De convenientia institutorum Romanae Ecclesiae cum Evangelica libertate

1. After defining the nature of Christian liberty, it remains for us to show that it is no obstacle to this liberty for there to be one¹ supreme Pontiff in the Christian commonwealth, who regulates and governs all things by his laws.

For there are some who think that no one ought to hold supreme authority over all² in the Catholic Church; rather, they say that Christ the Bestower conferred upon the universal Church all the authority he bestowed upon the Church,³ and that it then flowed from the Church to those who hold some rank in our Christian Church.⁴

But if we consider the nature and ordering of commonwealths, it can readily be understood that there ought to be some supreme ruler in the Christian commonwealth to undertake the care and governance of Christ’s sheep. We can begin to establish this point from the fact that Christ himself, the Greatest Founder of the Christian commonwealth, had to found a commonwealth that would be the best and perfect in every respect. For since through him kings reign and lawgivers decree what is just,⁵ it is entirely reasonable that he should make that commonwealth outstanding and the most excellent of all, which he had resolved to establish himself. Who, then, would deny that the best government of a people is one over which a single governor presides? For the end of government—peace, I say, and⁶ the concord of its subjects—is reached more peacefully, agreeably, and happily through one ruler over all than through several, whose judgments can readily differ and conflict.

2. We can infer this both from things that arise by nature and from things that arise by art. In the human body there is one governing principle that gives life and motion to all the members: the heart, I say, or, if you prefer, the head. According to Avicenna, in the eighth book of On Animals,⁷ cranes have one king and leader. So that he may more easily hear approaching commotions, while the others sleep with their heads covered by their wings, he sleeps with his head uncovered. Bees, as Jerome writes to the monk Rusticus,⁸ appoint one king for themselves; unless they see him leading the swarm, they never leave the hive. On a ship there must be one helmsman. Every household has its own ruler and master. Every monastery is governed by one superior.

Finally, to bring my point to a conclusion, in every undertaking, unless there is one person whose care and diligence direct it, the work goes badly and is brought to its end with difficulty. What of this? Did not the cities of Greece, as Justin relates,⁹ lose their empire when each one sought to rule? Therefore Lucan sang well and wisely:¹⁰

«No loyalty binds partners in a kingdom, and all power is impatient of a partner.»

I think Homer spoke no less wisely when he says in Book II of the Iliad:¹¹

Οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίην · εἰς κοίρανός ἔστω, εἰς βασιλεὺς

That is: It is not good for many to rule; let there be one lord, one king.¹² The view of Pythagoras also seems to point to this. For when he established two orders of things—one of good things, the other of evil—he placed unity in the order of good things, but multiplicity and plurality in that of evil.¹³

3. If, then, the Christian commonwealth, which we call the Catholic—that is, universal—Church,¹⁴ has been constituted the best and most worthy of all, we must acknowledge that it ought to be governed by one ruler. Moreover, our Church Militant will be more like and more closely conformed to that heavenly Church, which is called Triumphant, if one Prince is appointed over it. For in that Church there is one ruler of all, namely God, the Best and Greatest. Therefore John says in the Apocalypse:¹⁵ I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven. Moses too had been shown that he should make the tabernacle after the likeness of the one shown to him on the mountain.¹⁶ What of this? Did not the Savior himself, Christ Jesus, declare this unity of ecclesiastical rule when he said in John 10:¹⁷ There shall be one flock and one shepherd?

4. You may perhaps say: Let the Christian commonwealth have one ruler, one head, one shepherd; it does not therefore follow that there must be one mortal man in it to act as its supreme shepherd and leader. For Christ himself, who raised this Church from its foundations, sufficiently and abundantly safeguards its dignity if he is its Prince, head, and ruler.¹⁸

But whoever invents this notion fails to see that it proceeds from a failure to consider human society—or, I should say, from ignorance of it. Is it not in keeping with our human condition that the ruler who is to govern our commonwealth should be perceptible to us through some external sense, since nearly all our activity is connected with sensible things? For God provided for all the creatures he created in accordance with their nature and condition. I ask you, then: you who cunningly try to withdraw yourself from the laws of a ruler, does Christ, who was once visible to human beings, not live invisibly to us after his Ascension into heaven? He appeared to Peter at Rome, to Paul at Damascus, and perhaps at times to some others after he had withdrawn from our sight; but he remains hidden and unknown to the multitude. It is therefore fitting and suited to our human condition that someone should hold authority over our commonwealth, live among us in some sensible fellowship, and act as the vicarious representative of its invisible head. If this is so—or rather, because reason requires it to be so—we need not fear that the rule of one man over the Christian people diminishes its liberty in any respect. For what is instituted for another’s advantage and benefit does not detract from that person’s liberty, since only that which takes away the reasoned character of his voluntary action, especially when it is right, impedes his liberty. An action that draws a person into evil should rather be said to arise from some abuse of liberty than from free will. What of this? If, as I willingly prepared to throw myself from an immense cliff, someone held me back and stopped me, would he be charged with having deprived me of my liberty? Anyone who said so would surely be mad and raving. By the same reasoning, if there is one ruler in the commonwealth whose vigilance prevents it from being thrown into confusion, torn apart, and plundered by wicked men, and who devotes all his efforts to it so that it may live peacefully and pursue goodness and virtuous conduct, he does not diminish the commonwealth’s liberty; he preserves it, increases it, and establishes it in a better condition. For, as Aristotle teaches in Book I of his Metaphysics,¹⁹ a free person is one who exists for his own sake, while a slave, by contrast, exists and acts for another’s sake. The people governed by one ruler therefore hold their ruler captive more than he holds the people: all that he does, thinks, or dreams, if he truly deserves the name of ruler, he does for the benefit of his commonwealth.

5. Those who strive to exclude the majesty of single rule from the Christian commonwealth on the ground that it seems to impede the liberty of Christians are therefore very far from the truth. As we have shown, it not only does not impede that liberty, but greatly benefits it; indeed, it benefits it so greatly that, once it is removed, the dignity, integrity, and permanence of our commonwealth cannot be preserved. For no one ignorant of human affairs fails to see that, when several heads arise in a commonwealth, the greatest discord and hostility can readily break out. Great enterprises are destroyed by discord,²⁰ and, in the words of our Savior, every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and house will fall upon house.²¹ For this reason Aristotle, easily the foremost of the Peripatetics, concluded the unity of God, the Best and Greatest, by this argument in Book XII of his Metaphysics: the multitude of beings must not be badly ordered; but plurality of rulers is bad within a multitude.²²