933 
 
 36 
 4 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 
 
 tOVTtVSD BY JOHN D. RoCKSFELLER 
 
 The Decennial Publications 
 
 STUDIES CONCERNING ADRIAN IV. 
 
 BY 
 
 OLIVER JOSEPH THATCHER 
 
' The Decennial -Publications 
 
 FIRST SERIES 
 
 Two volumes of Reports and eight volumes of Investigations, the latter consisting of a collec- 
 tion of articles representing the work of research of Jhe several departments of the Univer- 
 sity. Size, quarto. 
 
 Volume I. The President's Report. A. Administration. 
 
 Volume II. The President's Report. B.-. Publications of the Members of the University. 
 
 Volume III. Part 1. — -Systematic Theology > Church History, Practical Theology. 
 Part 2. —Philosophy, Education. 
 
 Volume IV. Political Economy, Political Science, History, Sociology. 
 
 Volume V. Semitic Languages and Literatures, Biblical and Patristic Greels, Comparative 
 Religion. 
 
 Volume VI. Greek Language and .Literature, Latin Language and Literature, Sanskrit and 
 Indo-European Comparative Philology, Classical Archaeology. 
 
 Volume VII. Romance Languages and Literatures, -Germanic Languages and Literatures, 
 English, Literature in English. 
 
 Volume VIII. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 
 
 Volume IX. Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Geology. 
 
 Volume . X. Zoology, Anatomy, Physiology, Neurology, Botany, Pathology, Bacteriology. 
 
 SECOND SERIES 
 
 A series of volumes embodying original research, consisting of systematic treatises, unpublished 
 documents, and the like. Size, Octavo. . 
 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 The Decennial Publications 
 
 STUDIES CONCERNING ADRIAN IV. 
 
 BY 
 
 OLIVER JOSEPH THATCHER 
 
 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MEDIEVAL AND ENGLISH HISTORY 
 
 PRINTED FROM VOLUME IV 
 
 . . 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 1903 
 
S THE 
 ; Twc i 
 
 !903 
 
 CLASS ft- XXc.'No 
 _COPYJ|. ' 
 
 
 
 Copyright 1902 
 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 
 
 PRINTED APRIL 1, 1903 
 

 TO THE MEMORY OF 
 MY TEACHER AND FRIEND 
 
 PKOFESSOK PAUL SCHEFFER-BOICHOKST 
 
 (Died Janoaey the Seventeenth, 1902) 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/studiesconcerninOOthat 
 
STUDIES CONCERNING ADRIAN 1Y. 
 
 Oliver Joseph Thatcher 
 I. THE OFFER OF IRELAND TO HENRY II. 
 
 A review of the question. — Among the many celebrated questions which have 
 puzzled historians is to be numbered the one which is the subject of this article. Its 
 discussion has been obscured and embittered by the hostilities engendered by differ- 
 ences in race, in nationality, and in religion. Although it has, almost from the 
 beginning, had absolutely nothing to do with the practical question of the relation 
 between England and Ireland, it has been discussed with all the intensity, not to say 
 bitterness, of feeling that has grown out of the unhappy relations existing between 
 those countries for the last seven hundred years. All things considered, it is not 
 strange that the desire to know the exact historical truth has not always been the single 
 motive of all those who have written on the question. Without in the least charging 
 them with bad faith, it may be said that other considerations have sometimes had some 
 influence on their attitude toward this matter. Irishmen, as Irishmen, in the spirit of 
 high patriotism for which they have always been famed, have endeavored to defend 
 the fair name of their island and people by declaring that the famous bull Laudabiliter, 
 by which Pope Adrian IV. is said to have given Ireland to Henry II., is a forgery, 
 abounding in slanderous falsehoods. As loyal Catholics, they have been unwilling to 
 believe that a pope made himself a party to their misfortunes by delivering them into 
 the hands of their enemy. They have, therefore, quite naturally sought in every way 
 to discredit Laudabiliter. In this their belief that the bull is a forgery, they have 
 found many supporters on the continent, in whom the same mixed motives may some- 
 times be discovered. Nor, on the other hand, can it be said that a single motive has 
 influenced all those who have defended Laudabiliter. It is impossible not to see 
 what we may call a certain Protestant satisfaction in attributing to a pope a share in 
 the humiliation of Catholic Ireland in being subject to a foreign Protestant power. 
 It is therefore not surprising that there is still the widest divergence of opinion on 
 this question. 
 
 Father Stephen White, an Irishman and a Jesuit, whose approximate dates are 
 1573-16-18, devoted many years of his life to a learned effort to prove that Adrian IV. 
 did not give Ireland to Henry II., and that therefore Laudabiliter is a forgery and an 
 aspersion on Ireland. Sommervogel, in his Bibliotheque tie la Compagnie de Jisus, 
 Vol. VIII, cols. 1093-8, gives a brief description of this learned man and of his works, 
 most of which are still in manuscript. So far as I know, only one of his numerous 
 writings has appeared in print. His Apologia pro Hibernia was edited and published 
 by Rev. Matthew Kelly, in Dublin, 1819. At his death, his manuscripts, or at least 
 
 153 
 
Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 a part of them, fell into the hands of Father John Lynch, 1 who made free use of them 
 in preparing his great work Cambrensis Eversus. This also was published with a 
 translation and notes by Rev. Matthew Kelly, Dublin, 1848. As its title indicates, 
 it is an attempt to destroy the credibility of Giraldus Cambrensis, or Gerald Barry, as 
 he is often called. Giraldus was made the object of their common attack because in 
 his work De Expugnatione Hiberniae, the first edition of which was written about 
 1188, he not only says that Adrian IV. gave Ireland to Henry II., and publishes for 
 the first time the text of Laudabiliter, but he also justifies this gift by painting Ireland 
 and the Irish in the blackest colors. To White and Lynch the best way to disprove 
 the grant and Laudabiliter was to discredit Giraldus. Seen from the point of view of 
 today this was unfortunate, because they thereby started the discussion along a way 
 that could not lead to a sure conclusion, and they also introduced into the question a 
 great many things that are entirely foreign to it. White and Lynch expended a vast 
 amount of energy and learning in refuting Giraldus, a labor that has been made in part 
 unnecessary by the critical judgments of his most recent editors. 2 But they failed to 
 see, as many since their day have failed to see, that the question of the genuineness of 
 Laudabiliter must be settled by other criteria. 
 
 The attack on Laudabiliter was continued in the eighteenth century by the Abbe 
 MacGeoghegan, whose History of Ireland was translated and published by Patrick 
 O'Kelly, Esq., in Dublin, 1841 (see pp. 238 ff.). Rev. John Lanigan, D.D., in his 
 Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, Vol. IV, pp. 159 ff. (4 vols., Dublin, 1822), under- 
 took to refute the arguments of the above-named writers, and asserted most confidently 
 and positively that the bull is genuine, and that therefore Adrian IV. had actually 
 made the grant to Henry II. 
 
 Since that day the literature on the subject has rapidly increased. 3 But in spite 
 
 1 Lynch wroto under the pen name of Gratianus Lucius. 3 Besides the numerous works in which the question is 
 In the Introduction to Cambrensis Eversus the editor says discussed incidentally, a great many articles and books 
 that on the surrender of Galway, 1652, Lynch fled to France. have been devoted exclusively to an investigation of it. 
 He probably lived for several years at Saint Malo, where Chief among these are the following: Cardinal Horan, 
 he published Cambrensis Eversus in 1662. His death seems " Adrian IV. and Ireland," Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1872, 
 to have occurred about 1674. pp. 62 ff. ; also in Australasian Catholic Record, April-July, 
 
 For a special reason I wish to call attention to the two 1897; contra. "Adrien IV. et Tlrlande," two anonymous 
 
 following passages: Cambrensis Eversus, Vol. II, p. 232: articles in Analecta Juris Pontificii, 1882, fascicules 185, 186 ; 
 
 "Stephanus Vitus, cuius opera calamo tantum exarata, contra. F. A. Gasquet, " Adrian IV. and Ireland," Dublin 
 
 nee - dum praelo commissa, penes me habeo, etc." Also ibid., Revietv, 1883; contra. S. Malone, "Adrian IV. and Ireland," 
 
 p. 394 : " Vitus .... penes se habuit vetustum coenobii Sco- ibid., 1SS4 ; also his " Adrian IV. and Ireland," Dublin, Gill 
 
 torum Ratisbonensis chronicon et ex eo quae e sua fore & Son, 1899, pp. 106; pro. W. B. Morris, " Adrian IV. and 
 
 censcbat excerpsit, .... Nunquam ego scriptum vidi ana- Henry Plantagenet," three articles in Irish Ecclesiastical 
 
 chronismis magis inquinatum, attainen e patris Viti apo- Record, 1SS5; also in his Ireland and St. Patrick, 1891; 
 
 grapho ea desumam quae, etc." From another passage contra. B. JtrNGMANN, Diss&rtationes Selectae, Vol. V, pp. 
 
 we learn that this manuscript of the Irish monks at Regens- 213 ff . ; contra. O. PfUlf, " Papst Hadrian IV. und die 
 
 burg contained the statement that Adrian IV., while a stu- Scheukung Irlands," Stiinmen aits Maria-Laach, 1SS9; pro. 
 
 dent at Paris, had had for his teacher an Irish monk named A. Bellesheim, Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche in 
 
 Marianus. As I am engaged in writing a life of Adrian IV., Irhind, Vol. I, pp. 367, ff. ; contra. Pflcgk-Harttung, 
 
 I wish, if possible, to find either the original manuscript "Zwei Papstbriefo Gregors VII. und Hadrians IV. wegen 
 
 or White's copy of it. I shall be greatly obliged to anyone Irland," Brieger's Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, Vol. 
 
 who can give me any information about it. XIII (1892), pp. 107 ff. ; also, " Drei Breven papstlicher 
 
 2 See Giraldi Cambrensis Opera edited by James F. Hachtfiillo im llten und 12tcn Jahrhundert," Deutsche 
 Dimock, Vol. V, pp. lxi ff. "The treatise [De Expugyiatione Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswisseuschaft, Vol. X (1893), pp. 323 
 Hiberniae] certainly is, in great measure, rather a poetical s - • contra. Kate None. ate, "The Bull Laudabiliter," 
 fiction than a prosaic truthful history" (p. lxxi). English Historical Review, 1893, pp. ISff. ; pro. L. GiS'nell, 
 
 154 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 
 
 of the great learning and ability of those who have written on the subject, it seems 
 that not much progress has been made toward the solution of the question. No agree- 
 ment has been reached on the chief points at issue. Great ingenuity and cleverness 
 have been expended in the discussion without reaching conclusions that are in the least 
 convincing. Statement has been met by contradiction, and counter-statement by 
 counter-contradiction. The same fact has been made to do service on both sides of 
 the question, and what has been regarded by some as a certain proof of the genuine- 
 ness of the bull has been looked upon by others as a conclusive, evidence of its forgery. 
 An amazing amount of material foreign to the question has been brought into the 
 discussion. Many arguments have been advanced which have little or no bearing on 
 the case, and in rebutting such arguments other material still less germane to the 
 subject has been introduced. Every writer on the subject has felt that he must 
 thresh over this material, and so the real and original question has often been lost 
 sight of. Furthermore, there has been a radical error in one of their assumptions, 
 which has consequently vitiated much of their reasoning. They have all, with the 
 single exception of Mr. Round, assumed that the pope's grant of Ireland and the 
 bull Laudabiliter must stand or fall together. Without any hesitation they have 
 argued from the truth or falsity of the one to the truth or falsity of the other. Those 
 who were persuaded that the bull is a forgery have, almost without further thought or 
 argument and as a matter of course, concluded that the grant was never made. And 
 on the other hand, those who believed in the existence of the grant have regarded 
 as necessary the conclusion that Laudabiliter is genuine. I believe that this 
 false assumption has been an effectual hindrance to the successful solution of the 
 problem. 
 
 The method of attack, for investigation it cannot be called, pursued by Hergen- 
 rother, whose great learning was indisputable, seems worthy of special condemnation. 
 He attacked the bull by many different lines of argument which were mutually destructive 
 of each other, because one line of argument was based on a set of suppositions and 
 interpretations that are contradictory to those on which another line of argument is 
 based. But by each line he aimed to arrive at a greater or less degree of probability 
 that the bull is a forgery. And then, as if such evidence were cumulative, he adds up 
 all these probabilities and triumphantly concludes that the grant was never made and 
 therefore the bull is a forgery. But surely two lines of argument based on contra- 
 dictory assumptions cannot be held mutually to strengthen each other, nor is the 
 probability arrived at by the one increased by the probability arrived at by the other. 
 
 The Doubtful Grant of Ireland by Pope Adrian IV. to berger, but it is signed S. ; J. H. Round, "The Pope and 
 
 Henry II. Investigated, 1899. The substance of this book the Conquest of Ireland," in his historical essays entitled 
 
 had previously appeared in a series of articles in New The Commune of London and Other Studies, 1899; contra. 
 
 Ireland Review; contra. Raby, Pope Hadrian IV., 1849; Bagwell, Ireland under the Tudors, Vol. I, p. 37; pro. 
 pro. T arleton, Nicolas Breakspear, Englishman and Pope, I wish to acknowledge with pleasure and gratitude 
 
 1896; pro. L. C. Casartelli, "Adrian IV., 11 Dublin Review, my indebtedness to Monsignor Giles, rector of the English 
 
 January, 1902; pro. Hergenrotiier, Ki rche und Staat, pp. College, and to Monsignor Murphy, rector of the Irish Col- 
 
 350 ff., and in his Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I, pp. 870 ff. ; lege, at Rome, for their kindness in granting me the free 
 
 contra. Damberger, " Hadrian IV. und Irland," Der and frequent use of the college libraries, in one or the 
 
 Katholik, 1864; contra; the article is attributed to Dam- other of which I found nearly all the works here named. 
 
 155 
 
6 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 This is a pernicious method, and all the more to be deplored because it is frequently 
 employed. 
 
 It remained for Dr. F. Liebermann, in a brief note in the Deutsche Zeitschrift 
 fur Geschichtsvrissenschaft, 1892, Heft I, p. E 58, to point the way to a new and 
 more profitable discussion of the question by declaring that, although Lauddbiliter 
 might be a forgery, he regarded the fact of the grant as indisputable. My lamented 
 teacher and friend, the late Professor Paul Scheffer-Boichorst, had already come to the 
 same conclusion. He published the results of his investigation in Mittheilungen des 
 Instituts fiir oesterreichische GeschichtsforscJiuiig, IV. Erganzungsband, 1893, pp. 
 101-22. His article bore the title, " Hat Papst Hadrian IV. zu Gunsten des englischen 
 Konigs iiber Irland verfugt?" His article was briefly noticed in the English His- 
 torical Review, Vol. IX (1891), p. 412, but it apparently escaped the notice of all the 
 Englishmen and Irishmen who have since then written on the subject. Even Mr. 
 Round seems to have known nothing of it, although an examination of it might have 
 prevented him from falling into certain errors. Although later writers on the subject 
 have made no reference to his work, his arguments seem to me irrefragable, his conclu- 
 sions final. I have freely used his materials and arguments, as well as those of all 
 who have written on the subject before me. I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness 
 to them all, but esjjecially to Professor Scheffer-Boichorst. By separating the ques- 
 tion of the grant from that of Lauddbiliter, many of the objections and arguments of 
 previous writers fall to the ground of themselves. It has not seemed to me advisable 
 to repeat their arguments in order to show just how they are refuted by the line of 
 proof followed by Scheffer-Boichorst and which I have here amplified. The mere 
 development of the arguments will, I hope, make it unnecessary to refute in detail all 
 that previous writers have said in opposition to the conclusions here arrived at. To 
 have indicated exactly where and by whom each argument, fact, or observation has 
 been used, besides making this study unnecessarily long, would be not only unprofit- 
 able but also practically impossible. I have sometimes grouped the materials and 
 arguments differently and, I hope, more effectively. I have also, I believe, in certain 
 points carried the discussion farther and made some new combinations, especially in 
 the discussion of the reasons why Henry II. rejected Adrian's offer. The discussion 
 of the supposed letter of Henry II. to Adrian IV. is wholly my own. 
 
 The question investigated. — Since, as Dr. Liebermann pointed out, there are two 
 distinct questions involved, it will be necessary to separate them and discuss each one 
 of them on its own merits. It will be best, first of all, to discover, if we can, the 
 exact character and extent of the negotiations which took place between Henry II. 
 and Adrian IV. concerning Ireland. Such a method of procedure is the logical one 
 and should clear the ground for the investigation of Laudabiliter. It is to be regretted 
 that Mr. Round did not see fit to discuss this part of the problem also, instead of 
 devoting himself exclusively to an examination of Laudabiliter. 
 
 We may begin with the testimony of Robertus de Torigneio, that chronicler who 
 was most nearly contemporaneous with the event under discussion. We find that 
 
 156 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 
 
 this Robertas de Torigneio has the following entry in his chronicle under the year 
 1155: 
 
 Circa festum sancti Miekaelis [September 29] Henricus res Anglorum.habito concilio apud 
 Wineestre, de conquirendo regno Hiberniae et Guillermo fratri suo dando cum obtimatibus suis 
 tractavit. Quod quia matri eius Imperatrici non placuit, intermissa est ad tempus ilia espeditio.* 
 
 Since this Robert died in 1186, his testimony is practically contemporaneous. 
 Many mediaeval chroniclers seem to have aimed at brevity more than any other quality. 
 A year's campaign, even a whole war, a movement that extended through years, is often 
 spoken of as if it were a simple event and dismissed in a single sentence. It need 
 therefore not be inferred from this statement of Robert that the plan of conquering 
 Ireland was not discussed at any other time, or that it was in this council at Winchester 
 that the Empress Matilda dissuaded the king from the undertaking. In fact, the words 
 seem to imply that the plan was, at least practically, agreed upon at Winchester, but 
 that afterward, owing to the opposition of the empress, the expedition was postponed. 
 At any rate, we know from other sources, soon to be quoted, that the king's mind was 
 occupied with this matter for several mouths. However, there is no further mention 
 of his brother William in connection with this scheme. But, while we have no corrobo- 
 rative evidence of this part of the plan here attributed to the king, there is no good 
 reason for questioning the truth of the statement made by Robert. 
 
 We know that, instead of giving up the invasion of Ireland in the council at 
 Winchester, the king proceeded immediately to send an embassy to the pope, Adrian 
 IV., to ask the consent of his holiness to the proposed undertaking. In proof of this, 
 Roger de Wendover (died 1236), who used as the basis for his chronicle the work of 
 John of the Cell (abbot of St. Albans, 1195-1211), has the following passage: "Per 
 idem tempus rex Anglorum Henricus mmtios solemnes Romam mittens rogavit papain 
 Adrianum ut sibi liceret Hiberniae insulam hostiliter intrare et terrain subjugare," etc. 
 (Serum Britannicarurn Medii Aevi Scriptores, Roger de Wendover, Vol. I, p. 11.) 
 
 Matthew of Paris, monk of St. Albans, copied the work of Roger de Wendover, 
 but made many additions to it from the archives of his monastery, to which he had 
 access. In his Chronica Maiora, Vol. II, pp. 210 f., he has merely copied Roger's 
 account, but elsewhere he has given us new and important information about this 
 embassy. In his Hisioria Minor, Vol. I, p. 301, he says that Henry sent to the pope 
 to ask " ut sibi liceret sine scandalo laesionis fidei Christianae Hiberniae insulam 
 intrare," etc. Further, in his Vital XXIII. Abbatum S. Albani (Wats's edition, 1684, 
 pp. 969 ff.), the same author gives a long account of this embassy to the pope, from 
 which I quote the following passage: 
 
 Audita igitur apud nos promotione domiui papae Adriani, exultans, Robertus abbas, ad 
 
 reparandas huius ecclesiae antiquas diguitates, ad iter transalpinum accingitur; equos praeparat, 
 impensas perquirit, exenia congregat, quae ad pretium septies vigiuti marcarum (praeter cypkos 
 quinque et mitras tres pretiosissimas et sandalia, et alia desiderabilia) sunt aestiinata. Die igitur 
 
 4 See Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. CLXTX, col. 480; geschichte, Vol. V 2 , pp. G8'2 f., and Scheffer-Uoichokst 
 also M. G. H., Vol. VI, p. 505. Both Hefele, Concilien- have emphasized the importance of this passage. 
 
 157 
 
Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 S. Dionysii [October 9] iter arripuit Romam petiturus, illius comitatui adhaerentibus tribus 
 episcopis Caenornanensi, Luxoviensi, et Ebroicensi. Dederat namque in mandatis rex Henrieus 
 secundus, uoviter inunctus, ipsis ejjiscopis et eidem abbati Roberto quatenus quaedam arcliia nego- 
 tia regalia, de quibus non pertinet ut enarremus ad praesens, Rornae expedirent. Constituit etiam 
 rex ipsum abbatem sui negotii suum procuratorein praecipuum et summurn et confecit eis inde 
 litteras regio sigillo signatas. In quibus humiliter et devote dominurn papain deprecatus est ut 
 se favorabilem tarn negotiis ecclesiae S. Albani quam suis propriis exhiberet, utpote patrocinatui 
 ipsius specialiter subiacentis. Recedentes igitur ab Anglia naves conscendunt. Intumescente 
 autem ruari imminet periculum iam dernersionis. Abbas autem specialiter invocans auxiliumb. 
 Margaritae, virginis et martyris, repeutinurn et contra omnium opinionem sensit in naufragio 
 suffragium. Unde vovit quod in ecclesia nomen eius in litania poneretur propensius honorandum. 
 Prospere igitm' applicantes et postea itinerantes et multas latronum insidias evadentes, tandem 
 Beneventum ubi dominurn papam inveniunt, pervenerunt. Qui eos sereno vultu et animo 
 gaudenti suscepit, et insolitum honorem exhibuit. Expediunt regalia pro libitu negotia. 
 Remanente igitur abbate, recedunt episcopi regi favorem papalem et diligentiam abbatis renun- 
 ciantes. Dominus enim papa amicabiliter coegit abbatem remanere, ut propensius cum ipso 
 colloqium continuaret, et eiusdem moram versus regem per episcopos excusavit. 
 
 The council at Winchester was held about September 29, 1155, and this embassy 
 set out to go to the pope on October 9 of the same year. The nearness in time and 
 the statements of the chroniclers just considered lead one to the inference that one of 
 the " ardua negotia regalia" had to do with the proposed invasion of Ireland. But 
 there was a good reason why Matthew of Paris did not wish to mention this fact: the 
 embassy had failed to get the pope's consent to the invasion. This was probably 
 apparent from the records of the monastery from which Matthew drew the materials 
 for his narrative just quoted. At any rate, he knew from the statement of John of 
 Salisbury that the embassy had not been successful. For nearly one hundred years 
 the world had known that it was John of Salisbury who had secured whatever conces- 
 sion of Ireland Adrian IV. had made to Henry II., because John himself had pub- 
 lished this fact in one of his writings, as we may say, over his own signature. So, if 
 Matthew of Paris had named the exact purpose of the embassy, the failure of his 
 abbot would thereby have become apparent to all. That would have been to publish the 
 humiliation of his abbot who failed in a matter in which John of Salisbury so easily 
 succeeded. I wish to remark that Matthew of Paris shared the erroneous opinion of 
 his time as to the importance of the so-called grant of Adrian IV., and would have 
 been glad to add to the honor of his monastery by making it appear that it was its 
 abbot who had been the successful ambassador of King Henry in this matter. But 
 the well-known statement of John of Salisbury made this impossible. Matthew, 
 therefore, as we have seen, deals only in generalities when speaking of the business 
 on which the embassy was sent. 
 
 The ambassadors set out on their journey on October 9, 1155. While crossing 
 the channel a storm overtook them. They barely escaped shipwreck. Scheffer- 
 Boichorst says they were shipwrecked, but I question that interpretation of Matthew's 
 words, all the more because the horses and the presents for the pope were apparently 
 got ashore without loss or damage, as is to be inferred from Matthew's further account. 
 
 158 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 9 
 
 Besides, in the Middle Age, people lived in an atmosphere of miracle, and it is a char- 
 acteristic of mediaeval writers that they exaggerate nearly every event, which seemed 
 to them extraordinary, into a miracle. The pious desire to do honor to some saint was 
 not the least of the motives which led them to make exaggerated statements about 
 such occurrences. The impelling motives here seem to me to be apparent; Matthew 
 wished to do honor to St. Margaret as well as to heighten the dignity of the abbot of 
 St. Alban's, by showing how he had been the object of St. Margaret's solicitous care. 
 The journey by land was not less free from exciting experiences, but the ambassadors 
 safely reached Benevento, where Adrian IV. was then residing. From his bulls and 
 letters we know that Adrian held his court at Benevento from November 21, 1155, to 
 July 10, 1156. 
 
