TABLE OF CONTENTS:

CHAPTER 1  SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE QUESTION AT ISSUE
CHAPTER 2   WHETHER JUDICIAL POWER IS GOOD BY NATURE, AND LAWFUL FOR CHRISTIANS
CHAPTER 3   POLITICAL MAGISTRACY IS PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES
CHAPTER 4   THE SAME IS BORNE WITNESS TO BY THE EXAMPLES OF THE SAINTS

Chapter I

SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE QUESTION AT ISSUE

1 We have examined two branches of the Church -- that is, the clergy and monks; it remains for us to discuss the third-- that is, the laity or seculars, and likewise to discuss those branches severed from the Church, that is, heretics. The whole may be reduced to a discussion of political magistracy.

2 This entire discussion falls under six heads. Firstly, we must discuss the nature itself of political power; secondly, its scope in affairs of state; thirdly, its scope in the matter of religion.

3 On the first point two questions arise: First, in regard to the duty of the magistracy to preserve the State from the wickedness of citizens by means of laws and punishments, civil as well as criminal, there is the question whether it is lawful for Christians to make laws, to administer justice, and to put guilty men to death, acts which properly pertain to the magistracy. Secondly, in regard to the duty of the magistracy to protect the State from external enemies, there is the question whether it is lawful for Christians to carry on war; and to this, because of Luther, we should add a corollary, viz., whether it is lawful to make war against the Turks.

4 On the third point two other questions arise. First, whether the care of religion pertains to the magistracy, or whether, indeed, the state can permit each man to believe as he pleases. Secondly, whether the magistracy ought to punish those judged and condemned by the Church as heretics, in their persons and freedom as well as in their writings, even to the extent of inflicting the death penalty.

Chapter II

WHETHER JUDICIAL POWER IS GOOD BY NATURE, AND LAWFUL FOR CHRISTIANS

5 One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. Ministers in Transylvania who denied the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the baptism of infants, proclaimed in 1568 at Alba Julia the differences between the true Christ and the false Christ, the seventh of which states that the false Christ has in his church kings, princes, magistrates, and military force, and that the true Christ can suffer no such things in His Church.

6 The arguments of these heretics are, or certainly can be, set forth as follows: First, those from the Scriptures, "The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom? Of their own children or of strangers? And he said, 'Of strangers.' Jesus said to him: 'Then the children are free.'" And "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; it will not be so among you." "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." "You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men." "One Lord." "One Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God."

7 Secondly, those drawn from examples: For many of the princes abused their power and not only did not benefit, but even harmed, the State, as is evidenced at the very creation of the world, in the case of Cain, and in the case of the sons of the Princes, who, taking to themselves alien wives, were corrupted by all sorts of evil-doing, and afterward the flood came because of them. The same abuse of power is shown in the case of Nimrod, of Pharaoh, of Nabuchodonosor, and of Saul, of Roboam, of Jeroboam, and of others; for after the division of the kingdom not one of the kings of Israel was a just man.

8 Thirdly, from considerations of the end; for magisterial power was permitted in the case of the Jews because of the imperfection of the times, for the Jews were children, and therefore had to be ruled by someone, as is clear from St. Paul, but we are perfect men and by the infusion of sanctifying grace at baptism we are taught all things.

9 Fourthly, from the point of view of efficiency, for this power is not given by God, but tyrannically usurped by men. For who made Nimrod king? Who, Nabuchodonosor? Who, Ninus? Who, Alexander? Who, Julius Caesar? Who, others? Hence that pirate is praised who replied to Alexander, "I, since I go about in a small boat, am called a pirate. You, since you despoil the whole earth with a mighty fleet, are called an emperor."

10 Fifthly, drawn from considerations of its source; for God created men free, and bondage was introduced by sin; therefore, since we are freed from sin by Christ, we should also be freed from bondage. The foregoing is clear, for in Gen. I. it is not written, "You shall rule over men," but: "You shall rule over the fishes of the sea, etc." Moreover, woman is not now subject to man, except by political subjection, nevertheless, this subjection was brought about by sin, as is evident from Gen. III., "Thou shalt be under the power of thy husband." In addition, the first man to found a city and start a political kingdom before the Flood was Cain, as Augustine shows from Gen. IV., the first to do this after the Flood was Nimrod.

