Consilio Bruti utmdum esse aduersus eos qui
The Vanity of Ecclesiastical Ambition
The author condemns the worldly struggle for power among clergy, contrasting their pride with the humility of Christ.
... They don't just compete for the highest office; they fight over it like schismatics, and as for tyrants, they never leave anything in peace. But let's assume it's permissible for worldly people to fight over primacy; I believe it is entirely illicit for men of the Church. Yet, following the example of the worldly, wickedness creeps in under the guise of religious life, and now they don't just compete for the priesthood—they fight for it. In the past, the ancients were dragged unwillingly to martyrdom, and they fled from high office more than they fled from prison or the cross. Now, however, priests speak openly and don't even bother with a proverb. They say, 'We don't want to be martyrs, but we won't give the glory of our seats to anyone else.' It is a truly miserable and wretched thing to hear from the mouth of a priest who acknowledges Christ, yet openly confesses that he does not want to follow Him. Can we really doubt whether a true confessor is dying if he doesn't wait for his persecutor, should the need arise? For Cyprian the bishop says: If a bishop is afraid, it's all over for him. It's permissible to feel fear, but it's wrong not to stand your ground when necessity demands it. A useless fugitive is a disgraced man. Yet there is one point where they seem to imitate the constancy of the martyrs: namely, if they have to fight for a cathedral. It is reported—and it is true—that the Roman pontificate has sometimes, even often, been contested by ambitious men, and that a pontiff has entered the holy of holies not without the blood of his brothers. Wars more than civil have been stirred up again, and the priestly struggle absolves Caesar and Pompey, and whatever was presumed at Philippi, Leucas, Mutina, in Egypt, or Spain, and whatever was done impiously. Do Christians cause the shedding of blood so that they might be allowed, above others, to lay down their lives for the flock, which is the shepherd's duty? Do they tear down the Church and profane holy things so that there might be something that needs to be built up and sanctified? They shake the people, stir up kingdoms, and plunder the resources of the churches, perhaps to create for themselves the means of gaining merit, to set everything in order, and to snatch away the necessity of showing mercy to the poor and providing for others who are in need. If they do this to gain more freedom without consequence, to hoard money, to indulge and corrupt their own flesh and blood, to ennoble their family, or to seek their own glory while lording it over the clergy—without truly becoming shepherds of the flock from the heart, even if they put on the appearance of a shepherd with their lips and a pretense of duty—they are closer to being tyrants than princes. Philosophers say—and I believe it's true—that nothing in human affairs is more useful than a human being, and among humans, no one is more useful than an ecclesiastical or worldly prince; conversely, nothing is more destructive to a human than another human, and among them, a secular or ecclesiastical tyrant is the most destructive. But surely, in both categories, the ecclesiastical tyrant surpasses the secular one. Is it for such a harvest of new crimes that they seek to know who should rule the world? It was hardly worth starting civil wars just so that neither might win. Christ taught the most direct way to greatness; He didn't want His disciples to conform to the kings of the Gentiles, who lord it over their subjects and are called benefactors for the power they wield. Instead, He taught that whoever is the greatest should willingly make himself the least, and that, with force and contention removed, he should claim for himself only the office of serving others by right and in peace. But these men have chosen a different path, rising up in opposition to their brothers, and having rejected the humility of service, they seek to lord it over others more than the kings of the Gentiles do. There's no doubt that as their charity grows cold—or rather, is extinguished—they too set their own throne in the north, for they hate the equals they have produced.
The Wisdom of Avoiding Civil Strife
Drawing on the example of Brutus and Cato, the author argues that true Christians should refuse to participate in the madness of civil and ecclesiastical wars.
