CAMERON, John, a theologian of great erudition, was born at Glasgow about the year 1579. His parents are described as respectable, but their situation in life has not been specified. He received his early education in his native city, and after completing the ordinary course of study, he was employed in teaching the Greek language in the university. In this employment he continued for twelve months, and having then felt the usual desire of visiting foreign countries, he embarked for France, and arrived at Bordeaux in the year 1600. Here he immediately recommended himself to the favour and friendship of two protestant clergymen, by his agreeable manners, his frank and ingenuous disposition, his very promising talents, and his uncommon skill in the Greek and Latin languages. It is stated by Cappel that he spoke Greek with as much fluency and elegance as any other person could speak Latin; and that this rare proficiency excited the admiration of Casaubon, with whom he soon afterwards became intimately acquainted. One of the pastors of the church of Bordeaux was his own countryman Gilbert Primrose, D. D. who was himself a man of learning, and the author of several works. Through the recommendation of these clergymen, he was appointed a regent in the newly-founded College of Bergerac, where it was his province to teach the classical languages; but from this station he was speedily withdrawn by the Due de Bouillon, who appointed him a professor of philosophy in the university of Sedan. In this new department he acquired new reputation; and the duke next made him an offer of the Greek chair, which however he thought it dc-cent[7:6:39] to decline, as he could not accept it without depriving a friend of his office.

In the personal history of Cameron we find some indications of a restless disposition. Having continued two years at Sedan, he resigned his professorship, and, after visiting Paris, returned to Bordeaux, where he again experienced a very kind reception. In the beginning of the year 1604, he was nominated one of the students of divinity who were maintained at the expense of the church, in order to be prepared for its ministry when their services should be required, and who for the period of four years were at liberty to prosecute their studies in any protestant seminary. During this term of his exhibition, he acted as tutor to the two sons of Calignon, chancellor of Navarre; and one of them is mentioned as having made great progress in Greek literature. They spent one year at Paris, and the next two at Geneva, from whence they removed to Heidelberg, and remained there nearly twelve months. In this university, on the fourth of April 1608, he gave a public proof of his ability by maintaining a series of theses, “De triplici Dei cum Homine Foedere,” which have been printed among his works. During the same year, he was recalled to Bordeaux, where the death of his friend Renaud had left a vacancy in the protestant church; and he was now appointed the colleague of Dr Primrose, with whom lie lived on the most cordial terms. The high reputation which he acquired by his talents and learning, opened to him a new scene of professional exertion: when Gomarus was removed to Leyden, Camcron was appointed professor of divinity in the university of Saumur, the principal seminary of the French protestants. He commenced his lectures on the thirteenth of June 1618, but he was not installed till after an interval of two months. He had experienced some opposition from the synod of Poitou, under the pretext of his having adopted the opinion of Piscator as to the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ; but in the national synod held at Alez in the year 1620, this charge was adjudged to be groundless. The principal of the college was at this time Dr Duncan, another of his learned countrymen, who were then so numerous in France.^[1. Mark Duncan, Μ. D. principal of the college, was at the same time professor of metaphysics and mathematics, and a practising physician. We learn from an incidental notice of Scaliger that he was born in the west of Scotland. (Prima ScaHgcrana i p. 33.) He is the author of a treatise on logic, which is mentioned with high approbation by Burgersdicius in the preface to his Institutiones Lo-gicoe. The first edition is entitled u Institutionis Logicae libri quinque.” Salmurii, 1612, 8vo. The third edition bears this title: “Institutionis Logicae libri quinque, in usum Academiae Salmuriensis tertium editi, ut erant ab auctore recogniti.” Salmurii, 1643, 8vo. Prefixed is a Latin poem by his son Mark Duncan, who was afterwards well known by the name of Μ. de Cerizante. Tomasini has classed the father among the distinguished literary characters of the age. (Parnassus Engancus, p. 8.) Menage mentions a French book on the Devils of Loudun, written by Duncan, a celebrated physician of Saumur. (Menag>ακα, tom. ii. p. 254.) The book to which he alludes is apparently an anonymous and very rare tract, published under the following title: “Discovrs de la Possession des Religieuses Vrsulines de Lodun.” 1634, 8vo. This tract, which consists of sixty-four pages, is written with talent and dexterity. The conclusion at which the author arrives is such as might be expected from a man of sense and discernment; but at that period, the management of a negative argument in any similar case required no small degree of caution. It appears from different passages of the work that Duncan, along with other physicians, had attended the sisters who were supposed to be possessed with devils. “La premiere foijs que le fus present aux exorcismes, Monsieur de Poictiers et l’exorciste ayans adiuré le diable Grésil, qu’on disoit estre dans le corps de la Mere Supérieure, de dire le nom du Sieur Duncaņ, medicin de Saumur, la dicte Supérieure auec son Gresil se trompa deux, fois.” P. 28. ] Cameron had already published several of his works, and his celebrity was in no small degree increased by his academical lectures. Such indeed was his reputation in the chair, that he was frequently honoured with the attendance of Du Plessis Mornay; a man distinguished by his rank, his talents, and his zeal in the cause of religion.

