius approved of it, provided his Son might have a creditable post, in which he might learn Navigation: he was the more desirous that his Son might make this voyage, as the present state of his affairs would not permit him to keep him in the way the latter chose to live.

If this project did not succeed, Grotius wanted that his Son should pass the winter at the Hague in the study of the Law, and come to France in the spring, 1637, to take his degree in the university of Orleans; then return to the Hague to study some time longer, and afterwards go to Amsterdam to practise as an Advocate, this profession being there most lucrative.

The voyage to the Brasils did not take place. Peter Grotius came to his father in summer, 1637. He seems to have been well satisfied with him, as we may judge by a letter written to his brother, Aug 15, this year. “Peter is arrived here: he is much indebted to you, to his grandfather, and all his friends and relations, for instilling into him such good principles. I am very well satisfied with his diligence.” He writes six months after, “I am only afraid for his ambition, which is the vice of youth: he will live with more ease, and gain more as an Advocate. I would beg of you, that as soon as he returns, which will be immediately, you would put him upon studying the precedents in law. But what is chiefly to be inculcated is diligence and love of labour.” Peter was preparing to return to Holland, when a Surgeon undertook to make him walk without halting. There were some hopes of his succeeding in whole or in part; but the event did not correspond with the Surgeon’s promises, and Peter set out soon after for Holland, in the end of April, 1638. Grotius did not regret the time his Son had passed in France. “The time Peter has been here, he says to his brother, was not lost either for him or me: for he has learnt several useful things, and it has been a great pleasure to me to communicate what I have learnt to one of my children, or at least to have put him in a way of informing himself. I recommend him to you, and would beg of you to give him such exercises as may fit him to hold a distinguished rank amonst the Orators and Advocates, that his merit may silently reproach the Dutch for what they did against his Father. But, above all things, I would recommend to you the cultivation of those sentiments of piety which I have instilled into him, and to keep him from bad company.”

Grotius wrote to Vossius, when his Son set out on his return to Holland, begging of him to continue to watch over the studies of this youth; and assuring him at the same time, that the friendship, which the city of Amsterdam preserved for him, was the only reason which induced him to consent that any part of him should live in a country where he had been so ill-treated.

Vossius and William Grotius were highly satisfied with Peter Grotius, and made great encomiums on him to his father, who wrote to his son, commending his diligence in the study of the Law. He informed him at the same time of a successful method of pleading, which he himself had formerly used with advantage. We have spoken of it elsewhere. He was desirous of settling him as soon as possible at Amsterdam, that he might learn navigation and commerce, the municipal laws of the town, and whatever might contribute to raise his fortune. He wanted to accustom him to a labour, by which he might live without his father’s assistance. “If he thinks, says Grotius to his brother, to make his fortune with what money he will get from me, he is greatly deceived: let him do as I did, and cut out a path for himself; otherwise he must not count upon my liberality.” April 21, 1640, he caused him to be chid for running about too much, and for his learning Italian and several things for which he had little occasion. “That is not the way, says he, to please me, nor to be useful to himself.”

In fine, Peter Grotius began to plead at the Hague, in spring 1640. There was a prospect at that time of getting him made Pensionary of Boisleduc: this design required some money, which Grotius refused not to advance; but he could scarce believe that the Prince of Orange would consent to have his son in this place, unless he abjured Arminianism. Besides, Peter Grotius had so little experience in the law, that his father did not yet think him capable of filling a place, the difficulties of which he knew by experience: he would much rather have had his son go to Amsterdam, to follow the bar, and seek some advantageous match, that his children might one day enter into the magistracy of a city, which alone kept alive expiring liberty.