If only those who saw those times had followed the advice of Brutus, from which Cato’s authority turned him away when the civil war was imminent. For he had decided to keep his hands from civil wars, in which the more willingly and vigorously anyone gets involved, the more wicked and savage he becomes. Therefore he says: Now you have neither the Brutus of Pompey nor the enemy of Caesar after the victor’s war. If, then, those for whose dominion the schismatics are fighting had any sense, they would let them fight it out alone and would be afraid to offer help to either side, uncertain of who might win, but certain of how great and grave a ruin hangs over the defeated. — No hand in war is clean once the judge has changed. For the winning cause pleased God, but the losing one pleased Cato. The world may well rejoice when one side alone has won, but it should rejoice with even greater joy if both or neither has won. Let them meet, if they like, on the island of Lycaonia or somewhere else, if there’s any place better suited for wars or duels; for the ancients, as Quintilian testifies, called what we now call duels 'wars,' and let one or the other of the duelists, whom God has clearly approved or permitted to be the victor, win without danger to the world or the city. If it pleases the victor, let the defeated also be drowned in the Tiber, or if it seems better to deal with him more mildly, let him be thrust back into the Cava; and when the abbot of that place opens the cloister—or rather, the prison—to him, let him protest that he didn't prepare it for the one being condemned, but for the defeated, since no loyalty has ever chosen miserable friends. But whoever wins—that is, whoever proves more violent—should be deported as a perpetual exile to Lipari or some other island to cut marble, or be condemned to the mines. For the crime of schism makes equals of those it stains, unless it is that the one who is stronger, or rather more ferocious, is also the more wicked. What is more ruinous or more hateful than civil war? Nothing at all, except for the madness of schismatics or the heretical plague. I wouldn't easily say which of these is more ruinous, if there is any way to distinguish one from the other. Civil wars will clearly cease if the presumption of recklessness lacks an accomplice. No one can push their fellow citizens toward fury unless they are already, to some extent, delighted by the madness itself. In any case, the necessity of going to war is either non-existent or, at best, purely imaginary. This situation is also exposed to many great dangers, the outcome of which no one can sufficiently avoid unless they take precautions against the opportunity for it. The most serious poet hints at this—or, if you prefer to speak more accurately according to Quintilian, the orator—and I don't disagree, provided it's understood that we must guard against even those dangers that might arise, and that no single person can force the whole community to obey wickedness against its will. For he says: 'This soldier, though unstained by any blood, fears what he might have done.' Why beat your breast? Why do you groan like a madman? Why do you shed useless tears? Don't you admit that you're serving wickedness of your own free will? Why are you so afraid of the very thing you've made fearful? Let the trumpets sound for war, but ignore those grim songs; let the standards be carried, but stop now, for the civil Fury will soon fall, and Caesar, once a private citizen, will love his son-in-law. Yes, if the Church of God is raised into the freedom of the Spirit, and if it refuses to serve the ministry of wickedness, then either schisms will be entirely quieted or, while the structure of unity remains, the schismatics will fight only among themselves. In the meantime, let the Church keep its hands to itself, since the sword of Peter—which once thirsted for blood with a carnal passion—is, by the Lord's command, currently kept in its sheath, and the disciples, who were eager to pull up the weeds, are instructed to wait for the angels, the reapers. Let the integrity of unity pray that the cornerstone on which the Church is founded—the one the schismatics reject, who made both one, and who preferred that his garment remain whole in the lot of the faithful rather than be torn—may gather the dissenters into itself. Let it pray, I say, so that faith may not fail, and so that Satan, who seeks to sift us in his sieve, may not scatter or trample the wheat. Let it pray for peace, seek peace, and pursue it even when it flees.
The Burden of the Apostolic Office
The author reflects on the heavy, often destructive nature of the papal office and the folly of those who seek it through schism.
