mistakes, and often wronged or misrepresented the Remon

strants.'

"In his dedication to the States General, Heinsius had intimated, among other things, that he had during the whole of his life been a strict lover of piety. Upon this subject, the Remonstrant to whom we have now alluded, thus interrogates him: Is it an argument of virtue and piety, to write such verses as a woman the most abandoned would scarcely venture to utter? Is it a mark of piety, to defame your colleagues with verses and prefaces dipped in gall? It it piety, to sit and drink bumpers with your friend Baudius, and to spend whole days besotting yourself in a tavern? Do you esteem it as an act of piety, to traduce the reputation of those gentlemen without whose assistance you must have starved, or to avoid the conversation of those the entertainment of whose table and kitchen you formerly accounted your chief felicity? -But perhaps, continues this author, he might at that time have had some love for piety, though he did not even then shew himself much addicted to its practice. But he who pretended to love that which was good, and yet practised that which was evil, could not fail of becoming a bad man.-It was astonishing to find him asserting in his Dedication, that for several years he had cherished a great reverence for the Holy Scriptures, when his method of treating sacred subjects was a matter of notoriety; for he was accustomed to publish a hymn to Bacchus, and another to JESUS CHRIST, in the same book, thus uniting sacred things with profane, heavenly with infernal, and God with Baal. Our Remonstrant concludes his animadversions with this severe sentence: Ambition has conceived this Dissertation, Calumny has furnished the materials, Ignorance has imparted shape to it, the Poet has polished it, the Orator pronounced it, and Covetousness inscribed it to the States General.'

From a letter which Vossius addressed to Grotius, in the year 1639, it appears, that Salmasius, the famous opponent of Milton and the regicides, became the castigator of Heinsius, who felt the merited correction. He says, "The Exercitations of Heinsius on the New Testament are published at length; and, I am inclined to think, you will have received them before the arrival of my letter. I have glanced, in a cursory manner, at a few of his remarks; the more deeply I investigate them, the more intense is the desire which I feel for a sight of those observations on the same books of scripture, which now for,

some years you have had in a course of preparation. I am also exceedingly desirous, that the celebrated Salmasius may have leisure to finish his labours on the New Testament which he has promised to the public. In them he designs to refute innumerable passages in Heinsius, and all those in particular which are obviously drawn from his own treasury. I can easily conceive, that this contest will greatly detract from the reputation of Heinsius. But I am partially consoled by the consideration, that all people are aware of this being a disaster brought down upon himself, by the incessant slanders which he pronounces against every man who has attained to any distinction in the Republic of Letters. The hope and probability of the beneficial results of this contest, likewise yield me some comfort. For undoubtedly Salmasius is capable of instructing even the most learned men in something of which they had been previously ignorant. From him, perhaps,

Heinsius will learn to have more modest views of himself; and will be thus induced to make this addition to the other traits in his character which entitle him to commendation,-to manifest less credulity in listening to those gross flatterers who more truly oppress than caress him, when by way of eulogy they style him the PHENIX, the DICTATOR, and the ATLAS of studies. What can we do with those persons who in our days account. Heinsius the only man of learning? Indeed both he and these his admirers are all thrown into a dreadful ferment, from merely reading the preface which Salmasius has prefixed to his book De Modo Usurarum: but it is my intention to persuade Salmasius to evince less acerbity towards a man of such eminence in literature, on condition of that man refraining from his usual acts of defamation. To me, however, it seems a humbling spectacle, when learned men quarrel in this way with each other. Yet, I own, it is unjust that greater and better men, than he whom it is tedious more frequently to mention, should be held in such small esteem as to occupy no station among men of learning, except he accounts them worthy of the lowest place among the rough and rusty grammarians."

B.-Page 17.

In the distracted state of France, during the sixteenth century, various were the expedients to which the contending parties had recourse for the purpose of settling their religious differences. Sometimes they severally appealed to the sword;

and at other times they attempted to effect their designs by the milder yet more artful weapons of diplomacy. Of the latter kind of expedients was the CONFERENCE OF POISSY, which, as involving the rights of toleration in nearly all the extensive dominions at that period under the rule of the different branches of the powerful House of Bourbon, was a very interesting assembly. In it were debated some of the most important points in controversy between the Papists and Protestants, in the presence of Charles the Ninth, King of France, the Queen Mother, the King of Navarre, the Prince of Condé, and the rest of the States of the kingdom.