Peter Grotius seems to have had a dislike to Amsterdam; for his father writes thus to his brother William Grotius, March 9, 1641. “I have consulted with my wife about Peter’s affairs: we are of opinion that he should go to Amsterdam, if he can be prevailed with; if not, you must tell him to come here: he will serve me for Secretary, and I shall give him lectures in law, which perhaps he would not have received from any other. Let him bring with him what he has translated of the Institutes of the Laws of Holland.” Grotius soon changed his opinion; for he writes to his brother, April 13, in the same year: “I would not have Peter come here: therefore keep him with you.”

The irresolution of Peter Grotius chagrined his father: “I am much afraid, he writes to his brother, that he will some day smart for his continual disobedience.” Grotius told his son, that he must expect no letters from him, unless he sent him the Latin translation of the Institutes of the Laws of Holland, which he had long before enjoined him to set about. Writing to his brother, he says, “I am much afraid, that the counsels which Peter follows, and will follow hereafter, are inconsistent with a good conscience. I am resolved to refer the whole to God, and not intermeddle in it. I should be sorry to have a repetition of the grief I suffer on his account.”

Some time after, he was better satisfied with him, and wrote to his brother William, Feb 28, 1643, “I commend Peter highly for applying to the bar: it is the way to acquire much useful knowledge, to gain a character, and in time to lay up something, or to rise higher.” This is all that Grotius’s letters inform us about his son: the sequel of whose life is more interesting.

In 1652, he married, for love, an Attorney’s daughter, rich and handsome; but his mother and his other friends disliked the match. In the year following, a powerful party wanted to get him made Greffier of Amsterdam; but Veue Linchovius opposed him with great virulence and violence; maintaining that such a place ought not to be given to the son of an out-law, whose religious sentiments were erroneous. The declamations of this hot-headed man preventing Grotius from being nominated to the place, he bore the disappointment with great tranquility. In 1655, he purposed to publish a complete edition of his father’s works, as appears by the privilege of the Emperor Ferdinand III. dated Oct 2, 1655, prefixed to his theological works. This edition, which unfortunately he did not go on with, was to be in nine volumes in folio. The first was to contain his Annotations on the Old Testament; the second, the Commentary on the New; the third would have comprehended his smaller theological pieces; the fourth, the treatise De Jure Belli & Pacis, the Apology, and the work De Imperio summarum potestatum circa Sacra; the fifth, Law Tracts; the sixth, Writings Historical; the seventh, Philological Works; the eighth, Poetical Translations, the Anthologia, Stobaeus, and the Extracts from the Tragedies and Comedies; and, lastly, the ninth, his Poems and Letters. It is probable, that this design was defeated by Grotius’s departure from Holland. It was not till long after, in 1679, that the handsome edition of Grotius’s theological works was published in three volumes in folio, dedicated to King Charles II. of England by Peter Grotius, Feb 28, 1678. The bookseller promised, in an advertisement prefixed to it, to print all Grotius’s other works, even those that had never been published; but he did not fulfil his engagements.

Grotius’s enemies still opposing his son’s advancement, he entered into the service of Charles Lewis, Elector Palatine, to whom Hugo Grotius had done singular service during his misfortunes. This Prince nominated him his Agent at the Hague.

The ferment in mens minds having subsided, and the face of affairs being changed in Holland, Peter Grotius was nominated Pensionary of Amsterdam in 1660; which important place he filled for seven years with great reputation. This office was the height of Hugo’s wishes for his son. The Count D’Estrade, at that time Ambassador from France in Holland, was dissatisfied with the Pensionary of Amsterdam, who opposed the interest of the French King, in resentment of that Prince’s having driven Mombas, Peter Grotius’s brother-in-law, out of France. Feb 1, 1633, he writes to the King, “I have not been at Amsterdam, because the Pensionary M. de Groot is brother-in-law to M. de Mombas, whom your Majesty ordered to quit the kingdom for some affair in which you were dissatisfied with his conduct: since that time M. de Groot has constantly opposed your Majesty’s interest at Amsterdam. He is a man of spirit and firmness; and has much credit in that city. I shall neglect nothing to bring him back to his former sentiments.” The King answered him, May 23, 1633, that he had had reason to be dissatisfied with Mombas’s conduct; that if any consideration could make him forget it, it would certainly be a regard for M. de Groot, whose person, says the King, I esteem: In fact, Lewis XIV, as he writes to his Ambassador, Sept 22, 1665, dropt his resentment against Mombas out of consideration for the Pensionary of Amsterdam. After the conclusion of the triple alliance, the necessity of regulating the subsidies with the northern powers induced the States of Holland to send Grotius to Denmark and Sweden. He went first to Copenhagen, and afterwards to Stockholm, where he assumed the quality of Ambassador in ordinary. The States used only to keep a Minister of the second rank at this Court; but it was thought proper, says Wicquefort, to do something more than common for such an extraordinary person; and he was ordered to make a splendid entry at the expence of the States.