Let him remember the One who, though He could have summoned more than twelve legions of angels, was lifted up on the cross and won everything; for that very self-emptying so earned its exaltation that at His name every knee should bow. They accept guilty schismatics, but by consenting to them, they make the innocent guilty and fuel priestly wars. Let those who stand at a distance with Peter stay quiet, so they may see the end. Let them recall that pagan saying: If fury had given weapons to the dwellers of heaven, or if the earth-born giants had tried to storm the stars, human piety would still not dare to help Jupiter with either weapons or prayers. This, indeed, seems to be the rule to follow in cases where it’s wrong to even know who is more justly taking up arms. For if a heretic or schismatic attacks a Catholic, it’s a pious act to stand by the truth and to serve the Roman pontiff with the deepest devotion. This is true once it has become clear; for a schismatic often lies, claiming to be a Catholic. For who would presume to judge the supreme pontiff, whose case is reserved for the judgment of God alone? Anyone who attempts this will certainly labor, but will accomplish nothing at all. The name of the pontiff should not be held to a hair's breadth; rather, let him be considered the pontiff whose election has proceeded canonically. To stop the shipwreck, Jonah caused one, preferring to perish alone rather than drag others into his own danger, even though he wasn't responsible for steering the ship. Solomon proved the mother's affection by the fact that she preferred to yield the child whole to the harlot's false claim rather than have him divided; but these men prefer to see the Church endangered and torn apart rather than not usurp honor and not bring false charges against their innocent mother, the Church. He said this is his mother, because out of love she refused to allow the division. On the contrary, this stepson is the one who tears at the mother's vitals with a sword. How many and how great were the riots and slaughters caused by that collision when the son of Peter Leonis tried to rise from the north against Innocent—of good memory, the fifth predecessor of Lord Adrian, whose happiness may the Lord extend in Himself forever? Didn't his ruin also drag a part of the stars down with it? Who doesn't know Egidius of Tusculum? Who could compare to Peter of Pisa, to whom no one else in the curia was even remotely similar? Who could list all the bishops who have fallen throughout nearly all of Italy? Truly, while the memory of that ruin was still fresh in our own time, it's incredible that anyone could be so miserably ambitious as to have no fear of tearing the Church apart. I don't believe anyone is so foolish that they wouldn't rather be destroyed themselves than see such turmoil caused on their account. If, because our sins demand it, any of these butchers should ascend the See of Peter and, with the Lord indignant, take the helm of His ship, they will surely cause a shipwreck—and not without reason. For even Peter, when called by the Lord, began to sink when he was terrified by a stronger wind, and the ship that carried the Lord as its passenger despaired of its safety until Christ, who was sleeping, was awakened by their prayers. Certainly, whoever ascends in such a miserable way is whirled around even more miserably and will be cast down in the most miserable fashion; things that begin with an evil principle never have a happy ending. Discord is the surest sign of wickedness and failure; for discord disturbs the smallest of things, while the greatest things hold onto peace. Phaethon, in the myths, while he reached for his father's chariot, set the world on fire and was finally, by the mercy of God, himself consumed and fell headlong, with his chariot shattered. Then the day is spent without the sun; and while the Church burns, set ablaze by schism, Christ seems to be absent. Icarus, too, while carried toward the heavens, lifted by youthful lightheadedness, drowns in the waves of the sea. He was cast down just as he was being lifted up; in fact, the elevation of the wicked is merely a preparation for a heavier fall. Who, then, is more wicked than the one who turns the ministry of peace and the office of sacrifice into quarrels and slaughter? To what end, I ask, is such great savagery? Is it for the sake of life? But their end is destruction. Is it for the sake of glory? But they take pride in their shame; or is it for the sake of pleasure? Therefore, their belly is their god. Or is it so they might be ennobled by flesh and blood? But flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. For against the carnal—not I, but the apostolic trumpet sounds this and things even more severe: 'Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, because they set their minds on earthly things.' If, in order to satisfy their own will, they dominate others—which is tyrannical—nothing less will come to them; for to a tyrant, nothing is safe or quiet. Ask Damocles, and he’ll admit he learned this from the tyrant of Sicily, when ruin threatened him from all sides upon burning coals, and a sword hung by a single thread—like a weaver's—amidst royal luxuries, dangling over his neck as if to strike. Theodosius asserts this same thing in Claudian; he says: 'He who terrifies is himself more terrified; this lot befits tyrants; let them envy the famous and slaughter the strong.' Let them live fortified by swords and hedged in by poisons; let them have double-edged schemes, and trembling, let them threaten.
The True Servant of the Servants
Through the personal testimony of Pope Adrian IV, the author illustrates that the papacy is a life of extreme labor and suffering rather than glory.