During the same year, 1620, he was engaged in a formal disputation with Daniel Tilenus, a native of Silesia, who had adopted the theological opinions of Arminius.^[2. See Dr M‘Crie’s Life of Melville, vol. ii. 1). 444. ] He had expressed a wish to discuss with Cameron the doctrines of grace and free-will; the time and place of meeting were duly arranged, and, according to their agreement, the professor repaired, in the neighbourhood of Orleans, to the country-house of Jerome Groslot, a protestant gentleman of rank and learning, who had taken refuge in Scotland after the massacre of St Bartholomew, and had there been distinguished by the friendship of Buchanan. Tilenus having arrived five days after Cameron, their conference commenced on the twenty-fourth, and concluded on the twenty-eighth of April. An account of this Arnica Collatio was printed at Leyden in 1621. The theological faculty of that university was not satisfied with some of Cameron’s explanations; and when Rivet, as dean of the faculty, communicated to him their dissent, he defended his opinions in a brief answer. Their orthodoxy was likewise defended by Bochart,^[3. Caineronis Opera, p. 7Į0· , ] then a student of divinity, but who afterwards rose to the highest eminence among the learned men of the seventeenth century.

In 1620, the progress of the civil troubles in France had nearly dispersed all the students of the university of Saumur, and Cameron sought in England a place of refuge for himself and his family. For a short time he read private lectures on divinity in London; and in 1622 the king appointed him principal of the university of Glasgow, in the room of Robert Boyd, a learned man who had been removed from his office in consequence of his firm adherence to the cause of presbytery.^[4. Middleton’s Appendix to the History of the Church of Scotland, p. 22.~Lond. 1677, fol-Dannatyne Miscellany, vol. 1. 296. Edinb. 1827, 4to. ... ., r .. , .,-.-,√ ] His successor appears to have been more favourably inclined to episcopacy; nor is it improbable that this circumstance may have had a strong tendency to diminish the cordiality of his reception in his native city. The following passage in Baillie’s epistle dedicatory to Robert Blair, reflects some light on his sentiments respecting the controversies which then agitated the church. “1 confesse, after you, to my exceeding great griefe and losse, were taken away from my head, and I came to be set at the feet of other masters, especially Mr Cameron and Mr Struthers, my very singular friends, and excellent divines as our nation has bred, I was gained by them to some parts of conformity, which, if the Lords mercy had not prevented, might have led me, as many my betters, to have run on in all the errours and defections of these bad times: but thanks to his glorious name, who held me by the hand, and stopped me at the beginning and first entry of that unlucky course; who before I had put my hand to any subscription, or was engaged in any promise, or had practised any the least ceremony in my flock, did call me to a retreat.”^[5. Baillie’s Historical! Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland. Lond. 1646, 4to. , . ∙⅛ ] Here he likewise taught divinity with great reputation, but he resigned his office in less than twelve months. Vernevil, a Frenchman, who soon after the author’s death translated one of his tracts into English, has given the subsequent [7:6:40]account of his return to Scotland. “During his naturall liιe, his reputation was great in France, and so great, that all the Iesuites there did seeke, and at last obtained to haue him banished, nor was there any other cause thereof then his great learning, the Iesuites in their conferences being not able to withstand him. Quoniam cemulare non licet, mine inuides. He had his refuge here, where by the speciall care of that great fauourer of learning K. Iames (of blessed memory) he was provided for in Scotland, his natiue country, but so great was his harty lone to France, that by the effectual mediation of those honourable am· bassadors then in France, he gat that envious sentence reversed, which being done he immediately conveighed himselfe to Montauban, to bee professour there, where he ended his dayes, to the great losse of Gods church, and that vniversity.” Calderwood has however assigned another reason for his quitting Glasgow: “Cameron was so misliked by the people, that he was forced to quite his place soon afterwards.”^[6. Calderwood*s Hist, of the Church of Scotland, p. 800∙ ]

