On State and Church: Junius, Grotius and Cunaeus

2.1.2 State and Church

Junius distinguished between the ecclesia triumphans in heaven and the eccle­sia militans on earth. The latter combined ecclesiastical and political elements, the one aimed at the purity of faith, the other at social rest and peace. Junius's views on the correlation of the two domains were based on natural law and scripture. He held both realms to be of divine origin, but varying in terms of nature, manner of procedure, and objective. The realm of the church implied service, the secular realm was based on authority; the first related to the com­munio sanctorum, the second to the human society. Yet the two should practise the synergy of body and soul: the church in order to legitimize the state, the state to protect the church.44

Natural law reserved a facilitating role for the state: civil authorities should keep order in the church as in society, but not usurp their position, as attested by Ps. 101. In Junius's perception, their province hinged on matters circa sacra, not in sacris: the conscience was the exclusive domain of the church. But then, the public order was sacrosanct; trespassing on the part of the church was sac­rilege and justified state interference.

2.1.3 The Mosaic Legislation

What links Junius to Beza is his emphasis on the law. This is best illustrated with reference to his celebrated treatise on the Mosaic Legislation (1593). It was writ­ten from concern over the Dutch Confederacy and, as he states in the preface, to enlighten his conscience. Junius called it a sorry plight he felt compelled to fulfil in spite of the personal risks involved. He respected the law, and therefore political and legal studies, for their pragmatic application of natural law and right reason to the benefit of public order, the commonwealth and the just and honorable.^{[82] [83] [84]} The latter's perfect and normative manifestation was the Law of the Christ. In its specific rules and regulations on the lex humana the lex naturalis found palpable expression.

To him the Mosaic Decalogue was the sublime integration of the three domains of law, reflecting Natural Law in its moral precepts, Divine Law in its ceremonial rules, and Human (Civil) Law in its political and judicial commands. Its prescripts were far superior in that their divine inspiration lifted them well above human intelligence. However, Moses's ius particulare needed to be verified with the ius commune and the lex moralis of Christ 4θ As Junius argued, it was with respect to these latter precepts that harmony in the Netherlands was in jeopardy. Partisans by unwise zealotry imperilled the truth, human charity, and public peace.

Junius insisted that the primary task of theology was to serve the Communion of Saints and instruct the private conscience of the pious herd; its ultimate goal was the hereafter. The reach of the magistracy was wider to the extent that it served human society as such, more restrained in being restricted to life on earth. The methods applied differed in accordance with these varying ends: theologians reached their goal by teaching, taking guidance from God's authority; civil authorities enforced authority of their own accord, by dint of arms if necessary; they relied on the Divine Command, Natural law and Civil Law, and therefore also on the counsel of jurists.

Junius instilled moderation and restraint on authorities. In Le paisible Chretien (1593) he championed charity, in being based on divine grace, as the way that carried to the goal of truth?⁷ Whoever subscribed to the fundamentals of the Christian religion came within his accolade.^[85] By the same token, Junius's irenics had their limits. He did not deem the time ripe for the re-unification of churches.4^[86] On the whole, this â€?Unionism' was more readily met in circles of civil authorities, scholars and aristocrats than with the clergy, and understand­ably so; with the former, social and economic considerations also had their say. Unionists tended to retrace the vera religio to the simple creed of the first centuries, Apostolicum and Patres. They called for colloquia and church coun­cils to restore the old ideal and, like Cassander in his De officio pii viri (1561) put their hopes in enlightened rulers to check the rabies theologorum. Grotius in exile is its typical exponent in his massive programme to link classical tradi­tion and the Judaeo-Christian legacy.

The cleft is one on principle: Toleration aimed at public order, Unionism at bridging the Divide. At these crossroads Junius definitely took the first road, Grotius the second. For Junius, scripture prevailed at all times as against Patres and councils, whose merits and errors all rested on their interpretation of scripture.^{[87] [88] [89] Intriguingly, Junius's line of thought never made much headway at home, not even among Remonstrants?1 He may well have been too much of a humanist for doctrinal hardliners and too much caught up with church struc­tures for political reformers?2 Still, his sympathisers were not the least: Grotius and Vossius.}

2.2 Junius and Grotius

2.2.1 The Extent of Harmony

A firm tradition in Dutch scholarship closely links Junius to Grotius. In overall terms and affinity of character this definitely holds true.

Junius was first and foremost a Calvinist, Grotius a humanist; Junius a theo­logian, Grotius a lawyer; Junius the advocate of toleration; Grotius increasingly the full-fledged Unionist. In matters of Predestination Junius complied with orthodox supra-Lapsarian views, Grotius came very close to Remonstrantism. The most signal clash is precisely where this counted most: in the civil strife that erupted. In defining the provinces and competences of church and state Junius drew a very strict line; Grotius, from the first, professed to outspoken Erastian views.