Act as a citizen and a father; look out for the good of everyone. Don't let your own interests move you, but rather the public prayers. “Be ashamed, Sidon,” says the sea; for now the carnal man says things that the spiritual man cannot bear to hear. For if priests were to hear this voice, they would by no means rush through spears and enemies to seize the highest chairs. But although all may carry the pinnacle of the high priesthood, I believe that for a wise person, it is something to be avoided rather than sought, as far as religious discipline allows. To speak the truth from my conscience, that position seems most laborious and, given the state of the present age, most miserable; if it serves greed, it’s death to him, but if it doesn't, he won't escape the hands and tongues of the Romans. Unless he has the means to stop their mouths and restrain their hands, he must harden his ears, eyes, and mind to endure insults, shameful acts, and sacrilege. There are indeed three things that, more than others, subvert the entire judgment even of the prudent: the love of gifts, the acceptance of persons, and the ease of believing. For no one at all can be moved by such things and still dispense justice. Therefore, it is necessary that the Roman Pontiff, who ought to restrain the excesses of all, be immune to these things. If he hates gifts, who will bestow benefits upon a man who doesn't want them? What will he have to give if he accepts nothing? Or how will he appease the Romans if he doesn't give? If he does not accept their persons, how will he stand before their face? He will barely be able to weigh a priestly matter in private without being forced to admit them to all his councils. And what about the fact that he is forced to condemn simony, gifts, and bribes? If he follows those things, doesn't he condemn himself by his own words? If there is the least amount of freedom in the highest power, then surely the one who oversees the laws and is subject to no one is more strictly bound by what is forbidden. Therefore, the Roman pontiff has the least freedom precisely because he has the most. What is more burdensome than the concern for all the churches? The apostolic privilege passes to his successors, and clearly a part of that privilege is what the Apostle says to the Corinthians: "Who is weak, and I am not weak?" "Who is led into sin, and I am not burned?" If you don't want to read through the whole thing, let the one who contends for the primacy take this, and, as I think, he will quickly make room. Furthermore, whoever is the Roman pontiff must, given the current state of the Church, be the servant of the servants; not merely in name for the sake of glory, as some think, but in substance, since he will serve the servants of God even against his will. Everyone serves God and acts as a steward of His mercy or His justice. The angel serves, the human serves, the good serve, the wicked serve, and even the prince of this world, the devil, serves. Therefore, the Romans serve God, and so do the tyrants whom the Roman pontiff must serve. It’s to such a degree that, unless he serves, he must either no longer be pontiff or no longer be Roman. Who, then, doubts that he is the servant of the servants? I call upon Lord Adrian—may God make his times happy—as a witness to this fact, because no one is more miserable than the Roman pontiff, and no condition is more miserable than his. And even if nothing else causes harm, it’s inevitable that he would fail simply from the labor alone. For he admits that he has found such miseries in that seat that, when compared to the present, all his previous bitterness would seem like joy and a most happy life. He calls the Roman pontiff's chair a thorny one, and his mantle a garment woven through and through with the sharpest of thorns—so heavy that it crushes, wears down, and breaks the shoulders of even the strongest men. He rightly considers the crown and the miter to be bright, because they are made of fire. But he says he would never have chosen to leave his native England or to remain hidden forever in the cloister of Saint Rufus, if he hadn't been afraid to resist the divine plan by entering into such straits. While he is still with us, ask him yourself and believe someone who has experienced it. He also told me quite often that, as he climbed from one rank to another—from a cloistered cleric through every office up to the supreme pontificate—nothing was ever added to his previous life in the way of happiness or tranquil peace by that ascent. And, to use his own words (for he wants nothing to be hidden from my eyes, as far as he is concerned, while I am present): 'The Lord,' he said, 'has always stretched me on the anvil and with the hammer; but now, if it pleases Him, let Him place His right hand under the burden He has laid upon my weakness, for it is unbearable to me.' Is he not, then, most worthy of pity, who fights for such great misery? Let the one who is chosen be as wealthy as you like; the next day he will be a pauper, bound and obligated to almost infinite creditors. What, then, will become of the man whom no election calls, but whom blind and bloody ambition—resisting Christ in His members—forces in, not without the blood of his brothers? This is truly to succeed Romulus in his acts of murder, not Peter in the stewardship of the flock entrusted to him.✦
Read the original Latin
p?' o summo pontificatu non modo certant sed scismatice dimicant; et quod tirannis nichil quietum. Sed esto ut his liceat qui camales sunt contendere de primatu, uiris ecclesiasticis hoc usquequaque arbitror esse illicitum. Carnalium tamen exemplo sub imagine religionis obrepit impietas, et iam non modo contenditur pro sacerdotio sed pugnatur. Antiqui quondam trahebantur inuiti et proni ad martirium, primas cathedras carcere peius et cruce fugiebant. Contra iam palam loquuntur sacerdotes et prouerbium nullum dicunt. Nolumus, inquiunt, martires esse, sed sedium nostrarum gloriam non damus alteri. Misera quidem et miserabilis uox in ore sacerdotis qui Christum sic agnoscit ut se nolle eum sequi palam conb fiteatur.
