was nothing neer so broad as the sore. For his retraction, if any, was clandestine and secret, whereas his endeavours to propagate this pernicious heresie, were notoriously manifest by his writings, wherein he professeth in plain words his desent from all our Orthodox Divines, which had before written any thing concerning the necessary Doctrine of a sinners justification before God; saying, I am forced to dissent from them all: In that very Book he shews, how skilful he is in the art of dissimulation, which is able to deceive thousands: For therein he makes a shew of conscnt with them, and endeavours to perswade them to beleeve it, whereas he wrests their doubtful speeches to countenance, and to cover his errour and socinianism, which he would have his seduced Disciples to embrace and follow." It would appear from this notice of Anthony Wotton, that he flourished about 1616; but no evidence has been adduced, to prove that his faith on the subject of the Trinity was unsound. In the year 1641, a posthumous vindication of himself from the charge of Socinianism was published, in 12mo, at Cambridge, by his son, and bore the following title. Anthony Wotton's Defence against Mr. George Walker's Charge, accusing him of Socinian Heresie and Blasphemie: written by him in his life-time, and given in at an hearing by Mr. Walker procured; and now published out of his own papers by Samuel Wotton his Sonne. Together with a Preface and Postscript, briefly relating the Occasion and Issue thereof, by Thomas Gataker an eye and eare-witness of either." Mr. George Walker, B.D., the individual mentioned by Chewney, had published "Mr. a Treatise, under the title of "Socinianisme in the Fundamentall point of Justification discovered and confuted." We learn, from Wood's account of this Mr. Walker,* that he was an excellent scholar, an acute reasoner, a good orientalist, and an able divine; but Archbishop Laud describes him as "a disorderly and peevish man." He belonged to the puritanical party, and underwent two years' imprisonment, for preaching against what he deemed the profanation of the Lord's-day. In his work on Justification, which was published in 1641, 8vo., he appears to have attacked Anthony Wotton; and it was this which led Samuel Wotton, the son of Anthony, in the course of the same year, to publish his father's Defence of himself against the charge of Socinianism. In this Defence, Anthony Wotton pleads his own cause, and the reader is left to acquit or condemn him, according to the nature of the evidence adduced. On the subject of Justification, he may be said, perhaps, to Socinianize; but on other subjects, there seems to have been a wide difference between his opinions, and those of Socinus. It was during the reign of James I., that the celebrated Synod of Dort was held. To this Synod he sent Dr. Carleton, Bishop of Llandaff; Dr. Hall, Dean of Worcester, and afterwards Bishop of Norwich; Dr. Davenant, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury; and Dr. Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney College, Cambridge; who, together with several divines of the high Calvinistic party, from Switzerland and Germany, did all in their power to damp the spirit Fasti Oxon. Vol. I. fol. 219, 220. of free inquiry, which had begun to shew itself among the followers of Arminius.* But James had attained considerable notoriety, some years before this Synod was convened, by the part which he took against CONRAD VORSTIUS. Arminius died in 1609, and Vorstius was chosen to fill the vacant divinity chair of the University of Leyden, as his successor. The latter had corresponded with some of the Unitarians in Poland, and the neighbouring countries; and was suspected of being tainted with their opinions. In the year 1610, not long after his appointment to the professorship at Leyden, he published an enlarged edition of his treatise "De Deo," which he dedicated to the Landgrave of Hesse; and this being fiercely assailed as soon as it made its appearance, he printed, in the course of the same year, a defence of it, entitled, "Apologetica Exegesis pro Tractatu De Deo." In the autumn of the year following, a few months before the burning of Legate and Wightman, these two works fell into the hands of James, while he was on a hunting progress; and when he had read them, he lost no time in dispatching a letter to Sir Ralph Winwood, his Ambassador in Holland, commanding him to use all his influence against their author, and to express his own strong displeasure at any marks of attention, which Vorstius either had received, or might receive. In his manifesto to the States-General he says, "What, if Vorstius, * Whitelocke's Memorials, p. 297, A.D. 1618. Fuller's Worthies, p. 159. + Sandii Bibl. Ant. p. 98. Fuller's Church Hist. Bk. x. Sect. iv. pp. 60–62. that miserable being, choose to deny the blasphemous heresies and proofs of Atheism which he has hitherto published, or to employ equivocations in softening them down! such a course will perhaps have the effect of prolonging his life, and prevent him from being burnt! On this subject I appeal to your Christian prudence, and ask, Did there ever exist a heretic more deserving of this species of punishment?" But this appcal, direct and unequivocal as it was, failed of its object; and the King, being frustrated in his attempts to bring Vorstius himself to the stake, ordered his book to be burnt in St. Paul's Church-Yard, and at the two Universities.* He likewise commanded Sir Ralph Winwood to protest against the proceedings of the StatesGeneral in this matter; and Sir Ralph acted in strict compliance with the orders which he received. But James, with that weakness and irresolution which characterized the whole of his conduct, became so alarmed at the probable consequences of Winwood's protest, that he deemed it prudent to apologize to the Dutch Ambassador at his own court, for the strong language which Winwood had used; and was even mean enough to entertain serious thoughts of writing to clear himself, and throw all the blame on his representative. In the end it was determined, by way of compromise, that Vorstius should leave Leyden, but have permission to reside in any other town in the dominion of the States, and be main The Works of James Arminius, translated from the Latin by James Nichols, Vol. I. pp. 455, 456. + Winwood's Memorials, Vol. III. p. 332, apud Catherine Macaulay's Hist. of England, Vol. I. p. 74. tained at their expense. He accordingly went to It has been said that James's quarrel with Vorstius was a personal one, and that his resentment was occasioned by the ironical manner, in which Vorstius had spoken of him in one of his works; yet Salisbury says, "the zeal which stirreth the King against that man, [Vorstius,] so kindles in him upon every accident of discourse, as we have all reason to bless God in making us subjects to such a King, that, without mixture of glory or private design, taketh so much to heart the injury that is done to the Blessed Trinity."† Towards the latter part of the reign of James, his conduct, as respects the Arminian party, underwent a complete change. When he first took up his pen against Vorstius, he acknowledged, that he did not even know of the existence of such a person as Arminius, till after his death, and till all the Reformed Churches in Germany had begun to complain of him; yet, in 1611, we find His Majesty moving heaven and earth against the Remonstrant party in Holland. At the Synod of Dort, A.D. 1618, his Calvinistic zeal had not undergone the slightest abatement. In the year 1621, however, he appears to have outgrown his Calvinistic preju • Vide Art. 151. + Cath. Macaulay's Hist. of England, Vol. I. p. 73. Nichols's Translation of the Works of Arminius, Vol. I. p. 455. ww.ww |