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[691].”

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[692] 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[693], “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[694], 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: