Paolo Astorri

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.

The article begins with an overview of the notion of 'practical theology'. Then it examines the works of three authors (Hyperius, Zepper and Voetius) that used canon law for an academic discipline dedicated to Church government. The question concerns how these authors used canon law. The answer will show that considerable importance was given to the Decretum Gratiani, more than to the other parts of the Corpus iuris canonici. The Decretum must be read carefully, however, because in the Protestants' view it includes contradictions and mistakes. Furthermore, it must be interpreted according to Scripture and the example of the early Christian community.

This article examines the opinions of Catholic and Lutheran authors on the question of whether a judge should decide a case according to his personal knowledge when that knowledge conflicts with the charges and evidence at the trial. The majority of the Catholics contended that the judge had to follow the evidence. They distinguished between the judge as a public functionary and as a private man. The judge could not use in a trial what he knew as a man. There were certain Lutherans whose opinions remained close to this position. However, a significant number argued that the distinction between the judge as a functionary and as a man lacked foundation. Divine law commanded the judge to avoid lies and not to kill an innocent. If the judge knew that someone was innocent and nonetheless condemned him by following the evidence at the trial, he committed a sin.
To avoid giving an unjust sentence, the judge had to use the knowledge he had obtained privately.

Due to its enormous importance, Grotius’s contract doctrine has been extensively investigated by legal historians. This paper seeks to enhance scholarly understanding of this topic by looking at commentaries on De jure belli ac pacis written by German theologians and jurists in the second half of the seventeenth century. The paper focuses on comments concerning promises: the criteria for promises that are binding under natural law; the foundations of the obligation to keep promises; error and duress; and immoral promises. Grotius’s contract doctrine rested on a mélange of sources, both theological and juridical, which were not always consistent. Commentators sought to harmonise them by looking at them from different perspectives: some comments were mainly based on interpretations of ius commune texts, whereas others reflected a moral theological approach. The results drew distinctions (directly or indirectly) between law and moral theology that contributed to the fragmentation of Grotius’s synthesis.

This article investigates the interaction between Lutheran and
scholastic theologians about property and restitution. It
explores the use of scholastic sources by several Lutheran
theologians on selected cases. Philip Melanchthon and Martin
Chemnitz defended the idea that private property is a divine
institution founded on the seventh commandment of the
Decalogue and refuted the monastic ideal of voluntary poverty. In
the seventeenth century, theologians like Friedrich Balduin,
Balthasar Meisner, Conrad Horneius, and Johann Adam Osiander
started to cite scholastic and early-modern scholastic theologians.
They sometimes borrowed concepts and solutions to cases of
conscience, but that did not prevent them from also criticizing
the scholastics on other occasions. The Lutheran attitude toward the
scholastics was, therefore, not uniform. The Lutheran theologians
accepted or refused the scholastic opinions depending on the
particularities of the questions treated.

It is clear that the Lutheran Reformation greatly contributed to changes in theological and legal ideas – but what was the extent of its impact on the field of contract law? Legal historians have extensively studied the contract doctrines developed by Roman Catholic theologians and canonists; however, they have largely neglected Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Johann Aepinus, Martin Chemnitz, Friedrich Balduin and many other reformers. This book focuses on those neglected voices of the Reformation, exploring their role in the history of contract law. These men mapped out general principles to counter commercial fraud and dictated norms to regulate standard economic transactions. The most learned jurists, such as Matthias Coler, Peter Heige, Benedict Carpzov, and Samuel Stryk, among others, studied these theological teachings and implemented them in legal tenets. Theologians and jurists thus cooperated in resolving contract law problems, especially those concerning interest and usury.

The Companion to the Spanish Scholastics offers a much-needed survey of the entire field of early modern Spanish scholastic thought. The volume introduces main themes and contexts of scholastics inquiry (Theology, Philosophy, Ethics, Politics, Economics, Law, Science and the Senses) through close examination of a wide range of texts, debates, methods, and authors, as well as in-depth discussion of the relevant literature. Chapters include a useful bibliography and serve as point of departure for future research. The volume not only draws the sum of existing research, but challenges established notions and breaks new ground.

Contributors are Fernanda Alfieri, Harald Braun, Paolo Broggio, Alejandro Chafuen, Wim Decock, Fernando Domínguez Reboiras, Thomas Duve, Petr Dvořák, Giovanni Gellera, Juan Manuel Gómez Paris, Christophe Grellard, Miroslav Hanke, Ruth Hill, Harro Höpfl, Nils Jansen, Vincenzo Lavenia, Thomas Marschler, Fabio Monsalve, Thomas Pink, Rudolf Schüssler, Daniel Schwartz, Leen Spruit, Toon Van Houdt, María José Vega, and Andreas Wagner.

It is clear that the Lutheran Reformation greatly contributed to changes in theological and legal ideas – but what was the extent of its impact on the field of contract law? Historians have extensively studied the contract doctrines developed by Roman Catholic theologians and canonists; however, they have largely neglected Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Johann Aepinus, Martin Chemnitz, Friedrich Balduin and many other reformers. This book focuses on those neglected voices of the Reformation, exploring their role in the history of contract law. These men mapped out general principles to counter commercial fraud and dictated norms to regulate standard economic transactions. The most learned jurists, such as Matthias Coler, Peter Height, Benedict Carpzov, and Samuel Stryk, among others, studied these theological teachings and implemented them in legal tenets. Theologians and jurists thus cooperated in resolving contract law problems, especially those concerning interest and usury.