Dante. An essay. To which is added a translation of De Monarchia.Dante Alighieri
Philosophy
Dante. An essay. To which is added a translation of De Monarchia.
Dante Alighieri
Church and state -- Early works to 1800; Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321; Italy -- Politics and government -- 476-1268
V.--They draw another argument from the text of Moses, saying that the
types of these two powers sprang from the loins of Jacob, for that
they are prefigured in Levi and Judah, whereof one was founder of the
spiritual power, and the other of the temporal. From this they argue:
the Church has the same relation to the Empire that Levi had to Judah.
Levi preceded Judah in his birth, therefore the Church precedes the
Empire in authority.
This error is easily overthrown. For when they say that Levi and
Judah, the sons of Jacob, are the types of spiritual and temporal
power, I could show this argument, too, to be wholly false; but I will
grant it to be true. Then they infer, as Levi came first in birth, so
does the Church come first in authority. But, as in the previous
argument, the predicates of the conclusion and of the major premiss
are different: authority and birth are different things, both in their
subject and in their idea; and therefore there is an error in the form
of the argument. The argument is as follows: A precedes B in C; D and
E stand in the same relation as A and B; therefore D precedes E in F.
But then F and C are different things. And if it is objected that F
follows from C, that is, authority from priority of birth, and that
the effect is properly substituted for the cause, as if "animal" were
used in an argument for men, the objection is bad. For there are many
men, who were born before others, who not only do not precede those
others in authority, but even come after them: as is plain where we
find a bishop younger than his archpresbyters. Therefore their
objection appears to err in that it assumes as a cause that which is
none.
VI.--Again, from the first book of Kings they take the election and
the deposition of Saul; and they say that Saul, an enthroned king, was
deposed by Samuel, who, by God's command, acted in the stead of God,
as appears from the text of Scripture. From this they argue that, as
that Vicar of God had authority to give temporal power, and to take it
away and bestow it on another, so now the Vicar of God, the bishop of
the universal Church, has authority to give the sceptre of temporal
power, and to take it away, and even to give it to another. And if
this were so, it would follow without doubt that the authority of the
Empire is dependent on the Church, as they say.
But we may answer and destroy this argument, by which they say that
Samuel was the Vicar of God: for it was not as Vicar of God that he
acted, but as a special delegate for this purpose, or as a messenger
bearing the express command of his Lord. For it is clear that what God
commanded him, that only he did, and that only he said.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account