The fourth volume of M. de Wit’s Letters and Negotiations concludes with the correspondence of Peter Grotius with the Grand Pensionary during his embassy at Stockholm. The Dutch Minister discovers in it great knowledge of mankind. “The more I reflect, says he to M. de Wit, Dec 8, 1668, on the regency of Sweden, the more clearly I discover that the most important affairs are not regulated agreeable to the public interest, but according to that of the principal Ministers; and the surest and easiest way to succeed, is to gain him who has the King’s ear rather than the King himself; because what is done for the good of the nation obliges no one in particular, and procures glory, but no acknowledgments. When I passed through Denmark, I perceived that more might be done by means of M.G. with a hundred thousand crowns, than can be done with the King with five times that sum.”

The negotiations of Peter Grotius were in a promising way at the death of William Borell the Dutch Ambassador at Paris. Grotius was nominated by the States of Holland to succeed him, and at the same time the town of Rotterdam chose him for their Pensionary. M. de Wit was of opinion that Grotius ought to prefer the place of Pensionary: he wrote to his friend, May 14, 1669, “Messieurs the Burgomasters and Counsellors of the town of Rotterdam have unanimously made choice of you to be their Counsellor Pensionary. I believe your nomination to the French embassy will be set aside, if the Gentlemen of Rotterdam apply for that purpose to their Noble and Great Mightinesses; and I imagine you will prefer this honourable establishment in a post your father was undeservedly turned out of, to a gilded exile, for such an embassy may be styled. Other reasons will occur for your taking this step, without its being necessary for me to mention them.”

Grotius was greatly embarrassed: he writes to M. de Wit, May 22, 1669, that his situation would not suffer him to give a positive answer; that he had written to the Gentlemen of Rotterdam, acknowledging their great civility and goodness in thinking of him; but that he had not declared himself with regard to the accepting of the place.

Holland had occasion at this time for the ablest of her Ministers at the Court of Lewis XIV. and Peter Grotius could not refuse to serve his Country in such critical circumstances. The point was to bring about a reconciliation between the United Provinces and the King, who resolved to declare war against them, imagining he had great reason to complain of their behaviour. Grotius was the only Minister who could succeed in this negotiation, had a reconciliation been practicable, says Wicquefort. The King, though highly incensed against Holland, shewed the greatest respect to her Ambassador. War being declared in 1672, Peter Grotius was again sent to the King, to try if an accommodation could be accomplished: but the King had made too great preparations for war to conclude a peace so soon.

Grotius returned to the Hague to serve the Republic in quality of Deputy to the States-General; but in a short time experienced a cruel reverse of fortune. Being involved in the disgrace of the De Wits, he was stript of his dignities, and threatened with assassination; which determined him to leave Holland: he went to Antwerp, where an attempt was made on his life.

