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.