of his belief. Then we see that Emperor Philip was accepted by St. Fabian, Pope and Martyr, and by the whole Church, and he was not commanded to abandon his rule as is deduced from Eusebius’s Historia, book 6, chapter 25 [34].
The reason why there is not a greater abundance of examples in the New Testament is that God wanted to begin his Church with poor and humble men, as is said in 1 Corinthians 1, so that the growth of the Church would not be reputed the work of man, which would have happened if it had grown through the favor of princes. Indeed, to the contrary, in the first three hundred years God wanted the Church to be oppressed with all force by rulers all over the whole world, in order thus to demonstrate that the Church was His work and that it was more powerful in suffering than they were in oppressing it.
Hence in epistle 50 [185] Augustine says that God wanted at the beginning to fulfill that part of Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth set themselves, etc.,” and then later that other “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth,”42 as indeed we see this fulfilled in Constantine and his successors, since we see Constantine divinely instructed and called by God with a special miracle, as Eusebius reports in book 1 of De vita Constantini. But if sovereignty were evil, why would Christ himself call Constantine to the Church? And, by the way, notice here a discrepancy in this story: in the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius translated by Rufinus, book 9, chapter 9, it is written that Constantine in his sleep saw the sign of the cross in the sky and then the angels said to him, “In this sign conquer”; but in De vita Constantini, book 1, Eusebius reports that during a journey Constantine saw, with his own eyes, the sign of the cross above the sun with the letters “In this sign conquer,” and that sign was seen by the whole army. Later at night Christ appeared to Constantine and explained the mystery, and Eusebius heard all this from Constantine himself in person. Therefore it is likely that what we have in the Historia was added by Rufinus.43
Many more examples can be added, those of Jovian, Gratian, Theodosius I and Theodosius II, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Otto I, St. Henry the emperor, St. Louis king of France, and many others who either in Britain or in Hungary or in Bohemia or in other regions ruled in a most holy manner. To the opposing argument I say, first, that it is false that princes are for the most part evil; for we do not here discuss a particular kingdom but political sovereignty in general, and such a prince was Abraham along with others. Therefore, just as there were evil princes, such as Cain, Nimrod, Ninus, Pharaoh, Saul, Jeroboam, and other kings of Israel, so there were, by contrast, good princes, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, almost all the judges, and many kings of Judah.
Second, I say that the examples of evil princes do not prove that political authority is evil, for oftentimes evil men abuse good things, but the examples of good princes rightly prove that political authority is good, since good men do not use evil things. Moreover, even evil princes often benefit more than they hurt, as is clear concerning Saul, Solomon, and others. Finally, it is more useful to the commonwealth to have an evil prince than none, for where there is none the commonwealth cannot last long, as Solomon says in Proverbs 11: “Where no counsel is, the people fall,”44 and where there is a prince, even an evil one, the unity of the people is preserved. See blessed Thomas in Opusculum 20, chapter 6, book 1.
Third, I say that it is due to the wonderful providence of God that among the kings of Israel none was good, for God wanted to allow this because the rebellion of the Israelites from the tribe of Judah signified the separation of the heretics from the Church, as Eucherius teaches at the end of the third book of his commentary on the Book of Kings.45 Just as there are both good and bad kings among Catholics, but no good king can be found among heretics, so even among the kings of Judah there were many good ones and many evil ones, but among the kings of Israel not one good one was to be found.
The same is defended from the final cause of political authority
The third reason is drawn from the final cause. The political authority is so natural and necessary to humankind that it cannot be removed without destroying nature itself. In fact, by nature man is a social animal [animal sociabile]; whereas the brutes certainly are instructed by nature to be individually self-sufficient, man needs so many things that he absolutely cannot live by himself. In fact brutes are born clothed and armed, and they have an instinct for everything that is good for them, so that naturally and without anybody teaching them, they immediately know how to build nests, search for food, and provide themselves with medicines; but man is born without clothes, without a home, without food, lacking everything, and even though he has hands and reason with which he can produce all tools, nevertheless each thing requires such a long time that it is impossible that one man can be self-sufficient in everything, especially since we are born unskilled and the skills are learned more by instruction than by experience; therefore it is necessary for us to live together and help one another.
Moreover, even if man were self-sufficient insofar as living is concerned, he would still never be self-sufficient in protecting himself from the attack of beasts and thieves: for protection it is necessary to come together and to oppose the attack with joint forces. And even supposing man were self-sufficient against enemies, he would still remain unskilled and ignorant of knowledge, justice, and many other virtues, despite that we are in fact born expressly to exercise our mind and will. In fact, knowledge and skills were developed over a long time and by many, and they cannot be learned without a teacher; and justice cannot be exercised except in a society, since it is the virtue that establishes what is fair among many.
Finally, to what purpose would man be given the gift of speaking and listening, that is, of distinct understanding of words, if he must live by himself? Therefore in Politics, book 1, chapter 2, Aristotle rightly says that man is by nature a civil animal [animal civile], more than the bees and the cranes and any other animal, and whoever lives in solitude is either a beast or a god, that is, either less or more than a man. And our hermits are not an exception to this, for those who lived in complete solitude, such as Paul the first hermit, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Egypt, and others, can be said to have been something more than man, not by nature but by grace, as they were fed—not without miracle—by God, as is well known. Others, however, even if they lived in solitude, nevertheless got together frequently, and they were subject to their abbots, as we demonstrated in our disputation De monachis.
Now then, if human nature requires a social life, certainly it also requires a government and a ruler, as it is impossible that a multitude can last long unless there is somebody to hold it together and be in charge of the common good. As with each of us, if there were no soul holding together and unifying the parts and forces and conflicting elements out of which we are made, everything would immediately disintegrate. Hence Proverbs 11: “Where no counsel is, the people fall.”46 Thus, a society is an ordered multitude, and a confused and dispersed multitude is not called a society. What is order but a line of inferiors and superiors? Therefore we must necessarily have rulers, if a society is to be.
Because of this necessity of human nature, the third argument of the Anabaptists is disproved, as they assume what is false when they say that a political government was permitted to the Jews because of their imperfection, while it is not appropriate for us because “our anointing teacheth us of all things.” For this anointing teaches first of all that it is necessary to have a ruler, and it is not necessary to know everything, for it is also necessary to do and produce many things which we cannot do without the help of others.
And moreover, from my discussion it is inferred that it is false when Cicero, in the first book of De inventione, writes that there was a time when men wandered like beasts and then were convinced by the force of a wise man’s eloquence to assemble and live together. Indeed, those who want to praise eloquence use this argument even now. But in reality there was never such a time, nor could there be, for Adam