Dubitari poterit an uerus moriatur confessor qui persecutorem, si opus fuerit, non expectat? Ait enim Ciprianus: Episcopus si timet, actum est de eo. Sed liceat timere; non stare in necessitate, illicitum est. Fugitiuus inutilis infamis est. Est tamen in quo uidentur imitari constantiam martirum, si pro cathedra scilicet fuerit decertandum. Fertur a quibusdam et uerum est quod super Romano pontificatu ab ambitiosis quandoque, immo saepe, litigatum, et non sine sanguine fratemo sancta sanctorum ingressus sit pontifex. Concitata sunt iterum bella plusquam civilia, et Cesarem et Pompeium et quicquid Philippis, Leucade, Mutinae, in Egipto Hispaniaue praesumptum est, quicquid impie gestum, pugna sacerdotalis absoluit. Numquid Christiani sanguinis procurant effusionem ut eis prae ceteris liceat pro grege, quod pastoris est, animas ponerel Numquid ecclesiam diruunt, prophanant sancta, ut sit quod edificari et sanctificari oporteat?
Concutiunt populos, regna sollicitant, ecclesiarum diripiunt facultates, forte ut sibi faciant materiam promerendi, ut componant omnia, ut pauperibus miserendi et prouidendi aliis concurrentibus necessitatem praeripiant. Si enim ut plura sibi impune liceant, si ut pecuniam congregent, si ut caraem et sanguinem foueant dilatent et corrumpant, si ut familiam nobilitent, si denique ut gloriam suam quaerant in clero dominantes non foraia facti gregis ex animo, licet labiis et simulatione officii pastorem induant, tyrannis quam principibus facilius accedunt. Dicunt philosophi et ueram arbitror nichil in rebus humanis utilius homine, et in ipsis hominibus principe ecclesiastico uel mundano nemo utilior; e diuerso nichil homini peraiciosius homine, et in eis tirannus secularis aut ecclesiasticus peraiciosior est. Sed profecto in utroque genere secularem ecclesiasticus antecedit. -Tantone nouorum prouentu scelerum quaerunt uter imperet orbi? Vix tanti fuerat ciuilia bella mouere ut neuter. Rectissimam eminendi uiam docuit Christus, qui discipulos 8U0S regibus gentium noluit conformari ut dominentur in subditis et qui potestatem exercent benefici dicantur; sed qui maior est sponte minoretur et solum prae ceteris iure quiete, uiribus et contentione remota, sibi uendicet officium ministrandi. At isti aliam praetulerunt, ascendentes ex aduerso fratrum, et ministrandi humilitate reiecta appetunt prae regibus gentium dominari; nec dubium quin frigescente immo extincta caritate sedem suam et ipsi ponant ad aquilonem; siquidem productos odere pares.
Vtinam secuti €ssent qui ea uiderunt tempora consilium Bruti, a quo eum imminente bello ciuili Catonis auertit auctoritas. Decreuerat enim manus suas ab armis continere ciuilibus, quibus quanto quisque libentius et fortius immiscetur, tanto iniquior et immanior est. Ait ergo: Nunc neque Pompeii Brutum nec Cesaris hostem post bellum uictoris habes. Si ergo sapiant hi pro quorum dominio scismatici litigant, eos solos concurrere patiantur, alterutri metuant opem ferre, incerti quis uictor futurus sit, certique quanta quam grauis ruina uictis immineat. ? 5 Nulla manus belli mutato iudice pura est. Nam et uictrix causa Deo placuit sed uicta Catoni. Gaudeat plane mundus, cum alter solus uicerit, sed propensiori letetur gaudio, si uicerit uterque uel neuter.
Conueniant ergo, si placet, in Licaonia insula aut alio, si quis tamen locus bellis siue duillis est aptior; nam antiqui, teste Quintiliano, bellos dicebant quos modo duillos appellamus; et sine orbis et urbis periculo uincat alteruter duillorum quem Deus scilicet approbauerit aut uictorem esse permiserit. Victus quoque, si id uictori placeat, demergatur in Tyberim aut, si cum eo mitius agendum uidetur, retrudatur in Cauam, cui cum abbas loci claustrum, immo carcerem, aperuerit, protestetur se non illud ei qui dampnatur praeparasse, sed uicto; siquidem nulla fides umquam miseros elegit amicos. Qui uero uicerit, id est qui uiolentior fuerit, in Liparem aliamue insulam exul perpetuus deportetur ad marmora secanda aut ad metalla dampnetur. Facinus enim schismatis quos inquinat aequat; nisi quia plerumque qui fortior immo ferocior, idem et iniquior est. Quid pemiciosius aut a odibilius bello ciuili? Nichil plane, praeter rabiem scismaticorum aut hereticam pestem. Quorum utrum pemiciosius sit non facile dixerim, si tamen in his numerus est ut alterum segregretur ab altero. Cessabunt plane bella ciuilia, si praesumptioni desit temeritatis adiutor.
