The Unpublished Introduction to ' Disquisitio an Pelagiana sint ea dogmata quae nunc sub eo nomine traducuntur

edited, with an introduction and notes, by

EDWIN RABBlE AND HENK NELLEN*

"Scis quam duram suscipiat provinciam, cui cum theologis negotium est." (Vossius to Grotius, 22 July 1621) I INTRODUCTION

Hugo Grotius' letters do not always make particularly exciting reading, but from time to time there is one among the thousands whose special tone and subject matter leave a lasting impression. One example of this is the dignified and self-assured letter of 26 March 1621 in which Grotius in- formed stadholder Mau.rice of his miraculous escape from confinement at Loevestein. The letter tells how, having concluded that his enemies were preventing Maurice from arranging his release, Grotius had begun to contemplate ways of "helping himself'. He assumed that Maurice wou.ld surely have no objection to the course of action he had chosen, considering how deeply rooted the desire for freedom was in man, "nay, even in animals".1 In other letters from the same period2 Grotius showed a similar loftiness of spirit, even going so far as to attribute his escape to the benificence of God, desirous of putting an end to his unlawful detention. Decided self-assurance also marked Grotius' conduct in , where he settled in April 1621 after a short stay in . He was bent on nothing less than complete rehabilitation, and thought to achieve this by his efforts to justify Oldenbarnevelt's political and religious policies, for which Groti- us was partly responsible, in the forum of international public opinion. In exile his only weapon was his pen, and he wanted to wield it to its best

* Grotius Institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, . For abbreviated references see the bibliography at the end of this article. 1 BW II, no. 622, to Maurice, 26 March 1621. 2 BW II, nos 623 and 628, to FrederickHenry and the StatesGeneral, 26 and 30March 1621.

42 possible effect. The purpose of his writings was to demonstrate that the political and religious changes that had taken place in Holland in 1618-19 had no basis in law: the condemnation of Oldenbarnevelt and the magis- trates who had supported his cause was, in Grotius' view, a flagrant violation of the process of law and had an equally reprehensible parallel in the resolutions of the national Synod at Dordt, where the Remonstrantism patronized by Oldenbarnevelt had been proscribed as a heterodox doc- trine. Grotius refused to keep silent, even though he was quite aware that his militant stand might cause considerable harm to his family and friends at home in Holland. He maintained this stance throughout his period of exile. He regarded the rehabilitation of Oldenbarnevelt, not to speak of his own, as an aim that would brook absolutely no compromise, and was determined to make no secret of his views. "Neque mihi vita vitalis aliter fit", he remarks rather pathetically in one of his letters.3 Very soon his friends at home would discover with some alarm that he had lost no time in carrying out his intention. Together with other refugees, Remonstrant leaders like Johan Wtenbo- gaert and Simon Episcopius, Grotius first attempted to establish himself in France in the hope of obtaining the French government's support for an honourable return. To this end Grotius approached leading members of the French government. These men had always supported Oldenbarnevelt's policy in the past and now showed themselves willing to take the refugees under their wing. Grotius' former position directly under Oldenbamevelt and his reputation as a scholar were even enough for him as their leader to be given preferential treatment, for he was awarded a royal pension. On 15 June 1621, to make his position perfectly clear, the celebrated emigre joined with some like-minded Frenchmen in issuing an official statement in which they distanced themselves from the separatist movement of the Huguenots, who at that time had risen in violent revolt against the cen- tralism of Paris. The statement goes on to reject categorically the resolution to adopt the canons of Dordt in toto (that is, including their unconditional condemnation of Remonstrantism), which had been passed by the French Reformed churches at the national Synod of Alais (1620). By turning his back on the French Calvinists in both political and religious matters, Grotius expected to be able to do something about the insecure position of the refugees. When in January 1622 the latter applied for permission to practice Remonstrantism freely, however, they were not granted it. Never-

3 BW II, no. 645, to N. van Reigersberch, 28 May 1621.

43