 We have an independent and unimpeachable witness to the fact that the king 
 sent this embassy. It is no less a person than Adrian IV. himself. On April 25, 
 1156, he wrote to the chapter of the cathedral at" Angers announcing his decision in a 
 case that had been appealed to him by the king of England. This letter has been 
 edited by Loewenfeld. That part of it which concerns us is as follows: 
 
 Adrianus Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, dilectis filiis universo capitulo Andegavensi 
 salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Causa super controversia de electione pontificis per 
 appellationem karissimi in Ckristo filii nostri regis Anglorum ad presentiam nostram delata, et 
 quibusdam de fratribus vestris pro eodem negotio ex vestra parte directis, venerabilibus quoque 
 fratribus nostris E(otrodo) Ebroicensi et G(uilelmo) Cenomanensi episcopis et dilectis filiis nostris 
 R(oberto) abbate S. Albini et G. decano S. Laudi ab eodem rege transniissis, in nostra presentia 
 constitutis, utriusque partis allegationes audivimus, etc. Datum Beneventi VII. Kal. Maii. 
 
 From this letter it does not necessarily follow that these men, or indeed that any 
 one of them, were in Benevento on the date of the letter, April 25, 1156. We know 
 from official documents that Arnulf of Lisieux was at Rouen 5 in February, 1156. 
 From Gallia Christiana, Vol. XI, p. 577, we learn that Rotrodus 6 celebrated Easter, 
 1156 (April 15), at Vezelay. Since Vezelay lay on the route from Rome to Evreux, 
 it is probable that Rotrodus, returning from the embassy, reached Vezelay at Easter 
 time. I have not been able to verify this statement of the authors of Gallia Chris- 
 tiana or to trace the movements of William of LeMans. But Matthew of Paris was 
 undoubtedly well informed about the movements of the bishops. 
 
 We may now reconstruct the course of events as follows: The ambassadors of 
 the king brought the appeal before the pope after the departure of Arnulf of Lisieux. 
 After hearing both sides, the pope reserved his decision for a few days. In the 
 meantime, the other bishops, or at least Rotrodus of Evreux, left Benevento. Even 
 after the pope announced his decision it is not probable that the letter to the chapter 
 at Angers was sent off at once. The papal secretaries were not always prompt, and 
 several days may have elapsed before the letter was drawn up and duly signed. The 
 date was the last thing to be added, and was naturally not the date of the trial, but of 
 
 &SeeEYTON, Court, Household, and Itinerary of King 6tl Roma rediens pascha apud Vizeliacum celebravit 
 
 Henry, 16, Nr. 1, 2. anno lljii." 
 
 159 
 
10 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 the dispatching of the letter. Even Abbot Robert may not have been in Benevento on 
 that day. If he was still there, he certainly set out for home very soon afterward, for 
 he reached St. Albans May 31, the octave of Ascension Day. 
 
 Matthew of Paris had, as we have seen, a good reason for not being explicit in 
 his statements about the success of the embassy in the affairs of the king. " Expediunt 
 regalia pro libitu negotiay The bishops 1 return, " regi favorem papalem et diligentiam 
 abbatis renunciantes" announcing the pope's favor, not his consent; the diligence of 
 the abbot, not his success. So weak a statement, coming from a panegyrist, as Matthew 
 of Paris confessedly was, would indicate little less than failure in the most important 
 business of the embassy. In all other matters entrusted to the embassy, and they 
 were, no doubt, many, the abbot may have been very successful. But the embassy 
 certainly failed to secure the desired consent of the pope. We do not know what all 
 the terms of the king's proposition were. The letter which contained his request has 
 been lost and none of the ambassadors has recorded its contents for us. But if we 
 consider the expressions just quoted from Roger de Wendover, " hostiliter intrare et 
 terrain subiugare" and from Matthew of Paris, " ut sibi liceret sine scandalo laesionis 
 fidei Chrisiianae Hiberniae insulam intrare,'' 1 we must, I think, conclude that Henry 
 wished to conquer Ireland and to take absolute possession of it. By the right of 
 conquest he desired to make it his own, we might almost say, his private and per- 
 sonal property. But there were weighty reasons why Adrian IV. could not grant this 
 request. 
 
 Mediasval rulers regarded it as a part of their duties to make war on any of the 
 neighboring peoples who were still heathen, not only for the purpose of conquering 
 them, but also and especially to Christianize them. But when such a people had once 
 accepted Christianity and received an ecclesiastical organization, it came under the 
 particular protection of the pope and therefore could not be subjugated and absorbed 
 by another Christian power. A heathen nation was the common prey of all its 
 Christian neighbors, but the acceptance of Christianity gave it the right to a separate 
 independent national existence. And Ireland was already Christian, and therefore 
 could not arbitrarily be invaded and subjugated by another Christian nation, sine 
 scandalo laesionis fidei Christianae. Only three years before this Cardinal Paparo had 
 been sent as papal legate to Ireland. He held a synod at Mellifont, 7 1152, in which 
 he erected four archbishoprics in Ireland and gave the pallia to the four ecclesiastics who 
 were elevated to these arehiepiscopal sees. So, just as William the Conqueror had sought 
 and obtained the permission and blessing of Alexander II. for his projected invasion 
 of England, Henry II. applied to Adrian IV. for permission to subjugate Ireland. 
 And not only was Ireland Christian; Adrian regarded it as the property of St. 
 Peter, and therefore he could not permit Henry to invade it and take possession of 
 it. So it is not strange that this embassy failed to win the pope's consent to the pro- 
 posed plan. 
 
 The pope would not consent to diminish the possessions of St. Peter by ceding 
 
 'See Mansi, Vol. XXI, cols. 7130-70, and Hefele, Vol. V, 2d ed., pp. 531 f. 
 
 160 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 11 
 
 the absolute possession of Ireland to Henry. And yet, in accordance with feudal 
 customs, he might, under circumstances, be willing to grant Henry the use of Ireland, 
 that is, to give him the feudal possession of it. But there was a vast difference 
 between feudal possession and absolute possession. Henry had asked for the absolute, 
 not for the feudal possession, of the island. But the pope, at the suggestion of his 
 most intimate friend, John of Salisbury, determined to offer him Ireland as a feudal 
 possession. This offer may be regarded as in the nature of a compromise. 
 
 John of Salisbury, in his Polycraticus, Bk. VI, p. 24 (Migne, Vol. CXCI, col. 
 G23), gives a long account of a visit which he made the pope at Benevento. Giraldus 
 Cambrensis, apparently drawing a false inference from John's words, says that he went 
 as the king's ambassador in this matter; •• jier Johannem Salesberiensem .... 
 Romam ad hoc destination." Others have unthinkingly copied this statement, but 
 Abbe MacGeoghehan and Scheffer-Boichorst have called attention to the fact that 
 John does not say that he was the king's ambassador. He went for the purpose of 
 visiting s his friend, the pope. He spent three months in Benevento in the most 
 familiar intercourse with Adrian. He certainly met Abbot Robert there, as is apparent 
 from a consideration of the dates given above. The abbot, having failed to win the 
 pope's consent, confided his failure to John, who, with a good and justifiable motive, 
 as we shall see, proposed a way out of the difficulty. 
 
 The passage in which John tells how he secured the grant has been much written 
 about. But first a word must be said about the text of it. Giles, in his edition of the 
 works of John of Salisbury, did not always use the best manuscripts and was not 
 sufficiently exact in deciphering and establishing the text. Migne (Vol. CXCI) and 
 Pauli (M. G. SS., Vol. XXVII) have merely reprinted the text of Giles. From the 
 character of the Monumenta we had the right to expect something more than a mere 
 reprint. But we look in vain for any evidence that Pauli tried to improve the work 
 of Giles." Dr. F. Liebermann, at the request of Scheffer-Boichorst, collated the 
 passage in three manuscripts, one of the twelfth and two of the thirteenth century. 10 
 The text, as established by this collation and edited by Scheffer-Boichorst, is as 
 follows : 
 
 Sed bee hactenus. Jam enim flere magis vacat, quam scribere, et visibili argumento 
 doceor, quod mundus totus subiacet vanitati. 11 E.rpectarimus enim pacem et ecce turbatio™ 
 et tempestas ingruens 13 Tolosanis Anglos et Gallos undique concitat, et reges, quos amicissimos 
 vidimus, se insaciabiliter persequuntur. Ad bee mors domni Adriani, summi pontificis, cum 
 omnes Christiane religiones populos nationesque " turbaverit, Angliam nostram, unde fuerat 
 
 s Visitandi causa. Scheffer-Boichorst says that they of the Mss. in the King's Library, p. 226 ; Brit. Mus. Reg. 
 
 had been friends in youth : "urn seinem Jugendfreunde und 12 D. I.; cf. Casley, p. 205; Corpus Christi Cambridge 
 
 Landsmanue, dem Papste, einen Besuch abzustatteu." Cod. 46; cf. Nasmith, Catal. Lib. Mss. Coll. Corp. Christi 
 
 Although I think this extremely probable, I do not recall Cantab., p. 30; cf. Scheffek-Boichokst, loc. cit., pp. 103 f. 
 
 any authority for the statement. ,,„ , „ ..„ 
 
 n Secies. 3:19. 
 
 9 Scheffer-Boichorst, indeed, makes the statement that .., T 
 
 Pauli did not collate a single manuscript for what we must 
 
 therefore call his reprint. 13 Prov. 1 : 27. 
 
 io Brit. Mus. Reg. 13 D. IV, fol. 208; c/. Casley, Catal. " Cf. Saj)., V, 0. 
 
 161 
 
L2 
 
 Studies Conceening Adrian IV. 
 
 oriundus, acerbiori dolore commovit irrigavitque lacrimis profusioribus. Omnibus ille bonis 
 flebilis occidit, sed nulli flebilior, quam mihi. 15 Cum enirn matrem haberet et fratrern 
 uterinum, me, quam illos, artiori diligebat affectu; fatebatur etiam publice et secreto, quia me 
 pre omnibus mortalibus diligebat. Earn de me conceperat opinionem, ut quotiens oportuidtas 
 aderat, conscientiam suam in conspectu meo effundere letaretur. Et cum Romanus pontifex 
 esset, me in propria mensa gaudebat habere convivam et eimdem ciphum et discum sibi et mihi 
 volebat et faciebat, me renitente, esse communem. Ad preces meas illustri regi Anglorurn 
 Henrico secundo concessit et dedit Hiberniam rare hereditario possidendam, sicut littere ipsius 
 testantur in hodiernum diem. Nam omnes insule de hire antiquo ex donacione Constantini, qui 
 earn fundavit et dotavit, dicuntur ad Romanam ecclesiam pertinere. Anulum quoque per me 
 transmisit aureum, smaragdo optimo decoratum, quo fieret investitura iuris in regenda Hibernia. 
 Idemque adhuc anulus in cimiliarchio publico iussus est custodhi. Si virtutes eius percurrere 
 velim, in magni voluminis librum hec una excrescet materia. Omnium vero mentes magis 
 exulcerat scissura ecclesie, que exigentibus culpis nostris contigit, tanto patre sublato. E.vpe- 
 tivit earn Sathanas, ut cribraret sicut tritioum 16 et undique alterius Jude proditoris ministerio 
 amaritudines et scandala spargit. Oriuntiu- bella plus quam civilia," etc. 
 
 Practically all who have written against the genuineness of Laudabiliter have 
 declared this passage a forgery, however, on insufficient grounds. The following facts 
 and considerations seem to me to refute all the objections that have been raised 
 against it, and to make its authorship a certainty. In the first place, this passage is 
 found in all the manuscripts of Metalogicus. We search in vain for any evidence in the 
 written tradition that it was not a part of the original manuscript. And since Metalo- 
 gicus was completed in 1159 (or at the very latest in 1160), and since there is one 
 manuscript of it now in existence which was certainly written some time before 1200 
 (possibly as early as 1175), the argument from the written tradition, that is, from the 
 manuscripts of Metalogicus, must therefore have very great weight, and that clearly 
 points to John of Salisbury as the author of the whole work. 
 
 Furthermore, John's style is characterized by very numerous citations from the 
 Bible and from classical authors. He was one of the few men of the twelfth century who 
 were thoroughly familiar with the classical writers. He really deserves to be regarded 
 as one of the earliest and most important forerunners of the Renaissance, and for 
 literary attainments he can be boldly placed by the side of many of the Humanists. 18 
 In the brief passage here cited there are not less than four or five quotations from 
 the Bible and two from classical authors. This is unique and so thoroughly in keeping 
 with his style that it alone almost suffices to prove that he is the author of it. 
 
 Then, too, the reference to the war between Louis VII. and Henry II., who were 
 then facing each other before Toulouse, fits into the facts perfectly. For the English 
 king was engaged in hostilities there from June 25, 1159, to November 1 of the same 
 year. And Adrian IV. died September 1. The news of his death reached John just 
 as he was completing his Metalogicus, certainly toward the end of September or early 
 in October. And John penned this passage before he learned of the establishment of 
 
 is Horace, Odes, I, 24, line 9. 
 
 1« Luke 22:31. 
 
 JT Lucan, Pharsalia, 1, 1. 
 
 I s See Schaarsohmidt, Johannes Saresberiensis nach 
 Leben und Siudien, Schri/ten und Philosophic, also Voigt. 
 Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, Vol. I, 2d 
 ed., p. G. 
 
 162 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 13 
 
 peace between the two kings, which took place November 1. Such casual agreement 
 with historical facts seems to me decisive. To have produced such harmony in the 
 details would imply a degree of skill and cleverness that is otherwise lacking in 
 mediaeval forgers. 
 
 Equally impossible is the supposition that it would have occurred to a forger to 
 invent such unique details about the intimacy between Adrian IV. and John. And 
 such intimacy is not at all incredible. Remember that Adrian was an Englishman 
 in a foreign land, among a people of a different race and nationality, among a people 
 whom he did not admire, among a people who, by their insistent selfishness, their 
 turbulent demands, their violence and rebellion, greatly increased the already awful 
 burden of his sublime office. At the time of John's visit he had been pope but little 
 more than a year. But what a terrible year it had been for him! Driven from Rome 
 by a rebellion accompanied by war and bloodshed; the lands of the church invaded 
 and devastated by William of Sicily, against whom he could find no aid; at that very 
 moment in danger of being taken a prisoner of war by the troops of the Sicilian, who 
 were advancing in victorious progress toward Benevento; disappointed in the hopes 
 which he had placed on Frederick L, who was powerless to protect him; the college of 
 cardinals divided on the most important questions of policy into two parties. As he 
 himself said, the Lord had kept him continually between the hammer and anvil. Is it 
 strange that under these circumstances his heart cried out for sympathy? One has 
 but to read the undisputed accounts which John 1J has given us of his private conver- 
 sations with Adrian to see what a solitude oppressed the pope's soul. The solitariness 
 of his supreme position and unique office was increased and made more dreary by the 
 isolation which he, as an Englishman, felt among Italians. Was it not enough to 
 make his soul cleave to that of his friend who was of his own race and therefore 
 better able to understand him ? These few words of John give us a view of the inmost 
 soul of Adrian which to me is beyond price. 20 
 
 As a convincing proof of the forgery of this passage much has been made of the 
 expression in hodiernum diem (for this is the correct text and not usque in nor usque 
 ad hodiernum diem), which, it is said, could not be used by a writer of an event so 
 recent. For the gift was made in 1155 and John finished his Metalogicus toward the 
 end of 1159. But in hodiernum diem is not as emphatic as usque in would be. It 
 should be translated simply "As his letter still testifies," and not " even unto the 
 present day." John says no more than that Adrian's letter is still in existence, a fact 
 that was all the more remarkable in his eyes because, as we shall see, the terms of the 
 letter had never been fulfilled, and the letter itself was therefore without value and 
 not worth being preserved. 
 
 The fact that John appeals to the forged Donation of Constantine has been 
 regarded as a sufficient ground for rejecting this passage. But we have abundant 
 
 ' 9 Polycraticus, Bk. VI, p. 24, and Bk. VIII, p. 23; 201 reserve a fuller description of these difficulties 
 
 Migne, Vol. CXCIII, cols. 623-6, and cols. 813, 814. See also which beset Adrian IV. and a more detailed discussion of 
 
 John's letter to Walter, cardinal Bishop of Albano, Mate- these passages of John of Salisbury for my work on the life 
 
 rials for the History of Thomas Becket, Vol. VI, p. 363. of Adrian. 
 
 163 
 
14: Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 evidence that this famous document was generally known and, relatively speaking, not 
 infrequently used by popes as well as by chroniclers." 1 Of course, the Donation of 
 Constantine does not say that Constantine gave all islands to the pope, but only certain 
 possessions in various countries and islands for the support of the lights in the 
 churches. I regret that, not having the better text of Zeumer at hand, I cannot quote 
 from it. Here is the passage: 
 
 Quibus pro concignatione lummariorum possessionum praedia contulimus et rebus diversis 
 eas ditavimus, et per nostrum imperialem iussionem sacram tarn in Oriente quam in Occidente 
 vel etiam septentrionali et meridiana plaga, videlicet in Iudea, Gretia, Asia, Tracia, Africa, et 
 Italia, vel diversis insulis nostra largitate eis concessimus, ea prorsus ratione ut per manus 
 beatissimi Silvestri pontificis successorumque omnia disponantur. (Hinschius, Decratales Pseudo- 
 Isidorianae, p. 253, and Mansi, Vol. II, pp. 603 ff.) 
 
 But the exact meaning of the Donation was soon forgotten, and it came to be believed 
 that, according to the terms of the Donation, Constantine had given all islands to 
 Pope Silvester. And it was this larger interpretation of the Donation which prevailed. 
 
 That various popes knew, believed in, and made use of this interpretation of the 
 Donation there can be no doubt, as will be clearly evident from an examination of the 
 following quotations from papal writings and official documents. 
 
 Waiving the question whether Adrian I (772—95) quoted the Donation, we come 
 to Leo IX., who twice made use of it. In his letter (anno 1053) to Michael Caeru- 
 larius there is the following passage: 
 
 Tan turn apicem coelestis dignitatis in b. Petro et in suis vicariis prudentissimus terrenae 
 monarchiae princeps Constantinus intima consideratione reveritus, cunctos usque in finem saeculi 
 successuros eidem apostolo in Romana sede pontifices, per b. Silvestrum non solum imperiali 
 potestate et dignitate, verum etiam infulis et ministris adornavit imperialibus, valde indignum fore 
 arbitrates terreno imperio subdi quos divina maiestas praefecit coelesti, etc. (Migne, Vol. 
 CXLIII, col. 752.) 
 
 In his letter to the emperor, Constantine Monomachus, Leo IX. twice refers to 
 the Donation in terms no less explicit (Migne, Vol. CXLIII, cols. 778-80). 
 
 Gregory VII. did not quote the Donation, although it would seem, at first sight, 
 to support his claims of universal sovereignty. But it evidently did not serve his 
 purpose to quote it because he attributed all the authority of the church to the direct 
 gift of God, and not to the favor of the emperor. The Dictatus Papae, which was 
 once attributed to him, is now known to have been drawn from the collection of canons 
 
 21 Tho best discussions of the Donation of Constantine Iu writings other than papal traces of the use of the 
 
 are the following : Hauck, Luthardt's Zeitschriftfur Mrch- legend are found in the Vita Hadriani I., written early iu 
 
 liche Wissenscha/t u. Mrchliches Leben, 1888, p. 201 ff. ; Fried- the ninth century, and in the synod of Aachen, 836. It is 
 
 rich, Die Constantinische Schenkung, 1889; Martens, Die quoted by the following authors: Aeneas, bishop of Paris, 
 
 falsche General-Concession Constantin des Grossen, 1SS9; died 870 (MlGNE, Vol. CXXI, col. 758) ; Ado, archbishop of 
 
 Lamprecht, BOmishe Frage v. K. Pippin b. a. Kaiser Lud- Vienna, died 875 (ibid.. Vol. CXXIII, col. 91) ; Liutprand of 
 
 wig d. Frommen, 1889; Wieland, ZeitscKHft filr Kirchen- of Cremona, died 970 (Of. G. SS., Vol. Ill, pp. 350 f., 35S,3G2) ; 
 
 recbt, Vol. XXII, pp. 185 ff.; ZeumertjndBeunner, Fesiyafte Benedict of St. Andrea (.ibid., p. 699) ; Ermoldus Nigellus 
 
 fiirGneist, 1888; Heegenrother, Kircheu. Stoat, pp. 360 ff.; (ibid., Vol. II, p. 506) ; Petrus Damianus (Libelli deZite,\ol. 
 
 DOllinger, Papstfabeln des MitteJi liters, pp. 6111. ; Schef- I, p. 80); Auctor Gallicus (ibid., p. 12). This list could 
 
 fer-Boichorst, M. I. O. G., Vol. X pp. 30211., and Vol. XI, easily bo extended if necessary. 
 pp.12811'. 
 
 164 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 15 
 
 made by Cardinal Deusdedit. The eighth paragraph of the Dictatus, "quod papa 
 solus possit uti imperialibus insigniis," is certainly based on the Donation. 
 
 With the pontificate of Urban II. (1088—99) the Donation, as Dollinger correctly 
 observes, entered on a new phase of its history. An enlarged interpretation and a 
 new legal basis were given it, as will be apparent from a consideration of the two 
 following documents : 
 
 Urbanus Episcopus s. s. Dei dilecto fratri Ambrosio abbati Liparitano, eiusque successori- 
 bus regulariter substituendis in perpetuum. Cum universae insular secundum instituta regalia 
 iuris publici sint, constat profecto quia religiosi Imperatoris Coustantini privilegio in ius 
 proprium b. Petro eiusque successoribus occidentales omnes insulae condonatae sunt, maxime 
 quae circa Italiae Oram habentur, quarum multae, peccatis exigentibus accolarum, a Saracenis 
 captae, Christiani nominis gloriam amiserunt, etc. (Pirri, Sicilia Sacra, 3d ed., p. 952.) 
 
 It bears the date of June 3, 1091. The second document of Urban II. begins as 
 follows : 
 
 Urbanus E. s. s. D. d. f. Daiberto Pisanorum episcopo eiusque successoribus canonice 
 substituendis in perpetuum. Cum omnes insulae secundum statuta legalia iuris publici 
 habeantur, constat etiam eas religiosi Imperatoris Constantini liberalitate ac privilegio in b. 
 Petri vicar tor unique eius ius proprium esse collocatas, etc. Datum Beneventi IV. Kal. Julii, 
 MXCI. (See Ughelli, Italia Sacra, Vol. Ill, col. 369.) 
 
 This is not the place to follow out the history of the Donation in later times, but 
 it may be interesting to add the famous lines of Dante, which will show us how great 
 importance the poet attached to it: 
 
 Ahi, Constantin, di quanto mal fu matre, 
 Non la tua conversion, ma quella dote 
 Che da te prese il priino ricco pafcre. 
 
 —Inferno, XIX., 115 ff. 
 
 These bulls of Urban II. , the originals of which are preserved, are shown to be 
 genuine by every test that can be applied to them; hence all the objections that have 
 been made against them fall to the ground. We have only to concern ourselves here 
 with the meaning of them. The following statement, I believe, adequately expresses 
 the sense of the two documents: 
 
 According to the law of the Roman empire all islands belonged to the public 
 fiscus, or, as we might now say, they were government property. And since it was assumed 
 that the emperor might dispose of such property as he saw fit, it is, therefore, evident 
 that, by the grant of Constantine, all such islands are now the freehold possession, ius 
 proprium, of St. Peter, and are consequently under the absolute control of the reigning 
 pope. By virtue of his sovereignty over the islands Urban II. actually gave Corsica 
 to the bishop of Pisa and the Lipari islands to Abbot Ambrosius. 
 
 There are here in these documents two things that are new: first, the statement that 
 all western islands belong to St. Peter, and, secondly, the legal basis on which this 
 possession rests, namely, because by Roman law they had been a part of the public 
 domain. With the genesis of these new ideas we have nothing to do at present. 
 
 165 
 
16 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 In the light of the above passages, it would be idle to deny that popes made use 
 of the Donation of Constantine during the Middle Age, and no objection can be made 
 to the genuineness of the passage in the Metalogicus or to the recorded action of Adrian 
 IV. because John of Salisbury cites the Donation. John's statement agrees explicitly 
 with the conception expressed in the bulls of Urban II., and it may be asserted with 
 certitude that Adrian IV. believed that Ireland was under his control because, being 
 an island, it was a freehold or allodial possession of St. Peter. 
 
 To sum up, we may therefore confidently accept the passage in Metalogicus as 
 genuine, because, first, it is not in the least discredited by any of its contents, such as 
 the statements about the remarkable intimacy between Adrian IV. and John of Salis- 
 bury, the expression in hodiernum diem, or the reference to the Donation of Constantine; 
 because, secondly, all the evidence to be obtained from the manuscripts in which it is 
 preserved goes to show that it was contained in the original manuscript; because, 
 thirdly, it is thoroughly in the style of John, being in a unique way characterized by 
 quotations from classical Latin writers; and because, lastly, it is corroborated by 
 agreeing in the most casual and convincing manner with the historical situation and 
 facts otherwise known and vouched for. 
 
 We may now pass to the interpretation of the passage in Metalogicus in order to 
 determine the character of the grant offered by Adrian to Henry II. : " Regi Henrico 
 .... concessit et dedit Hiberniam iure hereditario possidendam .... anulum 
 transmisit .... quo fieret investitura iuris in regenda Hibernia." 
 