2.2.2 Predestination: Adamus Exul

In the following we will address Grotius's views in all the domains Junius touched upon. One element we will treat in anticipation, viz., his views on original sin, predestination and grace, in order to link Grotius's position on these issues to a source from before Junius's demise. This source concerns Grotius's Neo-Latin drama in the Senecan amble on the Fall of Man, Adamus exul, the piece de resistance of a volume of sacred poetry (Sacra) that appeared in August ιβoι.^[90] One may share Grotius's later reservations with respect to style and originality,^[91] but his display of natural law, physics and metaphysics, astrology and ethics on the occasion is impressive.

Pertinent to us is Grotius's typology of Adam and Eve in their blessed state as �sole owners of the world'. The couple knows of no shame, craving or evil. Or, as Satan typifies Adam, servant to God and unaware of sin, man is placed in-between virtue and vice: his free will guides his step. Satan exploits precisely this faculty by challenging Adam's more fickle, changeable and self-indulgent partner, the female. The choir falls in with this assessment: Man is positioned at the crossroads, blessed in joining reason to the worship of God, unlike the rest of creation, which lacks Mind, Speech, Religion and the Soul to direct the senses. Indeed, it is precisely on account of his reason and soul that man is said to be born �in the Image of God': Human reason is the impression of God's mind and marks his participation of eternal law. Adam then exposes his views on God as the Immovable Mover of all Nature and Creation and insists on God's Trinitary status. An angel emphatically confirms Adam's perception of God's nature as the source and end of all good, stresses His loving care for the world, and elaborates on the role of the human will in serving God's will of its own accord. Eve then discusses the social appetite of man: happiness rests on partnership and sharing.

Satan's ruse, for all intents and purposes, implies fraud and malafides. Adam counters the attack by dismissing Satan's �Rebellion and Perfidy': like lamb and wolf the two of them present worlds apart. The choir has once more given timely warning against rebellion, when Satan assails Eve on three counts: first by appeal to preordained fate and God's Eternal and Immutable Law: a mere bite will change nothing. Secondly, with appeal to God's insincerity: to be sure, he has offered man the world - but �under condition'. For now, he has reserved a tree; he might reclaim more any day, until in the end his so-called gift will be entirely nullified. Were God as unchangeable in his �generosity' as he pretended to be, creation was never modified. Better not to live at all than to be delivered to tyranny and be less than free! Finally, and most cleverly, Satan appeals to Eve's ignorance of good and evil. God has withheld man this knowledge from sheer envy:^{[92] [93] [94] [95] [96] it is the very prerequisite to man's ultimate fulfilment: his search for truth. The right move imposes itself: Eve should anticipate God's deceit?6}

Struggling to balance obeisance with curiosity and desire (â€?why did I receive longing after all?') Eve takes the bite. Confronted by Adam she avows that precisely God's prohibition had made the move so appealing. The passage addresses the core of the human dilemma in Grotius's concept: the conflict of will and intellect, and free will as the source of evil?⁷ Eve, ironically, implores Adam not to judge too rashly and invokes the sanctity of their marriage bond. Adam gets confused, can't make up his mind - and actually deplores his free will: if only others could decide for him and choose instead! But then, what is the loss of a mere apple to God? Shouldn't the marriage bond prevail?

In the aftermath Adam is a total wreck; he is barely kept from suicide and making the human species extinct?⁸ Eve, on her part, remains on top of affairs and, time and again, implores Adam to drop his emotions and use common sense?⁹ Adam gives in, then confronted by God devolves all guilt on Eve. She in turn brazenly confronts God: after all, he created the serpent, to whose ruse a guileless woman stood no chance. Having read His verdict, merciful God reassures the pair He will leave in their minds a spark of the former light, a foreboding of salvation, then dismisses the couple, thus to prevent them from stealing the apple from the other tree that would secure them longevity.^{[97] [98] [99] To forestall their return, He puts Eden on fire.61}

At the tender age of eighteen, Grotius had long made up his mind on a num­ber of pertinent issues to the social debate. Adamus exul reaches well beyond the issues of predestination and grace to include Grotius's position on eternal and natural law, virtue and truth, will and intellect, promise and Fides, obei­sance and rebellion.