Nec est qui conciues possit urgere ad furorem, nisi eos aliquatenus ipsa delectet insania. Vtique necessitas confurendi aut nulla omnino aut ut multum imaginaria est. Haec quoque permultis maximisque periculis patet, quorum nemo satis declinat euentum, nisi praecaueat facultatem. Innuit hoc poeta grauissimus aut, si iuxta Quintilianum rectius dicere malueris oratorem, non repugno, dum constet praecauenda esse etiam quae possunt euenire pericula et uniuersitatem ab uno quolibet cogi non posse ut sceleri obsequatur inuita. Ait enim: Hic quamuis nuUo maculatus sanguine miles quae potuit fecisse timet. Quid pectora pulsa? quid uesane gemis? quid fletus fundis inanes?
Nec te sponte tua sceleri parere fateris? Vsque adeone times quem tu facis esse timendum? Classica det bello; diros tu neglige cantus: signa ferat; cessa: iam iam ciuilis Erinis concidet et Cesar generum priuatus amabit. Sic, sic, si Ecclesia Dei erigatur in Spiritus libertatem, si ministerium sceleris subire detrectet, aut omnino scismata sopientur aut, manente compage unitatis, soli inter se scic smatici dimicabunt. Interim contineat Ecclesia manus suas, quoniam gladius Petri, qui sanguinem carnali sitiebat affectu, mandato Domini ad praesens tegitur in uagina, et discipuli eradicare zizania properantes praecipiuntur messores angelos expectare. Oret unitatis integritas ut in se colligat dissidentes lapis incisus, in quo fundatur Ecclesia, quem scismatici reprobant, qui fecit utraque unum, et uestem suam in sortem fidelium integram cedere maluit quam secari. Oret, inquam, ne deficiat fides et expetens in cribro Sathanas non disperdat, conculcet et triticum. Oret pacem, quaerat pacem, et persequatur etiam fugientem.
Meminerit eius qui, cum posset producere plus quam duodecim legiones angelorum, exaltatus in cruce omnia adquisiuit; ipsa enim exinanitio adeo meruit exaltari ut ad gloriam eius flectatur omne genu. Scismaticos nocentes accipiunt sed consend tientes iustos nocentes faciunt bella sacerdotalia. Quiescant ergo stantes a longe cum Petro ut uideant finem. Recolant illud ethnicum: Si celicolis furor arma dedisset, aut si terrigenae temptarent astra gigantes, non tamen auderet pietas humana uel armis uel uotis prodesse loui. Hoc quidem uidetur esse seruandum in his, ubi quis iustius induit arma scire nefas. Nam si hereticus scismaticusue catholicum impugnat, assistere ueritati pium est et Romano pontifici deuotissime famulari. Hoc quidem cum innotuerit; nam scismaticus se eatholicum esse saepe mentitur. Quis enim praesumet suma mum iudicare pontificem, cuius causa Dei solius reseruatur examini Vtique quisquis hoc attemptauerit, laborare quidem sed proficere nequaquam potest.
Nec ad unguem nomen pontificis arto; habeaturhic pontifex cuiuscumque canonica praecessit electio. lonas, ut naufragium tolleret, nauf ragium fecit maluitque perire solus quam alios inuoluere periculis suis; nec tamen regendae nauis curam susceperat. Salomon ab eo matemum conuicit afFectum quod integrum meretricis calumniae filium cedere maluit quam partiri, At isti periclitari malunt Ecclesiam et scindi quam honorem non usurpare et innocenti matri Ecclesiae non inferre calumniam. Haec est, inquit, mater eius, quoniam ex dilectione refugit sectionem. E contra hic priuignus est qui ferro rimatur uiscera matris. Quot et quantos tumultus et strages dedit illa collisio quando filius Petri Leonis aduersus Innocentium bonae memoriae, quintum domini Adriani praecessorem, cuius uitamet felicitatem in se in euum protendatDominus,conatus est ab aquilone ascendere? Nonne et stellarum partem secum traxit ruina eius? Quis nescit Egidium Tusculanum?