 In the first place, it is evident that we have before us a feudal grant. Henry II. 
 is to be invested only with the ius in regenda Hibernia,, that is, with the government 
 of Ireland. He is to become the feudal lord of Ireland and Ireland is to become his 
 fief. As a possession, therefore, it still belongs to St. Peter. Secondly, whatever is, 
 by this investiture, given to Henry, is given not simply to him personally and for his 
 lifetime, but also to his heir, iure hereditario. 
 
 But it has been objected that concessit et dedit could not be used for the granting 
 of a fief, because they denote rather a gift ; there is therefore, it is said, a serious contra- 
 diction in the statement of John of Salisbury. But one needs only to turn to the 
 official documents of that period by which fiefs were granted on similar terms, to find 
 that concessit et dedit are used constantly in the granting of fiefs. Let the following 
 examples suffice as proof of the statement. Damns et concedimus infeudum occurs 
 in a document quoted by Ficker, Studien zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens, 
 Vol. I, p. 237, § 121. Also in § 137 there are several passages containing the same 
 words. In a document of Conrad III., anno 1112, to be found in Bohmer, Acta 
 Imperii Inedita, p. 79, we find in benefitium dedimus. In the same work, p. 158, we 
 find, " Civitatem Sutrium cum toto episcopatu et comitatu suo damns concedimus et 
 nomine recti feodi in perpetuum tenenda confirmavimus." That this technical formula 
 was not unknown to the papal secretaries is proved by the fact that Anaclete II. used 
 it in the document by which he granted the lands of southern Italy as a fief to King 
 Roger, 1130, September 27. " Concedimus igitur et donamus et auctorizamus tibi et 
 
 1G6 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 17' 
 
 filio tuo .... coronam regni," etc. The terms of the grant are given a little later. 
 " Has nostras concessiones sic concedimus tradimus et auotorizamus tibi et tuis filiis 
 habenda et possidenda mreperpetuo dum nobis nostrisque successoribus homagium et 
 fidelitatcm . . . . fades vel facient, iuraveris vel iuraverint," etc. Watterich, Pon- 
 tificum Romanorum Vitae, Vol. II, p. 194. 22 
 
 I may remark in passing that it had long been the fixed policy of all the popes to 
 enlarge the possessions of St. Peter, not to diminish them. Adrian IV., his biog- 
 rapher tells us, vigorously pursued the same policy. To diminish the patrimony of 
 St. Peter by giving away so large a possession as Ireland was would have been without 
 parallel in the history of the period, and could have been justified only by the receipt 
 of the largest and most solid advantages for the Church in return. And even granting 
 that Adrian might have wished to make the gift (for which there is no evidence; indeed 
 he refused Henry's request) it is not at all probable that he could have got the consent 
 of the college of cardinals to do so. 
 
 We may, therefore, confidently conclude that, according to the words of John of 
 Salisbury, Henry was, by means of the ring, to be invested with the feudal possession 
 of Ireland. He was to become the pope's man and to do homage to him for Ireland. 
 The ceremony of investiture would naturally be performed by the pope's legate, who, at 
 that time, was Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 Scheffer-Boichorst cites as a similar instance the case of the king of the Isle of 
 Man, who, in 1219, surrendered his little kingdom to the pope, Honorius III., and 
 received it back from him as a fief. By means of a gold ring, sent him by the pope 
 for this purpose, he was invested with his kingdom by the papal legate, the bishop of 
 Norwich. See Raynaldi Annates Eccles., for the year 1219, § 44, Vol. XIII, p. 297. 
 
 But although Adrian thus offered to invest Henry with the government of Ireland, 
 there is no evidence that the investiture ever took place. During the next years Henry 
 did not add to his titles that of " Lord of Ireland." This fact alone would be sufficient 
 evidence that he was never invested with it. 
 
 Neither does John of Salisbury say that Henry was invested with Ireland. He 
 brought the ring quo fieret investitura, but there is not the slightest indication in 
 John's words that the purpose was carried into effect. Furthermore, we cannot find 
 any evidence that Adrian's offer had any influence on the course of events during the 
 next few years. Henry did not advance any claim to Ireland in consequence of it. 
 When he went to Ireland to take possession of it (1172) he did not appeal to the fact 
 that he had been invested with it by Adrian. He did not even publish the fact that 
 the pope had offered to invest him with it. Why ? Because, the act of investiture not 
 having been performed, the offer had no binding force, and no permanent value. 
 
 We must conclude, therefore, that Henry did not do homage to the pope nor swear 
 fealty to him for Ireland. Since the offer was not accepted and acted upon, it remained 
 merely an offer, a dead letter, of no force whatever. It gave the king no rights in 
 
 -- For further examples see Deutsche Zeitschrift f, Geschichtswissenschaft, 1S00, p. 3-7, where Scheffer-Boichorst has 
 noted several similar examples. 
 
 167 
 
18 Studies Concerning Adeian IV. 
 
 Ireland; for only by the act of investiture could such rights be conveyed to him. 
 Therefore, when he took possession of Ireland, he did so neither by virtue of the papal 
 investiture nor by the papal offer of investiture. Henry II. got possession of Ireland 
 vi et armis, and not as a fief but as an absolute possession. Neither Adrian nor 
 Adrian's offer, as recorded by John of Salisbury, can in any way be made responsible 
 for Henry's seizure of Ireland. And after he had taken forcible possession of it he 
 tried, but without success, to persuade three successive popes to acknowledge the 
 absolute character of his title to it. 
 
 When we ask why the investiture did not take place, we are left largely "to con- 
 jecture. No one has given us a satisfactory reason for it. In the first place, the words 
 of Robert de Torrigneio must be considered. He says that the opposition of the 
 empress, Matilda, caused the invasion of Ireland to be put off. But did she oppose 
 the offered investiture ? We do not know. It is questionable whether her influence 
 over Henry was sufficiently strong at that time to have been decisive in such a matter. 
 However, Matilda had had personal experience in the great struggle about ecclesiastical 
 investitures between the emperor and the popes, and she would probably have been 
 able to advance good reasons for rejecting the pope's offer. 
 
 It must also be noted that Henry had not asked for investiture, but for the permission 
 to invade and subjugate Ireland. In other words, he wished to become, not the feudal 
 lord, but the absolute possessor of that land, and that he could become only by con- 
 quest. For some of his French possessions he was already the feudal subject of the 
 king of France, with whom he was involved in constant quarrels. He knew that the 
 feudal relation was burdensome and a most annoying hindrance to free and independent 
 action. He had already begun his ambitious policy of concentrating the power in his 
 own hands and of extending his authority. He may well therefore have shrunk from 
 entering into another feudal relation which might easily become a still greater 
 restriction and hindrance than the one in which he already found himself. 
 
 Possibly Henry was offended and frightened by the claim of the pope to be the 
 possessor of all islands. For England also was an island. And if Henry should 
 accept Ireland from the pope and thus recognize the claim of the latter to all islands, 
 who was to assure him that the pope would not claim England in the same way and 
 demand that Henry hold its crown also as a papal fief? Henry II. was clever, and it 
 seems hardly possible that he or some of his advisers should not have seen the con- 
 clusion to which the claim of the pope logically led. It is possible, therefore, that he 
 refused the investiture because he would not recognize the principle on which the 
 pope's claims rested. 
 
 But there is another reason which seems to me even more probable and potent for 
 his rejection of the offer of the pope. It must be noted that John of Salisbury does 
 not speak of the conditions on which Adrian offered to invest Henry with the govern- 
 ment of Ireland. But were there no conditions attached to it? Let us see. The 
 relations existing between Adrian and Henry were not so intimate as to warrant the 
 supposition that Adrian made the offer out of absolutely disinterested friendship. 
 
 168 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 19 
 
 Shall we listen to the supposition that it was out of the natural pride of an English- 
 man to be able to confer a favor on an English king? I regard the supposition as 
 thoughtless and slanderous. There is nothing in Adrian's conduct or letters that would 
 indicate that he was filled with the patriotic desire to see England's authority extended 
 over her neighbors. There is no evidence that he labored out of patriotic motives to 
 increase the power and prestige of the English king. There is no proof that he was 
 inclined to favor his native land at the cost of St. Peter. He never was influenced in 
 his papal policy by his nationality. As pope he labored for the whole church, not for 
 the aggrandizement of a single power, even though it were his native country. He had 
 a high, sane, and true concej)tion of his office. Few popes have been more thoroughly 
 imbued with what we may call the universal spirit of their office than was he. He was 
 a fine exponent of the universal character of the papacy. From motives of simple 
 friendship or of patriotism to have diminished the possessions of the church would have 
 been to make the papacy subservient to particular and private ends. And that would 
 have been malfeasance in office and treason to St. Peter. The whole pontificate of Adrian 
 TV. shows that it would have been impossible for him to have acted in so treasonable a 
 manner. The church had a tremendous transforming power. Witness Thomas a. Becket. 
 Besides, speaking in the large, it has always been the papal policy to make con- 
 cessions only when substantial concessions are made in return. Do ut des, facio ut 
 facias is the unwritten law, the principle on which all popes act. And properly so, too; 
 for the possessions of St. Peter should be used to advance his interests, and not to 
 gratify the private and personal desires of the popes. If Adrian made a grant to 
 Henry, he expected something in return. In other words, he attached some condition 
 to his offer. In order to discover what this condition probably was, let us examine the 
 following letter: 
 
 Adrianus E. s. s. D. Theobaldo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo apostolicae sedis legato s. e. a. b. 
 Quanta magis sacrosancta Komana ecclesia te inter alios ecclesiarum praelatos ab ipso promo- 
 tionis suae [sic! Read tuae] tempore honoravit, quanto et personam tuam maiori caritatis 
 affectione dilexit, tanto amplius ei deberes in omni humilitate substerni, nee aliquid, quod ad 
 eius contemptmn vel incommodum pertineret, deceret te ullatenus niachinari. Quod enim in 
 toto Anglico regno praerogativa solus nosceris obtinere quod vice nostra tibi aliorum errata 
 permissum est emendare, quod eadem Eomana ecclesia te non solum in partem vocavit sollici- 
 tudinis, verum etiam quadammodo (read quodammodo) in plenitudinem potestatis, oporteret te 
 quandoque ad mentem reducere, et tantorum memoria praemiorum ab offensione nostra tuurn 
 deberet animum retardare Miramur autem plurimum et gravarnur, quod in oblivionem tot 
 beneficiorum usque adeo devenisti, et collatam tibi a Romaua ecclesia dignitatem ita videris 
 abiecisse post tergum, quod cum ipsa te super alios exaltasset, tu earn, sicut rei effectus indicat, 
 deprimere niteris, et robur virtutis eius, eui tamen nemo est qui posset resistere, praesumis modis 
 omnibus enervare. Ad notitiam siquidem nostram, fama referente, pervenit, qitam ita a/pud te et 
 apud regem Angliae appellatio sit sepulta, quod aliquis non est, qui in tua vel in illvuts pre- 
 sent ia ad scdem apostolicam audeat appellare. Sed nimquam [numquid?] ad al terms institu- 
 tionem principii contra edictum Domiuicae praeceptionis aspiras. [?] Nunquam [numquid?] 
 potestatem Petri et apostolicae fastigia dignitatis cogitas minorare. [ ?] Nimquam [numquid ? | 
 ad scissionem vestimentorum Christi, quae tamen scindi non possint, indebito conatu moliris. [?] 
 Talem utique retributionem Deum non credimus approbare, dum te ingratum nobis invenire pro 
 
 169 
 
20 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 impensis beneficiis debeamus, et operibus nostris ita sinistre ita in contrarhrm respondere. 
 Accedit etiam ad hoc, quod in exhibenda iustitia his qui iniustitiam patiuntur, tepidus sis 
 modis omnibus ac reniissus, et in tantum parti regis dicer is procur are favorem, eiusque timori 
 succumbere, quod si quando litteras tibi pro aliquo, ut suam consequatur iustitiam, destinemus, 
 nullatenus poterit per te, sicut iani saepius ex multorum conquestione didicirnus, quod suum est 
 obtinere. Caeterum oporteret te magis Deo quam hominibus obedire, nee pro iustitia deberes 
 aciem fugere gladiorum, nee laicorum saevitiam aut impetum formidare. Noveris autem quia 
 si forte super his ad nos querela pervenerit iterata, quod videlicet ne appellatio fiat ad nos 
 audeas prohibere, vel ut prohibeatur silentio sustinere, seu quod, alicuius timore in iustitia 
 facienda tepidum te exhibeas et, remmissum in requisitum forsitan et inpunctum (So the editor 
 Hardwick; it should apparently be inrequisitum forsitan et inpunitum) non poterimus prae- 
 terire. Ad haec nosse te volurnus, quod abbati s. Augustini, iuxta petitionem muitiorum tuorarn, 
 dedimus in mandatis, ut professionem tibi exhibeat, si canonice et legitime constiterit praede- 
 cessores eius ipsam professionem tuis anteeessoribus praestitissse. Quod si hoc non esse 
 constiterit, occasione litterarum illarum, professionem ab eo non audeas ulla violentia extorquere. 
 Alioquin in fervore animi nostri, tarn pro hoc quam pro caeteris praelibatis, et tuum candelabrum 
 concutiemus, et tantarn praesumptionem cum gravibus usuris, auctore Domino, exigemus. — 
 Data Beneventi X. Kal. Feb. (January 23, 1156). 
 
 As is apparent, this is a letter of Adrian IV. to Theobald, archbishop of Canter- 
 bury. It has been published, with many errors, for some of which I have offered 
 emendations, by Hardwick in his edition of Thomas Elinhani's Historia Monasterii s. 
 Augustini Cantuariensis, pp. 411 ff. 
 
 Adrian here recounts the high ecclesiastical honors which have been heaped on 
 the archbishop and then upbraids him for his actions by which he is working injury 
 to the Church. The king has forbidden the clergy of England to appeal to Rome, 
 and the. archbishop supports him in this iniquitous prohibition. It is apparent, there- 
 fore, that Henry had already begun the policy which was to culminate in the constitu- 
 tions of Clarendon (1164) and the murder of Becket. He had begun to assume 
 authority in ecclesiastical matters and had thereby given offense to the pope. Adrian 
 threatens Theobald with deposition if he dares continue to prohibit appeals to Rome 
 or silently permits them to be prohibited. But what would he say to Henry ? Would 
 such conduct in a king be passed over in silence? 
 
 From the date of this letter it is apparent that it was written at the very time 
 when Henry's ambassadors were in Benevento to ask, among other things, for the 
 pope's consent to the invasion of Ireland. The request was an impossible one, and 
 certainly the pope would not be disposed to grant favors indiscriminately to a king 
 who was usurping ecclesiastical authority, acting against the laws of the church, and 
 oppressing the clergy by depriving them of their rights and liberties. The evil must 
 be stopped. But Adrian IV. was not rash. Throughout his pontificate he resorted to 
 extreme measures only with the greatest reluctance and after all other means had 
 failed. The history of his negotiations with Frederick I. would abundantly prove this. 
 He must have been searching for the means by which he could peaceably persuade 
 Henry to change this policy so hostile to the church. And when he learned that 
 Henry coveted Ireland, what more natural than that he should offer to invest him with 
 
 170 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 21 
 
 the government of the island, the possession of St. Peter, but on the condition that 
 Henry change his policy and no longer interfere with the liberties of the church in 
 England? 
 
 It is admitted that civil wars had been raging for some time in Ireland, and that 
 the churches there were suffering from them. It was naturally to be hoped that a 
 strong overlord, who, like Henry, was near at hand, would restore peace to the island. 
 In the blessings of this peace the church would have no small share. Surely the 
 cession of Ireland as a fief to the king of England would have been a small price to 
 pay for the peace of Ireland and the consequent prosperity of the church there, and 
 for the free exercise of the liberties of the church in England, which was so seriously 
 threatened by the royal usurpations. Adrian IV. needs no justification for having 
 made this offer. 
 
 And in such a feudal relation there was absolutely nothing derogatory or dis- 
 honoring to the Irish people. Europe, at that time, was feudal and thought in terms 
 of feudalism. The feudal relation was the universal and natural one. 
 
 John of Salisbury, who stood in the favor of the king and was at the same time 
 the secretary of Archbishop Theobald, foresaw the coming storm and hoped to avert it 
 by persuading Adrian to this conciliatory offer, by which the king might be recalled 
 to the path of obedience and justice. But the plan failed. Henry refused to accept 
 the offered terms. His heart was set on acquiring the complete mastery over the 
 church in England and on breaking down the authority of the pope there. And for 
 the conquest of Ireland he could bide his time. Therefore he refused the investiture ; 
 he took no oath of homage and fidelity to the pope ; he continued his policy of sup- 
 pressing the liberties of the church ; the ring, instead of being returned to the pope, 
 went into the royal treasury, and the papal letter, now valueless, into the archives. 
 John of Salisbury received scant reward for his pains. He could not do otherwise 
 than resist the king's policy toward the church, and therefore he soon lost the royal 
 favor. But the further progress of this great drama, as well as the later efforts of 
 Henry II. to get possession of Ireland, and his negotiations with the successive popes 
 on the same subject, lie beyond the scope of this study. But it is significant that in 
 those negotiations the point of contention was the nature of Henry's claim to Ireland ; 
 he endeavored to secure papal recognition of his absolute possession of it, while the 
 popes regarded it as the property of St. Peter, and Henry's tenure of it as feudal. 
 
 II. LAUDABILITER 
 
 We come now to an entirely different question. We have seen that Adrian IV. 
 offered to invest Henry II. with Ireland; but is Laudabiliter the document by which 
 he made the offer ? It may or it may not be. The question must be examined and 
 answered on its own merits. Laudabiliter must be subjected to all the tests to which 
 an official mediaeval document can be put. If it stands these tests, it is genuine ; 
 otherwise, it is false. If, on examination, Laudabiliter is found not to conform to the 
 rules according to which all similar papal documents were drawn up; if it does not 
 
 171 
 
O') 
 
 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 accord with the statements of other unquestionably genuine writings which treat of 
 the same subject ; if, finally, it contains contradictions and other characteristic imper- 
 fections, we shall be compelled to say that it is not genuine. The trustworthiness of 
 Griraldus Cambrensis, to whom we owe its preservation, has nothing to do with the 
 question of its genuineness and should be left out of the discussion. It will be 
 necessary, first of all, to study the document itself, and to this end I reproduce the 
 text of it. It will lie observed that certain of its sentences are repeated, either in 
 whole or in part; and since this fact seems to me to be of some aid in determining the 
 character of the document, they are printed in italics, and those which are identical or 
 nearly so, are supplied with a common letter: 
 
 I. Adrianus servus servorum Dei carissimo in Christo filio illustri Anglorum regi s. e. a. b. 
 Laudabiliter satis et fructuose de (a) glorioso nomine propagando in tern's et (b) aeternae 
 felicitatis praemio cumulando in caelis tua magnificentia cogitat, duin (c) ad dilatandos 
 ecclesiae terminos, ad declarandam mdoctis et rudibus populis Christianae fidei veritatem, et (d) 
 vitiorum plantaria de agro Domenico exstirpanda, sicut catholicus princeps intendis, et ad id 
 convenientius exequendum, consilium apostolicae sedis exigis et favorem. In quo facto quanto 
 altiori consilio et maiori discretione procedis, tanto in eo feliciorem progressum te, praestante 
 Domino, confidimus habiturum; eo quod ad bonum exitum semper et finem soleant attingere, 
 quae de ardore fidei et religionis amore principium acceperunt. 
 
 II. Sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas, quibus sol iustitiae, Christus, illuxit, et quae docu- 
 menta fidei Christianae ceperunt, ad ius b. Petri et sacrosanctae Eomanae ecclesiae, quod tua 
 etiam nobilitas recognoseit, non est dubium pertinere. Unde tanto in eis libentius plantationeui 
 lidi'lem et gennen gratum Deo inserimus, quanto id a nobis interno examine districtius prospici- 
 mus exigendum. 
 
 III. Significasti siquidem nobis, fili in Christo carissime, te Hiberniae insulam ad subden- 
 dum ilium populum legibus et (d) vitiorum plantaria inde exstirpanda velle intrare, et de (e) 
 singulis domibus annuam unius denarii b. Petro velle solvere pensionem, (f) et iura eccle- 
 siarum illius terrae illibata et integra conservare. 
 
 IV. Nos itaque, piuin et laudabile desiderium tuum cum favore congruo prosequentes, et 
 petitioni tuae benignum impendentes assensum, gratum et acceptum habemus, ut (c) pro dila- 
 taudis ecclesiae terminis, pro vitiorum restringendo decursu, pro corrigendis moribus et virtu- 
 tibus inserendis, pro Christianae religionis augmento, insulam illam ingrediaris, et quae ad 
 honorem Dei et salutem illius terrae spectaverint exequaris, et illius terrae populus honorifice te 
 recipiat, et sicut dominum veneretur, (f ) iure nimirum ecclesiarum illibato et integro perina- 
 nente et (e) salva b. Petro et sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae de singulis domibus annua unius 
 denarii pensione. 
 
 V. Si ergo quod concepisti animo effectu duxeris prosequente complendum, stude gentem 
 illam bonis moribus inf( irmare; et agas tarn per te quam per illos, quos ad hoc fide, verbo, et vita. 
 idoneos esse prospexeris, ut decoretur ibi ecclesia, plantetur et crescat fidei Christianae religio, 
 et quae ad honorem Dei et salutem pertinent animarum per te taliter ordinentur ut a Deo (b) 
 sempiternae mercedis cumulum consequi merearis, et (a) in terris gloriosum nomen valeas in 
 seculis obtinere. 
 
 The gist of this letter is found, I believe, in the following summary: 
 I. The king is taking praiseworthy means of spreading the glorious name (whose 
 name?) in the earth and of laying up reward in heaven by laboring for the extension 
 of the borders of the church, for the proclamation of the true faith to untaught and 
 
 172 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 23 
 
 uncultured peoples, and for weeding out the vices from the Lord's field, and by 
 seeking the papal advice and favor in such labors. For, the deeper the counsel and 
 the greater the discretion with which he proceeds, the greater will be his success in 
 the undertaking. For whatever has its origin in religious zeal and devotion to religion 
 always comes to a good and successful end. 
 
 II. Ireland, as well as all other islands which have received Christianity, belong 
 to St. Peter. The pope is the more willing to sow the seed in these islands, because 
 his conscience will demand of him a strict account of them. 
 
 III. The king has made known to the pope that he wishes to enter Ireland for the 
 purpose of subjecting its people to laws and extirpating their vices; he is willing to 
 pay St. Peter a penny each year for every house, and preserve intact the rights of the 
 church there. 
 
 IV. The pope gives his consent to the plan and repeats and expands the conditions 
 which have already been named. He is also willing that the Irish shall receive Henry 
 as their lord. 
 
 V. If the king determines to carry his wish into effect let him strive to teach the 
 Irish good morals, and let him and all those of whom he makes rise in the undertaking 
 so act that the church in Ireland may be adorned, the Christian religion be planted 
 and have increase, and let him so dispose all things that pertain to the honor of God 
 and to the salvation of souls that he may deserve a reward in heaven and forever have 
 a glorious name in the earth. 
 
 It seems necessary to preface the discussion of this document with a brief state- 
 ment about the rules and customs which prevailed in the papal cancellaria during the 
 Middle Age. To the papal secretaries were given certain instructions which they must 
 carefully and exactly follow in drawing up official documents. In consequence of the 
 great stress laid on some of these rules they were so rigidly followed that they are 
 unerring tests of genuineness and forgery. For it is agreed by all that a document 
 which offends seriously against these rules can not have been written in the papal 
 cancellaria, and if it purports to be a papal writing, it is declared to be a forgery. 
 For a discussion of this subject, I refer to such handbooks as those of Bresslau and Leist. 
 
 By comparing Laudabiliter with the account of John of Salisbury, we discover 
 the following three significant differences: First, John's statement that all islands 
 belong to the pope was, as we have seen, in full agreement with the ideas of the times. 
 But in Laudabiliter this theory receives a peculiar limitation; only those islands which 
 have received Christianity are the possession of St. Peter. Secondly, it was a rule of 
 the papal cancellaria that the person at whose request a favor was granted should be 
 named in the document by which the favor was conferred or confirmed. John says 
 that the gift was made ad preces meas. But there is no mention of this fact in Lauda- 
 biliter. Thirdly, there is not the slightest reference in Laudabiliter to the promised 
 investiture of which John makes mention. But investiture was the most important 
 thing of all, because without it a man could have no right to the fief in question. The 
 rights to a fief could be conferred only by the act of investiture. And we search in 
 
 173 
 
24 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 vain in Laudabiliter for the technical expressions concessit et dedit and in re hereditaria 
 which were used by John. There is here a radical defect in Laudabiliter. In para- 
 graph II the pope is made to say that Ireland belongs to St. Peter, and in paragraph 
 IV he merely gives his consent that Henry may invade Ireland and that the Irish may 
 receive him with marks of honor and venerate him as their lord. Now, it is absolutely 
 impossible that a fief should have been conferred by any one in the twelfth century by 
 a document so vague and untechnical in its language. The conferring of a fief was a 
 legal transaction of the utmost importance and was always done in technical language, 
 and generally made more solemn by the emphatic heaping up of technical terms to 
 indicate the absolute and unquestionable character of the grant. In such grants damns, 
 concedimus, dona nuts, auctorizamus, confirmamus, and investimus are the words most 
 frequently used. One has but to look into the documents of that period by which 
 such grants were made to assure oneself that such technical terms " were an essential 
 part of every letter of grant. I have examined a large number of these grants, and 
 not in one of them have I found such technical terms wanting. In fact, it is the rule 
 to find at least two, and often even three or four, of these words used in every such 
 document. The presence and repetition of these technical terms were quite as neces- 
 sary and universal in official documents of the twelfth century as they are today in our 
 deeds of grant. So essential were they to a transaction of this sort that John of 
 Salisbury used them even though he was only making an untechnical statement of the fact. 
 