11 Lastly, the Fathers clearly teach this: "God, having made man a rational being in His own Image, was unwilling that he should dominate except over irrational beings, not man over man, but man over beasts; hence those who in the beginning were just were placed over flocks rather than made kings of men, so that God might make clear this also, namely, what the natural order of creatures would require on the one hand, and what the deserts of sinners would demand on the other."

12 "All men are born equal by nature, but of a varying degree of merit. Some, by a secret dispensation, God esteems less than others; and this very diversity which is brought about by sin is rightly ordained by the Divine Wisdom, so that, since all men do not journey through life equally, one should be ruled by another," and he makes similar statements in his pastoral letters.

13 Not only all Catholics, and especially Blessed Thomas, and all the Philosophers, abominate this heresy, but even Philip Melanchthon, in divers places in the chapter concerning the secular power, and John Calvin, most bitterly and forcefully oppose it, and even Luther himself in his Visitation of Saxony, although the Anabaptists took advantage of his own words in his Babylonian Captivity.

14 We refute this heresy by means of five arguments, for that is the number of our adversaries' fundamental principles. Firstly, from the Scriptures. Secondly, from the examples of the saints. Thirdly, from purpose or necessity. Fourthly, from considerations of the efficient cause. Fifthly, from considerations of the source of secular power.

Chapter III

POLITICAL MAGISTRACY IS PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES

15 As to the first point, the Sacred Books of the Old Testament are replete with proofs. In Exod. XXII. the judges of the people are called gods by God Himself, as indeed we find in Ps. 81, "God hath stood in the congregation of gods: and being in the midst of them He judgeth gods." The reason for this designation Josaphat explains when he states that the judges exercise the authority of God, not of men; that is, they judge in place of God. And in like manner Moses admonishes the judges of the people to judge justly, since judgment is of God; and Christ says, "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken . . . . whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, etc." Here Christ means, "If God calls the princes gods, since to them the Divine command is given to judge in His place, why not the more so, etc." for it is not correct to say, as some do, that all those to whom God has spoken were called gods; if, therefore, the princes are called gods since they take His place, the authority of princes cannot be questioned unless the authority of God is likewise questioned.

16 Moreover, Moses lays down the laws for the future King, and in the Book of Judges, last chapter, last verse, the Holy Spirit, wishing to assign the cause of all the evils which happened at that time, says: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself." In the same Book of Judges and here and there in the Book of Kings, we find God arousing the judges of Israel, or the princes, through whom He might liberate the people. "Through Me kings rule."

17 The Anabaptists reply that rulers were allowed to the Jews on account of their imperfection, but under the New Testament the dispensation is different.

18 But the contrary is true, for in the beginning the Prophets predicted that all the kings of the earth would serve Christ and the Church, which could not come to pass unless there were kings in the Church. "And now, O ye kings, understand; receive instruction, you that judge the earth; embrace discipline," according to the Hebrew ----------- Naschechubar, embrace ye the Son, whom in the same Psalm the Scriptures call the Messias. Likewise, "All the kings of the earth shall adore Him, all the nations shall serve Him." "The nations shall walk in Thy light and kings in the splendor of Thy rising." And, "Kings shall be Thy nursing fathers and queens Thy nurses: they shall worship Thee with their faces towards the earth and they shall kick up the dust of Thy feet." We have certainly seen this fulfilled in the cases of Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, and others who venerated the tombs of the Apostles and Martyrs, and endowed and protected churches.

19 Moreover, Christ, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, said, among other things: "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's." St. Paul commands that, "Every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God, etc." And in the same place he repeats three times that the secular princes, to whom tribute is paid, are the ministers of God. Indeed, Irenaeus makes use of this very passage. Likewise, the Apostle expressly orders the people to pray for kings. Tertullian makes use of this passage in his Apologetics, because the pagans falsely accused the Christians of being unwilling to obey the magistrates; but, certainly, if the Gospel did not allow secular power, it would be necessary to pray for the destruction of kings and princes. But we read, "Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers," and "Fear God, honor the king."

