Publicus–Privatus The Divine Foundations of Authority in Dietrich Reinking

IF 0.1 Q3 HISTORY Journal of Early Modern Christianity Pub Date : 2022-03-24 DOI:10.1515/jemc-2022-2020
P. Astorri, L. Nørgaard
{"title":"Publicus–Privatus The Divine Foundations of Authority in Dietrich Reinking","authors":"P. Astorri, L. Nørgaard","doi":"10.1515/jemc-2022-2020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the relationship between the magistrate and his subjects as developed in the Tractatus de regimine seculari et ecclesiastico (1619) by the German jurist Dietrich Reinking (1590–1664). The Tractatus represents the magistrate-subject relationship by reference to the adjectives publicus and privatus. We argue that these adjectives carry particular weight within the context of Reinking’s political theory that bases itself upon the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms. Publicus is associated with a figure of authority that has been divinely ordained and governs the world, while privatus refers to the inferior subjects, who must obey the political authorities, even when these authorities act unjustly. This obedience has limits, however. If the magistratus issues a precept that contradicts divine and natural law, private subjects are entitled to disobey. Indeed, subjects, who participate in public administration, may actively resist, if the magistrate violates the fundamental laws of the empire. Such violations amounts to committing a sin against the divine authority that has ordained the officium of the magistrate, and which defines him as something more than a private man. Thus, the adjectives publicus and privatus belong to the worldly kingdom, where personae privatae are governed by personae publicae: this governance is parcelled into different officia that govern the res publica and are constrained by divine and natural law. In the spiritual kingdom, this distinction between private and public collapses, and individuals are placed on the same level vis-à-vis Christ, who is the sole persona publica.","PeriodicalId":29688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Modern Christianity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Modern Christianity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jemc-2022-2020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the relationship between the magistrate and his subjects as developed in the Tractatus de regimine seculari et ecclesiastico (1619) by the German jurist Dietrich Reinking (1590–1664). The Tractatus represents the magistrate-subject relationship by reference to the adjectives publicus and privatus. We argue that these adjectives carry particular weight within the context of Reinking’s political theory that bases itself upon the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms. Publicus is associated with a figure of authority that has been divinely ordained and governs the world, while privatus refers to the inferior subjects, who must obey the political authorities, even when these authorities act unjustly. This obedience has limits, however. If the magistratus issues a precept that contradicts divine and natural law, private subjects are entitled to disobey. Indeed, subjects, who participate in public administration, may actively resist, if the magistrate violates the fundamental laws of the empire. Such violations amounts to committing a sin against the divine authority that has ordained the officium of the magistrate, and which defines him as something more than a private man. Thus, the adjectives publicus and privatus belong to the worldly kingdom, where personae privatae are governed by personae publicae: this governance is parcelled into different officia that govern the res publica and are constrained by divine and natural law. In the spiritual kingdom, this distinction between private and public collapses, and individuals are placed on the same level vis-à-vis Christ, who is the sole persona publica.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
迪特里希·赖因金权威的神圣基础
摘要本文考察了德国法学家Reinking(1590-1664)在1619年的《世俗政体论》(Tractatus de regiine seculari et ecclesiastico)中所阐述的执政官与臣民之间的关系。《论》通过形容词publicus和privatus来表现执政官与臣民的关系。我们认为,这些形容词在赖因金的政治理论的背景下具有特别的分量,而赖因金的政治理论是以路德教的两个王国学说为基础的。Publicus与神圣任命的权威人物联系在一起,统治着世界,而privatus指的是低等的臣民,他们必须服从政治权威,即使这些权威的行为不公正。然而,这种服从是有限度的。如果执政官发布了一条与神法和自然法相矛盾的戒律,私人主体有权不服从。事实上,参与公共管理的臣民,如果执政官违反了帝国的基本法律,他们可能会积极反抗。这样的违犯就等于犯了违背神的权威的罪,神的权威规定了执政官的官职,并规定执政官不只是一个普通人。因此,形容词publicus和privatus属于世俗的王国,在那里,personae privatae由personae publicae管理:这种管理被分解成不同的官职,这些官职管理公共,并受神法和自然法的约束。在属灵的国度里,私人和公共之间的区别消失了,个人被置于与-à-vis基督相同的水平,他是唯一的公共人物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Post-Tridentine Controversies at the Louvain Faculty of Theology: The Correspondence between Judocus Tiletanus and Michael Baius (1568) Critical Independence versus Christian Catholicity in Hugo Grotius’s Annotations on Matthew 23:2–3 True Worship in the Spirit: Martin Chemnitz and the Minor Role of the Body in Worship The Duke of Olyka and the Saint: The Meeting between Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł and Pope Pius V (1566) Hope from the Ashes: Juan Pérez de Pineda’s Mystical Body beyond Neoplatonic Consolation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1