 Not less essential to such a document was the mention of the hereditary character 
 of the grant. The heirs were always mentioned or it was explicitly said that the fief 
 should return to its original owner on the death of the one to whom the grant is made. 
 
 That the papal secretaries were not ignorant of the necessity of such technical 
 terms is apparent from the document which they drew up only a few weeks later (June, 
 1156), in which Adrian confirmed William of Sicily in the possession of his lands. 
 (Wattericli, Vitae, Vol. II, pp. 352-6. To avoid needless repetition, I simply refer 
 to the passages from various documents quoted above in connection with the discussion 
 of the technical terms, concessit et dedit.) 
 
 In view of the rigor with which such technical terms were used in documents of 
 this sort in the Middle Age, there is but one conclusion possible. Laudabiliter cannot 
 have been written by one who knew what was essential to such a document. It cannot 
 have been written in the papal cancellaria, and, therefore, it is not genuine. 
 
 I should be willing to rest the case against Laudabiliter here in the full confidence 
 that it would be condemned by all who are trained in the res diplomaticae of the Middle 
 Age. But we may apply to it other tests by comparing it with the letters which 
 Alexander III. wrote concerning Ireland. Three of these letters, numbered 12,162, 
 12,163, and 12.164 in the Regesta of Jaffe-Loewenfeld, are printed in Migne, PatroJogia 
 Latina, Vol. CO, cols. 883 ff. They all bear the same date, September 20, and it is 
 certain that they were written in 1172. In one of them, which is addressed to Henry 
 II., the pope congratulates him on his success in Ireland, and closes with the following 
 passage : 
 
 174 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 25 
 
 Et quia, sicut tuae magnitudinis excellentia (novit ), Roinana ecclesia aliud ius habet in 
 insula quarn in terra magna et coutinua, nos earn de tuae devotionis fervore spem fidueiarnque 
 tenentes, quod iura ipsius ecelesiae non solum conservare velis sed etiam ampliare, et ubi nullum 
 ius habet, id debes sibi conferre, magnificentiam tuam rogamus et sollicite cornmonernus ut in 
 prescripts teiTa iirra b. Petri nobis studeas sollicite conservare, et si etiam ibi non habet, tua 
 magnitudo eidem ecelesiae eadem iura constituat et assignet ita quod exinde regiae celsitudini 
 gratias debeamus exsolvere copiosas, et tu primitias tuae gloriae et triuniphi Deo videaris offerre. 
 Data Tusculani XII. Kal. Oct. 
 
 Alexander III. does not here name the Donation, but it is apparent that it was in 
 his mind. The islands do not stand in the same relation to the pope as the mainland. 
 Alexander expresses the confidence that Henry will be willing to acknowledge his duty, 
 and therefore he beseeches him to preserve whatever rights St. Peter already actually 
 exercises in Ireland, and to establish whatever other rights St. Peter ought to have 
 there. In the whole letter there is no mention of Adrian IV., or of any document 
 issued by him, touching Ireland. There is nothing that can possibly be interpreted 
 as a reference to Laudabiliter. 
 
 Of the two other letters just referred to the one is addressed to the kings and 
 princes of Ireland, urging them to keep their oaths to Henry II. The other is addressed 
 to Christian, bishop of Lismore, who was then papal legate in Ireland, and to the four 
 Irish archbishops and their suffragans. But in neither of these letters do we find any 
 reference to Adrian IV. or to any of his letters. 
 
 From the letter to the Irish clergy I quote the following paragraph : 
 
 Ita mandatum nostrum fideliter et efficaciter exsecuturi ut sicut praefatus rex, tanquam 
 catholicus et Christianissimus princeps, nos tarn in decimis quam in aliis ecclesiasticis iustitiis 
 vobis restituendis, et in omnibus quae ad ecclesiasticam pertinent liberatem, pie et benigne 
 dicitur exaudisse, ita etiam vos sibi ea quae ad regiarn respiciunt dignitatem conservetis firmiter 
 et quantum vobis est, faciatis ab aliis conservari. 
 
 Here there is mention made of tithes, but not a word about the payment of the Peter's 
 pence which is spoken of in Laudabiliter. When we reflect that it was customary to 
 refer to, and even to quote verbatim, the important sections of any papal document 
 which had previously been issued touching the same subject, we must admit that these 
 letters of Alexander III. give strong testimony against the genuineness of Laudabiliter. 
 But there is another letter attributed to Alexander III. in which Adrian IV. and 
 his cession of Ireland to Henry II. are mentioned. This letter, which is brief and 
 without date, I give entire: 
 
 Alexander e. s. s. D. carissimo in Christo filio, illustri Anglorurn regi, s. e. a. b. Quoniam ea, 
 quae a decessoribus nostris rationabiliter indidta noscuntur, perpetua merentur stabilitate 
 nrmari, venerabilis Adriani papae vestigiis inhaerentes, vestrique desiderii fructum attendentes, 
 concessionem eiusdem super Hibernici regni dominio vobis indidto, salva beato Petro et sacro- 
 sanctae Komanae ecelesiae sicut in Anglia sic et in Hibernia de singulis domibus annua unius 
 denarii pensione, ratum habemus et confirmamus, quatinus, eliminatis terrae illius spureitiis, 
 barbara natio, quae Christiano censetur nomine, vestra diligentia moram induet venustatem, et 
 redacta in formam hactenus informi finium illorum ecclesia, gens ea per vos Christianae profes- 
 sionis nomen cum effectu de cetero consequatur. 
 
 175 
 
20 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 All our knowledge of this document is derived from Giraldus Cambrensis, who 
 published it first in his De Expugnatione Hiberniae (Book II, chap. 5, Vol. V, pp. 
 315 ff.), and again in his De instructione Prin. (Book II, chap. 19, Vol. VIII, p. 197). 
 In the Litter place, however, he prefaced it with the following statement: "Sicut a 
 quibusdam impetratum asseritur aut confingitur, ab aliis autem unquam impetratum 
 fuisse negatur." That these early doubts about the genuineness of this letter were 
 well founded will appear from the following considerations. The points of difference 
 between this and the genuine letters of Alexander III., discussed above, are easily 
 apparent. If all these letters are genuine, it would be difficult to explain these 
 differences. In the time of Alexander III. it was a fixed rule of the papal cancel! aria 
 that all kings and princes should be addressed with tltou and thine (tit and tuns). 
 But the pope demanded that all should address him with you and yours (vos and 
 vester). Frederick I. and Adrian IV. had, indeed, a quarrel over this usage. Because 
 the dignity of the pope and his claim to superiority over all princes and potentates 
 were involved, this rule was of the utmost importance and was never broken in the 
 papal cancellaria. Hence this cannot be a letter of Alexander III. Its author was 
 evidently ignorant of the genuine letters of that pope, and so his writing does not 
 agree with them. This false letter of Alexander III. has been quoted as a proof of 
 the genuineness of Laudabiliter. But, being a forgery and agreeing with the terms 
 of Laudabiliter, it furnishes, not a confirmation of, but good grounds for suspecting, 
 the latter. 
 
 The arguments thus far advanced force upon us the conclusion that Laudabiliter 
 is not genuine. Those that are yet to be brought forward have a double purpose: 
 first, they are intended to add in a cumulative way to the force of the previous argu- 
 ments; and, secondly, they are meant to reveal the true character of Laudabiliter. 
 For this famous document is neither a genuine letter of Adrian IV. nor a forgery in 
 the true sense of the word. It was not written with the purpose of deceiving or of 
 securing any material advantage. The following arguments will, I hope, make it 
 probable, if not absolutely certain, that it is merely a Latin exercise of some twelfth - 
 century student, who was practicing himself in the art of letter-writing, and for this 
 purpose chose to impersonate Adrian IV. It is well known that the composition of such 
 imaginary correspondence formed a part of the training of students in the Middle Age." J 
 
 To this conclusion we are led by a study of the style and phraseology of the letter. 
 Its poverty of vocabulary, its numerous and awkward repetitions, its general haziness 
 and iniU'liuii.'uess, all reveal the untrained and uncertain hand of a student who is 
 master neither of his materials nor of the proper literary forms. A reference to the 
 sentences printed in italics will make any further discussion of this point unnecessary. 
 A careful study of the letter will reveal the fact that it contains certain discrepancies 
 of statement and logic. Ad dilatandos ecclesiae terminos certainly implies that Ireland 
 was outside of the limits of the church. Ad declarandam indoctis et rudibus populis 
 
 2 : See " Monachi Sangallensis de Gestis Karoli Imperatoiis," I, 3 (M. G. SS., Vol. II, pp. 731 f.) for evidence that it 
 was the practice iu the days of Karl the Great. 
 
 176 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 27 
 
 Christianae fidei veritatem apparently lias the same meaning. But Ireland, as we have 
 seen, was Christian and possessed a complete ecclesiastical organization, recognized 
 and, in part, created by the pope. And our student was aware of this fact because in 
 paragraph IV he speaks of the church as if it already existed there, ut decoretur ibi 
 ecclesia. And, according to paragraph II, Ireland must have been Christian, because only 
 Christian islands are said to belong to St. Peter. And yet in the next sentence the pope 
 is made to speak of sowing the seed in such islands as if they were still heathen. 
 
 Not less striking is the contradiction or lack of logical coherence in two sentences 
 in paragraph I: "The deeper the counsel and the greater the discretion with which you 
 ■proceed, the greater will be your success." This is a rational statement and needs no 
 further proof. But it is followed by a statement that, absurdly enough, has exactly 
 the opposite meaning: "Because whatever has its origin in zeal for religion awl the 
 love of the faith always succeeds." The presence of such contradictions and such lack 
 of clearness and precision in statement are easily explained if this letter is only a 
 student's exercise. 
 
 We know also that this student had before him a genuine letter of Adrian IV. 
 from which he borrowed several sentences, adapting them, badly and in an awkward 
 way, to suit his purpose. Toward the end of the year 1158 or early in the year 1159, 
 Henry II. and Louis VII. of France planned to make a campaign together against 
 the Mohammedans in Spain. They sent a common embassy to Adrian IV. setting forth 
 their desire and asking the pope's consent. But Adrian, for reasons into which we 
 need not enter here, refused to sanction the undertaking. The embassy naturally 
 received two letters in reply, the one addressed to Louis VII., the other to Henry II. 
 The former has been preserved, the latter lost. Knowing the customs of the papal 
 cancellaria, we may say with certainty that in their essential parts touching the matter 
 in hand these two letters were practically identical in everything except the names of 
 the persons addressed. The letter addressed to Henry had no value to him, and was 
 therefore not carefully preserved. In some way it fell into the hands of our student. 
 In order to show how he utilized it in the composition of Laudabiliter, I quote the 
 following extracts from the pope's letter to Louis VII: 
 
 Adrianus e. s. s. D. carissimo in Christo filio Ludovico, illustri Francorum regi s. e. a. b. 
 Satis laudabiliter et fructuose de Christiano nomine propagando in terris, et aeternae beatitudinis 
 praemio tibi cumulando in caelis, tua videtur magnificentia cogitare, dum ad dilatandos terminos 
 populi Christiani, ad paganorum barbariern debellandam, et ad gentes apostatrices, et quae 
 catholicae iidei refugiunt nee recipiunt veritatem, Christianormn iugo et ditione subdendos etc. 
 .... atque ad id convenientius exsequendum, ruatris tuae sacrosanctae Konianae ecclesiae con- 
 silium exigis et favorem. Quod quidem propositum tanto magis gratum acceptumque tenemus, 
 et amplius sicut commendenclum est commendamus, quanto de smceriori caritatis radice talem 
 intentionem et votum tarn laudabile credimus processisse, ac de maiore ardore fidei et religionis 
 amore propositum et desiderium tuum principium acceperunt. 
 
 The changes made in transferring and adapting these sentences to Laudabiliter 
 are apparent. The order of the words is somewhat varied; Christiano becomes glorioso; 
 beatitudinis felicitatis, etc. But, while the sentences are logical, sensible, and appropriate 
 
 177 
 
28 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 in their original setting in Adrian's letter to Louis, they become absurd and contra- 
 dictory when transferred to Laudabiliter. Ad dilatandos terminos populi Christiani 
 is quite properly used in the letter to Louis, because it refers to those parts of Spain 
 which were held by the Mohammedans. But it could not by any means be applied to 
 Ireland. Nor is it strange if the Irish have always refused to accept as genuine a 
 document which described them in terms borrowed from an account which had 
 originally applied to Mohammedans. 
 
 Adrian expresses his satisfaction with Louis because his "plan and desire have 
 their origin in his zeal for religion and his love for the faith." Here these words are 
 sane and fit into the reasoning. And yet the pope considers the proposed expedition 
 against the Mohammedans ill-advised and not likely to succeed for reasons named later 
 in the letter. We have already seen how badly this sentiment is fitted into the chain 
 of reasoning and its new setting in Laudabiliter. As it there stands, it is not only 
 contradictory to the reasoning of Adrian in his letter to Louis ; it is also an affront to his 
 intelligence and good sense. For Adrian IV. was neither a dreamer nor an enthusiast. 
 
 That the style of Laudabiliter gave offense is apparent from the fact that later 
 copyists endeavored to improve upon it. Changes were introduced into its text which 
 can be explained in no other way. The uncertainty as to whose name is meant in 
 paragraph I was removed by inserting fno. In the clause ad subdendum ilium populum 
 legibus it is uncertain what laws are meant. They might be the laws of England or 
 those of the church. The later insertion of Christianis before legibus made the meaning 
 definite. The absurdity of the statement " eo quod ad bonum exitum semper etfinem 
 soleant attingere, quae de ardore fidei et religionis amove principium acceperunt," 
 was evidently felt, because the whole sentence in which it is found was later omitted. 
 The same fate was meted out to the sentence, "Unde tanto in eis libentius plantationem 
 fidelem et germen gratum Deo inserimus," etc., because it was in plain contradiction 
 to the well-known fact that Ireland was already Christian. Paragraph II was trans- 
 ferred to a place further on in the document, and also radically modified, principally 
 because it seemed not to be in its most logical position. It is surely significant that it 
 is these borrowed sentences, all of which have been discussed in former paragraphs, 
 that gave offense to later copyists. 
 
 I believe, therefore, that Laudabiliter is the Latin exercise of a mediseval student. 
 It can have no official value. It may contain some truth : with that I am not particu- 
 larly concerned here. However, since its author did not have before him the real 
 letter of Adrain IV. to which John of Salisbury alludes, it seems to me unwarrantable 
 to attach any importance to what it says about the payment of the Peter's pence. It is 
 true that it was then a part of the papal policy to extend the custom of the payment of 
 Peter's pence. But Alexander III. did not mention it in connection with Ireland in 
 1172. Moreover, Adrian would probably have been content with the change which 
 he demanded in the policy of Henry toward the church. Latidabiliter cannot be 
 regarded as a trustworthy source of information on any point. It must be rejected as 
 entirely worthless. 
 
 178 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 29 
 
 III. THE SUPPOSED LETTER OF HENRY II. TO ADRIAN IV. 
 
 It seems very strange to me that in connection with this question no one has ever 
 critically examined a certain extant letter which is said to have been written by Henry 
 II. to Adrian IV. at the time of the accession of the latter to the chair of St. Peter. 
 It has been taken for granted that it is the letter which Henry's messengers bore to 
 the pope on their mission which has been discussed in part II of this study. Historians 
 have made use of it without question, although some of them have expressed a mild 
 surprise at its contents, which are not in the least in keeping with the character of its 
 reputed royal author. Critical study of it has convinced me that it also is a student's 
 exercise. In the text, which follows, the rhythmical endings, of which I wish to speak 
 later, are printed in italics, the most important examples of puns and alliteration, and 
 certain other matters worthy of special attention, are in small capitals. I have taken 
 it from Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. CCVII, Petri Blesensis Epistolae, in which 
 collection it is numbered CLXVIII. 
 
 TALI PAPAE TALIS REX 
 
 I. Auees nostras adba dulcis afflavit, quia, sicut accepimus, creationis vestrae novitas 
 tanquam aurora rutilans desolationis Romanae Ecclesiae tenebras propulsavit. Gaudet sedes 
 Apostolica viduitatis suae solatium consecuta. Gacdent omnes ecclesiae lucem novam oriri 
 videntes, et ipsam usque ad perfeetain diem crescere praestolantes. Sed gaodet praecipue noster 
 Occidens, quod velut Oriens novum lumen m&uerepromeruit orbis terrae, et solem Christianitatis, 
 qui versus Orientem nuper occubuit, divino munere, Occidens restauravit. Nos itaque, Pater 
 Sancte, honori vestro magnifice collaetantes et divinae majestatis magnificentiam devotis inde 
 laudibus persequentes paternitati vestrae, de cuius fervore filiali devotione confidimus, vota 
 nostra familiarius aperimus. Si enim carnalis filius carnales affectus patri fidenter aperit, quanto 
 fidentius spiritualis spiritualia potest desideria reseraref 
 
 Sane inter caeteras affectiones nostras non mediocriter affectatus, quod curn divina dextera 
 reverendissimam personam vestram, tanquam lignum vivificum in medio Paradisi spiritua liter 
 plantandurn duxerit, et de terra nostra in suum pomoerium transplantandum summopere 
 studeatis fructuosis operibus et doctrinis ecclesias omnes ita reficere, quod beatam dicant omnes 
 generationes vestrae beatitudinis nationem. Ulud quoque sincero corde sitimus, quod spiritus 
 procellarum, qui dignitatum cuhnina vehementius consuevit perflare, nunquam a sanctitatis 
 studio vos avellat ne, quid absit, altius dignitatis fastigium, gravius praecipitium subsequatur. 
 
 II. Sed et illud intime affectamus, ut cum tjniveesaeum ecclesiarum ordinatio ad vos 
 pertineat, tales ordinare curetis sine dilationis dispendio cardinales qui onus vestrum sciant, et 
 veliut et valeant supportare, non respicientes ad patriae propinquitatem, generis qualitatern 
 aut potentiae quantitatem, sed quod Deum timeant, avaritiam odiant, iustitiam sitiaut, et 
 zelo ferveant animarum. 
 
 III. Nee modicum nostrum movet affectum ut, cum ecclesiis supra modum official indig- 
 nitas ministrorum, summa sollicitudine vigilare curetis, cum super dignitatum vel praebendarum 
 collatione vestram continget requiri providentiarn, ne quis indignus irruat in patrimonium 
 Crucifixi. 
 
 IV. Cum autem felix terra, felicis redemptionis origine, conversation, ac sanguine 
 Christi consecrata, quam Christiana devotio praecipue venerari tenetur, tantis, sicdt occulata 
 fide novistis, perturbatur nationum incursibus, abominationibus polluitur, desiderio desideramus 
 quod ad irjsius liberationem vestrae sollieitudiiiis vires accingatis. 
 
 179 
 
30 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 V. Ilhid autem olim illustre imperium Constantinopolitanum nunc gravitee desolatdm, 
 quis affectare non debeat, ut,vestra providente prudentia, consolationem recipiat opportunam > 
 
 VI. Siquidem et honoris vestrae considerationis [so Migne, but the text evidently should 
 be, honoris vestri consideratione] et commoditatis communis aemulatione affectare debemus, ut 
 qui promotione divina universali praesidetis Ecclesiae, circa omnium ecclesiarum infoemationem 
 ac refoemationem "assidue vigiletis." 
 
 VII. Confidimus autem in Domino, et speramus quod sicut de virtute in virtutem, et de 
 honore in honorem divinitus sublimati secundum ipsorum exigentiam lucere curastis, sic ad 
 Apostolicae sublimitatis apicem evocati subjectas ecclesias illustrare ac inflammare curabitis, ut 
 non sit qui se abscondat a vestro lumine ft calore, relicturi talia post decessum vestram vestigia 
 sanctitatis quod terra nativitatis vestrae, quae de felici iucundatur origine, de felice fine 
 potent felicius in Domino gloriari. 
 
 VIII. Demum Paternitatem vestram ex speciali confidentia requirimus et rogamus 
 quatenus nos et familiares nostros, et statum regni nostri in sermonibus et orationibus vestris 
 specialiter habere dignemini commendatis. 
 
 In the first place, the use of the cursus velox, or the rhythmical ending not only of 
 the sentences, but even of the clauses, in a royal document of England, in that period 
 is, I believe, otherwise unknown. The cursus velox consists of a dactyl followed by 
 two trochees. Or, since it is a matter of accent and not of quantity, it would be more 
 correct to say that the first foot consists of an accented, followed by two unaccented, 
 syllables, and the two other feet consist, each, of an accented, followed by an unaccented, 
 syllable. This cursus velox characterizes all the papal documents of that period, but 
 I have not been able to find a single example of its use in any of the documents 
 belonging to the early years of the reign of Henry II. Peter of Blois, in whose 
 writings it is used not infrequently, did not become connected with the English court 
 until about the year 1170."* 
 
 Not too much importance should be attached to the fact that the names of both 
 the king and of the pope are wanting, because, of course, a lazy scribe may have wished 
 to cut short his labors by omitting them. And yet it is not likely that the names of 
 two so important men as Henry II. and Adrian IV. would have been omitted from 
 such a letter; all the more so because a superscription of the most general character 
 has been added: Tali Papae talis rex; that is, " King So-and-so to Pope So-and-so; '' 
 or translating it in accordance with its formula-like character, "Any king to any pope." 
 Moreover, there is nothing in the letter to indicate that it was written by an English 
 king. It is couched in the vaguest terms. There is no mention of a particular 
 country, nothing in fact that would not apply equally well to any western country. 
 The king and the pope to whom he is writing are fellow countrymen, and it. is vaguely 
 indicated that their country is somewhere in the West; that is all that can be said. 
 
 Furthermore, Henry II. is said to have recommended his messengers and 
 
 2*For a good discussion of the cursus see Noel V Alois, Although there are several varieties of cursus, the schemes 
 
 "Etude sur le rythme des bulles pontificales," BibliotheQue of the three most important are as follows: cursus i>l<uii:s. 
 
 de V6cole des chartes, Vol. XLII (18S1), pp. 101 ff. and 257 ff. ; /uw | /«, e. g., dona concedi : cursus tardus, /«« I -'«« , <:.<■.. 
 
 also Analecta Bollandiana, 1897, pp. 501 if., and 1898, pp. pracstat auxilium; cursus velox ,■£*>" \ *<* | -*■*, e. g. y crescere 
 
 386 ff., where a good list of the literature on the subject praestolantcs. 
 is given; Bkesslau, Urhundenlehre, Vol. I, pp. 590 ff. 
 
 180 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 31 
 
 especially the monastery of St. Albans to the favor of the pope and to have made certain 
 definite requests, among others, for permission to invade Ireland. But of all these 
 things there is not a word in this letter. It could hardly have been made more 
 general, impersonal, and colorless. 
 
 And now for the contents of the letter. 
 
 I. After long and cumbersome expressions of the general joy at the election of a 
 new pontiff, the writer expresses his desire that the new pope may strive so to restore 
 all the churches with his good works and doctrines that all generations may call his 
 native land blessed; and may the troubles of his pontificate never separate him from 
 the zeal of sanctity. 
 
 II. And since the control and management of all the churches belong to the 
 pope, let him, without delay, create cardinals of such a character that they will be able 
 and willing to carry his burden. 
 
 III. Since an unworthy clergy is a hindrance to the churches, let him watch 
 with great care that no unworthy person may receive from him an ecclesiastical 
 dignity or living. 
 
 IV. The pope is urged to gird himself up for the reconquest of the Holy Land, 
 that is, to make a crusade. 
 
 V. There is a general desire that the pope should give aid to the Greek empire, 
 once so illustrious, but now woefully devastated. 
 
 VI. For the sake of the pope's own good name and renown, and for the 
 advancement of the common welfare, the pope ought to labor for the reformation 
 of all the churches. 
 
 VII. The hope is expressed that the pope will extend his beneficial influence to 
 the farthest limits of the church, and that he will, when he dies, leave behind him such 
 proofs of his piety that his fellow-countrymen may rejoice over his happy end. 
 
 VIII. And finally the pope is asked to remember in his conversations and 
 prayers the king, his family, and his kingdom. 
 
 This is really a complete general program for the new pope, consisting of three 
 great lines of activity: a complete reformation of the clergy and of the church, the 
 making of a crusade, and the restoring of the Greek empire. Surely that would be 
 enough work for any one pontificate. 
 
 In discussing these contents I pass by, for the present, the first paragraph. In 
 the beginning of the second paragraph it is said that the control and management of 
 all the churches belong to the pope. Universarum ecclesiarum ordinatio ad vos "pevii- 
 neat. The thought of the sixth paragraph is very similar. But Henry II. had, as we 
 have just seen, already begun to deny this principle; he had forbidden appeals to 
 Rome and was interfering with the liberties of the church in England. And he 
 persisted in this course for the next fifteen years. Not even in a congratulatory letter 
 would he have recognized so fully the validity of a principle which he was resisting 
 with all his might and which he was determined at all hazards to destroy in his own land. 
 