He retired to Liege, and afterwards to Aix-la-Chapelle, and Cologn. A general peace was at this time negotiating; and Grotius having done singular services to the Dutch Plenipotentiaries, he was permitted to return to Holland, after being two years absent. He continued some time undisturbed in the country; but Wicquefort, the Duke of Brunswick’s Minister at the Hague, being taken into custody, among his papers were found several letters from Grotius, containing, it is said, some indiscreet things concerning state affairs, and against the Republic’s Ministers. He was arrested and prosecuted. Of the fifteen judges appointed to try him, nine declared him innocent. This was in November, 1676. Nicholas Heinsius, who was not prejudiced in his favour, writes to Graevius on the 6th of December following: “There was certainly imprudence and malice in what Grotius did; but I leave others to judge whether he was guilty of high treason.”

It is improbable his judges would have shewn him favour, had he been convicted of a capital crime: he was known to be hated by the Prince of Orange, whom the Dutch at that time sought very much to please.

Peter Grotius, thus escaping out of the hands of his enemies, retired with his family to a country seat he had near Harlem, where he spent the rest of his days in educating his children, and reading the best authors. He died at the age of seventy. Some pretend, but without foundation, that he was poisoned. Those who knew him particularly speak of him as one of the best heads of his time. “Peter de Groot, son of the great Grotius, was not so learned as his father, says Wicquefort; but I may venture to assert he was as able a Minister. We can’t say too much of this man, who was above all praise. I write this after receiving the news of his death. How much is Holland to be pitied for losing a man who would have assisted in repairing the breaches made by the disorders which have for some years prevailed in the state! He joined solidity of judgment to the graces of wit, and must have possessed these qualities in an eminent degree since they shone thro’ such a disagreeable figure. It may be said of M. de Groot, that never did such a deformed body lodge such a fine and great soul: he had a surprising ready wit, his conversation was delightful, his understanding clear and solid, and his sentiments just and equitable: he possessed great knowledge of all sorts of business, foreign and domestic, and especially of what the French call the art of pleasing.”

Grotius’s third son, Diederic, began his studies in a very promising manner. Grotius writes to his brother William, August 16, 1630, “I am overjoyed to hear that Diederic’s progress even exceeds my hopes. I wish he may continue.” His grandfather John Grotius was his tutor. When he came to be old enough to be put to some business, Grotius designed him for an Engineer. He learned under the famous Boschius, and came afterwards, in the beginning of 1636, to see his father at Paris. Grotius having applied to the Duke of Weymar to take Diederic into his service, he entered into that Prince’s houshold as one of his Pages, and was much respected: the Duke soon after made him his Aid-de-Camp. Grotius seemed to be well satisfied with his son at the time this youth had the misfortune to lose his Patron.

On hearing of the Duke of Weymar’s death Grotius immediately thought of sending Diederic to Marshal Bannier. He wrote a letter to that General, October 13, 1639, in which he puts him in mind that it was his Excellency’s brother first proposed to him his entering into the Swedish service: he afterwards makes an offer of his son, who had served two years under Boschius, chief Engineer to the Prince of Orange, and had since been several years one of the Duke of Weymar’s Pages. After the death of that illustrious Prince, who shared with Bannier the glory of being the greatest general in Europe, he thinks he cannot do better than give him to Marshal Bannier, who was unanimously allowed to hold the first rank in the art of war. He begs that his son may be only employed in things of which he is capable. On the same day he wrote to Salvius, desiring him to recommend Diederic to the Marshal.