2.2.3 The Hebrew Constitution

Running counter to mainstream political thought as presented by Bodin, Barclay or Althusius the Dutch Republic, for lack of intrinsic union, had opted for the pragmatic model of a loose Confederacy. Soon its advocates turned the predicament into a virtue and availed themselves of the ready parallel of the Hebrew Confederacy to ideologically underpin their choice. Appealing to the Divine inspiration of the Decalogue they protested the supremacy of the model as against man-made institutions, laying claim to a special status as the new chosen ones. It prompted research into the Mosaic Legislation, and we discern three successive stages in this assessment. The first stage concerns Franciscus Junius's De Moysis politia (1593). The second junction is the discussion of the Mosaic tradition in a lost part of Grotius's State Parallels (1598- 1602) and in a tract attributed to him, De republica emen­danda (c. 1600). A few years later, Scaliger put a promising student of his, Petrus Cunaeus, on the track of Hebrew and Arabic studies, and to that end sent him over to Drusius in Franeker. From this venture emerged Cunaeus's epochal De republica Hebraeorum (1617) and, another treasure-trove waiting to be explored, his later speeches on Hebrew rituals and the lustrum.6²

Grotius's quest may well have been inspired by Junius's treatise. His State Parallels, by his own saying, featured a detailed exposition of Moses's com­mandments. In another major treatise from these years that was likewise lost, Phllarchaeus, he once more addressed the Decalogue, if apparently from a different angle. Very pragmatic socio-political considerations seem to have spurred this intrigue of Grotius. In the 1980s in Vienna, a copy of a tract De Republlca Emendanda was unearthed that bears Grotius's name. Grotius's authorship has been questioned but all in all it seems a plausible proposi- tion.^{[100] [101] [102] [103] It presents a comparison of the Hebrew and Dutch confederacies and has distinct political overtones.}

Grotius's keen interest in constitutional affairs bespeaks their topicality in the emerging state system and the Dutch predicament, which prompted a range of intriguing tracts in the nation's quest for the summum bonum.6⁴ His comparative approach, under reference to ancient or contemporary coun­terparts, marked an established formula. Next to reviews of the Athenian, Spartan and Roman models of state, the Swiss confederacy and the republi­can â€?Venetian Myth' were parallels readily drawn.6⁵ Research into the Hebrew Republic constituted a category of its own, reflecting an international train of thought labelled â€?Political Hebraism'.66

In De republica emendanda (dre), the Hebrew republic is presented as the ideal proposition. The argument runs parallel to Junius's treatise: man­made constitutions labor from myopia, bias or downright deceit. A product of divine inspiration is by definition superior - and so, therefore, was the Hebrew confederacy. This particular model of state was a theocracy: all virtues were regarded as derivatives of the one paramount virtue of religio (�virtutes omnes partes religionis'). Its downfall had been that man is prone to fall short of per­fection, whether due to zealotry or its opposite, indifference.

As the argument runs in dre, the Hebrew and Dutch confederacies revealed a distinct congruency in terms of genesis and ends. Both nations had embraced the true faith along with attaining political sovereignty from foreign rule.^[104] Again, both preferred divine to human authority: the Dutch Reformed Church was founded in obeisance of God, the state in turn for the sake of the church; its moral ambitions were the strict observance of secular laws; the instruction of ministers; works of charity, and the appliance of political science. In the Mosaic Legislation, dre argues, absolute monarchy and strict democracy are both rejected. In God's discourse with Samuel, the aristocratic model of state was embraced on logical grounds and as best fit to human nature. The twelve Hebrew tribes were ruled by a sovereign senate that dealt with sacred laws, public order and jurisdiction, and was seconded by a King of the �Spartan' type of primus inter pares. dre presents the ideal political model as a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy that combines the elements of majesty, authority, and liberty. Touchstone of the true republic is the supreme authority of the law.

Unfortunately, it is argued, and unlike the Hebrew confederacy the Dutch Republic is no true state but at best a military alliance. What jeopardizes its stability is thriving particularism, both between and within its constituent ele­ments, the provinces, on top of the absence of a central court of appeal. dre recommends the enforcement of central administration, a sovereign council and a supreme law court. Whereas in State Parallels Grotius extols the public and private virtues of the Dutch to impress an international audience, in dre, which may well have been drafted as an internal memorandum, he voices the serious concerns he is to repeat time and again in his position as council to Van Oldenbarnevelt, to the point of making him reject the Truce of 1609.