 The writer's solicitude about the character of the cardinals and of those who 
 
 181 
 
Studies Concerning Adrian IV 
 
 should receive the offices and dignities of the church (Paragraphs II and III) would be 
 absurdly hypocritical in Henry II., who preferred a worldly clergy that could be made 
 to serve his own ends. The interest expressed in having a crusade (Paragraph IV) would 
 be not less preposterous in Henry II., who was at that time engaged with all his energies 
 in his own aggrandizement and in increasing the power of the crown. There was no 
 one in Europe at that time more unwilling to go on a crusade than was Henry II. 
 
 What he is made to say about the condition of the Greek empire is contrary to the 
 state of facts at that time. Not only was the Greek empire not graviter desolatumj 
 it had successfully resisted the invasions of the Normans only a few years before this, 
 and it was at that very moment invading southern Italy with victorious arms. The 
 emperor, Manuel, was then following 'with determination, and with a fair prospect of 
 success, the policy of obtaining possession of certain parts of Italy. Instead of 
 needing the papal aid, the Greek emperor was actually threatening the possessions of 
 the pope. In fact, in that very year, 1155, Adrian IV. and Frederick I. of Germany 
 had renewed the agreement of Constance by the terms of which they had mutually 
 bound themselves not to cede any land in Italy to the Greek emperor, and to resist 
 him with all their might if he should attempt to secure it by invasion. 25 ft must be 
 observed that this Greek danger had been threatening the papacy for some years. To 
 have written such a letter to the pope at this time would indicate a degree of ignorance 
 of the world's doings that certainly did not exist at the English court. 
 
 If we turn to a consideration of the style and language of the letter, we find 
 many things that betray the hand of a tyro. The puns are weak and the alliteration 
 strained and excessive. Aures-aura, magnifice-maiestatis-magnificentiam, velint- 
 valeant, informationem-reformationem, illustrare-inflammare,felici-felici-fine-felicius. 
 These examples may suffice, but the list could be greatly increased. The poverty of 
 the writer's vocabulary as well as his strange phraseology are not less indicative of his 
 lack of skill and training. Affectare and its derivatives are made to do yeoman service. 
 Gaudere and sitire fare but little better. If the letter was addressed to Adrian IV. 
 when, it may be asked, had he seen with his own eyes the abominations with which 
 the Holy Land was polluted? Sicut occulata fide novistis. Was the pope ever before 
 called the "Sun of Christianity" ? And what is the meaning of that confused sentence, 
 " Sed gaudet praecipue noster Occidens, quod velut Oriens novum lumen influere 
 promeruit orbi terrae, et solem Christianitatis, qui versus Orientem nuper occubuit, 
 divino munere, Occidens restauravit ?" Does it mean that the West is rejoicing 
 
 25 Their mutual promises were as follows: " Grecorum I. is to be found in the Li Rouleaux de Cluny," edited by 
 
 quoque regi nullam terram exista parte maris [Fridericus] Huillard-Breholles, in Notices et extraits des Manu- 
 
 concedet; quodsi forte ille iuvaserit pro viribus regni, scritsdela Biblioth&que ImpSriale (Paris, 1868), Vol. XXI, 
 
 quantocius poterit, ipsum eicere curabit .... Regi autem pp. 319 if. For a discussion of the agreement and of its 
 
 Grecorum ex ista parte maris terram [papa] non concedet ; renewal, see Peutz, Kaiser Friedrich I., Vol. I, pp. 47 f. ; 
 
 quodsi ille invadere presumserit, domnus papa viribus Giesebrecht, Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit, Vol. V, 
 
 beati Petri eum eicere curabit." This agreement of Con- pp. 21 f. ; Kap-Herr, Abendlandtscltc Politik Kaiser Man- 
 
 stance had first been made between Eugene III. and Fred- uels, pp. 42 f. ; Zeppelein, Der Konstanzer Vert rag ("Schxif- 
 
 erick I., in March, 1153. The text of it is found in Wibaldi ten des Vereins fur die Geschichte des Bodensees," Vol. 
 
 Epistolae,7\o. 417, Jaefe, Bibliotheca Rerum Germanica- XVI, pp. 30 f.) ; Juxgfee, Untersuchungen iiber Friedrielis 
 
 rum, Vol. I, pp. 546 f., and in M. G. Leges, Vol. II, pp. 92 f. I. griech. und norman. Folitil;, pp. 9 f. ; Ribbeck, Fried- 
 
 The text of the renewal between Adrian IV. and Frederick rich I. und die r&mische Curie, pp. 3 ff. 
 
 182 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 33 
 
 because it has furnished a pope or because of its success in a crusade? The context 
 demands the former, the words themselves appear to have the latter, meaning. I suspect 
 that the writer, who, I take it, was a student preparing a Latin exercise for his magisicr 
 to correct, had found in some chronicle an account of a crusade in which the Occident 
 and Orient were set over against each other, and he was so pleased with the idea that 
 he tried to incorporate some of its sentences into his exercise, but failed to adapt them 
 to their changed setting and purpose. 
 
 I have pointed out the most glaring mistakes and absurdities in the letter ; a more 
 extended study of it would bring others to light. But surely enough has been done 
 to prove even to the most skeptical that the letter cannot have been written by Henry 
 II. to Adrian IV. Indeed, there is nothing in the letter itself to indicate this author- 
 ship, and it seems to me that someone has hastily and without really studying it 
 attributed it to Henry II. Who this was I cannot say. In the first edition of the 
 letters of Peter of Blois (Paris, 1516), this letter is quite anonymous. Neither in the 
 edition of Migne is its author or the pope to whom it is addressed named. The 
 descriptive summary by which Migne has prefaced it is as follows: " Bex quidam 
 sibi totique Occidenti gratulatur, quod N ex ipsius terra ad summum jjontincaturn 
 pervenerit, eumque hortatur, ut dignos tantum ad dignitates ecclesiasticas promoveat." 
 The editions by de Grussanville and by Giles I have not been able to consult, and 
 therefore cannot say how they have regarded it. So far as I can see, about the only 
 thing that could be urged in favor of Henry's authorship is the fact that it is found 
 among the letters of Peter of Blois. It is, of course, superfluous to say that this 
 circumstance carries with it no proof of its authorship. 
 
 As to the time when this exercise was actually written, nothing can be said with 
 certainty. Assuming that the student put into it the background of his own day, 
 there are certain indications of its age. The insistence on a reform of all the churches, 
 the implied censure of the cardinals and of the ecclesiastical dignitaries and of the 
 beneficed clei'gy seem to me to accord a little better with the fourteenth and fifteenth 
 centuries than with the twelfth and thirteenth. But the criticism is general, and a 
 conclusion based on that alone would be very insecure. The reference to the desolate 
 condition of the Greek empire might apply either to the destruction of the so-called 
 Latin kingdom (1261) or, more probably, to the effects of the Turkish invasions in 
 the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 
 
 An examination of the manuscripts in which this letter is found would fix the 
 latest date at which it can. have been written. If it should be found to exist only in 
 the more recent of them, that would tend toward a confirmation of the late date to 
 which I have tentatively assigned it. Manuscripts containing the letters of Peter of 
 Blois are very numerous and widely scattered. Hardy {Catalogue, etc., Vol. II, pp. 
 553 ff.) has registered nearly one hundred of them, but his list is far from being 
 complete. I regret that I have not been able to make a complete list of them and to 
 examine all of them. I have, however, examined about sixty of them, but without 
 success. I have not been able to find the letter in question in any of them. 
 
 183 
 
 ■ 
 
34 Studies Concerning Adkian IV. 
 
 I give here a list of those manuscripts, containing letters of Peter of Blois, which 
 I have examined: 
 
 In the Vatican Library: Vat. 2931, 2973; Pal. 1160; Ottob. 614, 3008; Eeg. Suec. 53, 136, 263. 
 
 Biblioteca Barberiniana, XIV. 56. 
 
 In the k. mid k. Hof-Bibliothek in Vienna: Nos. 559, 941, 3330, 3310, 3368, 3419, 34«, 3706. 
 4159, 4245, 4790, 4994, 12503, and 13538. 
 
 In the Kloster-Bibliothek in Admont, one manuscript. 
 
 My thanks are due Count Carlo Cipolla, Professor in Turin, who kindly examined a manu- 
 script (No. 675) for me in the library at Turin. 
 
 In the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, M. Lebegue kindly examined for me the following 
 list: Foiids Latin, Nos. 2604, 2605, 2607-2610A inclusive, 2836, 2953-2962 inclusive, 3309, 5372, 
 7717, 16251, 16252, 16714, 16715, 11867, 13420, 14169-14171 inclusive, 14486, 14764, 14879, 18587, 
 18588; and Nouvelles Acquis. Latines, No. 2243. 
 
 It may not be out of place to add that the literature about such students' exercises and 
 imaginary correspondence is quite extensive. There are numerous monographs on single 
 collections of formularies in which such letters are found. I content myself by referring only to 
 the following as typically characteristic and in themselves interesting: Wattenbach, "Ueber 
 Briefsteller des Mittelalters," Archiv fiir orxtrn: (jcscliichte, Vol. XIV, pp. 60 ff.; also, "Ueber 
 erfundene Briefe in Hss. d. Mittelalters, bes. Teufelsbriefe," Sitzungsbericht d. k.pr. Akad. <l. 
 Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1892, pp. 91 ff. For famous examples of such letters, see Scheffer- 
 Boichorst, Zur Geschichte d. XII. u. XIII. Jahrh., pp. 290 ff., and Wagner, Eberhard II.. 
 Bischof von Bamberg, pp. 120 ff. 
 
 IV. A LETTER OF GERHOH OF REICHERSBERG TO ADRIAN IV. (1156) ENTITLED 
 LIBER DE NOVITATIBUS HUIUS TEMPORIS 
 
 Among the leading clergy of Germany in the twelfth century Gerhoh of Reichers- 
 berg holds a conspicuous place. He was born in 1093 or 1094, in the village of 
 Polling in Bavaria. After various fortunes he was, in 1132, made praspositus of the 
 monastery of Regular Canons at Reichersberg on the Inn, a position which he held 
 until his death in 1169. 
 
 Gerhoh had a very fertile pen and took a prominent part in the discussion of all 
 the questions, great and small, that agitated his day. He lived to see the contest 
 between papacy and empire pass through some of its most critical phases and suffered 
 deeply from this great struggle. He was sincerely attached to both institutions and 
 longed to see them working harmoniously together for the realization of certain great 
 ideals of which he was possessed. He was, however, unsparing in his criticism of 
 both. He never wearied of making proposals of reform and, unasked, gave his advice 
 to the pope on all matters, whether of policy or doctrine. In theology he was rigidly 
 orthodox and seemed to believe that the last word had been said on all the theological 
 questions. He had formed his own ideas by the study of the great church fathers, 
 especially Augustine and Hilary, and vigorously combated every shade of opinion that 
 did not accord with the teachings of these his favorite authorities. The twelfth century 
 was^fruitful in new ideas, and Gerhoh was kept busy refuting them and their authors, 
 the- in nova tions and innovators, as he styled them. 
 
 184 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 35 
 
 The twelfth century witnessed a revival of classical studies — the real beginning 
 of the Renaissance, it may be said — and some of the clergy, chief of whom was John 
 of Salisbury, were thoroughly conversant with the Latin classics and took so great 
 delight in them that they constantly quoted them in their writings. But Gerhoh, in 
 his culture, was thoroughly mediaeval. He seems to have been ignorant of the classics; 
 at least, one searches in vain in his writings for quotations from them. Instead of the 
 classics, he reveled in quotations from the Bible and from the church fathers. In fact, 
 at times his works seem to be little more than mosaics made from these sources. And 
 often, even when he does not cite an author by name, his thought and phraseology are 
 borrowed from some father. 
 
 In Germany Gerhoh occupied much the same place and played the same role as 
 Bernard of Clairvaux in France. He greatly admired Bernard and made free use of 
 his writings, quoting them and recommending them to the perusal of others. And, 
 like Bernard, he was thoroughly imbued with the monastic spirit of his day and 
 labored to subject all the secular clergy to monastic discipline. According to his ideas, 
 there could be no good priest who did not live by a monastic rule. For him no 
 argument was necessary to prove that a secular priest was immoral. The mere fact 
 that he did not live with his fellow priests in a common house and in subjection to a 
 common rule was enough to condemn him. 
 
 Gerhoh had formed the habit of offering advice to the popes, and so, when Adrian 
 IV. was elected, Gerhoh sent off a letter to him at once, dispatching it by Eberhard II., 
 the bishop of Bamberg. This letter, however, which is now lost, remained unanswered, 
 and Gerhoh felt somewhat hurt at the pope's silence. He accordingly wrote him 
 another letter, exhibiting here and there in it his sense of injury. It is this second 
 letter to Adrian that is here published. With a certain show of boast-fulness he tells 
 Adrian that his predecessors in the chair of St. Peter had been his friends and makes 
 quite a display of the papal letters which he had at various times received. This letter, 
 as its title indicates, was a general account of all the heresies and abuses in the church, 
 and was intended to incite Adrian to the work of reform. The letter was begun 
 probably toward the end of 1155 and completed early in the following year. It was 
 dispatched by his brother Rudiger, who, no doubt, put it into the hands of the pope, whom 
 he found at Benevento discussing the terms of peace with William of Sicily (May- June, 
 1156). But Gerhoh was no more successful with this than he had been with his first 
 letter, for Adrian IV. did not reply to it. Gerhoh later complained of this neglect, 
 and was at a loss to account for it. However, he offered as an excuse for it the fact 
 that Adrian was no doubt busy with the affairs of his office. He was unwilling to 
 believe that the pope was not well disposed toward him. In this Gerhoh was probably 
 correct, for Adrian was engrossed with far more important matters. Questions of 
 policy involving the future of the papacy were pressing for solution, and Adrian's 
 pontificate was troubled by frequent quarrels with the emperor, which served as 
 preludes to the great struggle which followed hard upon his death and filled the long 
 pontificate of his successor, Alexander III. 
 
 185 
 
36 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 The text of this letter is here presented in its entirety for the first time. Grisar 
 published brief extracts from it in the Zeitschrift fur Icatholische Theologie, Vol. IX 
 (1885), pp. 536 ff., and Sackur edited and published selections from it (about one- 
 fifth of the letter), along with other of Gerhoh's works, in the third volume of the 
 Libelli de Lite Imperatorum et Pontificum. My interest was awakened in the letter 
 while gathering materials for the life of Adrian IV., and I determined to publish it 
 entire. It is preserved in a manuscript of the twelfth century, in the monastic library 
 at Admont. The manuscript is of parchment in quarto. It is generally well written, 
 although by several different hands. The letter occupies 165 pages of the manuscript, 
 or rather only 163, since, through the error of the one who first numbered the pages, 
 the numbers 131 and 151 were omitted. 
 
 The work of copying the manuscript was made easy for me by the kindness of 
 Professor E. Miihlbacher, who had the manuscript sent to Vienna and with the greatest 
 generosity placed the rooms of the Institut fiir osterreichische Geschichtsforschung at 
 my disposal, so that I was able to copy it with the greatest comfort and at my leisure. 
 I wish to thank Professor Miihlbacher, as well as other members of the Institut, for 
 their kindness and courtesy. 26 
 
 LIBER DE NOVITATIBUS HUIUS TEMPORIS 
 
 Ad te, Eomane pontifex Adriane, patrem et dominura meum loquar, cum sim p ul vis et 
 cinis, ausu loquendi non temerario, sed, ut arbitror, necessario. Denique in hoc tempore 
 apostolatus tui non solum flumina secularis concupiscentie regnantis in clero absque regulis tarn 
 synodalibus quam cenobitalibus conversante illiduntur domui Dei supra petram fundate, 1 Petro 
 cominisse, sed et ventorum niniius impetus ipsa domus hums fimdamenta per quorundam ven- 
 tosam loquacitatem subvertere nititur. Et quidem contra insanias clericorum seculariter ac 
 plusquam laicaliter luxuriantium et gratiam Domini transferentium in suas luxurias, dum per- 
 verse consumunt facilitates ecclesiasticas, iam saluberrima decreta promulgata sunt in conciliis 
 ac decretis praedecessorum tuorum clericos incestuosos 2 et ambitiosos dampnantium et interdi- 
 centium, quorum crimina manifesto, sunt precedentia ad indicium* ita ut eos accusari ac 
 testibus convinci non sit magis necessarium quam fornicatorem ilium publicum, quern Paulas 
 . apostolus iudicavit non tarn examinandum quam dampnandum et quasi vetus fermentum 
 expurgandum. 4 (2) Que niinimin decreta, si manciparentur effectui contra illisiones fluminum 
 domui Dei, sicut apparet illisque satis utiliter esset consultuin. 5 Super quibus aut effectui 
 mancipandis aut eorum praevaricatoribus et neglectoribus digne castigandis memini a mea 
 parvitate directam epistolam, quam et cognovi per domnum Babenbergensein 6 sancto apostolatui 
 
 - e For Gerhoh and his works and life the following Inhalt von Gerhoh's von Beichersberg cistern Buche ilber 
 
 literature may be consulted : Stulz, "Probst Gerhoh I. von die Erforschung des Antichrists, Leipziger Programm, 1SS7 ; 
 
 Reichersberg," in Denkschriften der Wiener Academie, also, Gerhoh ilber die Sittenzustande der zeitgen&ssischen 
 
 phil.-hist. Kb, Vol. I, pp. 113 ff. ; Bach, " Probst Gerhoh I. Geistlichkeit, Programm der Thomas Schule, Leipzig, 1888; 
 
 von Reichersberg," in Oesterr. Vierteljahrsschriftfur kath. Sackur, Mouumcnta Gcrmaniae Historica, Libelli de Lite 
 
 Theologie, Vol. IV (1865), pp. 19 ff . ; Nobbe, "Gerhoh von Imperatorum et Pontificum, Vol. Ill, pp. 131 ff. 
 Reichersberg/' Leipzig, 1881 ; Ribbeck, "Gerhoh von Reich- i Matt- 7 . 05, 16 : 18. In the MS. ce is often indicated by 
 
 ersberg und seine Ideen iiber das Verhaltniss zwischen an e w itha cedilla; in the printed text this is represented 
 
 Staat und Kirche," Forschungen 2 ur deutschen Geschichte, ^y e< or jf occurring in italicised passages, by e. 
 Vol. XXIV, pp. 1 ff., and Vol. XXV, pp. r oM ff. ; Gktsak, 
 " Die Investiturfrage nach ungedruckten Schriften Ger- 
 hoh's," Zeitschrift filr kath. Theologie, Vol. IX (1885), pp. 
 536 ff.; Scheibelbeegee, Opera omnia Gerhohi, Lincii, '1 Tim. 5: 24. *lCor. 5:5 ff. * Libelli, confultum. 
 
 1875; also in Oesterr. Vierteljahrsschriftfur kath. Theologie, 6 Eberhard II., bishop of Bamberg, 11-16-70; cf. Wagner, 
 
 Vol. X (1871), pp. 565 ff.; Stueuhofel, Der geschichtliche Eberhard II. , p. 90. 
 
 186 
 
 2 Married clergy are included as well as those living 
 with concubines. 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 37 
 
 fcuo praesentatam, cuius initium fuit: Tu es qui venturus es an alium expectamusf 1 Expec- 
 tamus enim sicut illic partim significavimus, partim prudentie tue per se aniniadvertenduni 
 reservavimus, talem sedis apostolice antistitem, cui videlicet velut alteri Iosue dicat Dominus : 
 Confortare et esto robustus; tu enim introduces populum meum in terrain lacte et melle 
 manantem. 2 Talem terrain in suis decretis Innocentius et Eugenius 3 egregii predecessores tui 
 quasi Moyses et Aaron praeostenderunt, sed morte praeventi non introierunt neque introduxenmt 
 populum Dei in earn, non valentes in diebus suis effectui mancipare que statnerant de concubi- 
 nariis et conductieiis abiciendis, de falsis penitentiis cavendis, de incendiariis puniendis, de 
 clericis disciplinandis, de sanctimonialibus claustrali custodie 4 mancipandis, de treuga servanda 
 et de ceteris (3) ad decorem domus Dei pertinentibus novasque abusiones competenter medican- 
 tibus. Quia ergo verbum de ore Dei per Petri successores egressum non rerertetur ad eum 
 vacuum, sed faciei quecumque b voluit et prosperabitur in his ad que missum est, 6 pusille 
 fidei'' arguendi sumus, nisi mandata sedis apostolice salubriter emissa credamus effectui quan- 
 doque mancipanda, ita ut aut flectant aut frangant, flectant consentaneos ad obedientiam, 
 frangant adversarios ad penam. 
 
 I. DE VERBO DEI VIOTORIOSO 
 
 Sic omne verbum quod natum et egressum est a Deo vincit mundum. Et hee est victoria, 
 que vincit mundum, fides nostra,* qua credimus non esse impossible apud Deuin omne verbum 
 de ipso natum et celis enarrantibus mundo annuntiatum. Nonne in omnem terrain exivit sonus 
 memoratorum sedis apostolice mandatormn? Nonne celi erant ipsi enarranfes gloriam Dei ac 
 decorem domus Dei? 9 Sed sunt quidam qui non credunt possibilia que ipsi annuntiaverunt 
 observanda, quos non tarn pusille seu modiee quam vel minime vel nullius fidei arguendos 
 estimo, utpote non credentes neque Deo neque ipsius archangelo qui cum virginis conceptum 
 praenunciasset simulque conceptum sterilis iam praeteritum annunciasset lu conseqenter de ceteris 
 (4) a se praenunciatis adimixit quia non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum." Ergo 
 iuxta verbum ipsius Christus regnabit in domo Iacob in eternum et regni eius non erit finis} 1 
 Domus vera Iacob recte intelligitur sancta ecclesia beato Petro velut alteri Iacob credita. Quippe 
 ut in veteri testamento cum sint aliquibus personis nomina vel posita ut Ysaac, 13 vel aucta ut 
 Abrahe," vel minuta ut Sare, 10 nulli omnino inter omnes illius temporis electos nomen legitur 
 omnino mutatum, excepto solo Iacob, cui dictum est: Non vocaberis ultra Iacob, sed Israel erit 
 nomen tuum. w Sic et in novo testamento soli Petro nomen est mutatum, dicente ad eum 
 Domino: Simon Bariona, tu vocaberis Cephas quod interpretatur Petrus." 
 
 II. DE NOMINE PETRI 
 
 Et qua ratione haut incongrue successoribus eius nova nomina ponuntur, cum in sedem 
 ipsius intronizantur. ls Ille in fortitudine luctarnims directus ad angelum 10 talem obtinuit bene- 
 dictionem, ut ei diceretur quum si contra Deum fortis fuisti quanto magis contra homines 
 praevalebis'? Iste in fortitudine fidei roboratus audivit sibi a Domino dici: Tu es Petrus et 
 super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam nieam et porte iiiferi non prevalebunt adversus earn?" 
 Ille Rachelem propter eius pulchritudine (5) plus amavit, sed Liam 21 noctu suppositain propter 
 
 i Luke 7:19. This letter of Gerhoh is not known to «Isa. 55:2. 'Lnkel2;2S. s I John 5: 4. 
 
 exist ; c/. Gerhoh's Letters, Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. CXCTII, 9 p s . 1$ : 1 (Vulgate enumeration). 
 
 col. 489. "Ad A. magistrum: Nunc autem successor! eius, ,, lT , _ , 1T , ,. T , „ 
 
 ... _ . „ . . '" Luke 1 : 26 ff. 11 Luke 1:37. 12 Luke 1:33. 
 
 Actnano rapae, cum sim tacie ignotus et iam secundo ei 
 
 scripta meae parvitatis fuerint porrecta, primo per dom- 13 Gen. 17:19. 1+ Gen. 17:5. lr *Gen. 17 :13. 
 
 inum Babenbergensem," etc. 16 Gen. 32 : 28. 1T John 1 : 42. 
 
 2 Deut. 31:7; Josh. 1:6. 18 On his election Octavian assumed the name of John 
 
 3 Innocent II., 1130-43; Eugene III., 1145-53, both of XII. (955-63), an example which has been followed by all 
 
 whom legislated against certain abuses in the church. successive popes. 
 
 * Libelli, custodia. 5 Libelli, quicumque. 19 Gen. 32 : 24 ff . 2" Matt. 16 : 18. 21 Gen. 29 : 35. 
 
