of sins demanded; for in this passage he refers to the abuse of the title of king, which is sometimes understood as a despotic government. Indeed, as Augustine himself says in De civitate Dei, book 5, chapter 12, a king is called such because of his rule and counsel, not because of his command and dominion; and in this sense Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could have been called kings. Nevertheless, since human greed thinks that a king is called such because of his command and dominion, our Lord says in Luke 22: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them”;66 hence the first just men were called shepherds of flocks rather than kings of men.
To the fifth I say, Gregory does not talk simply about political government, but of that which is accompanied by dread, sadness, fear, etc., things which are brought about by sin, and when he says that all men are equal by nature, and become unequal through sin, and therefore one has to be ruled by another, he does not mean that men are equal in wisdom and grace, but equal in the essence of humankind. From this equality it is rightly inferred that one must not dominate the other, in the way in which man dominates beasts, but only that one has to be ruled by another politically. Hence in the same passage he adds: “In fact it is against nature to be haughty or to want to be feared by another,” since indeed sinners, through their sin, become similar to beasts and degenerate from the integrity of the nature in which they were created. Therefore, in the same passage Gregory says, rightly, that after sin one started to dominate the other with threats and punishment, which would not have happened in the state of innocence.
Political authority or sovereignty can reside in wicked men
We can easily prove our second proposition, that political authority can reside in wicked men. But first we take up the error of Richard Fitzralph, who in book 10 of Quaestiones Armenicae [Summa in quaestionibus Armenorum], chapter 4, teaches that the chief title of sovereignty is the grace of God, or justice and charity, and all the other titles are founded on this, and those who lack the justice and grace of God have no true sovereignty. In our time John Wyclif taught the same error,67 which Thomas Netter most effectively refutes in book 2 of his Doctrinalis, chapters 81ff. until the end of the book, and afterward Jan Hus defended the same error, as is clear from the Council of Constance, session 15.68
Their arguments were three. First, from Scripture, from the Book of Hosea, 8: “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.”69 Here our Lord condemns the sovereignty of wicked kings, and says that He did not give it to them because they made idols for themselves. The second argument is from this passage of Ecclesiasticus 10: “The kingdom is transferred from people to people because of injustice.”70 The third argument is that there is no sovereignty but from God, and God does not in any way grant sovereignty to wicked men, because they are His enemies, and also because He would seem to approve of their abuse, for all wicked men abuse their authority.
This error is easily refuted. First, from Scriptures, Book of Wisdom [6] 4: “Sovereignty has been given to you by the Lord, and being ministers of his kingdom you have not judged rightly, etc.”;71 Isaiah 45: “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, etc.”;72 Jeremiah 27: “And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, etc.”;73 and Daniel 2: “Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, etc.”74 And in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, the apostles Peter and Paul teach that the authority of kings comes from God and we must obey them, even though at that time there were no kings but infidels.
Second, from the Council of Constance, sessions 8 and 15, where the Church condemned this error.75
Third, from Augustine, who in De civitate Dei, book 5, chapter 21, says: “Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom or the power to rule to anybody but the true God, who gives beatitude in the kingdom of heaven only to the pious, but the earthly kingdom to both pious and impious, as He, Who does not wish anything unjustly, wishes.” And later he says: “He Who gave power to Marius gave it to Caesar; He Who gave power to Augustus gave it to Nero; He Who gave power to the Vespasii, both the father and the son, most benevolent emperors, gave it to the most cruel Domitian; and—although it is not necessary to go over all one by one—He Who gave power to the Christian Constantine gave it to Julian the Apostate.”
Fourth, from reason, for the foundation of sovereignty is not grace, but nature. Since man is made in the image of God, he is provided with mind and reason, and thus he dominates inferior things, as can be deduced from the first chapter of Genesis. But human nature resides also in infidels, even though they lack grace, and therefore they can also truly hold sovereignty. Regarding this issue, since grace and justice are entirely secret and nobody knows about himself or another whether he is truly just, if grace were the title to sovereignty, it would follow that no sovereignty would be certain. From this an incredible confusion and commotion would arise among men. Moreover, their arguments do not lead to anything.
To the first argument I say, with those words God did not chastise the evil kings, but chastised the fact that the Jews wanted to have a king, even though God was their king. Indeed, as blessed Jerome explains, in this chapter 8 Hosea explains the reasons why the people of Israel were to be brought to captivity, and he says that one of those reasons was that they wanted to have a king; another reason was that they made idols for themselves. That they gravely sinned in wanting to have a king is clear from 1 Kings, chapter 12, where after Saul was elected king, Samuel speaks as follows to the people: “Now therefore stand and see this great thing, which the Lord will do before your eyes. Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking you a king.”76
To the second I say, kingdoms are transferred from one people to another because of injustice, since God, because of the sins of the kings, often grants victory to their enemies, but they do not lose the right to govern because of the fact that they sin.
To the third I say, it is fitting God’s benignity that it benefits also His enemies, as we read in the Gospel of Matthew 5: “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”77 This does not mean He approves of the abuse, as He does not give the kingdoms to wicked men so that they might abuse them, but so that they, incited by His benevolence, might turn away from their sin, as blessed Jerome explained in that passage of Isaiah 45: “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut”;78 or he does so in order to reward some good works done by them, as blessed Augustine teaches in De civitate Dei, book 5, chapter 15; or finally he does so because sometimes the sins of the peoples might deserve it, as the same Augustine teaches in book 5 of De civitate Dei, chapter 19, from the passage in Job 34,79 which says that God makes a hypocrite reign because of the sins of the people. Augustine in De civitate Dei, book 19, chapter 21, also says that among infidels there cannot be justice, laws, true people, or commonwealth, etc., but he calls true justice and true laws those which lead to the eternal life. See also In [Contra] Julianum, book 5, chapter 3.
The question of the authority of the magistrate is proposed
The third question follows: whether it is lawful for a Christian magistrate to establish law, administer justice, and punish the wicked. But there are two errors to refute. The first is that of the Waldensians and Anabaptists, who deny all this. Their arguments are that the obligation of the laws removes Christian freedom and that lawsuits are forbidden, in Matthew 5: “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,”80 and in 1 Corinthians 6: “Now therefore there