Whilst Grotius was thus employed in placing his son, Diederic entertained a design of entering into the Dutch service. His father was highly displeased with this project; and wrote to him, and to William Grotius, that it was most improper for him to expose his life for his cruellest enemies; and that Sweden was his true country, and to that kingdom he ought to devote his life, and from it to merit and expect honours. “If my son dislikes the activity of a military life, Grotius writes to his brother, he may find ease, and acquire honour in General Bannier’s houshold, or by exercising his profession of Engineer. I shall always give him my assistance, and I hope I have as many friends elsewhere, as I have enemies in Holland. If my son disgraces himself so far, as to ask favours from the Dutch, he is unworthy to call me father. If he chuses rather to be an Ensign with you, than a Captain among others, he is mean-spirited, and forgetful of what he has been.” Diederic had a design of writing the history of the Duke of Weymar; which project Grotius approved of, as worthy of a grateful mind. He sent him word, that if he would set about this work whilst he was with Marshal Bannier, he would make his court by it to that General, who had it in his power to reward him. Diederic at last complied with his father’s desire, and went to Marshal Bannier’s camp. He was made a prisoner of war by the Bavarians in an unfortunate action near Dillingue and Memingue, in the end of the year 1643. Grotius immediately set all his friends to work to procure his son’s liberty: he wrote to the famous John de Vert, and applied to the Duke of Bavaria that he would be pleased to send him back as soon as possible: and at the same time wrote to his son to come to him as soon as he should be at liberty, that they might consult together what was best to be done. Diederic sent his father the history of the unfortunate action in which he was taken; and Grotius printed it to give copies to his friends, and to send others to the Swedish Ministry. Diederic was carried to Tübingen, from thence to Ulm, and confined in a citadel between Ulm and Augsburg: he did not continue there long: immediately on receiving his father’s letter, the Duke of Bavaria gave orders that Diederic might be set at liberty, after settling his ransom, which was fixed at a thousand florins. He came to Paris, and on his arrival Grotius wrote a letter of thanks to the Elector of Bavaria, telling him, that as he had but one way to express his gratitude, namely by promoting a general peace, which his Electoral Highness wished for, he would do all in his power to bring it about. He wrote to Ketner the Bavarian Minister to the same effect.

Diederic went back to serve under Marshal Turenne in Germany, and made the campaign of 1644. He was again taken Prisoner, but soon released; and served in the end of the same campaign. He was detached by the Duke d’Anguien and Marshal Turenne to take Fridelshem and Neudstad, and was afterwards sent by them to the Landgravine of Hesse: he acquitted himself with honour of all the commissions that were given him. The Duke d’Anguien spoke of him in the highest terms; and the Landgravine received him in the best manner, in consideration of the services which his father had done to the house of Hesse: he was sent a second time by Marshal Turenne to the Landgravine. The Duke d’Anguien promised to take care of this youth’s fortune; and the approbation of a prince, who was the Mars of his time and knew men so well, is the highest elogium that could be given of Diederic.

He came to an unhappy end when but young and unmarried. Queen Christina having abdicated the Crown in favour of Charles Gustavus, Diederic and Cornelius Grotius took a resolution to wait on that Prince, who had known and highly esteemed their father in France, with an intention to offer him their services, and get employment. Setting out from Holland with this design, they were got between Embden and Bremen, halfway to Hamburg, when a villain, who had served Diederic several years as his valet, resolved to murder both the brothers for the sake of their money: he went in the night-time into Diederic’s chamber, and shot his master dead while asleep: he was preparing to serve Cornelius Grotius in the same manner, but he was awake: he happened to be employed in composing a Latin epigram. On hearing the shot, he took a pistol which lay on a chair by his bed side, and seeing the murderer advance softly to him (it was moon-light) he fired, and laid him flat on the floor: the people of the inn got up on the noise, and delivered the villain, who was dangerously wounded, into the hands of justice, and he was broke on the wheel.