 187 
 
38 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 ipsius fecunditatem patienter toleravit. Iste, in rnonte transfigurato Domino, quasi conspecta 
 Eachelis pulchritudme, voluerat semper illic manere, dicens: Domine, bonum est nos hie 
 esse.' Coactus tamen est ad inferiora descendens quasi Lyam tolerare visionemque Raelielis 
 in monte. sibi demonstratum nemini dicere nisi peracta Dominica resurrectione. Ille propter 
 lasciviam filiam stupro depravatani et indisciplinatos filios inordinatos, eiusdem stupri ultores 
 turbatus et a mansione silji dilecta, Sichem, fugatus est, 2 quos etiam vasa iniquitatis nominat. 
 Iste propter populum Romanum avaricie spiritu constupratum et filios quosdam Symeonisac 
 Levi vasis iniquitatis bellantibus assimilatos coactus est nonnunquam et cogitur adhuc in suis 
 successoribus fugere ab urbe Roma, 3 derelicta interdum sede sibi delectissima. Propter quod 
 sicut ille in benedictione XII filiorum suoruin de Symeon et Levi dixit: Maledictus furor 
 eorum, quia pertinax, et indignatio eorum, quia dura,' depromens videlicet maledietionem pro 
 benedictione ; sic et Petrus Symonem magum sua maledictione in m'be Roma deiecit 5 et quivis 6 
 Petri successor, quemvis ' eiusdem Symonis (6) magi successorem iusto zelo habet maledicere 
 atque a benedictione bonorum filiorum scelus avaricie atque symonie odientium secernere. 
 Atque utinam tu, Adriane, successor Petri apostoli, zelo debito accendaris contra successores 
 Symonis magi negociantes in domo Domini. Certe, ut de illis taceam quorum plaga circum- 
 ligata neque videri neque curari potest ab hominibus, quosque sibimet iudicandos reservat 
 index altissimus in ecclesiis matricibus, vulnus et livor et plaga tumens abscondi non potest 
 utpote neque circumligata neque fota oleo, 6 ubi absque velamine, sine pietatis tarn virtute, 
 que oleiun est, quam specie, que velamen est, conductores ecclesias plebales et praebendas 
 habentes cum suis conducticiis ita manifeste negotiantur, altaria Dei vertentes in mensas 
 nummulariorum? ut eorum, peccata manifesta sint precedentia ad indicium. 10 Hue accedit, 
 quod in solitudinem redactis eorum dormitoriis in cubilibus et impudiciciis" ita vivunt, ut 
 nee viduas Deo devotas apostolus concedat sic vivere, contestans quod vidua in deliciis vivens 
 mortua est. 1 ' 2 At isti non solum in delicias verum et in luxuriam transf erunt 13 gratiam Domini 
 nostri (7) Jesu Christi. Quid ad hec facere credendus est rex ille qui, attestante angelo, reg- 
 nabit in domo Iacob in sternum et regni eius non erit Jin is '! u Profecto non aliud faciet in veri- 
 tatis eonrpletione, quam praeordinatum est in ipsius veritatis praefiguratione. 
 
 III. DE RUBEN PRIMOGENITO LYE 
 
 j 
 
 Denique sicut Ruben cum esset prior in donis, maior imperio, 15 utpote primogenitus Iacob 
 de Lia, cui sacerdotalis et imperialis honor debebatur, tamen quia effusus est, sicut aqua, dum 
 per incontinentiam ascendit eubile patris sui et maculavit stratum eius dormiendo, scilicet 
 cum Balam, 16 coucubina patris sui patriarche Iacob, pro benedictione meruit maledietionem, ita 
 et isti suo arbitratu benedicti coram Domino maledicti sunt. Dixit enim pater Iacob: Ruben, 
 primogenitus meus, fortitudo mea, principium doloris mei, prior in donis, maior inperio 
 effusus es sicut aqua; non. erescas, quia aseendisti eubile patris tui et inaculasti stratum 
 eius. ls Quod dicit "tu fortitudo mea, prior in donis, maior imperio," gravissima est yronia et 
 in I ii > iperatio de amisso dignitatis tante titulo, qui ei tanquam (8) primogenito debebatur si non 
 ascendisset eubile patris sui et maculasset stratum eius. Propterea sicut pro benedictione repu- 
 tatur, quod bonis filiis Noe dictum est: Crescite et niultipUcamini et replete terra))/, sit que 
 terror vester super cuncta animantia et bestias terre" sic pro maledictione reputatur, quod ad 
 
 !Matt. 17: Iff. 2 Geu., chap. 34. ^Libelli, quisquis. 7 Libcili, quevis. 
 
 3 A reference to the struggle between Adrian IV. and 8Tsa I -13 ''Mitt 21 "12 
 the commune of Rome. The papal court, expelled from 
 
 l; , was at that time at Benevento. 101 Tim. 5:24. " Rom. 13:13. 
 
 i Gen. 49:11. iJl Tim. 5:4 ff. IS Libelli, transfertur. 
 
 5 A tradition, preserved in tho Clementine Homilies 
 and Recognitions, says that Simon Magus, Acts VIII, a ff., "Luke 1:33. 15 Cf. Gen. 35 : 22, 49:3f. 
 
 followed Peter to Rome and there entered into a contest 16Qen. 35:22. 17 Gen. 9:lf. 
 
 with him, in which Peter was completely victorious. 
 
 188 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 39 
 
 Ruben dixit. Iacob: Non crescas; cui simile est quod Moyses dixit: Vivat Ruben sitque parvus 
 in numero} O utinam et nunc in domo Iacob simile iudicium procedat contra istos Rubenitas 
 qui ascenderunt cubile Dei patris et maculaveruut stratum eius ! Ascenderunt, inquam, per 
 ambitionem et maculaveruut per pravam conversationem. Ascenderunt aliunde, non per 
 ostium intrantes in ovile ovium 2 et maculaverunt ipsum ovile turpitur vivendo, perverse 
 docendo, seu quod nequius est, ipsas oves perdendo et mactando; perdendo sibi consentientes, 
 mactando et persequendo contradicentes. Tales fere per totam Germaniam et Galliam sunt 
 kathecb'ales clerici et eorum conduction. Quibus iam frequenter in domo Iacob dictum est, ut 
 non crescerent, ne videlicet quisquam eonim in una ministrans ecclesia se superextendat ad 
 ministrandum (9) in alia, sed sit quisque contentus vel una praebenda vel una plebali ecclesia, 
 cum unaquaeque ecclesia, cui facultas suppetit, suum debeat habere sacerdotem similiterque 
 unaquaeque congregatio debeat esse contenta uno cenobio, ne in pluribus cenobiis vel certe, ut 
 verius dicamus, in pluribus synagogis unus clericus abutatur multis praebendis. Item in con- 
 cilio papae Innocentii, praecipiente ipso cum assensu episcoporum et aliorum patrum assiden- 
 tium, prohibiti sunt crescere, dum sub anathemate interdictum est, ne canonici cle sede epis- 
 copal! ab eleetione episcoporum. excludant religiosos vivos per episcopatum constitutes, sed 
 eorum consilio honesta et yclonea persona in episcopum eligatur. Quod si exclusis eisdem 
 religiosis electio fuerit celebrata, quod absque eorum assensu et coniventia factum fuerit, 
 irritum habeatur et vacuum. 3 Sic in synodo Lateranensi tanquam in domo Iacob dictum est, ut 
 hi tales non crescant. Sed ipsi tamen crescunt et multiplicari non desinunt, nisi aclinic fortius 
 dicatur id 4 ipsum scilicet, ut non crescant. Quomodo, ait quis, hoc fortius dici potest, quam 
 dictum est ? Synodalibus edictis et decretalibus mandatis quid fortius (10) dicendum est ? Hoc 
 profecto, quod ante suggessi 5 beate memorie papae Eugenio quodque in libello "Be Conside- 
 ratione" suggestum est eidem per sancte recordatiouis virum abbatem Clarevallensem, 6 ut 
 videlicet, perquisitis neglectoribus episcopis, malos perdat et v-ineam- suam locet a-liis agricolis 
 qui reddant fructum 1 temporibus suis, mandata 8 sedis apostolice servando et tarn cenobia 
 quam plebales ecclesias rationabiliter ordinando. Amplius adhuc fortius dicendum est, ut 
 Rubenite isti 9 non crescant. Quia enim semel et simul auferri non possunt isti occupatores 
 terre sancte, qui in terra sanctorum inique agunt, 10 ac propterea non videbunt gloriam Domini, 
 firmiter indicendum est episcopis, ne aliquibus eorum decedentibus eorum consimiles in eorum 
 loca subrogentur, sed ab eis liberata stipendia in usus Deo regulariter servientium et aliorum 
 Christi pauperum dispensantur, sicut martyr et papa Urbanus in suis decretis mandat dicens : 
 "Ipse res singularum parrochiarum in ditione episcoporum, qui locum tenent apostolorum, 
 erant et sunt adhuc et futuris semper de-bent esse temporibus, ex quibus episcopi et, fideles 
 eorum dispensatores omnibus communem vitam degere volentibus (11) miuistrare cuncta neces- 
 saria clebent, prout melius potuerint, ut nemo in eis egens inveniatur." n Ecce audivimus conso- 
 lationem dispositam per apostolos et apostolicos viros omnibus communem vitam eligentibus. 
 Videmus autem e contrario magnam desolationem, cum stipendia spiritualis militie ac regularis 
 vite in seculares vanitates translate illis abundant, qui exinde huic seculo militant atque illi 
 egentes angustiati et afflicti sunt, quibus dignus non est inundus. Adhuc autem si adtendis, 
 
 iDeut. 33:6. a John 10:1. at intervals and sent to Eugene III. For the text of it, see 
 
 3 Qf. The Lateran Council, anno 1139 (not 1135), can. 28; Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. CLXXXII, cols. 727-808. For the 
 
 Mansi, Vol. XXI, col. 533; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, frequent use Gerhoh made of the writings of St. Bernard, 
 
 Vol. V, 2d ed., p. 442. It was held by Innocent II., 1130-43. see HtiFFEB, Der heilige Bernard von Clairvaux, \o\. T, p. 
 
 iLibelli, ad. 
 
 5 Gerhoh's " Commentary on the LXIVth Psalm " is also 
 called De Corrupto Ecclesiae Statu. Gerhoh composed it 
 shortly after the Council of Eheims, 1148, and, when he was ^Libelli, iste. 10 Prov. I 
 
 at Rome, 1151, probably presented it in person to Eugene III. n Urban I., 222-30; cf. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo- 
 
 6 St. Bernard of Clairvaux, De Considerations libri Isidorianae et Capitula Angilram-ni, p. 144 ; Mansi, Vol. I, 
 quinque ad Eugenium III. Begun in 1149, it was composed col. 749 ; Migne, Pat. Graeca, Vol. X, col. 137. 
 
 189 
 
 202. An uncritical work, but containing some just observa- 
 tions. 
 
 'Luke 20:9-16, and Ps. 1:3. *Ms., mandatis. 
 
40 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 abhominationes maiores videbis. Nam cum sit magna desolatio, qua exposuimus auferri 
 stipendia debita Deo militantibus in communi vita et ad hos transferri qui exinde militant huic 
 seculo, illud procul dubio abhominatio desolationis est, 1 quod monachi et regulares canoniei 
 de agris aut vineis aut nutrimentis animalium suo sumptu elaboratis coguntur solvere decimas 
 aut militibus aut secularibus clericis contra canones antiquos et novos. Nam de antiquis est 
 illud Urbani, quod premisimus, cui multa similia invenire potest lector studiosus. De novis 
 autem ilia sunt que in conciliis Innocentii 2 (12) et Eugenii 3 super hoc habemus atque, ut in 
 ore* non solum duorumf sed et trium testium stet hoc iusticie verbum, tuo quoque, Adriane papa, 
 statuto indigemus, quia, defuncto papa Eugenio, putatur a stultis mandatum eius pariter cum 
 illo defunctum de decimis regularium canonicorum et monachorum non persolvendis, ubi mani- 
 bus et sumptibus propriis elaborant suas terras. Nam de colonis eorum nulla est contradictio, 
 quin illi de suis fructibus atque fetibus illuc persolvere suas decimas debeant, ubi suos infantes 
 baptizant, metentibus illis eorum carnalia qui eis persolvunt spiritualia* Spirituales autem 
 viri, monachi et regulares canoniei, qui a plebanis presbyteris nulla requirunt spiritualia, nimis 
 iniuriose coguntur eis persolvere carnalia. O mira desolatio et detestabilis abhominatio desola- 
 tionis, cum illi, quibus de decimis populi esset impendenda consolatio, angariantur secularibus 
 personis de suis laboribus decimas dare, quas potius, episcopo dispensante, ipsi ab eis ad sui 
 consolationem deberent accipere. Latuit hactenus ista desolationis abhominatio quasi vitlpe- 
 cula foveas habens, 1 dum veluti sub pallio iustieii? pharisaiceque mentam et rutam et omne 
 holus* (13) addecimans, graviora legis, iusticiam, scilicet, ac 9 misericordiam et fidem preterire 
 solet, sic districte ab omnibus exigebantur decime, ut nee spirituales exciperentur persone, cum 
 nee reges gentium exigant tributum a filiis, sed ab alienis. Neque adtenderunt vel 10 adtendere 
 voluerunt episcopi praemissam doctrinam papae ac martyris Urbani, seu etiam pape Gregorii 11 
 scribentis ad Augustinum Anglorum episcopum, ut communi vita viventibus de faciendis porti- 
 onibus nichil imponatur ubi omne, quod superest, piis et religiosis causis in usus pauperum est 
 erogandum, iuxta illud evangelicum: Quod superest date et omnia munda erunt vobisP 
 Latuit, inquam, hec vulpecula demoliens vineas. 13 At mmc exagitata quasi latratibus canuin 
 dominicorum, videlicet, pontificum Romanorum Innocentii et Eugenii doctrinis ajsostolicis, 
 eisdem iam defunctis, putat sibi liberum non iam dente vulpino, sed aprino, evidenter vastare 
 vineas Domini Sabaoth. Sentiat ergo adhuc in te, pater Adriane, spiritum antecessorum tuomm 
 vivere; sentiat, inquam, se acrius exagitandam bestia hec nequissima, que devoravit Ioseph, 14 
 nisi cesset a cepta 15 malicia. 
 
 IV. DE IOSEPO PRIHOGENITO EACHELIS 
 
 Quia enim, ut supra diximus, dictum est ei sub nomine (11) Ruben ut non crescat in domo 
 Iacob, nimis emulatur Ioseph filium accrescentem, cui dixit pater Iacob: Filius accrescens 
 Joseph, films accrescens, et decorus aspectu : filie discurrerunt super murum. Sed exaspera- 
 verunt eum, et iurgati sunt, iiivideruntque illi habentes iacula. Sedet in forti arcus eius et 
 dissoluta sunt vinculo, brachiorum et manuum illius per manus potentis Iacob. Inde jiastor 
 egressus est lapis Israel. Deus patris tui erit adiutor tuus, et Omnipotens benedicet Ubi bene- 
 dictionibus cell desuper, benedictionibus abyssi iaccntis deorsum, benedictionibus uberum et 
 vulve. Benedictiones patris tui confortate sunt benedictionibus patrum eius, donee reniret 
 
 iMatt, 24:15; Dan. 9:27;12:2. »Libelli,et. » Libelli, neque. 
 
 2 Lateran Council, 1139, cau. 10; Mansi, Vol. XXI, col. 1] Gregory I., 590-604, in his letter to Augustine, whom he 
 528 ; Hefele, Vol. V, 2d ed., p. 441. had sent as a missionary (59G) to the Anglo-Saxons ; Migne, 
 
 3 Council at Rheims, 1148, can. 8; Mansi, Vol. XXI, col. Pat.Lat., Vol. LXXVII, col. 11S4; Bk. XI, no. 04; Responsio 
 716; Hefele, Vol. V, 2d ed., p. 512 ff. It was held by prima. See also M. G. H., Gregorii I. Papae Eegistrnm 
 Eugene III. Epistolarum, Vol. II, p. 333, where it is numbered Bk. XL 
 
 * Libelli, in more. 56a. 
 
 5 Matt. 18:16. ei Cur. 9:ii. r2 Luke 11:41. « Song of Sol. 2:15. 
 
 'Matt. 8:20. SLuke 11:42. >»Gen. 37:33. KLibelli, aocepta. 
 
 190 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 41 
 
 desiderium collium eternorum : fiant in capite Ioseph et in vertice Nazarei inter fratres suos.' 
 Et quidem altiore sacramento hee benedictioues Ioseph a Sanctis patribus expommtur de ipso 
 Christo patris altissimi primogenito. At tameu quoniam sicut scriptum est, Inde pastor 
 egressus est, cui dixit verus ac summus Ioseph, Si diligis me pasce oves meas, 2 non incon- 
 grue de quovis pastore Christum diligente ac proinde siucero amoris affectu ipsius oves pascente 
 omnia hec potemnt intelligi. Quia non solum senatus apostolorum princeps orbis terrarum 
 principatum Ioserih (15) in tota terra Egypti dominantis representat, sed et omnis cetus virorum 
 sanctorum, qui non ut Ruben de Lya sed sicut Ioseph de Rachele se natum contestatur, primo 
 assimilatus ei per custodiam castitatis, cui multiun cooperativr claustralis inclusio, sicut ille 
 maluit pati carcerem quam ad placitum domine sue contra dominum suum violare fidem, 3 in quo 
 conprobatus est amor domini sui, deinde per curam pastoralem secundum quod ille dixit fratri- 
 bus suis, Ego pascam vos et parvulos vestros* Cui simile est quod primo exarninatus est 
 amor Petri erga Dominum et postea commissa est ei cura ovium, dicente Christo, Ainas me? 
 ac subiimgente, Pasce ores meets sive agnos meos. Sic praeparatus est beatus Petrus velut 
 alter Ioseph ad pascendos rnultos populos et etiam suos fratres, de quibus ei dictum est: Con- 
 firma fratres tuos? Alioquin fame nimia imminente periret Egyptus, id est, totus mundus et 
 infirmitate deficerent ipsi quoque fratres eius, episcopi, videlicet, partim officio et merito, partim 
 solo nomine fratres. Neque vero soli beato Petro sed et cuilibet successori eius dictum illud 
 Christi congruit: Pasce oves meas et confirma fratres tuosf' Unde ad te quoque, Adriane 
 papa, illud pertinere non dubium est, quoniam tu, sine dubio, regularem vitam servando etiam 
 ante papatum 7 praeventus es in benedictionibus dulcedinis a Ruben, filio Lye, (16) omnino alienis 
 et super caput Ioseph sicut auditurn est copiose thesaurizantis dicente patre Iacob: Fiant in 
 capite Ioseph et in vertice Nazarei inter fratres suos. Considera, queso, nunc totum Ioseph, 
 totum, videlicet, chorum spiritalium virorum de Eachele genitorum quos pater altissimus amat 
 plurimum et ideo fratres eius oderunt ilhun nee possunt ei quicquam pacifice loqui. Hoc et in 
 benedictione Ioseph notatum est ubi dictum est: Exasperaverunt emu invideruntque illi habentes 
 iacula. Et tu, quidem, Eomane pontifex, post Christum caput Ioseph et vertex Nazarei tain- 
 quam in alto positus non tangeris illorum sagittis, at ego miser et mei similes in imo positi, grandi 
 experimento edocti, non indigemus nobis exponi quam vere dictum sit de uno filio Rachelis quod 
 eventurum erat plurimis eiusdem filiis. Exaspcrarvrunt, inquit, eum et iurgati sunt, invide- 
 runtque illi habentes iacula. O quoties isti exasperaverunt me habentes iacula, quibus fuissem 
 graviter fossus, nisi quod sedes apostolica facta est mihi refugiurn a venenatis iaculis eorum ! 
 Unde et memor fatigationis mee praeterite represento tibi, patri, textum epistole quam inter 
 huiuscemodi sagittarios misi beate memorie papae Irmocentio, cuius textus ita se habet- 8 
 
 Innocentio divina favente dementia sedis ajiostolice (17) antistiti frater Gferhohus] sue sanctitatis 
 qualiscuraque servus devotas orationes cuni obedientia. Domine, refugiurn tu factus es nobis in 
 Domino, qui, priusquam flerent montes aut formarentur terra et orbis, 9 te praedestinavit nobis pium 
 patronum contra violentias impiorum. Puto enim, si non esset nobis apostolice sedis asilum iam 
 redacti essemus ad nichilum per iniquas potentias impiorum. Sed tu, beate vir, qui non soles abire 
 in consilio impiorum, nee sedes in cathedra pestilentie, 10 sed in cathedra potestatis apostolice per tue 
 pietatis eximium affectum, factus es nobis refugiurn, immo eterna Christi pietas, que regnat in corde 
 tuo, facta est nobis turns fortitudinis a facie impiorum," qui nos afflixerunt et affligunt. Petro Leonis 
 tyrannizante v - rnulta passi sumus ab eius fautoribus, 13 quando vidimus impium superexaltatum et 
 
 1 Gen. 49:22-26. 2 John 21: 15 ff. «Ps. 89: If. 
 
 3 Gen. 39:7 S. 4 Gen. 45:7 and 10. H'Ps. 1:1 
 
 5 Luke 22: 32. « John 21 : 17, Luke 22 :32. UPs.60:4. 
 
 'Adrian IV., before his elevation to the cardinalate, '2 Petrus Leonis, better known as the anti-pope, Anaelete 
 
 had been a member of the house of regular canons, known II., 1130-1139, who contested the election of Innocent II. 
 as St. Rvrfus, near Avignon. i3Gerhoh here refers to the opposition he encountered 
 
 8 This letter is quoted by Gerhoh also in his letters, No. when he declared that schismatics could not efficaciously 
 
 21, Migne, Pat. LcCt., Vol. CXCIII, col. 548. perform the sacraments. 
 
 191 
 
42 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 elevatum sicut cedros Lybani. Sed transivi et ecce non erat. 1 Hereses autem sunt, quia eas oportet 
 esse aimsti'l" as-en-nto: - Inter has laburavimus el adhuc laboramtl ? Nam pro eo quod aliquando 
 scriptis ac dictis confutavimus hereticum sensum quorundam assercntium Christi corpus extra eccle- 
 siam etiam ab excornmunicatis confici, nisi tu, pater, mihi tunc fuisses in refugium, heretici me damp- 
 nassent quasi hereticum. Sed quia residuum bruci paratus est commedere locusta, 4 succedunt malis 
 mala. Nam de f umo putei abyssi, ut Iohannes in Apocalypsi 5 previdit, nunc exierunt locuste, videlicet 
 plures discipuli Petri Abaiolardi, affirmantes hominem de virgine sumptum non esse Deum, sed ipsius 
 Dei singulare habitaculum in (18) quo cum habitet omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter; 7 non 
 tamen dicunt ei convenire nomen Deitatis, aut Deus dicatur nisi figurativa locutione, qua continens 
 pro contento, vel pro contento continens, nominamus. Est enim figurativa locutio, si habens pro 
 habito nominatur, quod plerumque solet fieri, uti manu factum templum vocamus ecclesiam propterea 
 quod habet vel continet ecclesiam, id est, iustos in ea convocatos, et in evangelio, ubi dicitur: Credidit 
 ipse et domus eius tota, s familie datur nomen domus, quia familiam habet vel continet domus. Ita, 
 inquiunt, figurativa est locutio, quando vel homini Deum in se habenti assignamus nomen Dei, vel 
 Deum in homine manentem dicimus hominem. Nos autem, quia Deum proprie hominem et hominem 
 Deum predicamus, ne forte in vacuum curramus, 9 tibi pater, perlatorem 10 presentium super questione 
 hac misimus tractatum, quern si tua approbat auctoritas, iterum cantabo qubd et antea cantavi: 
 Domine, refugium tu factus es nobis, non quod confido 11 in te, mortali homine, sed in Petro, imrno in 
 petra, cuius fortitudini porte inferi non prevalebunt. Item postea inter similia pericula a papa Cel- 
 estino suscepi scriptum consolatorium et confortatorium, cuius hoc est' rescriptum; Celestinus 12 
 episcopus servus servorum Dei dilecto Alio G[erhoho] Richerispergensi praeposito salutem et aposto- 
 licam benedictionem. Super tribulationibus et angustiis quaspro veritatis et iustitie assertione dilecti 
 filii nostri G 13 diaconi cardinalis attestatione te sustinere accepimus, paterna tibi affectione compati- 
 mur etin quibus secundum (19) Deum possumus opem tibi et consilium libenter impendimus. In quibus 
 tanto maiorem pacientiam te oportet habere quanto certius est tuam industriam easdem persecutiones 
 pro defensione iusticie sustinere. Scis enim nee novum esse nee insolitum quod iuxta apostolum qui 
 pie volunt vivere in Christo persecutionem patiuntur 14 ab impiis et dissimilibus, quos Dominus in 
 evangelio consolatur beatitudinem eternam illis repromittens. Beati, inquit, qui persecutionem pati- 
 untur propter iusticiam. 15 Nos tamen pro debito officii nostri emulis tuis obviare et censura eccle- 
 siastica eos cohibere volumus. Unde per presentia tibi scripta mandamus quatenus proxima 
 domenica qua legitur: "Ego sum pastor bonus" 16 nostro te eonspectui representes ut per te ipsum 
 causa plenius cognitaquieti et tranquillitati tue providere et sicut dilecto filio oportune tibi subvenire 
 valeamus. — Datum Lat. VI, Kal. Feb. 17 
 
 Novissime quoque imiumeris expositus iaculis ad papain Eugeniuni confugi cuius et verbis 
 et scriptis eonfortatus didici quam vere dictum sit in benedictionibus Ioseph: Sedet in fort i 
 arcus eius et dissoluta sunt vinculo, brachiorum et manuum eiusper manum potentis Iacob. ls 
 Et ut 19 noveris tu, Adriane papa, quam cleuienter ille me respexit, considera ipsius epistolam 
 qua dissoluta sunt vincula brachiorum et manuum mearum per manum potentis Iacob. Textus 
 eius hie est: Eugenius' 2 " episcopus servus servorum Dei dilecto filio G[erhoho\ Bieherispergensi 
 preposito salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Scripta devotionis tue benigne recepimus et 
 
 i Ps. 37:35 f. 21 Cor. 11:19. Damian, who had recently returned from an embassy to 
 
 3 Cf 1 Cor. 15 : 10 2 Cor. 6:5 and 12: 23 27. Bohemia. Gerhoh had accompanied him as far as Prague, 
 
 4 Joel 1:4. 5 Rev. 9: Iff. 
 
 6 Petrus Palatums, known as Abelard, 1079-1142. 
 
 T Col. 2:9. « John 4: 53. 
 