On returning to France, he fixed his residence at Saumur, where he was only permitted to read private lectures; and after an interval of a year, he was appointed professor of divinity in the university of Montauban, whither he removed about the close of the year 1624. The country was still torn by civil and religious dissensions; and as Cameron maintained the doctrine of passive obedience, he excited the indignation of the more strenuous adherents of his own party. Nor was the expression of this indignation confined to mere reproaches; one individual treated him with such outrageous violence, that his life was exposed to jeopardy. Indisposed in body, and afflicted in mind, he sought for relief by a change of scene, and withdrew to the neighbouring town of Moissac: but what he thus sought was not to be found; he speedily returned to Montauban, and there in the space of a few days terminated life earthly career. He died in the year 1625, when he had only attained the age of about forty-six, and left a widow and several children to bewail his loss. His first wife, Susan Bernard of Tonneins on the Garonne, he had married in 1611, and by her had a son and four daughters; but the son and eldest daughter died before their father. The son was born at London on the 10th of May 1622, and died at Saumur in the month of July 1624. His mother had died of consumption in the preceding March; and after the decent interval of a year, Cameron married at Montauban a second wife named Susan Thomas, with whom he only lived a few months, and who had no child. The maintenance of his surviving family was undertaken by the protestant churches of France, in which he left an illustrious name.

With respect to his person, he was of the middle size, somewhat inclining to a spare habit, sound but not robust in his constitution. His hair was yellow, his eyes were brilliant, and the expression of his countenance was lively and pleasant. He appeared to be always immersed in deep meditation, and was somewhat negligent in his apparel, and careless in his gait; but in his manners he was very agreeable, and although he was not without a considerable share of irritability, his anger was easily appeased, and he was very ready to acknowledge his own faults. One writer, of doubtful authority, has represented him as a person of consummate vanity, as a tedious preacher, and an endless talker: but this account is evidently to be received with a considerable degree of caution;^[7. See Bayle’s Dictionaire Historique et Critique, tom. i. p. 743. ] and his distinguished pupil Cappel has exhibited his character in a most favourable light. According to his impression, he was a man of eminent integrity and piety, open, candid, and incapable of guile; faithful to his friends, and not spiteful to his enemies; of so liberal a turn of mind, that his generosity made some approach to profusion.^[8. Cappel, in his Icon Joh. Camcronis, has drawn this interesting picture. “Corpore fuit neque humili neque procero, sed mediocri, gracili et macilento magis quam obeso, neque valido aut robusto, sed tamen sano; vultu aperto et renidente, facie ingenua, oculis vividis et amaenis, capillo flave, incessu, habitu et cultu corporis, quia totus pene semper erat cogitabundus et meditabundus, paulo neglectiore. Moribus erat suavissimis, non morosus et austerus, sed neque remissus et effusus, verum ad gravitatem et lenitatem simul compositus, ίξυχρλο; quidem et facile, praesertim in notos et familiares, irritabilis, sed qui facile etiam iram deponeret, atque ultro culpam et errorem agnosceret. Vir pietate et probitate spectabilis, integerrimus, candidus, apertus, fuci, fraudis, dolique mali plane nescius, a φ λaξγνξ κ et μ xζoλoγia alienissimus, imo vero pecunise mirus et pro fortunae suae conditione nimius contemptor, et in erogando supra modum facilis, ne profusum dicam. Amicis fidus, inimicis non iniquus fuit. Gloriae et fortunae aemulos habuit, quibus tamen minime infensus fuit, imo nullus fuit cui bene non cupiverit, et bene facere pro data occasione paratus non fuerit. Doctrinae suae non minus quam των %ζνμaτων xaι β ωτ xων ×oινωνιxm et liberalis largitor, volentes a se discere nil celabat, quin facile quicquid singulare aut reconditum habuit, iis communicabat.” ]

Cameron died before he had reached what may be considered as the prime of a literary life, and too many of his years had been spent at a distance from that tranquillity which is so essential to the pursuits of literature. He was fond of study, but not of writing, and yet he wrote with great facility; he required to be incited by his friends, or roused by his adversaries. The most considerable of his works he did not himself commit to the press; they were published by the friendly care of others, from such copies as had been taken by his pupils. He composed many Latin poems which have not been preserved, and, in the opinion of Cappel, they possessed uncommon merit. An ample collection of his theological works has however been transmitted to our times, and he occupies a conspicuous place among the learned writers of the seventeenth century.

Sir Thomas Urquhart has extolled Cameron in his usual style. “There was another Scotish man, named Cameron, who within these few yeers was so renowned for learning overall the provinces of France, that, besides his being esteemed for the faculties of the minde the ablest man in all that country, he was commonly designed (because of his universal reading) by the title of the walking Liberary ; by which he being no less known then by his own name, he therefore took occasion to set forth an excellent book in Latine, and that in folio, intituled Bibliotheca movens, which afterwards was translated into the English language.”^[9. Urquhart’s Discovery of a most exquisite Jewel, p. 182. Lond. 1G52, 8vo∙ ] This book, we strongly suspect, must be placed on the same shelf with some others which appear to have belonged exclusively to the knight of Cromarty’s library. In the opinion of Dempster, Cameron wanted nothing to make him a great man but the profession of the catholic faith;^[10. Dempsteri Hist. Ecclesiast∙ Gentis Scotorum, p. 173. ] ð and he has. been extolled by variousother authors, of higher authority in matters of theology. Milton, in his Tetrachordon, mentions Cameron as “a late writer, much applauded, an ingenious writer, and in high esteem.” His Myrothecium Evangelicum has received no slight commendation from a writer who cannot be suspected of partiality to his sect. In this work, says Simon, he discovers an intimate acquaintance with the [7:6:41]principles of criticism, and an exact knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. These qualifications have enabled him to exhibit a learned elucidation of the literal and grammatical sense of many passages in the sacred books which he professes to illustrate.^[11. Simon, Histoire Critique des principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, p. 781. ]