20 But they answer that from these evidences is proved that we ought to obey the pagan king, but not that it is lawful for Christians to hold sway over kingdoms, and to wield the power of magistracy. To which we answer, first, that it is not surprising that in the New Testament but little mention is made of magistrates, for Christ did not come to establish a temporal kingdom, but a spiritual and heavenly kingdom; and in like manner the Apostles were occupied with proclaiming and spreading the spiritual kingdom, and left the political kingdom as it was before.

21 Besides this we add: Granted that the Sacred Writings of the New Testament do not expressly approve magistracy in the Church, nevertheless it is evidently to be gathered from the proofs offered above; for it is lawful for Christians to be subject to a pagan king, why not rather to a Christian king? And if it is lawful for Christians to be subject, why is it not lawful for them to rule, since to be subject seems to be more opposed to Evangelical liberty than to rule?

22 Finally, if subjection or civil rule is opposed to Christian liberty, Ecclesiastical subjection or rule is more opposed to it, since Christian liberty pertains more to a Christian as a member of the Church than as a member of civil society. But Ecclesiastical rule or subjection is not opposed to Christian liberty, as is evident from the texts, "Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family?" and "he that ruleth, with carefulness," and "Obey your prelates." Therefore, political government or subjection is not opposed to Christian liberty. And this solves the first objection.

23 In answer to the first Scriptural objection, therefore, we ought to say that in the passage adduced Christ spoke only of Himself, and most properly proved that, since He was the Son of God, the supreme King, He was not obliged to pay tribute to any prince; but in another place He ordered that the tribute money be paid to Caesar, and St. Paul says, "Tribute to whom tribute is due." For although Christ, speaking of Himself, very properly said, "Then the children are free," we may rightly deduce from this that ecclesiastics should be free from the necessity of paying tribute, since the son of the king is free in such wise that because of him his household is equally free, as we explained previously in the book on the clergy.

24 In explanation of the second objection: Christ instituted the ecclesiastical magistracy and distinguished it from political magistracy as well as from the corrupt political magistracy, with which pomp, pride, and haughtiness are usually allied. If, indeed, we are to understand that this latter is forbidden to Christians, we speak wisely, for there the kingdom as an institution is not censured, but the manner of ruling.

25 In explanation of the third objection: St. Paul does not mean that you are not permitted to be bound by any law, but that you should quickly pay all debts; for he had previously said, "Render to all men their dues. Tribute to whom tribute is due, etc." And since the debt of love can never be thus paid, but we are always bound to love, he says, therefore, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another."

26 In explanation of the fourth objection, I say that to become the slave of man, in that place signifies to serve man merely for the sake of man; for besides, in another place in the same Epistle, St. Paul exhorts the slaves, even if they could become free, rather to choose servitude, and he says, "Serve one another."

27 In explanation of the last objection, I say that there the word "Lord" is to be taken in the proper sense, in which it applies to God only, and for this reason kings and princes are not forbidden, since they are not rightfully lords, but servants of God, Who alone is true Lord, for there is no higher title; for the true Lord has two attributes which are proper to no creature. One is, that He can use as He pleases that creature whose Lord He is, and He can increase, diminish, change, annihilate it, etc. The other attribute is that He is subservient to no one, that is, that He stands in need of nothing, but suffices to Himself for all things, as Augustine correctly states, and quotes, "I said to the Lord, Thou art my God, for Thou hast no need of my goods." For in the Hebrew it is, "I said to the Lord, my Lord, ..........." And hence this is the meaning which translators of the Septuagint give everywhere; the name proper to God ..........., they translate by ******, and St. Jerome by Lord. Hence even Augustus, as Tertullian mentions, never allowed himself to be called lord, because he knew that this title is fitting for God alone, and, on the other hand, Domitian is criticized by Suetonius for his unbelievable arrogance, because he willingly listened in the Amphitheatre to the salutation: "Good fortune to our lord and lady," and because he ordered to be written of himself, "Thus hath our Lord and God ordered it to be done."

