Voluntarism and Intellectualism
We will now briefly return to the problematic intellectual legacy Grotius inherÂited from his scholastic predecessors, viz., the discourse on voluntarism and intellectualism, and probe to what extent this dichotomy affected his thought.
The issue was far from moot in the days Grotius entered the stage. Within the Una Sancta discourse raged on in acrimonious polemics. Jesuits like Molina, Bellarmine and Suarez openly accused Dominicans of Calvinist leanings and in return were blasphemed by the latter for being Pelagianists. In 1607 Pope Clemens vιιι with the help of a Congregatlo de Auxiliis settled the issue for the time being by provisionally accepting both propositions?5The Reformation deepened the divide. Bias of catholic scholars towards objective intellectualism and natural law clashed with the reformers' reliÂance on scripture as God's legislative ordering. In the last resort, the polemic reflected conflicting views on human nature and man's moral autonomy. Luther and Calvin both emphatically adhered to voluntarism, if on different grounds?6 Again, the great protagonists of the Grotian legacy in the protestant natural law discourse, from Pufendorf to Thomasius, were full-fledged volun- tarists.77 Intriguingly, with Grotius himself commentators have felt less sure.
One ground for this are the diverging tenets Grotius appears to have defended in 1605 and 1625. Another ground is the formula which has puzzled scholars for centuries, Grotius's so-called â€?Impious Hypothesis', which we will discuss in the next paragraph. The overall tendency of modern scholarship has been to conclude upon Grotius's gradual move from voluntarism to intellectuÂalism. In his early years Grotius's position seems crystal-clear. In Adamus exul he unequivocally avows to the creative role and sustainable commitment of the Lord.
God was the creator of nature[543] [544] [545] [546] and the law of nature expressed His will. Man's reason was directly attributable to the Will of God.The same arguably holds for Grotius's position in ipc: in his ιx Regulae the will features prominently?9 All law is based on an â€?act of will' and only varies as regards authorship, in being the product of the will of God (natural law and divine volitional law), the will of mankind (the law of nations), the collective will of citizens (civil law) or the will of the individual (private law). In the last resort, all rules issue from the will of God. However, De Michelis has raised a caveat. As she argues, with Grotius God's will is eminently manifested in nature, in a way that is tantamount to absorbing divine law into natural law.8° Upon creation all nature was endowed with natural principles for guidance that were hence no longer affected by the will of God. Clearly, these tenets do not tally with voluntarism pure and simple.
Besselink adduces other arguments, pointing to the interaction of Grotius's ιx Regulae that address the hierarchy of formal sources of law (Grotius's legÂislative theory so to speak) with the substance and basic principles of the varÂious domains of law as outlined in the xiii Leges. Also, Grotius's rather inarÂticulate phraseology and the absence of the voluntarist vocabulary suggest qualification of his position as full-fledged voluntarist in 1605?1 Finally, Ertz has drawn attention to Grotius's claim to define the notiones communes with virtually mathematical exactitude and insists on God's objective with creation as the critical element for settling the vexed issue.[547]
Many commentators have felt that by 1625 Grotius's position had shifted considerably. In the opening chapter of IBP,8[548] [549] when defining primacies, Grotius plainly states that the criterion by which to judge the moral quality of an act is its compliance with right reason and Man's social nature, and that God's verdict reads accordingly34 As the manifestation of the will of its legisÂlator the law of nature held an imperative, prescriptive status.8[550] No act of God could any longer challenge natural justice. Calvin's concept of predestination effectively turned God into the author of sin, a proposition Grotius, in line with remonstrant thought, deemed inconceivable. In the interpretation of Grotius's thought on the issue in IBP a pivotal place is reserved for the so-called â€?Impious Hypothesis'. Pufendorf, for one, took the formula as proof that Grotius had by then reached a fairly intellectualist posiÂtion. We will now address this debate. 6