Soon after the death of Cameron, his friends published his “Praelectiones in selectiora Loca Novi Testamenti.” Salmurii, 1626-8, 3 tom. 4to. The editor was his learned pupil Louis Cappel, professor of Hebrew, and afterwards of divinity, in the university of Saumur; to whom we are likewise indebted for an interesting sketch of the author’s life and character. A collection of his theological works appeared under the title of “Joannis Cameronis, Scoto-Britanni, Theologi eximii, ra ffωξομsva, sive Opera partim ab auctore ipso edita, partim post ejus obitum vulgata, partim nusquam hactenus publicata, vel e Gallico idio-mate nunc primum in Latinam linguam translata: in unum collecta, et variis indicibus instructa.” Genevae, 1642, fol. Cappel’s Icon Joh. Cameronis is here reprinted. The writer of the preface to the volume was Frederic Spanheim, at that time professor of divinity in the university of Geneva.^[12. Colomiĕs, Bibliothèque Choisie, p. 73. ] The author of the anonymous “Epistola docti Viri ad Amicum,” refuted by Cameron, was Episcopius, a learned follower of Arminius. Cappel had published another work of his preceptor, which is not included in this collection. “Myrothecium Evangelicum, in quo aliquot Loca Novi Testamenti explicantur: una cum Spicilegio Ludovici Cappelli de eodem argumento, cumque 2 Diatribis in Matth, xv. 5 de Voto Jcphtae.” Genevae, 1632, 4to. Another edition appeared under the subsequent title: “Myrothecium Evangelicum; hoc est, Novi Testamenti Loca quamplurima ab eo, post aliorum labores, apte et commode vel illustrata, vel explicata, vel vindicata. Quibus adjectae sunt Alexandri Mori Notae in Novum Foedus, jam antea editae, et Dissertatio in Mat. c. 24. V. 28. hactenus inedita: nec-non ejusdem A. Mori Axiomata Theologica, quae nunc primum in lucem prodeunt. Editio novissima, locorum indicibus locupletata.” Salmurii, 1677, 4to.

Two of Cameron’s French tracts were at an early period translated into English, “An Examination of those plav-sible Appearances which seeme most to commend the Romish Church, and to preiudice the Reformed: discovering them to be but meere shifts, purposely invented to hinder an exact triall of doctrine by the Scriptures. By Mr Iohn Cameron. Englished out of French.” Oxford, 1626, 4to. “A Tract of the soveraigne Ivdge of Controversies in matters of Religion. By Iohn Cameron, Minister of the Word of God, and Divinity Professour in the Academie of Montauban. Translated into English by Iohn Vernevil, Μ. A.” Oxford, 1628, 4to. The translator of the first tract subscribes his dedication with the initials W. P. Vernevil’s dedication is dated “from the publique Library in Oxford.” (x.)

The name of this distinguished person furnished a denomination to a party of Calvinists in France, who asserted that the will of a man is only determined by the practical judgment of the mind; that the cause of men’s doing good or evil proceeds from the knowledge which God infuses into them; and that God does not move the will physically, but only morally, by virtue of its dependence on the judgment of the mind. This peculiar doctrine of grace and free will was adopted by Amyraut, Cappel, Bochart, Daillé, and others of the more learned among the reformed ministers, who judged Calvin’s doctrines on these points too harsh. The Cameronites are a sort of mitigated Calvinists, and approach to the opinion of the Arminians. They are also called Universalists, as holding the universality of Christ’s death; and sometimes Amyraldists. The rigid adherents to the synod of Dort accused them of Pe-lagianism, and even of Manicheism; and the controversy between the parties was carried on with a zeal and subtilty scarcely conceivable; yet the whole question between them was only, whether the will of man is determined by the immediate action of God upon it, or by the intervention of a knowledge which God impresses on the mind. The synod of Dort had defined that God not only illuminates the understanding, but gives motion to the will by making an internal change therein; whereas Cameron only admitted the illumination by which the mind is morally moved, and explained the sentiment of the synod of Dort so as to make the two opinions consistent.