Chapter IV

THE SAME IS BORNE WITNESS TO BY THE EXAMPLES OF THE SAINTS

28 The second argument is derived from examples; for if authority were evil, never would good men have exercised it; but we have in the Scriptures many examples of holy princes, as Melchisedech, the King of Salem, the Patriarch Joseph, who ruled most beneficently over all Egypt, Moses, Josue, almost all the Judges, David, Solomon, Ezechias, Josaphat, Josias, Daniel, Mardochai, Nehemias, the Maccabees, and others.

29 In the New Testament we see that a ruler believed in Christ, nevertheless he was not ordered to renounce his authority; and in like manner, the pro-consul converted by St. Paul did not therefore lay aside his jurisdiction. Next, we see that Philip was acknowledged Emperor by St. Fabian, Pope and Martyr, and by the whole Church, nor was he commanded to lay aside his authority, as may be learned in the history of Eusebius.

30 Moreover, the reason why a greater abundance of examples is not found in the New Testament is because God willed His Church to begin from poor and humble men, in order that the growth of the Church might not be considered the work of man, as might have happened had it grown by the favor of princes. Nay, on the contrary, God willed that for the first three hundred years the Church should be attacked by the Emperors of the whole world with all their powers, that by this very thing He might show that the Church was His work, and could accomplish more by suffering than they (the Emperors) could accomplish by inflicting torture.

31 Hence St. Augustine says that God willed that in the first age of the Church should be fulfilled that passage, "The kings of the earth stood up, etc." Then He willed that in the following age should be fulfilled that passage, "And now, ye kings, understand," as we see truly fulfilled in Constantine and his successors; inasmuch as we see Constantine Divinely instructed and called by God by a wonderful miracle, as Eusebius relates. But if rulership were evil, why did Christ Himself call Constantine into the Church? Note in passing a discrepancy in this story. For in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, translated by Ruffinus, it is related that Constantine, while sleeping, saw the sign of the Cross in the sky, and then angels said to him, "Conquer in this sign." But Eusebius relates that while on a journey Constantine, with his bodily eyes, saw above the sun the sign of the Cross with this inscription, "Conquer in this sign," and the same sign was seen by his whole army. The following night Christ appeared to him and explained the mystery. And he (Eusebius) heard all these things directly from Constantine himself. And it is most likely that what is related in the History was added by Ruffinus.

32 Many other examples could be added of Justinian, Gratian, Theodosius, father and son, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Otho I., St. Henry the Emperor, St. Louis, King of France, and many others who, whether in Britain, or in Hungary, or in Bohemia, or in other places, reigned most holily.

33 In answer to the contrary argument, I say: Firstly, it is false to state that most rulers are evil, for here we are not speaking of royalty in particular, but of political power in general; such a prince was Abraham, and others; if, therefore, there were wicked rulers, Cain, Nimrod, Ninus, Pharaoh, Saul, Jeroboam, and other Kings of Israel, so, on the other hand, there were good rulers, Adam, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Josue, almost all the Judges, and many kings of Juda.

34 Secondly, I say that the examples of evil rulers do not prove that authority is evil, for evil men frequently abuse good things, but the examples of good rulers rightly prove that authority is good, since good men do not make use of evil things. Besides, even evil rulers often do more good than harm, as is evident in the cases of Saul, of Solomon, and of others. Finally, it is better for a State to have an evil ruler than none at all, for where there is no ruler the State cannot long endure, as Solomon says, "Where there is no governor, the people shall fall," and where there is a ruler, though he be evil, the unity of the nation is preserved.

35 Thirdly, I say that the fact that not one of the Kings of Israel was good pertains to the wonderful Providence of God, for God willed to permit this, since that revolt of the Israelites against the tribe of Juda signifies the breaking away of heretics from the Church, as Eucherius teaches. For just as among Catholics there are good and bad, but among heretics no one can be good, so also among the Kings of Juda there were many good, also many bad. But among the Kings of Israel not a single good man was found.