Father Petau gives us the history of his acquaintance with Grotius, in his XIIth letter[667]. "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[668]. 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[669], "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[670], 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[671] 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[672]; 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[673]; 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[674], "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[675], that it was publicly said these projects of reconciliation had set the High Chancellor and several other Lords against Grotius. He flattered himself, however[676], 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[677], "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[678], 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[679] 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[680]: 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[681]. 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[682]) and almost my only ones since Rigaut went to Metz, Salmasius to Leyden, and Tilenus died."
A letter to his brother[683], 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[684], 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."