2.3 Grotius and Cunaeus

2.3.1 Personal and Intellectual Affinities

We now turn to the intellectual who was among Grotius's most steadfast allies in the Remonstrant Troubles. Petrus Cunaeus was professor of political science in Leiden and a highly intriguing character. Raised in Zeeland and a pupil of Scaliger and Drusius he had attended courses with Arminius and Gomarus^[105] and was an intimate of Casaubonus. Cunaeus was a man of keen intellect, outspoken views, a readily inflammable nature and mordant wit. A discerning philological critic,6^[106] his primary interest was man rather than matter: man's follies, man's superstitions, man's cunning. In the heyday of unrest at Leiden following Vorstius's appointment,^{[107] [108] [109] [110] he published a venomous Menippean sat­ire Sardivenales (�Fools for Sale', 1612), in which he made short shrift of the ped­antry of university dons, the imbecility of clergymen and self-acclaimed the­ologians, and the fickleness of the mob71 Cunaeus greatly admired Grotius's personality and versatility, and readily shared his aristocratic and Remonstrant feelings. He threw in his lot with the Oldenbarnevelt regime and was directly involved with Grotius's works in the 1610s; their mutual trust was implied?2 In September 1617, with tension growing, drafts of Grotius's De satisfactione and De imperio circulated with Cunaeus and his father-in-law, Van Zeyst. Upon the latter's sudden demise, Cunaeus, to Grotius's utter relief, timely secured the manuscripts?3 To attest to his intellectual status, Cunaeus miraculously sur­vived the purges of 1618 to 1619.}

2.3.2 The Hebrew Constitution

Cunaeus's De republica Hebraeorum (drh, 1617)^{[111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] is a compelling treatise bespeaking the author's solid biblical research and comfortable command of philology, the law and theology alike. More than this, it is an argumentative, personal testimony. To be sure, in Cunaeus's hands nothing could ever turn out non-committal; but the tract's provocative tenor marks it as the brave answer to predicament. Cunaeus sketches social antagonism in the most acute terms and insists on the clean separation of minds in Holland with regard to biblical exegesis and Hebrew studies. He emphatically links this to a division in meth­odology: keenly aware of the demands of modern hermeneutics, he insists on the dictate of reason, sound proof and the inductive method as against the appeal to authority and opinion?5}

The treatise's foremost rationale and objective is to give fair warning to the body politic, in acute peril of losing its grip on society, not to be trapped by the conniving political machinations of religious zealots of the type of Jeroboam, who had been the undoing of the Hebrew Commonwealth?⁶ Throughout the analysis records of the corruptive, self-destructive impact of power - be this at the hands of kings, high priests or Levites - and of the pitfalls of religious zealotry stand out as buoys at sea?7 drh originated as part of a comprehen­sive comparative analysis of models of state of the nature of Grotius's State Parallelsâ„¢ Its separate publication was accelerated by Walaeus' Hetamptder Kerckendienaren (1615), a rebuttal of the policies of the States of Holland as an ^lErastian' fallacy?⁹

Cunaeus turned the affinity of the Dutch with the Hebrew model of state against them. Imminent constitutional crisis, he argued, imposed the press­ing need for the Dutch to acquaint themselves with the grounds for the sad undoing of that model confederacy. The Hebrew Republic had been unique to the extent that Moses had been unique by comparison with other legisla­tors.^{[117] [118] The latter might instil virtue and courage upon their citizens, they did not teach faith the way Moses's Decalogue did to hold the Hebrew republic together.81 Their laws, the products of human ingenuity, were upheld by vir­tue of the severity of their penalties. The ordinances of the eternal God, by contrast, were immutable; they did not rely on axe and rod but on the sanctity of religion[119] To anticipate a core concept of Grotius's, a signal aspect of the wisdom of Moses's legislation, drh posits, was its philosophy on property and the redistribution of land at the jubilee.8[120] Another intriguing element Cunaeus touches upon to link his treatise to our debate is his review of the Hebrew con­cept of sovereignty[121] [122]}

Cunaeus's core message is clear-cut, as evidenced by his dedication to the States of Holland: Moses's republic was the holiest and the most effective model of state, and the best to emulate^⁵ What made for the success of the twelve tribes was their unity and co-operation. Whereas, to go by their pros­perity, each tribe could well pose as a state in its own right, they all shared the same laws and judges, magistrates and senators, measurements and currency, and jointly warranted the people's liberty. Jeroboam had replaced true religion with empty superstition. What had started as a battle for freedom, sovereignty and the True Faith had boiled down to discord about sacred rituals and places of worship. The parallel was obvious. Cunaeus gave the States of Holland timely warning: factions and sections are multiplying in our republic. The bones of contention are pointless issues of doctrine. The mob, as usual, is the plaything of whims and passions. Be aware of the fate of your precedent, that holiest and best of republics. Cunaeus's tract of 1617 served the goals exactly Grotius had in mind two decades before with De republica emendanda.