 He had been absent from Rome on this embassy from Sep- 
 tember 1142 to February 1144. 
 
 "2 Tim. 3:12. 15 Matt. 5:10. 
 
 16 That is, the second Sunday after Easter. John 10:11. 
 
 ■' Phu. -: lb, Gal. - : 2. Gerhoh's account of his journey to Rome is found in Mign'E, 
 
 MRuodigerus, a brother of Gerhoh, afterwards prae- Pat. Lat., Vol, CXCIII, col. 1106. 
 
 positus of Klosterneuburg, 1167-8. Cf. M. G. H., SS., Vol. it That is, at the Lateran Palace, January 27, 1144. 
 
 IS ' P- 616 - is Gen. 49 : 24. " Libelli, tu. 
 
 11 MS. Confida. 20 cf. J. L., No. S922. Given at Sutri, May 16, 1116. Ger- 
 
 isCelestine II., 1143-4. For this letter, Cf. Jaffe-Lowen- hoh quotes it also in his Commentary on Ps. 38. Migne, 
 
 feld, No. 8484, Mignb, Pat. int., Vol. CXCIII, col. 578. Gerhoh Vol. CXCIII, col. 137S; Libelli, Vol. Ill, pp. 432 f . ; also in 
 
 quotes it also, in part, in his commentary on the 46th Psalm. Gerhoh's Letters, Nos. 17 and 21, MlGNE, Pat. Lat, Vol. 
 
 13 Probably Guido, card, deacon of SS. Cosmas and CXCIII, cols. 567, 577. 
 
 192 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 43 
 
 fervorem tue religionis ex eorum inspectione manifeste cognovirnus. Concaluit enim cor tuum 
 intra tret in meditatione tua exardescit ignis. 1 (20) Ignitum quoque eloquium tuwm vehementer. 
 Super hoc itaque, quod contra pessimas novitates, commotiones quoque, que contra eccelesiam 
 Dei et personas ecclesiasticas oriuntur, te zelo karitatis exardescere cognoscimus, paterno 
 affeetu gaudemus et devotionem tuam collaudamus. Verum quoniam bonum est incipere sed 
 multo melius consummare, dilectionem tuam in Domino eommonemus ut in bono proposito 
 perseveres quia nos personam tuam tamquam Utteratum et religiosum virum paterna karitate 
 diligimus et in quibus secundum, Deum possumus honorare et manu tenere volumus. — Datum 
 Sutri XVII. Kal. Iunii. 
 
 Audis, presul Romane Adriane, quomodo antecessores tui astiterunt mini agonizanti et 
 pugnauti ad bestias, 2 que sepe expugnavenmt me a iuventute mea, iam fere per armos XXX. 
 prokmgata iniquitate illorum fabricantium supra dorsum meum: 3 et necdurn peracta est 
 pugna. Etenim non potuerunt mihi sic prevalere, quin vincula brachionun et manuum mearuni 
 semper essent soluta, ut adhuc gratia Dei sunt per manum potentis Iacob, protegente me 
 pariter et divina gratia et apostolice sedis tutela fortissima contra Symonein 4 in domo Dei nego- 
 ciantem, contra Nycolaum 5 impurum, contra Neronis tyrannidem 6 adhuc in laicis quibusdam 
 sevientem et Symoni mago contra Symonem Petrurn nequiterfaventem. His itaque quasi tribus 
 amicis confutatis, Helyu 7 turbulentus contra me insurgit, 8 irruens ex adverso, quasi turbo ad 
 dispergendum me, sic involvendo sententias sermonibus, prout ipsi videtur, exquisitis, sed prout 
 ego arbitror, (21) imperitis, ut, nisi Dominus de turbine illi 9 pro me respondere dignetur. tota 
 salus mea, immo totius ecclesie periclitetur graviter. quoniam, non ut cumque flumen illiditiu: 
 domui Dei fundate supra petram, sed ipsam, quod auditu horrendum est, nititur subfodere aut 
 findere, petram. Que, licet habeat foramina, in quibus nidificat columba, utpote clavis et lancea 
 per milites cavata, non confringi vel scindi potuit aut poterit, sicut scriptum est: Os non com- 
 minuetis ex eo quia nee tunica eius inconsutilis scissa fuit,sed Integra, permansit. 10 Petra enim 
 est Christus, petra indivisa, petra solida, nullius umquam susceptiljilis divisionis, totus in 
 paterna, totus in materna substantia, totus in ecclesia regnante in celis, totus in ecclesia peri- 
 grinante ac militante super terrain, sursum invitans ad gloriam, deorsum confortans ad 
 patientiam. Sic denique implet proprietatem sui nominis, quod est Emanuel, 11 ut, sicut in 
 divinitate sua unus est cum patre Deus, ita quoque in humanitate sua sit etiam nobiscum Deus. 
 In humanitate, inquam, sua non solum in sue persone unitatem sed in sue divinitatis unionem 
 suscerjta. Et de personali qmdem imitate catholicus doctor Athanasius congruenter assignavit 
 hanc similitudinem ut diceret sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo ita Deus et homo 
 unus est Christus. Sed de naturaram ineffabili unione in creatui'is plenam similitudinem non 
 invenit. Que denique creatura sic transit in alteram sibi oppositam ut permaneat quod erat 
 incipiens esse quod non erat? Et quidem conatus est beatus Papa Gregorius (22) in Ezechiele 12 
 tale quid ostendere, affirmans quod sicut aqua transit in christallum, permanerite, videlicet, 
 natmali essentia cum quantitate sua sed sola qualitate mutata, sic humana Christi natura, in 
 similitudinem aque, primo fragilis, per resurrectionem firmata, veluti christalli soliditatem aecepit. 
 Verum ista similitudo longe minus habet ab assimilato. Transiens enim aqua in christallum 
 non retinet in se totum quod habet essentiale, quia, cum essentialiter et non accidentaliter aqua 
 sit humida, in christallum transiens et sicca effecta, desinit esse quod substantialiter erat. Non 
 sic in Christo, non sic humanitas transiens in divinitatis gloriam desinet esse quod substantialiter 
 erat, sed provecta est ultra quam erat. Ita ut, licet suscipiens divinitas non sit suseepta 
 humanitas, vel e converso, quia indestructibilis est utriusque natirre permansio, tamen quam 
 vere corpus, accepta humanitate, permanens quod erat, sit quod non erat, id est, homo, et vere, 
 
 IPs. 38:4. =1 Cor. 15:32. 3Ps. 123:3. ?Job32:lff. ILibelli, consurgit. 
 
 *Cf. Acts 8: 9. 5 Qf. Eev. 2 : 6, 15. •> Job 38:1. io Cf. John 19:23. 
 
 6 Probably refers to the attitude of the nobility toward " Isa. 7 : 14 ; Matt. 1 : 23. 
 
 bishops and abbots who exercised temporal authority. '2 Ezek. 1 : 22 ; cf. Eccles. 43 : 22. 
 
 193 
 
44 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 accepta leonitate, sit leo, et similiter in substantiis aliis animalis corpori accedentibus et speciem 
 constituentibus, idem invenis, ita nimirum, mediante anima, data et unita hominis corpori 
 divinitas, in eo nomine quod est super omne nomen ' contulit illi esse quod non erat, scilicet, 
 Deus, manente tain divinitate quam humanitate qiLod erat, et, incipiente Deo esse quod non 
 erat, subaudis homo, sicut et homo accepit esse quod non erat, scilicet, Deus. Et hoc est m irabile 
 in oeulis nostris, primus novissimus et novissimus sit primus 2 sicut ipse ait: Ego sum a et w, 
 primus et uorissimus. 3 Quis rnagis (23) immo quid aliud est primum quam omnium princi- 
 piumf Ego, inquit, principium qui et loquor vdbis;* quod ait ego principium refer ad 
 primum ; quod vero ait qui et loqiior vobis refer ad novissimum. Denique cum omnia visibilia 
 creasset Deus, novissime, in sexta die, creavit hominem, cui soli inter omnia visibilia dedit 
 rationandi et loquendi facultatem. Deus igitur homo factus, a primo usque ad novissi- 
 mum inclinatus, absque sue divinitatis deffectu sed cum inmenso nostre humanitatis profectu. 
 Quo enim altius proficere haberet natura humana quam ut, aquatica fluxe mutabilitatis 
 mfirmitate deposita, in divine inmutabilitatis christallinam soliditatem commutata esset super 
 omnia nomen habens quod super omne nomen est. b Unde et in visione- prophetiea dicitur: 
 Et similitudo super capita animalium firmamenti quasi aspectus christalli horribilis et 
 extenti super capita eorum desuper. Et super jirmamentum quod erat imminens capiti 
 eorum quasi aspectus lapidis saphyri similitudo throni, et super similitudinem fhroni simili- 
 tudo quasi aspectus hominis desuper. Et vidi quasi speciem electri velut aspeetum ignis 
 intrinsecus per circuitum a lumbis eius desuper et a lumbis eius usque deorsum (24) vidi quasi 
 speciem. ignis splendentis in circuitu velut aspeetum circus cum fucrit in nube in die pluvie. 
 Hie erat aspectus splendoris per gyrum. Hec visio similifudinis glorie Domini. Mira 
 visionum dissimilitude). 6 Propheta vidit humanam in Christo naturam quasi aspeetum 
 christalli, videlicet commutatam a sua mutabilitate in soliditatem non angelicam, qualis et 
 Sanctis hominibus permittitur, sed omnino divinam. Nostris temporibus dialectici vel potius 
 heretici vident earn vix ad angelorum dignitatem provectam. Ille vidit super similitudinem 
 throni quasi aspeetum hominis desuper et quasi speciem electri. Isti sub throno Dei cum 
 ceteris electis hominibus eollocant hominem assumptum quern negant in excelso throno sedere 
 in paterae glorie coequalitate, vel potius imitate. Speciem quoque clarissimi electri de argento 
 humanitatis et auro divinitatis confecti non aspiciunt, quia duas naturas in Christo ita coadunatas 
 non credunt, sicut in electro aiu - um et argentum coadunantur, aiu'o aliquatenus pallescente sed 
 argente fulgescente. Nos autern cum propheta vidomus aurum palluisse in Christo, cum pos- 
 teriora dorsi eius in pallore auri quasi exinanita divinitatis plenitudine in passione (25) ipsius 
 disparuerunt. Sed quia Moysi posteriora eiusvidenda et post hec sive per hec etiam gloria eius 
 ostendenda promittebatur, nos cum ipso Moysi in foramine petre' stantes. ipsum, quern scimus 
 humana passum, credimus in eadem natura, qua passus est, ad divina provectum, latenter 
 quidem in virginali utero, sicut et David pater eius clam consecratus est in regem, nesciente 
 Saule, in paterna domo. 8 Sicut autem ille, mortuo Saule, unctus est manifeste 9 super domum 
 Iuda, universum Israelem, sic et homo in Deum assumptus et solus electus ex milibus ad 
 regnandum in domo Iacob in eternum idoneus, devieto mortis principe, manifeste gloria et 
 honore divine claritatis coronatus, regnum tenet omnimn seculorum non minore potentia, 
 sapientia, dementia, disponens et guliernans omnia in humana sua natura quam ea creavit in 
 divina. Hominis quippe filio datum est regnum et honor ab Antiquo dierum, sicut Danieli 
 demonstratum est, 10 cui et iudicium datum est eo et in eo quod Alius hominis est. Nam in eo 
 quod Alius Dei est numquam non habuit quod patris fuit. Unde et dicit: Omnia que habet 
 
 i Phil. 2:9. «John 8: 25. sphil. 2:9. 
 
 2 Ps. 118 : 23 ; Matt. 21 : 42, 19 : 30, 20 : 16 ; Mark 9 : 35, 10 : 31 ; 6 Ezek. 1 : 22, 26-28. ' Exod. 33 : 20 ff. 
 
 Luke'13 : 30. s 1 Sam. 16. 9 2 Sam. 2. 
 
 ■■ ( \{. Isa. 41 : 4, 44 : 6 ; Rev. 1 : 8, 17, 22 : 13. 10 Dan. 7. 
 
 194 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 45 
 
 Pater meet sunt. 1 Propter humanitatem vero elicit: Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo. 2 
 Quenarn sunt ilia omnia que (26) unacum patre suo Christus in divinitate sua semper habuit 
 queque idem in humanitate sua sibi tradita dicit? Profecto ilia sunt que pater habuit non solum 
 sub se vel creata vel creauda, sed etiam que habuit et habet in se increata, eterna, et immensa; 
 verbi gratia, potentia, sapientia, iusticia, Veritas, bonitas, et cetera huiusmodi que in Deo non 
 sunt multa sed unum; immo que in Deo non sunt aliud quam Deus unus omnino simples. Esto, 
 inquiunt, ut homini assumpto data sit verbi potentia, sapientia, bonitas et alia hominis eapaci- 
 tati capabilia. Eternitas vero et inmensitas nature humane incapabilis est, nee ilia eius capax 
 est quia quod inicium habet eternum fieri non potest, quodque circumscriptum est inmensitatem 
 capere non potest. Hec dicendo sapientes huius niundi praesumunt carnes agni aqua coctas 
 manducare, dum sapientia humana, quam stultam fecit Deus, nituntur etiam inscrutabilia 
 scrutari. Nos autem, caput cum pedibus vorare cupientes infirma humanitatis unacum altissimis 
 divinitatis, non solum igne assa manducamus verum etiam igne comburendum relinquimus quod 
 residuum fuerit. 3 Verbi gratia, non (27) solum credibile sed etiam intelligibile per gratiam Dei 
 cognoscimus quod homo, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientie et scientie Dei, omnia scit sicut 
 ei Petras dicit: Domine, tu omnia sets* ac proinde in sapientia vel scientia non est inferior vel 
 minor patre suo, Deo eterno, a quo data est ei proprii filii naturalis filiatio. Item qui dicit: 
 Data est mihi omnis potestas in celo et in terra 5 non minus est potens patre suo omnipotente. 
 Comedere seu vorare utcumque possumus talia non solum credibilia sed etiam intelligibilia. 
 Que autem superexcedunt intellectum non hominum tantum sed etiam angelorum ut pax Dei 
 que exsuperat omnem sensumf ut etiam illud profimdum iudiciorum Dei, quo Iacob dilexit 
 Esau autem odio habuit 1 antequam quicquam facerent boni vel rnali, seu etiam illud universale 
 profundiun, quo eternaliter omnes consimiles Iacob dilexit omnesque consimiles Esau odio 
 habuit. Hec, inquam, et similia omnem intellectum superexcellentia de agni carnibus igni com- 
 burimus reservando ea Spiritui Sancto qui scrutatur omnia etiam profunda Dei. s De talibus 
 est etiam illud quod, ut Ambrosius ait in Lucam, cui Deus Pater omnia dedit, eternitatem dedit 
 maiestatemque transfudit. De his enim duobus, ut iam prelibavimus. maior est contradictio 
 asserentibus nobis omnia, que habet Pater, data esse homini assumpto in Deum, Dei filium, sic 
 ut ipse sit Deus, Dei filius, non geminata filii persona, sed unius persone manente natura gemina, 
 et altera per alteram deificata, glorificata, et clarificata claritate, quam natura superior habuit 
 priusquam mundus fieret. Gloria enim omnis non verbo sed carni acquirebatur, ut asserit 
 Hylarius, (28) quia verbo nichil decesserat quod ei patris rnunere fuisset reddendum. Unde non 
 verbum sed hominem constat et paulominus ab angelis minoratum" et, consummata obedientia 
 gloria et honore coronatum, in throno maiestatis paterne, in quo ne inferior aut minor estimetur 
 eterno et immenso patre, non ad sinistram sed ad dextram dicitur sedere, 10 iam non minor, glori- 
 ficatus, qui minor fuerat quando vidimus eum non habentem speciem neque decorem." Hinc 
 Hvlarius. Glorificaturus, inquit, filium pater maior est, glorificatus autem, filius minor non est. 
 Aut quomodo minor est qui in gloria patris est? Dicis itaque mihi: Quomodo ergo verum est 
 quod dicit Athanasius minor patre secundum humanitatem, si secundum Hylarium constiterit 
 quod homo in throno glorie sublimatus et magnificatus non sit inferior aut minor patre ? Ad 
 hoc respondeo: Duos istos patres diversa non adversa hoc loco sentire cum alter eorum agat 
 de natura humanitatis, que, sive in gloria, sive in pena, nunquam erit vel maior vel minor se 
 ipsa, in quantum est natura humana que tanta est in minimo infante quanta in grandissimo 
 gygante, tanta in Iuda perdito quanta in Petro salvato; alter vero agat de gloria que nature 
 humane in Christo non solum naturaliter sed supernaturaliter est collata. Naturaliter enim natura 
 humana, cum sit rationalis, per ipsam rationem capax est eterne sapientie, in aliis ad mensuram, in 
 Christo sine mensura. Non enim ad mensuram dedit Deus spiritum 12 homini concepto per spiritum. 
 
 1 John 16: 15. 
 
 2 Matt, 12:9. 
 
 3Exod. 12:9, 10. 
 
 'Rom. 9:13. 
 
 81 Cor. 2:10. 
 
 9Ps. 8:6. 
 
 1 John 21 :17. 
 
 5 Matt. 28:18. 
 
 6 Phil. 4:7. 
 
 195 
 
 i»Heb. 1:3. 
 
 "Isa. 53:2. 
 
 is John 3:34 
 
46 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 Sed quomodo sit capax eternitatis et immensitatis homo in tempore creatus et circumscriptus 
 (29) naturalem sensum excedit, quia supra naturarn est, fide appreheudeudurn non sensu vel 
 intellectu comprehendendum. Fide ergo hoc tenemus et fidelibus id ipsum credendum non 
 discutiendum suademus. Infidelibus autem cum Apostolo dicimus: O homo, tu quis es qui 
 respondeas Deo?' Tn rationis aciimine vis omnia wrrHa fidei penetrare quod esset fidem 
 evacuare; quoniam, si vides non est fides. Ego autem credidi, propterea locutus sunt.'- Credidi 
 Christo non solum dicenti ante mortem: Pater maior me est, 3 sed etiam post resurrectionem: 
 Data est in Hi i omnis potestas in eelo et in terra.* Credidi Apostolo asserenti quod is. qui 
 modicum (/nam angeli minoratus est, excelsior celts /actus est, tanto melior angelis effectus 
 quanto different i us prae illis noiiien hereditavit? Notandum sane quod non elicit "excelsior 
 existens" sed "/actus" et "melior angelis effectus," ut earn naturam intelligas, vel, si non potes 
 intelligere, saltim credas in Christo magnificatam, quam constat factam. Si enim dicis ceteros 
 electos quos predestinavit illos et magnificavitf quomodo is, qui predestinatus est Alius Dei in 
 imitate secundum spiritum sanctificationis, non est credendus magnificatus et nimis exaltatus 
 super omnes eclos usque ad orientem? Quo nomine intelligitur divinitas verbi de Patre oriens 
 ortu eterno, neque tarn proprie dicitur ortus quam oriens, eo quod fine caret eterna eius nativitas, 
 quae ille splendor glorie pateme oritur de patre emplens nubem candidam, susceptam de 
 matre, omni divinitatis plenitudiue atque claritate, quod est earn elevatam esse ad orientem 
 dum clarificata est claritate quam verbum habuit priusquam mundus fieret. 1 Sicut ipsi oranti 
 ut clarificaretur (30) a Patre suo responsum est: Et clariflcavi et iterum clarificabo? Quod est 
 dicere: "Clariflcavi te in conceptione secundum quod predestinatus es Alius mens in virtute 
 secundum spiritum sanctificationis, qui est amor meus, quo in matre operante conceptus es, et 
 iterum clarificabo secundum eundum spiritum sanctificationis et ex resurrectione mortuorum, 
 per quam revelabitur gloria divina tibi, verbo, insita per natirram, sed tibi, homini, data per 
 gratiam." Sic sic magnificatus Rex pacificus super omnesreges universe tcrrc, sic exaltatus est 
 super celos celorumad orientem. Magnificatus, inquam, est non ad mensural n quia magnitudinis 
 eius (31) non est finis, ac proinde inmensitas illi data est non qualem fingit Manicheus, 9 cui videtur 
 undique in infinitum protensus Deus, in quo errore fuit aliquando etiam beatus Augustinus 
 quemadmodum in libro Confessionum suarum ipse de se scribens fatetur, sed qualem credit 
 Christianus et qualem discipulis suis optat cognoscibilem fieri Paulus apostolus dicens: Huius 
 rei gratia flecto genua mea (et cetera usque) possitis comprehendere cum omnibus Sanctis que 
 sit tat Undo, longitudo, sublimitas, et pro/undum. 10 Noli dimensionibus istis tibi Angere 
 grandissimum simulachrum pro Deo colendum, (32) sed agnosce latitudinem Dei, karitatem, qua 
 omnia diligit et nichil odit eorum, que fecit, longitudinem vero eiusdem karitatis, eternitatem, 
 quia longius eternitate nichil cogitari potest; subliinitatem, potentiam, profundum, sapientiam, 
 quibus, quattuor nominibus cum tibi describitur Deus, magnus et immensus, non corporali 
 protensione sed spirituali virtute attingens a Ane usque ad Anem, non habens ipse finem, respice 
 simul et in crucem vel potius in crucifixum, Jesum Christum, et vide an et ibi tibiappareateadein 
 (33) latitudo, longitudo, sublimitas, et profundum, secundum que, magnum vel potius immeu- 
 sum poteris estimare ipsum crucifixum, cuius etiam secundum hominem latissima karitas non 
 habet Anem, cum diligat omnia que diligit et Pater, maxime illos quos Pater in ipso predesti- 
 navit ante constitutionem mundi" utessent sancti et immaculati. Quia vero nichil antiquius hac 
 praedestinatione, utique sicut nichil latins, ita nee longius est aliquid ista praedestinatorum 
 dilectione. Quid autem profundius Christi etiam secundum hominem sapientia, cui datum est 
 
 9 Manichaeus, or Maui, bom c. 215, A. D., near Ctesiphon. 
 the founder of one of the most influential and widespread 
 systems of Gnosticism. St. Augustine was for a time an 
 adherent of his system. C/. The ( 'onfessions of St. Augus- 
 tine, Book III, 6, 14, etc. 
 
 10 Eph. 3:14-18. "Eph. 1:1. 
 196 
 
 1 Rom 9 : 
 
 !0. 
 
 
 2Ps. 115 
 
 in. 
 
 3 John 14 
 
 28. 
 
 
 •Matt. 2 
 
 <:18. 
 
 6Ps. 8:6 
 
 Heb. 2 : 7, 
 
 7 : 26, 1 
 
 4. 
 
 
 6 Rom. 8: 
 
 30. 
 
 
 " John 17 
 
 :5. 
 
 8 John 12 
 
 :28. 
 
