happened at that time, says: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”18 In the same Book of Judges and in the Book of Kings here and there we read that God set up judges or princes for Israel through whom He would liberate His people (Proverbs 8: “By me kings reign”).19
The Anabaptists reply that the Jews were allowed a magistrate because of imperfection, but in the New Testament the reasoning is different.
In fact it is the contrary, as, first of all, the Prophets predicted that all kings of the earth would become servants of Christ and of the Church, which cannot happen unless there are kings in the Church. In Psalm 2: “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,”20 according to the Hebrew expression, “Embrace the Son,” whom in the same Psalm the Scripture calls Messiah; likewise in Psalm 71: “Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.”21 Isaiah 60: “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising,”22 and chapter 49: “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet”;23 which certainly we see fulfilled in Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, and others who worshipped the tombs of the apostles and martyrs and enriched and protected the Church.
Moreover, Christ, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, said among other things: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22),24 and Paul in Romans 13 commands “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”25 In the same epistle he repeats three times that the secular princes to whom tributes are paid are ministers of God, a passage which Irenaeus also uses in book 4, chapter 70.26 Likewise in 1 Timothy 2 the apostle commands expressly to pray for the kings, and Tertullian uses this passage in Apologeticus, chapter 31, because the pagans falsely accused the Christians of not being willing to obey the magistrates. And certainly if the Gospel did not support the magistrate it would be necessary to pray for the destruction of kings and princes, but in Paul’s epistle to Titus, chapter 3, we read: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers,”27 and in 1 Peter 2: “Fear God. Honour the King.”28
But, they reply, from these testimonies it is proved that it is necessary to be obedient to a pagan king, but not that it is lawful for Christians to possess kingdoms and to exercise the duty of magistrate. To which we reply, first, that it is not surprising that in the New Testament not much mention is made of the magistrates, as Christ did not come to build a political kingdom, but a spiritual and heavenly one; and likewise the apostles were occupied in spreading and propagating this spiritual kingdom, and left the political one as it was before.
Moreover, we add that even though the Scripture of the New Testament does not expressly approve the political magistrate in the Church, nevertheless this is gathered from the adduced testimonies, for if 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 a Christian to be subject, why not to rule? Being subject seems more against evangelical freedom than ruling.
Finally, if civil subjection or primacy were incompatible with Christian freedom, ecclesiastical subjection or primacy would be more incompatible, since Christian freedom pertains more to the Christian man as a citizen of the Church than as a citizen of the world, but ecclesiastical subjection or primacy is not incompatible with Christian freedom, as is clear from this passage, Matthew 24: “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household,”29 and from the one in Romans 12: “he that ruleth, with diligence,”30 or that in Hebrews 13: “obey them who have the rule over you.”31 Therefore political primacy or subjection is not incompatible either. And hence the first argument is disproved.
Regarding the first passage of the Scriptures adduced against us in the previous chapter, it must be said that Christ in that passage was speaking only of Himself and most rightly proves that He, being the Son of God, the supreme King, was not obliged to pay tribute to any prince, but in another passage He Himself ordered that tribute be paid to Caesar (Matthew 22) and the apostle in Romans 13 said “tribute to whom tribute is due.”32 Therefore even if Christ properly said about Himself “Then are the children free,”33 nevertheless from this passage it is correctly gathered that clergymen must be free from tributes because the Son of the King is free in such a way that because of Him also his household is free, as we explained before in our De clericis, chapter 25.34
Regarding the second passage, in this Christ instituted the ecclesiastical magistrate and He distinguished him from the political magistrate and from a corrupt political magistrate to whom pomp, pride, and arrogance are usually linked, and if we interpret this kind of political magistracy as being forbidden to Christians, we will not say anything absurd, for in that passage it is not ruling in general, but a particular manner of ruling that is censured.
Regarding the third passage, Paul does not mean to say that you are not permitted to be bound by any law, but that you should pay back all debts promptly, as in fact he previously said, “Render therefore to all their dues”;35 and because the debt of love, alone of all debts, can never be paid off—for we are always bound to love—he says: “Owe no man anything, but to love one another.”36
Regarding the fourth passage, I say that to become the servant of man in that passage means to become so only for the sake of man, as in another passage in the same epistle Paul exhorts the servants to choose servitude even if they could be freed, and in Galatians 5 he says, “Serve one another.”37
Regarding the last passage, I say that there the name of the Lord is taken properly, as it is appropriate to God only; and for this reason kings and princes are not removed, as they are not properly “Lords” but ministers of God, who is the only true Lord, as there is no higher title. In fact the true Lord has two prerogatives that do not apply to any creature. One is, that He can at will use anything of which He is the Lord and increase it, decrease it, change it, destroy it, etc. The other is that He is subject to none, does not need anything, but is sufficient in Himself for all things, as Augustine rightly notes in his commentary on Genesis, book 8, chapter 11, and deduces from Psalm 15: “Thou art my Lord, my goodness extendeth not to thee.”38 In fact, the translator of the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word for “Lord”39 with κύριος and Jerome with “Dominus,” and this is the reason why also Augustus, as Tertullian reports in Apologeticus, chapter 34, never permitted anybody to call him “Dominus,” because he understood that that title was fitting only for God. By contrast, Domitian is reproached by Suetonius for his incredible arrogance, since in the amphitheater he was glad to hear himself saluted with the formula “Domino, et Dominae feliciter”40 and because he ordered that this be added to his writings: “Dominus, et Deus noster, sic fieri iubet.”41
The same is defended from the examples of the Saints
The second reason is drawn from examples; for if sovereignty were evil, holy men would never exercise it. However, in Scripture we have very many examples of holy princes, such as Melchizedek king of Salem, the Patriarch Joseph who ruled over the whole of Egypt most advantageously, Moses, Joshua, almost all the judges, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Daniel, Mordecai, Nehemiah, the Maccabees, and others.
In the New Testament we see in John 4 that a certain ruler believed in Christ, and yet he was not commanded to renounce his sovereignty; similarly in Acts 13 the proconsul, converted by Paul,
