Anti-Climacus

QUOTE FOR THE EVENING: Now with some explanation at the end!

"When I peruse ancient history I become convinced that the evil that afflicts us is not typical of our age; it is old, yes, even perpetual; no matter how often it is cut off, it always springs up again. Already a long time ago ecclesiastics both in the East and in the West began to build themselves a religious kingdom, and their undertaking was further by the carelessness of princes who preferred to leave a matter they thought was difficult to someone else's conscience rather than to burden their own. Hence the unfortunate separation of Church and State (Hinc reipublicae et ecclesiae infelix divrotium), each one having its own affairs. This is the same method that was followed by him who is now after kings' blood and treads the necks of those whose knees he used to embrace.

The fact that obscure matters are discussed subtly, that opinions are formed on the basis of which side one has become attached to and that dissenters are not tolerated is not a new evil, nor one that is typical of a particular nation. A long time ago a rather unnecessary controversy on the emanation of the Holy Ghost divided the Greek Church from the Latin. We see how Germany is divided by the same conflicts we have and by others besides. They who have caused these disorders will never settle them. Unless the authority of princes mediates between the conflicting parties, the situation is desperate.

This is what the most illustrious States do; they do not undermine the ancient faith, they do not cancel the dogmas of the ecumenical synods, they do not revive Pelagius, they do not turn a blind eye to Polish vices. They are Christians, they remain Catholics, they do not cease to be Reformed (Christiani sunt, catholici manent, reformati esse non desinunt)."

-Grotius, Ordinum Hollendiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas

SO: nothing like putting up a long quote that says some controversial things and not explaining why, huh? Four thoughts:

1. Grotius' unwillingness to recognize the partiality and sectarianism of the time as anything new is important. Earlier in the work, he is careful to separate the differences that arise within orthodoxy from those that arise without. The fact that people disagree sharply on religious matters in 1613 is nothing new--is not, even, solely a result of the Reformation. There is nothing new under the sun, Grotius reminds the reader, and the notion that any set of intractable problems can be solved once and for all is mistaken; one needn't stretch too far to see the conservatism in that statement (even if it is a liberal-conservative, Reinhold Niebuhr-ish sentiment).

2. On the question of Church and State: well, I think in part the translation misleads (hence I included the Latin). What drives the church-state (or republic-ecclesiastical) problem is the fact that people charged with certain responsibilities walk away from them because they find them to be too difficult. The state, for Grotius, is and has to be the guarantor of toleration within orthodoxy. The task cannot be left, as he says, to divines, for the simple reason that they are too much devoted to the certainty of their answers; it is precisely because the prince cares less about which specific theological vision is correct (so long as it's orthodox) that he can provide a counterweight to the supporters of a particular religion who wish not merely to exclude, but to punish, those who are viewed to be wrong.

3. As to whether his position on the church-state question is tenable: I think it's the only position available to him in his historical context. It simply was the case that the Calvinists were determined to use the apparatus of the state to persecute the Arminians, and this in spite on a tradition within the States of treating both as perfectly orthodox opinions. (parenthetically, as a historical matter, it's the Stadtholder's willingness to side with the governmental claims of the Calvinists (after the Synod of Dordt) that leads to the imprisonment or execution of a number of Arminians, Grotius included.) But it's also the case that Grotius musters a good deal of historical evidence (here, and even more in De imperio) that the Church has always had a willingness to cede to the authority of princes.

As to whether church and state should be separate now, well, that's a different (and more complicated) question. But it's worth noting that so long as there are believers who care about this world, there will be an interaction between the two. Pure separation is a myth.

4. The claim of the last sentence is quite bold: Grotius claims the Reformed tradition to be not merely orthodox, but Catholic. This is right, for two reasons: first, as he ends the work, Grotius quotes multiple times from the exceptions to the usual manner of electing Bishops granted to Holland by the Council of Trent (the Netherlands were still Catholic at that time, after all). When Grotius speaks of the means of election of any pastoral figures, he claims that the now-Protestant Netherlands maintain fidelity with their old, given traditions. Second, the claim goes to the heart of Christian unity: it is not merely that all orthodox believers are members of the invisible, universal church, and thus 'catholic,' but that a Protestant of the Reformed tradition has the ability to draw freely from the entire history of the church (Ambrose and Augustine's followers are brought regularly into the earlier theological discussion). The differences on matters of dogma or theology may make it the case that believers congregate in different places, but so long as those beliefs are orthodox, the differences do not matter: all are Catholic. I'm not sure I'd follow him entirely that far, but it's an important argument for someone to make.