 
 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 47 
 
 nosse omnia ; et quid sublimius eius potentia, cui datum est posse omnia quecumque vult, sicut 
 et Pater eius omnia quecumque voluit fecit? Ex his, que dicta sunt, manifestuni est homines 
 illos errasse de filio hominis, quorum alii dicebant eum esse Iohannem, alii Helyarn, alii Hiere- 
 miam aut unum ex prophetis, 1 in quorum errore aclhuc isti detinentur qui Christi magnitudinem 
 sic metiuntur ad mensuram assumpte humanitatis, ut eidem humanitati negent inesse virtutem 
 illius immense claritatis quam apud Deum Patrem filius Deus habuit priusquam mundus fieret. 2 
 Ex hac nimirum recte praedicatur homo assumptus (34) maior Iohanne Baptista, quia cum ille 
 sit exinde magnus quod per Gabrielem angelum preco eius prenuntiatus est concipiendus a 
 sterili, iste per eundem archangelum praenuntiatus est filius Dei altissimi nominandus et con- 
 cipiendus a virgine. 3 Ille in spiritu et virtute Helye viam Domino praeparaturus* iste in 
 spiritu et virtute altissimi exultaturus ut gygas ad currendurn viam''' sibi paratam. Ille angelus 
 ante faciem Domini missus, 6 iste angelus magni consilii consilium 7 ipsurn perficere idoneus. De 
 illo dictum est: Erit enim magnus coram Domino ;' de isto scriptum est : Magnus Domiuus 
 et laudabilis nimis et magnitudinis eius non est finis.' 3 Vere utique. Nam licet universa 
 creatura Creatori comparata incomparabiliter inveniatur illo minor, tamen ilia nova creatura que 
 in virgine de satis tribus 10 est in ununi panem fermentata, coadvmatis in unurn tribus essentiis, 
 anima, scilicet, rationali, carne humana, divinitate immensa et eterna, in una sui persona, ilia, 
 inquam, creatura maior est mundo et licet in sui natura minor, tamen in gloria nominis, quod est 
 super omne nomen, 11 sibi dati, Patri id ipsurn nomen danti equalis, quoniam sicut Patris et filii 
 et Spiritus sancti una est divinitas equalis, (35) gloria indivisa, potestas, ita verbi hominem in se 
 deificantis, hominisque deificati, una est divinitas equalis, gloria indivisa, potestas, ac proinde 
 in Dei filio adoranda est ipsius humanitas eque ut eius divinitas, quia, ut verbis utar magni 
 Leonis, 1 - quod in naturis Christi erat et est proprium non est in potestate diversurn. Denique 
 in sermone ad populurn de Epiphania dicit inter cetera de tribus magis, Quod cordibus credited 
 muneribus protestantur, thus Deo, mirram homini, aurum offerunt regi, scientes humanam 
 divinamque naturam in imitate venerandam, quia quoderat in substantiis proprium non erat 
 in potestate diversurn. Quodet sancti patres in Ephesina synodo perpendentes circa finem con- 
 cilii dixerunt: 13 Si quis audet dicere assumptum hominem a verbo coadorari cum Deo verbo 
 oportere et conglorificari et connuncupari Deum,tamquam alteram alteri adiectio enim unius 
 syllcdm, id est, con, hoc cogit intelligi, et non magis una reverentia veneretur Emmanuel. 
 unamque glorificationem dependent, secundum quod verbum caro factum est, anathema sit. 
 Item, Johannes Damascenus in libro De Dispensations et Beneficio nostre Salutis : Unus, ait, 
 est Christus Dominus perfectus et (36) homo perfectus, quern adoramus cum Patre et Spiritu 
 una adoratione, cum aypavrov id est. immaculata carne ipsius, non carnem non adorandam esse 
 dicentes. Adoratur enim in una uerbi persona que ipsi persona fuit vel facta fuit non crea- 
 tionem colentes. Non enim sicut nudam carnem adoramus, sed sicut Deitati unitam et sicut 
 in unam prosopon et unam personam verbi duabus ipsius reductis naturis. Sic itaque devita- 
 mus prunam tangere propter ignem ligno coniunctum. Adoramus Christi utrumque propter Divini- 
 tatem carni imitam. Ecce audimus a Basilio Divinitatem carni unitam ac proinde ipsam carnem 
 simul cum Divinitate adorandam. Legimus quoque in sermonibus Leonis Papae quod caro 
 nostri generis caro est Deitatis et quod vera Divinitas veris se humane carnis sensibus induit. 
 
 IMatt. 16:13 ff.; Mark 8:27 ff. ; Luke 9:18 ff. 1753: Tom. I, col. 113, sermo 31 (the Brst sermon on 
 
 2 John 17 : 5. 3 Cf. Luke 1. Epiphany) ; c/. sermo 3 in Epiphania, Cap. II. 
 
 4Matt.3:3; Markl:3: Luke3:l; Johnl:23; Isa.40:3. «The Council of Ephesus, 431. Cf. Mansi, Vol. .IV, col. 
 
 1092. A provincial synod, which met m Alexandria under 
 
 Ps. 18 :b. Mark 1:2. the presidency of Cyrillus, bishop of Alexandria, wrote a 
 
 ^ Cf. Isa. 9:6; Ezek. 32:19; Eccles. 2-t :39. letter to Nestorius, in which twelve of his heresies were 
 
 8 t v 1-1" 9P UJ.-^ anathematized. Of these twelve anathemas the one here 
 
 quoted is the eighth. The synod demanded that Nestorius 
 den. 18:6. Phil. „ : 9. renounce his heresies and subscribe to these anathemas. 
 
 12 Leo I., 440-61. Cf. Sancti Leonis Magni Romani Gerhoh quotes the translation of this synodical letter 
 Pontijicis Opera, curantibus P. et H. Balleriniis, Venetiis, which was made by Diouysius Exiguus. 
 
 197 
 
48 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 Legimus et in omelia Gregorii Papae Divinitatem calciatam. Legimus in Johanne verbum 
 carnem factum? Legimus in Hylario naturam inferioreni in naturam superiorern et natam et 
 glorificatam. Quibus omnibus persuasi carnem deificatam et super omnes creaturas in Deo 
 exaltatam adoramus. Quod nequaquam oporteret si, ut novi doctores asserunt, homo in solam 
 personalem proprietatem assumptus Divinitatis in se veritatem non haberet (37). Quod et 
 ipsi fatentur carnem, videlicet Christi, non adorandam. Unde mini a quodam discipulorum 
 magistri Gilbert!- fuit obiectum quasi pro crimine ydolatrie quod carnem Christi adoro et 
 adorandam doceo. Ego autem non ita Christum scindo ut aliud dicam carnem Christi quam 
 carnem Christum, aliud carnem verbi aliud carnem verbum, dicente Hylario in libro XI: 
 Ascendit films hominis ubi erat prius et quis sensus percipietl Descendit de celo filius 
 hominis qui in celis est et que hec ratio praestabitt Verbum caro factum est. 3 Fit euro 
 verbum, id est, homo Deus. Que hec verba loquentur? Item, Ambrosio in ytnno paschali 
 dicente: 
 
 " Culpat caro, purged caro, 
 Begnat Deus, Dei caro," 4 
 
 confidenter praedico Dei carnem, sive mavis dicere, Deum carnem, in verbo, quod caro factum 
 est, adorari oportere; neque in hoc est ullus error ydolatrie. Potes mihi ostendere Christi 
 carnem humanam sine verbo? Quam si adoravero ero ydolater quia talis caro non prodest 
 quicquam. 5 Sed carnem verbi sine verbo monstrari aut a verbo distingui omnino est impossibile, 
 quouiam caro, quam sine verbo intellexeris, non caro verbi aut caro verbum dicenda seu credenda 
 est, ac proinde minime adoranda. Sane quod ait Ieronimus, (38) " verbum verbum est et non 
 caro, et caro caro est et non verbum," non sic est intelligeudum quod carnem verbi a verbo 
 separaverit, sed hoc dicto utriusque permanentiam demoustravit, verbi scilicet et carnis, quia et 
 caro verbo unita permansit caro, et verbum carni unitum permansit verbum, ut erat in principio, 
 facta tamen verbi et carnis, Dei et hominis, assumentis et assumpti, tain ineffabili unione ut, 
 sicut dicit Leo Papa, 6 cum suo creatori creatura esset unita, nichil assumpto divinum, nichil 
 assumenti deesset humanum. Idem, loquens de passione Domini, 7 sic ait: Cuius utique 
 inanis fuisset species et nulli profutura imago tolerantie nisi vera Diviniias veris se humane 
 carnis sensibus induisset et units Dei atque hominis filius, aliunde intemerabilis, aliunde 
 passibilis, mortale nostrum per suum immortale renovaret. His atque aliis apostolice doctrine 
 testimoniis de Divinitate hominis assumpti confirmata, non errat ecclesia hominem adorans 
 quern Petrus apostolus Christum filium Dei vivi confitetur, s quia filius Dei per generationem 
 non per adoptionem factus ei ex semine David secundum carnem' 1 non potest non esse Deus, 
 quomodo nee Pater eius potest non esse Deus. Unde unacum Patre atque in Patre suo est 
 adorandus homo, Dei filius (39) et Deus factus. Factus est enim Deus, Dei filius, ex semine 
 David 10 secundum carnem, qui semper Deus fuit secundum eternam Divinitatem. Factor, ut erat, 
 permansit, sed factus quod non erat, esse cepit. Increatum permansit ac permanet increatum, 
 et quod creatum est permanet creatum. Sed increate nature gloria tota in Christo create nature 
 data est pro nomen, quod est super omne. nomen 11 datum non verbo assumenti sed homini 
 assumpto. Quia verbum numquam non habuit hoc nomen, quod quidem datum est homini 
 primitus in conceptione, deinde in clarificatione. Sed plene inanifestabitur in idtima resurrec- 
 
 1 John 1 : 14. the hymn Aeterne Ee.v AUissime, which is appointed to be 
 
 2 Gilbertus Porretamis, 1070-1154, was accused of heret- sxm S on Ascension day. Its authorship is uncertain, al- 
 ical teachings in regard to the Trinity and the person of though Gerhoh attributes it to St. Ambrose. 
 
 Jesus. St. Bernard succeeded in bringing him to trial, & John 6: 64. 
 
 first in Paris, afterward in the Council at Rheims, 1148-9, G T T c *-tt j t, - ■ t 
 
 , . ,. ,. .,.',. 6 LeoI. Sermo XII, de passione Domini., cap. I. 
 
 but was unable to secure his condemnation. For his 
 
 writings see MiG.VE, Pat. Lat., Vols. LXIV and CLXXXVIII. ' Leo I. Sermo XIV, de passione Domini., cap. II. By 
 
 3 John 1U no means correctly quoted. 
 
 1 1 have not been able to find these words in any col- 8 Matt - 1G : 16 ' 9 Eom - X : 3 - 
 
 lection of the hymns of St. Ambrose. They are found in MRorn. 1:3. u Phil. 2:9. 
 
 198 
 
Oliver Joskph Thatcher 49 
 
 tione curn perficietur quod Ysayas praenuntiavit dicens: Et erit Iii.i: lune sic lux solis, et lux 
 soils erit septempliciter sicut lux septem dierum in die qua alligaverit Dominus vulnus populi 
 sui et pcrcussuram plage eius sanaverit. 1 Quenain est luna que tunc lucebit sicut sol absque 
 varietati! >us creruenti et detrimenti, quibus nunc variatur in isto seculo, nisi ecclesia que tunc erit 
 similis soli suo Deo? Scimus, inquit idem Iohannes, quia cum apparuerit similes ei erimus 
 quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est? Ipsa autem lux solis quanta erit? "Sicut lux septem 
 dierum" inquit. Quod est dicere, quante claritatis erat Deus verbum curn sex dierum fierent 
 opera om-(40)nia et septimo die complerentur omnia per ipsuni, tante in carne sua tunc erit apud 
 Deuni patrem suum. Hoc enim et ipse orans dicebat. Et nunc clarified me, tu, Pater, apud 
 temetipsum, claritate, quam habui priusquam esset mundus apud te? Adoremus igitur 
 Christum, solem iusticie, lumen de lumine, in divinitate sua lumen illuminans, non illuminatum: 
 sed in humanitate sua illuminatum pariter et illuminans omnem hominem ven-ientem in hunc 
 mundum,* utpote iam non sub modio positum, sed super candelabrum? Vide nunc, rogo, 
 quam in alto posita est hec lucerna de testa cristallina humanitatis et igne divinitatis perfecta, 
 que, cum sit lumen de lumine, nichil minus habet eo kvrnine de quo est. Ipsa quoque testa inde 
 ignita totum habet lumen de quo et ipsa est lumen. Sicut enim in divinitate tres personas 
 dicimus unum Deum siniplicissinium, sic in incarnationis mysterio dicimus tres essentias, mimn 
 Christum, unam in trinitate personam, cuius in proprietatem ciun sit homo assumptus, ita ut 
 dicatur et sit Dei films, quod est nomen proprium unius persone, in trinitate absque dubio 
 credendum et confitenduru est cum persone proprietate persone quoque (41 ) divinitatem per- 
 venisse in hominem qui, sicut personaliter, accepta fihatione Dei, vere dicitur et est filius Dei, 
 sic etiam substantialiter, accepta divinitate, filius 6 Dei Deus dicitur et est. Personarum quippe 
 proprietates, ut ante nos dictum est, non aliud quam personas ipsasque, non aliud quam unum 
 Deum, unam divinam substantiam, unam divinam naturam, unam divinam et summam maiesta- 
 tem, catholica fides confitetur. Unde et si dividere quis conetur vel personas a substantia, vel 
 proprietates a personis, nescio quomodo trinitatis se profiteri cultorem possit, qui in tantam 
 rerum numerositatem excesserit. Dicamus itaque tres, sed non ad praeiudicium unitatis. Dica- 
 mus unum sed non ad confusionem trinitatis. Neque enim nomina vacua sunt nee absque 
 significantia casse voces. Querit quis quomodo hoc possit esse, sufBciat ei tenere sic esse. 
 Atque hoc non rationi perspicuum nee tamen opinioni ambiguum, sed fidei persuasum. Sacra- 
 mentum hoc magnum est 1 et quidern venerandum non scrutandum. Quomodo pluralitas in 
 unitate et hac imitate ut ipsa in pluralitate, scrutari 'hoc temeritas est, credere pietas est nosse 
 vita et vita etema est. (42) Nosse autem non est huius vite sed credere unitatem in trinitate, 
 ac trinitatem in unitate, non solum in Deo sed etiam in Christo, in homine scilicet sic uncto ut 
 anima et caro et utriusque unctio, que divinitas est, sit quedam trinitatis representatio et summe 
 trinitatis quodainmodo ab oppositis imitatio. Ibi namque tres persone una est essentia; hie, 
 tres essentie una sunt persona. Ibi due persone habent ab una quiequid possunt, nee tamen 
 ideo minus possunt quia unius cum ea omnipotence sunt. Hie due essentie habent a tercia quie- 
 quid possunt quia unius cum ea omnipotentie sunt, iuxta sensum Leonis Papae dicentis, quod 
 praemisimus, quia quod erat in substantiis proprium non erat in potestate diversum. Ibi una 
 persona duarurn est connexio. Hie duaram essentiarum, divinitatis scilicet atque carnis, anima 
 rationalis est quasi copula, quoniarn, ea mediante, divinitas est carni unita. Ibi a veris adora- 
 toribus adoratur Pater in spiritu et veritate? Hie item a veris adoratoribus adoratur divinitas 
 in anima et carne. Ibi nee Pater filius, nee filius Pater est, aut spiritus sanctus, et tamen in 
 patre totus filius et totus in verbo pater atque in ambobus totus amborum spiritus. Hie neque 
 divinitas caro, neque caro divinitas, (43) neque amborum, quasi copula, rationalis anima vel 
 divinitas vel caro est nominanda, et tamen in singulis horum totus Christus usque adeo indivisus, 
 
 1 Isa. 30 : 26. 2 1 John 3:2. 5 Matt. 5 : 15 ; Mark 1 : 21 • Luke 8 : 16, 11 : 33. 
 
 3Johnn:5. Uohnl:9. «MS.,nlii. 'Eph.,5:32. s John 4 : 23 f . 
 
 199 
 
50 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 ut per solam animam Christus in internum descendisse, per solum corpus Christus mortuus et 
 sepultus, per solam divinitatem verbo quidem innatam, carni vero et anime datam, semper 
 ubique totus praesens credatur Christus, qui ad hoc descendit et ascendit ut adimpleret omnia. 
 Si enim sol iste qui visil lilis est ad hoc descendit et ascendit ut suo splendore coutingat vel 
 impleat omnia sub se posita, quid mirum de sole iusticie cognoscente occasum suum et 
 ascendente ad orientem, hoc est, ad ipsam divinitatem, si affirmatur adimplere omnia 1 sub 
 se posita, non utique corporali sed spirituali magnitudine, attingens a fine usque ad finem, 
 fortiter illuminans omnia ita ut etiam in tenebris luceat quamquam tenebre ilium non com- 
 prehendant, 2 quia ipse videt omnia quamquam non videatur ab omnibus, homo in Deum clarifi- 
 catus et una in trinitate persona f actus? Ibi principalis imitas trium personarum, hie principalis 
 unio trium essentiarum. Inde constat, ut Leo dicit, humanam divinamque naturam in imitate 
 venerandam, quia unio inferioris nature ad summam, quasi aeris ad lucem, representat oculis 
 fidei imam diem. 
 
 V. DE DIE SANOTIFIOATO 
 
 Et hec est dies quam, suo (44) splendore nubem carnis implente, fecit Domiuus, quemad- 
 modum sol iste visibilis, nubem sive aerem suo splendore implendo, temporalem diem facit. 
 Hie est dies 3 sanctifieatus, quern pater sanctiftcavit, et misit in mundum, et vos, Iudeorum 
 suppares, dicitis blasphemiam si quis illi assignat claritatem divinam, quam etiam habuit apud 
 patrem* et accepit apud matrem, habuit in divinitate, accepit in humanitate ita ut humanitaset 
 divinitas veneranda sit in unitate unius claritatis, unius glorie, unius potestatis. Potestatem, 
 inquit, habeo ponendi animam meam et iterum sumendi earn:' Vos ista vox carnis est, que 
 animam suam potenter posuit, potenterque resumpsit, nam neque animam semetipsam posuit 
 neque divinitas, etiam intercidente morte, vel ab anima vel a corpore separata fuit. Cuius 
 potentia in anima simul et came permansit per quam et anima internum debellare, et corpus et 
 ipsam animam itemm sumere potuit, potentia ineffabili, potentia mirabili, potentia non acci- 
 dentali et separabili, sed substantial! et inseparabili. Alioquin sine divinitatis potentia caro 
 separatim intellects non prodesset quicquam 1 '' comedentibus earn, neque humanitas in sui 
 na-(45)tura divinitati ullatenus est comparanda, cuius respectu dicitm- Christus minor patre 
 secundum humanitatem. Sed cum adtenditur non simpliciter caro, que non prodest quic- 
 quam sed caro verbi, caro Dei, deificata et glorificata, sedens in destra Dei patris in gloria 
 sum ma, rationabile iudieatur obsequium, quod in excelso throno adorat multitudo angelormn 
 virum, cuius imperium non deest in eternum. 
 
 VI. DE VIRO ADORANDO 
 
 O nefas ! Angeli super celos celorum adorant virum et rane in luto coaxantes negant illmn 
 adorandum secundum quod vir dicitm-, soli divinitati sic assignantes adorationem, ut ab ea 
 separent ipsius humanitatem. contra doctrinam sanctorum patmm in synodo Ephesina, ut supra 
 memoratum est, praecipientium ut utriusque nature in Christo una fiat adoratio, sed huiusmodi 
 ranarum strepitu contempto, nos adtendamus veneranda sanctorum patrum testimonia quod 
 affirmamus affirmantia, hoc scilicet, quod Iesus Christus in gloria Dei patris est, non solum 
 secundum naturam altissimam eternaliter, sed etiam secundum naturam temporaliter quidem 
 creatam, sed eterue divinitatis gloria et honore eoronatam 1 ac proinde in gloria quam 
 accepit, simul cum divinitate adorandam adoratione indissimili et prorsus equali, quoniam 
 hominis s nature (46) unita verbi natura contulit illi omnem altitudinem divitiarum '■' paternarum. 
 Quid enim deest huic viro in excelso throno sedenti decunctis divitiis celi? Omnia sibi tradita 
 sunt a patre cum hoc ei tradidit ut ipse non per adoptionem sed per generationem pater eius sit. 
 
 lEph. 4:10. 2 John 1:5. 1 John 17:5. 5 John 10: IS. 
 
 3 Ps. Ill : 21, confused with phrases from the gospel of 6 J,,hn 6 : 64 - ' Heb - 2 : '•'• 
 
 St. John. «Ms. homini. "Rom. 11 : 33. 
 
 200 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatches 51 
 
 Habet igitur omnia sibi tradita, 1 non seorsurn a patre, sed in patre, quia, ut ecclesiacanit, in patre 
 totus filius et totus in verbo pater, ac proinde in patre habet quecurnque ipse pater habet. Verbi 
 gratia, pater habet sub se omnia condita, homo in Dei filiuni natus, gloria et honore coronatus 2 et 
 super opera manuum patris constitutus, eadem sub se habet omnia. Pater habet in se verbum 
 potentissimum, per quod omnia, quecurnque voluit, potuit et fecit. Homo, Dei filius, habet in 
 se idem verbum, per quod et ipse omnia, quecurnque voluit, potuit et fecit et adhuc potest ao 
 facit in celo et in terra. Pater habet illud verbum sibi connaturale, homo in Deum assumptus 
 habet idem verbum, non solum unitum sue persone, sed etiarn eoadunatum sue nature. Tantam 
 denique tamque expressam unionis vim in se praefert ea persona, in qua Deus et homo unus est 
 Christus, ut si duo ilia de se invicem praedices, non erraveris, Deum videlicet hominem, et 
 hominem Deum, vere catholiceque (47 J pronuntians. Non autem similitur vel carnem de anima, 
 vel animam de carne, nisi absurdissime praedicas, etsi similiter anima et caro unus sit homo. 
 Nee minim si non eque potens anima sit sua ilia vitali et valida intentione conectere atque suis 
 effectibus astringere carnem ut sibi divinitas ilium hominem qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in 
 virtute. Longa catena et fortis ad stringendum divina praedestinatio. Ab eterno est enim. 
 Quid longius eternitate? Quid divinitate fortius? Inde est quod nee, morte incidente, ullatenus 
 intercidi hec unitas potuit etsi carne et anima ab invicem separatis. Et fortassis hoc sensit ille 
 qui se indignum professus est solvere corrigiam calciamenti eius. 3 Habet igitur, ut dixi, 
 homo assumptus verbum patri connaturale coadunaturu sue nature, quia et Deus in se hominem 
 assumpsit et homo in Deum transivit, non versibilitate nature, sed Dei dignatione hominem in 
 sui divinam dignitatem provehente. Item, pater habet in se spiritum sanctum de se procedentem, 
 homo assumptus habet eundem cum omni plenitudine gratie et veritatis in se requiescentem. 
 Habet pater potestatem iudicandi omnia, sed et omne (48) indicium dedit fllio* in humanitate, 
 quod eternaliter habuit in divinitate. 
 
 VII. OPPOSITIO 
 
 Quid contra hec dicere habet sapientia carnis, que inimica est Deo ? 5 Quid hie loci 
 habent eorum versutie, qui contra hec locuntur, dicentes: Si divinitas est inoarnata, que non 
 est aliud quam divinitas patris, ergo pjater est incamatus. Ad quod respondemus quia qui hec 
 dicunt, filium Dei concedunt incarnatum; sed filius Dei patris non est aliud quam ipse pater, 
 licet sit alius quam pater. Consequitur ergo iuxta sensum eonun, filio incarnato, patrem quoque 
 incarnatum esse. Respondent: Filius est nomen proprietatis, que non est eadem vel idem cum 
 proprietate patris, et ideo non consequitur, proprietate hao incarnata, que ad filium Deipertinet, 
 patrem quoque incarnatum esse, qui aliam proprietatem habet secundum quam pater diciiur. 
 Respondemus: Proprietas filii, quam conceditis incarnatam, vel idem est quod filius vel aliud. 
 Si est aliud quam filius, ergo, secundum vos, non est incarnatus filius, sed, ut dicere soletis, 
 proprietas eius forinsecus ei affixia est incarnata, et filii divinitas ab incarnatione penitus est 
 aliena. Quod si verum esse constiterit non est unde salus hominum sperari possit, que (49) in 
 eo maxime constitit, quod, ut dixit Gregorius, divinitas calciata in Idumeam* extendit calcia- 
 mentum suum. Neque enim secundum vos divinitas est calciata hiunanitate si non est incarnata. 
 
 VIII. SOLUTIO 
 
 Hie adtendum quod filius non est nomen proprietatis abstractim considerate, sed ipsius 
 divinitatis cum quadam proprietate, ut cum dicimus, " Deus de Deo," " lumen de lumine," 
 significamus filii personam sua proprietate a patre distinctam, quam etiam praedicamus incar- 
 natam, non aliud intelligendo per substantiam filii quam ipsiun filium, sicut nee proprietatem 
 filii concedimus aliud esse quam ipsum filium, ne forte incidamus eirorem illorum, qui Deum 
 
 1 Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22. 2Heb. 2:9. 5 Rom. 8:7. 
 
 3 John 1:27. J John 5: 22. 6 Ps. 59 : 10, 107 : 10. 
 
 201 
 
52 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 asserant compositum, neque tamem concedimus, Alio incarnate, patrem quoque incarnatum credi 
 oportere, quia hoc alienuin est a catholica fide. Licet enim camera Christi pater et spiritus 
 sanctus repleverit, non tanien susceptione, sed maiestate, id factum credimus quia neque pater 
 neque spiritus sanctus est incarnatus, quamvis tota divinitatis natura in una sui persona sit 
 incarnata, sicut et tota humanitatis natura in una Christi persona est deificata, aliis personis 
 tarn divinitatis quam humanitatis a Sacramento incarnationis omnino sequestratis. Christus 
 enim sicut est persona divina sic est etiain persona humana, id est, ipse sine persone gemina- 
 tione vel duplicatione, consistens ex (50) duabus et in duabus naturis, adorandus in utraque, 
 quoniam, sicut beatus Augustinus dicit, et Deus in homine et homo in Deo est adorandus. Neque 
 tameD adoratio ista, qua creaturam in Christo adoramus, ydolatria est, quia creatura ista creatori 
 unita una est adoratione cum eo veneranda et honoranda. 
 
 IX. DE DIADEMATE SALEMONIS 
 
 Si enim regem Salemonem, