The doctrine of natural law 73 transformation of the philosophical and scientific world picture at Swedish universities. The main promulgator of the new scientific outlook was Cartesianism, i.e. the philosophy of Descartes, which was strongly opposed at Uppsala by the adherents of Lutheran Scholasticism based on Aristotle and divine revelation. But the counterpart of Cartesianism in the field of moral philosophy was the doctrine of natural law. These two theories have much in common. They are both rationalistic in the sense that they reject divine revelation as a source of knowledge in philosophy; they both stress the role of law in scientific explanation, they both represent the mathematical style of science, and in both you find an idea of the world as a mechanistic system, the parts of which are held in balance by the laws of nature. Thus Cartesianism and the theory of natural law were on the same side in the intellectual conflicts of the time. It would be wrong to say that this alliance is clearly visible in the dissertations; the authors prefer to stress the continuity between the moral philosophy of antiquity, especially that of Cicero, and the ius naturae. Natural law was far less controversial than Cartesianism. Nevertheless, there existed a connection between them, and it is important to keep in mind this intellectual role of natural law as a background to its function in other fields. Second, there is the role of the doctrine in jurisprudence. The reason for introducing the study of Grotius in the program of the faculty of law in the 1650s was twofold. First, the law of nations as described in De jure belli ac pads was of great interest to Sweden, the young great power, who was deeply involved in international affairs; her diplomats, generals and statesmen had to keep up to date with modern theories in this field. Second, the law of nature was expected to serve as a subsidiary source of justice in the courts in those cases where the antiquated Swedish laws of the Middle Ages were insufficient. Thus, for the jurists, the doctrine of natural law served rather specified, technical purposes. The third and most important function of the doctrine of natural law is more general and theoretical, or rather ideological. It describes and legitimates the modern, centralised, bureaucratic state. The emergence of this new kind of state is a central motive in 17th century history as well as in the writings of the political theorists of that time. Monarchy gathered all power in its hands, putting an end to the remains of feudal independence and particularism. The leading nobility lost its relative sovereignty in relation to the crown and were turned into obedient servants in the bureaucracies which were built up to serve the rapidly increasing fiscal and military needs of the new state. Also, the state finished off with the remnants of ecclesiastical independence. The state, it was argued, was a temporal institution with this-worldly aims. In this sense it was secularised, although
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=