Among the several able advocates of the Reformation from Popery convened on that occasion, was the celebrated Theodore Beza, who also appeared as one of the representatives of the 2190 Protestant churches of which Bertius speaks in his Oration. The historians of that period charge Beza with being the cause of the sudden and unsuccessful termination of the Conference. In that imposing assembly in which the king and other illustrious personages were his auditors, he was directed to deliver his views on THE REAL PRESENCE in the Lord's Supper; and in the course of the powerful arguments which he employed, he made this bold declaration:-" We say, that the body of Jesus Christ is as distant from the bread and wine as the highest heaven is from the earth!" Speaking of this occurrence in his own Ecclesiastical History, he says: "Though Beza had uttered other expressions full as contrary and repugnant to the doctrine of the Romish Church, yet this single assertion caused the Popish Prelates to express their disapprobation by noises and murmurs. Some of them cried out, He has spoken blasphemy!" Others arose to depart, not being able to manifest their ire in any worse form, on account of the king's presence. Among the rest, the Cardinal de Tournon, Dean of the Cardinals, who occupied the first seat, required the King and Queen either to silence Beza, or to permit him and his friends to retire. The King, however, did not move from his place, neither did any of the princes; but leave was granted to Beza to proceed, who, after silence had been obtained, said, Gentlemen, I desire you to listen to my conclusion, which will give you satisfaction.' He then resumed his discourse and continued his remarks."-Mezerai states, that Beza's proposition was violent and shocking; that Beza was ashamed of it himself; that it horribly wounded Catholic

ears; and that the Prelates, when they heard it, trembled with horror.

But, how plausible soever such a comparatively trifling occurrence may appear as a reason for closing this important Conference, the real cause of that result is to be sought in the artful policy of Cardinal Charles of Lorrain, a member of the proud and ambitious family of GUISE, whose highest gratification seems to have consisted in the utter extirpation of Protestantism from their native country. Besides, Beza and the other champions of the Reformation had only been induced to enter into a conference with the Papists, on the express condition, which was ratified to them by the word of the King, that the Prelates and clergy should not be their judges, but that the whole should be under the management of Commissioners appointed by his Majesty. When this Cardinal therefore perceived at the Conference that the Reformed Churches were about to obtain the long-desired toleration of their religious tenets and mode of worship, he proposed that the AUGUSTAN CONFESSION, which had been exhibited in 1530 to the Emperor Charles, should be the only ground of pacification and agreement between the two adverse parties of Papists and Protestants. This Prelate knew, that between the LUTHERANS (the articles of whose belief were embodied in that Confession,) and the CALVINISTS (who dissented from that formulary in the essential points of the Lord's Supper and Predestination,) there existed almost as deadly a hatred as between either of them and those of the Romish Church. Indeed, their unchristian rancour, which had frequently displayed itself, was at that time only suppressed by the imminent dangers which seemed to threaten both of them from their common enemy. Had the Calvinists consented to these terms, a lasting tranquility on the subject of religion would probably have been established in France and its dependencies. But Beza and his friends refused to subscribe the Augustan Confession; further deliberations therefore became unnecessary; the Conference was dissolved;-and some of the sad consequences which soon followed, have been among the foulest blots in the history of that kingdom, and are too notorious to require any repetition.

To this artifice of the Cardinal, Arminius alludes, in strong terms of just reprehension, near the close of his Oration on composing Religious Dissensions.

C.—Page 22.

PETER RAMUS, who had formerly been Professor in the University of Paris, appeared to Arminius to possess attractions far superior to all other philosophers; and so completely had he imbibed the style of philosophizing and the method of conducting an argument which that celebrated logician inculcated, that he soon appeared to be another Ramus. It is generally understood, that his acquaintance with the writings of this philosopher commenced at an earlier period than that which is now under our observation: Indeed, the foundations of his logical knowledge were laid by his early teacher and patron, Rudolph Snellius, of whom MEURSIUS in his Athena Batava relates, that "after he had obtained the first sight of the Logic of Ramus while he resided at Marpurgh, he was so delighted with it, that from that period he addicted himself entirely to that system, although he had previously taught Aristotle for three years together in the University of Cologne." It was under the auspices of Snellius, that Arminius, about the close of the year 1578, was invited by the Curators, (or Visitors) of the University of Leyden to give lessons in the elements of Mathematical science; and while engaged in the performance of that duty, he made no small progress in pure Mathematics and Astronomy.

Whoever is acquainted with the excellences of the Dialectics of Ramus, (one of the best books, by the aid of which a wise man may tutor and school his thoughts,) will soon perceive, that an under-graduate who had mastered that treatise and was familiar with its contents, and who had in addition obtained such a deep knowledge of Mathematics, as to receive a regular appointment from the Heads of the University, to teach the rudiments of that important help to correct thinking, must have amassed ample materials for forming himself into a consummate logician. These materials were improved by Arminius to the greatest advantage,-in giving lucid order and methodical arrangement to the operations of an understanding that was naturally vigorous,-in chastening the decisions, and in communicating a right direction to the deductions, of a judgment that was then beginning to form its earliest conclusions on subjects of the greatest interest,-and in prescribing bounds to the excursions of a most fertile imagination: The effects which were produced in Arminius by this most whole