Quis Petrum Pisanuin, cui nullus aut uix similis alter erat in curia? Quis recenseat episcopos qui in tota fere Italia corruerunt? Profecto, dum ruinae illius extabat etate nostra memoria, incredibile est quempiam adeo misere ambitiosum esse ut Ecclesiam scindere non formidet. Neminem ita stupidum esse credo qui non malit se deleri quam ut pro eo tanta fiat turbatio. Si, delictis nostris exigentibus, camificum istorum quisquam ascenderit sedem Petri et ad gubemaculum nauis eius Domino indignante accesserit, plane naufragium non immerito faciet, cum et Petms uocatus a Domino ad ualidiorem territus auram coeperit mergi, et nauis quae Dominum habebat uectorem de salute desperet, donec Christus dormiens precibus excitetur. Vtique qui misere ascendit, X5 rotatur miserius et miserrime deicietur; nec letos habent exitus quae malo sunt inchoata principio. Discordia certissimum iniquitatis et defectus indicium est; siquidem minimas rerum discordia turbat, pacem summa tenent. Pheton in fabulis, dum pateraos curms affectat, incendit orbem et tandem miseratione Dei et ipse succensus corruit praeceps, curru disiecto.
Tunc isse diem sine sole femnt: et, dum flagrat Ecclesia succensa scismate, Christus uidetur abesse. Ycams quoque, dum elatus iuuenili leuitate fertur in celum, marinis fluctibus mergitur. Deiectus enim est dum alleuaretur; subuectio siquidem impiorum grauioris ruinae praeparatio est. Quis autem eo iniquior qui minia sterium pacis, sacrificandi ofiicium in rixas mittit et camificium? Quorsum quaeso tanta immanitas? Numquid ad uitam? Sed eorum finis interitus. An ad gloriam?
Sed gloria eorum in conf usione est, An ad uoluptatem? ergo et eorum Deus uenter est. An ut nobilitentur in carne et sanguine? sed caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt. Nam aduersus camales non ego sed haec et grauiora his apostolica intonat tuba: Quomm, inquit, finis interitus, quorum Deus uenter et gloria in confusione, quia terrena sapiunt; si, ut suam expleant uoluntatem, aliis dominantes, quod tirannicum est, eis nichil minus proueniet; tiranno siquidem nichil tutum est aut quietum. Interroga Damob clem, et se hoc a tiranno Siciliae didicisse fatebitur, cum ei undique in ardentes prunas ruina immineret, ad primum nutum et quasi texentis licio dependens gladius inter regales delitias ceruici illius similis ferienti irraeret. Hoc idem apud Claudianum astruit Theodosius; ait enim: Qui terret plus ipse timet, sors ista tirannis conuenit; inuideant claris fortesque trucident. Muniti gladiis uiuant septique uenenis; ancipites habeant artes trepidique minentur.
Tu ciuem patremque geras, tu consule cunctis. Nec tua te moueant sed publica uota. Erubesce Sydon, ait mare; quia iam camalis loquitur quae uir spiritualis audire non potest. Si enim audirent sacerdotes uocem hanc, nequaquam per tela per hostes currerent ut primas cathedras occuparent. Sed, licet omnes summi pontificatus apicem deferant, quantum salua religione licet fugiendum quam suscipiendum arbitror sapienti. Vt enim ex conscientia uerum loquar, illius laboriosissima et, quantum ad statum praesentis seculi pertinet, miserrima uidetur esse conditio, Si enim auaritiae seruit, mors ei est; sin autem, non eflFagiet manus et linguas Romanorum. Nisi enim habeat unde obstruat ora eorum manusque cohibeat, ad conuitia, ad flagitia et sacrilegia perferenda aures oculos duret et animum. Tria quidera sunt quae prae ceteris etiam prudentum omne iudicium subuertunt, amor munerum, acceptio personarum, facilitas credendi.