Hugo Grotius had also three daughters, Frances, Mary, and Cornelia; Frances, the youngest, was born in October, 1626, before her time, her mother being delivered of her in the eighth month: accordingly this young person was short-lived, for she died in the beginning of the year 1628. Mary, his second daughter, died at Paris in the month of March, 1635, of the fatigue and cold she received in her journey to that city. Grotius informed his father of her death by a letter dated March 23, 1635, in which he tells him she died almost without pain, and with a deep sense of religion. “My wife and I, says he, bear this misfortune like people accustomed to adversity: besides, why should we call her death a misfortune? has not God a right to take back what he gave? and ought not we to flatter ourselves that she is arrived at that happy state, which the young ought to long after as much as the old? We are delivered from the care of procuring a husband for her: perhaps we should have had much difficulty to find one that would have been agreeable to her and to all her family: and even if we should have found one that pleased us all at first, would there not have been room to apprehend that he had concealed his true character for a time, and that he would afterwards make her unhappy? She is now delivered from the pains of bearing children, and bringing them up. More happy than her mother, she will not see judges incensed against her husband, because he is innocent: she will not be obliged to shut herself up in prison for her husband; nor to lead a wandering life to accompany him. Let us congratulate her that God has taken her out of the world before she knew too much of the evil or what are called the good things of it. Let us congratulate ourselves on her having lived with us as long as life was agreeable to her, and free from any mixture of bitterness. What is there at present in Christendom to make us desire life? Divisions in the Church, bloody wars, men slaughtered, women violated, cruel murders, and multitudes reduced to beggary; Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia pillaged; the heirs of the most noble families reduced to the necessity of living on alms, if it can be called living to drag out their days in misery, wishing for death, which alone can put an end to it.”

Cornelia, the eldest of Grotius’s daughters, who survived her father, married John Barthon, Viscount of Mombas, a Gentleman of Poitou, who was obliged to quit France for having displeased Lewis XIV. He went to Holland, from whence he was also forced to fly, having been involved in the misfortunes wherein the De Wits perished, and which gave Peter Grotius, his brother-in-law, so much uneasiness.

Grotius had a brother named William, with whom he kept up the greatest intimacy during his whole life, and made him the confident of his studies and designs. It appears by his letters that they lived in the strictest friendship. Hugo, who was the eldest, contributed to his brother’s education, and directed his studies. We have a letter from Grotius to his brother, dated at Rotterdam September 28, 1614, containing a plan of study. “I am of opinion, says he, that in order to acquire the knowledge of Law, before you touch upon law tracts you should read with attention Aristotle’s second and fifth book of Ethics, to Nicomachus, or the excellent paraphrase of them published by Heinsius; then Aristotle’s Rhetoric, with the learned commentary on it; afterwards Cicero’s Offices, the Paradoxes, De Finibus, Of Laws, the Topica, and De Inventiene. I could wish that whilst reading you would make extracts, or at least mark in the margin of your book whatever has relation to the Law of Nature and of Nations, to the origin of Laws and Magistrates, to Jus publicum et privatum. When you have done this, we shall think of the rest.” It was Grotius who corrected his brother’s Law Theses.

William Grotius came to France in 1617 to learn the language; and retiring to Senlis made great progress in it: he purposed to go to Tours, and Grotius approved of his journey, because the air was pure, and they spoke good French there.

William Grotius, as well as his brother, had a turn for theological studies: he wrote something in verse on the Decalogue, which Grotius mentions in a letter dated from his prison at Louvestein, November 1, 1620. “I have read with pleasure, he says, what you have done on the Decalogue: the maxims are excellent, and the verses easy.”

William had his brother’s confidence during his whole life. Grotius writes to him from Paris, April 14, 1622, “You are never weary of assisting me under my afflictions: if ever fortune enables me to testify my gratitude, I will forgive her all the tricks she has played me.” He was desirous, in the end of the year 1622, that his brother should settle his matters so, as to come to see him in the beginning of the following year; but this journey did not take place. Grotius’s disgrace affected his brother: he despaired of attaining to honours, and Grotius advised him to think only of raising himself by the study of the Law.

In April 1623 he married Alida Grasvinkel. About this time a Dutchman was seized at Lillo, with letters from William Grotius to his brother. It was expected that something would be found in them against the State, and they talked of nothing less than imprisoning him; but notwithstanding the malice of his enemies, they could not find the least pretext from these letters to trouble him. In the mean time William followed the profession of an Advocate with much success: Grotius compliments him on it in a letter of the 28th of November, 1625, in which he tells him, that the life he led in shining at the bar was much more agreeable than that which is spent in public employments.

