Despite the fact that Junius insists in his letter to the nobles of Holland that he will stay within the bounds of a theologian who knows his place, one wonders if there was a judicial complement who had studied theology, languages, and classics as closely and with as much distinction as Junius had studied law. This work as well as Junius’ scholarly caliber forms also a counterpoint and rebuke to overcome the frequent stereotype that humanism and scholasticism are necessarily antithetical. In Junius, we have one theologian who was trained as a humanist upon legal and classical sources, formally cultivated the study of biblical languages and hermeneutics, contributed to the development of theological systems, thoroughly engaged in pastoral praxis and confessional development, and managed to maintain a modest sobriety about his role as a theologian. Yet, how many opportunities did Junius have to address matters of state and civil polity whether as diplomat, pastor, or theologian? Furthermore, Junius and his work stand as a beacon and call for the interconnectivity, engagement, and distinctness of philosophy, culture, society, civil polity, and theology.