Whenever bekijk deze jongens leads us to scan with close attention the origins, the growth as well and the prolonged continuation of right up to the present day of mankind, we shall find that at no time and in no place has it found itself without law of right and honour. This was not so even in those quarters or ages in which savage mortals knew nothing whatever of the way of a life with culture, but in which herbs and acorns were their food, the forests their homes, and their woodland beds spread by their hill-wives. Voetius’ son Paulus was in 1635 appointed Professor of Metaphysics at Utrecht, and Professor of Roman law in 1654. Paulus’ wife, Elizabeth van Winssen, died when her son Johannes was still a child. Paulus raised his son as a single parent, remarrying when Johannes was about sixteen. This may account for the life-long close relationship between grandfather and grandson.12 Voetius dedicated the second part of his Política Ecclesiastica (1669) to his grandson.
In his professional life he remained in essence a lawyer whose main achievement was the exposition of the current Dutch civil law in the light of the Pandects of Roman law. Within the stark divisions in Reformed circles in seventeenth-century Holland, Johannes Voet and De Groot belonged to opposing camps. The spiritual roots of Johannes Voet are in the orthodox Calvinism propounded by his grandfather.
Both Van der Keessel and Van der Linden in their respective commentaries on De Groot’s Inleidinge followed De Groot’s views without making any reference to Voet. The Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, previous Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk) as established state church since 1579, had embraced particularly the Calvinist creed and it was inevitable that any attack upon its doctrine and authority would carry political overtones. The religious controversy aggravated the dispute between the province of Holland and the orthodox Calvinist majority of the States General under the leadership of Prince Maurits. Strafrecht of the Arminians elicited accusations of treason – Uytenbogaert was accused of having become a papist and that he and Arminius were pensioners of Catholic Spain. De Groot was looked upon as a crypto-catholic, and his plea for moderation in his Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae ac West-Frisiae Vindicata (1613)5 had little impact.
It was inevitable that these differences would be reflected in their concept of the fundamental principles of law and justice, and of natural law. What is more, in their discourse the supra-infralapsarian discourse raises its head in a subtle way. In his exposition of the law of nature, Voet expresses criticism of De Groot’s views as to the basis (foundation) of the law of nature. The criticism provides fascinating insight into the exposure of De Groot and Voet to the subtleties of the esoteric theological debates in Reformed (Calvinist) circles of seventeenth-century Holland. The purpose of this note is to highlight the theological background to the difference of opinion between two prominent seventeenth-century Dutch lawyers as to the foundations of natural law.
Contact Us
Dordrecht Pro Deo Advocaat
Email: klantenservice@dordrechtprodeoadvocaat.com
Phone: +31783690228
Pieter Zeemanweg 47
Dordrecht, Zuid Holland, NL 3316 GM
By the time Voet penned his criticism of De Groot, the vehemence which had characterised the theological debate in the early part of the seventeenth century had abated. Moreover, the lawyers were not interested in this kind of debate, and the churchmen were finding other points of debate in which they could vent the spleen of their odium theologicum. Voet’ criticism of De Groot’s concept of the first principles underlying the law of nature has left little or no traces in subsequent debates or learned discourse among the writers on the Roman-Dutch law.
The youngest delegate to attend the Synod of Dordt was Gisbertus Voetius, at the time preacher at Vlijmen. It is quite true that the use of untainted reason, precise in everything and unacquainted with deceit, perished along with the original uprightness of morals owing to the fall of our first-formed parents (per lapsum protoplastarum). Leverage SEO-optimized Flipbooks, powerful backlinks, and multimedia content to professionally showcase your products and significantly increase your reach. Johannes Voet was appointed as Professor Ordinarius Pandectarum at Utrecht in 1673 where his grandfather had been Professor of Theology since 1634. After the death of his grandfather, he accepted an invitation to Leiden where he remained till his death on 9 September 1713.
These two passages encapsulate in summary form the essence of De Groot’s thinking on the source and nature of law. But law also has a divine base, the free will of God, which it is for man to discover and apply. Reason is accordingly the means by which man gains knowledge of law in nature and of the will of God.
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/dordrecht-pro-deo-advocaat-tickets-1530432858879 was a firm supporter of Arminius, as were other prominent personalities such as Oldenbarneveldt, Episcopius and Uytenbogaert. When Arminius died in 1609, De Groot helped his successor, Simon Episcopius, in drawing up the famous Remonstrantie, a document in which five points of divergence from orthodox Calvinism are set out. The principal divergence that needs to be highlighted within the present context is the advocating of the conditional predestination of Arminius rather than the absolute (and double) predestination of Calvin and Beza. The supporters of Gomarus countered with a “counter-Remonstrant” in which orthodox Calvinism was affirmed. Voet does not enjoy the international acclaim accorded to De Groot, and his general views on the nature of law and the law of nature, as expounded in the first part of the first title of his Commentary, has not received much attention in scholarly discourse.2 Yet he remains a foremost representative of Dutch legal scholarship of the seventeenth century.