William Grotius wrote about this time the lives of the Advocates, under the title of Vitae Jurisconsultorum quorum in Pandectis exstant nomina, conscriptae a Gulielmo Grotio Jurisconsulto Delphensi. He sent this book to his brother, who writes to him that he read it with pleasure, and was delighted to see a work which demonstrated his brother’s genius, learning, and good sense.

William Grotius, whose marriage had prevented his going to France to see his brother, went thither however in 1629: he returned again to Holland. William being desirous to have his brother’s picture, Hugo had the complaisance to sit for it, and send it to him. The enmity of the Magistrates was still so violent at this time, that William made a mystery of this picture; in which Grotius thought he acted very prudently. In 1638 there was a talk of making William Grotius Pensionary of Delft. The conditions on which the place was offered did not suit him, and he declined it. This refusal was approved of by Grotius; for he writes to him, March 13, 1638, “As to the place of Pensionary of our native town, the more I think of it, the happier I imagine you in having got rid of it, and in preferring honour to profit: for in these times it would have been impossible to have preserved that place and your honour.”

The East-India Company chose him for their Advocate in 1639. Grotius compliments his brother on it March 26, that year. “I always loved that Company, he says: I look upon it as the support of the Republic; and if I could be at present of any use to it, I would most gladly embrace the opportunity.”

Grotius’s writings concerning Antichrist were approved of by William and their Father. However, as there was reason to apprehend that the printing of these pieces might increase the number and animosity of his enemies, Grotius proposed to his Brother not to take upon him their publication, especially as he might easily find persons that were far from a factious spirit, who would willingly undertake it: but William Grotius ran the hazard of this publication, without being frightened at the consequences.

Grotius had always discovered great impatience when denied the tides of honour due to the Ambassadors of crowned heads. He imagined it to be the consequence of a plot of his enemies to depreciate him. William did not approve of his brother’s great heat on this subject: and thought there was reason to presume that it was owing rather to inattention, than a premeditated design. Grotius, whose mildness of temper was greatly altered by his late disputes with the Reformed Ministers, as Henry de Villeneuve observes in a letter to the Abbe Barcellini, was much dissatisfied with his brother’s manner of excusing those of whom he thought he had reason to complain; and wrote to him very sharply on this subject, December 12, 1643. “I imagine, says he, I see and hear you pleading at the Bar: you find reasons to excuse my enemies for things for which no body here excuses them: you blame me for things for which no body here blames me, nor will any others except your Dutchmen. It is fit that I should support my dignity: the thing is done on purpose; and the Swedes, whom it concerns, would be offended with me if I acted otherwise. I would therefore ask of you, for the future to address the letters you receive for me to my wife; and I shall afterwards see what is to be done.”

This small altercation did not interrupt the friendship of the two brothers, nor their correspondence by letters, which continued till Grotius’s death.

William, besides the book we have already mentioned, wrote another on the law of nature, entitled, Willelmi Grotii de principiis Juris Naturalis Enchiridion. This work is much inferior to the treatise Of War and Peace. However, it has its merit, and is particularly valuable for containing in a small compass all the principles of Natural Law clearly displayed.

Grotius had still another brother, named Francis, who was the second son of John Grotius. He died young. Grotius wrote a Poem on his death, and a consolatory piece in Prose and Verse to his Father: they are both in the collection of his Poems.

John Grotius had a daughter of fine accomplishments. Grotius acquaints us, that she wrote an useful book on Widowhood, which was very well done. The design of this work was not to condemn second marriages, but only to shew that it was more becoming a reasonable woman to content herself with having had one husband. After her death it was proposed to print it; and Grotius, to make it a more considerable book, translated into Dutch three treatises of Tertullian, one of St. Ambrose, two of St. Chrysostome, and three of St. Jerom, on the same subject. We have not learnt whether this Collection was ever published.