Learning from Aquinas, either directly or through their Dominican teachers, notably Caietanus, Vitoria, and Soto, Jesuit theologians, however, recognized that theoretical cogency demanded a more precise account. Authority is necessary and natural, and coercive authority is necessary for fallen human nature. However, it does not follow that any particular political office or regime is natural or necessary. Again, hierarchy certainly entails headship; in the sixteenth century an acephalous association of human beings was inconceivable. Moreover, Jesuits collectively had no doubt that monarchy was the best form of government in any association (it was exemplified in their own), and normally wrote of government as principatus and of rulers as princes. However, they recognized the legitimacy of other, non-monarchical forms of headship. What is more, it is not God that has designated (say) France or England as monarchies, nor has he appointed a particular person or dynasty to occupy their thrones. Jesuit theologians, therefore, regarded the doctrine of the ‘‘divine (hereditary) right of kings’’ as simply erroneous, and for a time, following the lead of the papacy, some Jesuits denied the right of Henri of Navarre (subsequently, as Henri IV, a notable patron of the Society) and James VI of Scotland - whose partisans asserted divine right - to succeed to the French and English thrones, respectively.
World History