Nam ad ista moueri et iustitiam dispensare nuUus omnium potest. Ergo et ab his immunem Romanum necesse est esse pontificem, qui omnium cohercere debet excessus. Si odit munera, quis J5 beneficia conferet in inuitum? Quid largiturus est qui non accipit? Aut quomodo, si non largitur, placabit Romanos? Si personas eorum non accipit, quomodo subsistet ante faciem eorum? Vix enim causam in conclaui poterit pensare sacerdotalem quin eos in consiliis omnibus admittere compellatur. Quid quod cogitur dampnare simoniam munera et retributiones?
Si ea sequitur, nonne seipsum propria uoce condempnat? Si in summa potentia minima licentia est, profecto qui legibus praeest, nulli subicitur, ab illicitis artius coartatur. Ergo et Romano pontifici minimum eo ipso quo plurimum licet. Quid ponderosius est sollicitua dine omnium ecclesiarum? Apostolicum priuilegium transit ad successores, et plane pars priuilegii est quam Apostolus ad Corinthios loquitur: Quis, inquit, infirmatur et ego non infirmor? Quis scandalizatur et ego non uror? Si totum non uultis reuoluere, uel istud uendicet qui de primatu contendit et, ut puto, cito faciet locum. Praeterea qui Romanus pontifex est, eundem, pro conditione Ecclesiae quae nunc est, esse seruum seruorum necesse est; non equidem nuncupatiue ad gloriam, ut quidam opinantur, sed substantiue, utpote qui seruis Dei seruiet uel inuitus.
Omnis enim persona Dei seruit et dispensatrix est clementiae uel iustitiae t) suae. Seruit angelus, seruit homo, seruiunt boni, seruiunt mali, et ipse princeps mundi diabolus seruit. Ergo et Romani seruiunt Deo, et tiranni quibus Romanum necesse est seruire pontificem. Adeo quidem ut, nisi seruierit, aut expontificem aut exromanum esse necesse sit. Quis eum ergo seruum seruorum esse ambigit "? Dominum Adrianum, cuius tempora felicia faciat Deus, huius rei testem inuoco, quia Romano pontifice nemo miserabilior est, conditione eius nulla miserior. Et, licet nichil aliud ledat, necesse est ut citissime uel solo labore deficiat. Fatetur enim in ea sede se tantas miserias inuenisse ut facta coUatione praesentium tota praecedens amaritudo iocunditas et uita felicissiraa fuerit.
Spinosam dicit cathedram Romani pontificis, mantum acutissimis usquequaque consertum aculeis tantaeque molis ut robustissimos premat terat et comminuat humeros, coronam et frigium clara merito uideri quoniam ignea sunt. Sed numquam a natali solo Angliae malle exisse aut in claustro beati Rufi perpetuo latuisse dicit quam tantas, nisi quia diuinae dispensationi reluctari non audet, intrasse angustias. Dum superest, ipsum interroga et crede experto. Hoc etiam michi saepissime adiecit, quod, cum de gradu in gradura a claustrali clerico per omnia officia in pontificem summum ascenderit,nichil umquam felicitatis aut tranquillae quietis uitae priori adiectum est ab ascensu. Et, ut uerbis eius utar (nichil enim, cum praesens sum, sui gratia uult apud se absconditum esse ab oculis meis): In incude, inquit, et malleo semper dilatauit me Dominus; sed nunc oneri quod infirmitati meae imposuit, si placet, supponat dexteram quoniam michi importabile est. Nonne ergo miseria dignissimus est qui pro tanta pugnat miseria? Sit sane ditissimus qui eligitur, sequenti die pauper erit et infinitis fere creditoribus tenebitur obligatus. Quid ergo erit ei quem nulla j uocat electio sed repugnante in membris Christo ambitio ceca et cruenta non sine sanguine fratemo intrudit?
Hoc quidem est Romulo succedere in parricidiis, non Petro in commissi dispensatione ouilis.
Scripture echoes
- ↩John.21.15-John.21.17 — When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." John.21.16 — He said to him again a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' John.21.17 — He said to him the third time, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'
Policraticus companion
Study the argument weekly; pray the tradition daily
Pair the outline with the Chosen Portion app, which serves short daily portions from the same royal devotional tradition — free on iOS.
John of Salisbury argued that rulers must keep the law of God before their eyes daily; Chosen Portion gives modern readers that same daily discipline in five minutes a morning.
- 8 weeks, one book per week, with the 3-4 key chapters flagged in each
- Discussion questions usable for a reading group from week one
- A daily 5-minute companion portion in the app alongside your weekly study