Read CHAPTER VIII of The Life of Hugo Grotius, free online book, by Charles Butler, on ReadCentral.com.

VORSTIUS, JAMES I.

1622.

We must now carry back our readers to events which preceded the Synod of Dort. We have mentioned the decease of Arminius: soon after it, a circumstance took place, which, to the exquisite delight of the monarch, who, at that time filled the British throne, involved him in the theological disputes of the Belgic theologians.

Not long after the commencement of the Reformation, several bold inquirers began to deny the trinity of persons in the Deity, the divine authority of the Old and New Testament, and the existence of mystery in the Christian dispensation. Both Catholics and Protestants united against them. To avoid their hostilities, the maintainers of these opinions fled to Poland, and, forming themselves into a distinct congregation, published, in 1574, their First Catechism. They established congregations at Cracow, Lubin, Pinczow, Luck and Smila: but their most flourishing settlement was at Racow.

They spread their doctrines over each bank of the Danube, and at length penetrated Italy. There, they were adopted by Loelius Socinus. After many peregrinations in different parts of Europe, he finally settled at Zurich. Faustus Socinus, his nephew, inherited his sentiments; and, on this account, was obliged to quit Zurich. After many wanderings, he fixed his residence at Racow. There, he was received with open arms by the new communion, and completed their system of theology. From him, they derived their appellation of SOCINIANS. Their doctrine is expressed in the Racovian catechism, published, in the Polish language, in 1605. Other editions of it have appeared. An English translation of the edition of 1605, was published at Amsterdam in 1652: Dr. Toulmin, in his Life of Socinus, ascribes it, seemingly by conjecture, to Mr. John Biddle. In 1818, Mr. Rees published a new translation of it, prefixing to it an interesting historical preface.

Among the disciples of Arminius, was the celebrated CONRADE VORSTIUS, born at Cologne in 1569, of parents in reduced circumstances: he was soon remarked for his diligence and irreproachable conduct; and was, in 1605, appointed to a professor’s chair at Steinfurth. In 1610, he quitted it, and was named to succeed Arminius, in the chair of Professor of Theology, at Leyden. “He was beloved and honoured,” says Mr. Chalmers, “at Steinfurth; there, he enjoyed the utmost tranquillity, and was in the highest reputation; he doubtless foresaw, that in the state in which the controversies of Arminius and Gomarus were at that time, he should meet with great opposition in Holland. But he was tempted by the glory he should gain by supporting a party, which was weakened by Arminius’s death.”

He had previously published his Treatise “de Deo.” Some passages in it were thought to favour the doctrine of Arminius; some, to lead to Socinianism; and some, to have an ulterior tendency. That Arminius himself discovers these views in his writings, has been frequently asserted. Doctor Maclaine, the learned translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, observes it to be a common opinion, that “the disciples of Arminius, and more especially Episcopius, had boldly transgressed the bounds, that had been wisely prescribed by their master, and had gone ever to the Pelagians, and even to the Socinians.” “Such,” continues Dr. Maclaine, “is the opinion commonly entertained upon this matter. But it appears on the contrary evident to me, that Arminius himself had laid the plan of the theological system, that was, in after times embraced by his followers; that he had instilled the principles of it into the minds of his disciples; and that these latter did really no more than bring this plan to a greater degree of perfection, and propagate with more courage and perspicuity the doctrines it contains.” To prove this assertion, the Doctor cites a passage from the Will of Arminius, in which he declares, that “his view in all his theological and ministerial labours, was to unite in one community, cemented by the bonds of fraternal charity, all sects and denominations of Christians, the papists excepted.” “These words, on this account,” continues Dr. Maclaine, “coincide perfectly with the modern system of Arminianism, which extends the limits of the christian church, and relaxes the bonds of fraternal communion in such a manner, that Christians of all sects and all denominations, whatever their sects and opinions may be, (Papists excepted) may be formed into one religious body, and live together in brotherly love and concord.” It is not surprising that in the state of religious effervescence, in which the minds of men were at the time of which we are now speaking, a suspicion that Vorstius entertained the sentiments we have mentioned, or sentiments nearly approaching to them, should have rendered him a subject of jealousy. So greatly was this the case, that the Contra-remonstrants appealed against his doctrines to several Protestant states, and represented to them the doctrine of Vorstius in the most odious light. Our James I. accepted the appeal: by a royal proclamation, he caused Vorstius’s Treatise de Deo to be burnt in London, and each of the English Universities. He drew up a list, of the several heresies, which he had discovered in it, commanded his resident at the Hague to notify them to the States; to express his horror of them, and his detestation of those, who should tolerate them.

With some intimation of their independence, the States replied, that “the case was of their cognizance;” that “they would examine it;” and that, “if it should appear that Vorstius maintained the doctrines imputed to him, they would not suffer him to live among them.” The monarch’s orthodoxy was not satisfied with this answer. He repeated his suggestions, that the States should proceed against Vorstius; and hinted, that if the doctrines should be proved against him, and if he should persist in them, burning might be a proper punishment for him. The monarch added that, if the States did not use their utmost endeavours to extirpate the rising heresy, he should publicly protest against their conduct; that, in quality of defender of the faith, he would exhort all Protestant churches to join in one general resolution to extinguish the abomination, and would, as sovereign of his own dominions, prohibit his subjects to frequent so pestilential a place as the University of Leyden. To his menaces he added the terrors of his pen, and published a “Confutation of Vorstius.”

By the advice of the States, Vorstius replied to his royal adversary in a most respectful manner; still, the royal adversary was not satisfied. Finally, the States condemned the obnoxious doctrines of Vorstius, divested him of all his offices; and sentenced him to perpetual banishment. Vorstius remained concealed during two years; then found an asylum in the dominions of the Duke of Holstein, who, as we have mentioned, took the remains of the Arminians into his protection.

Vorstius died in 1622.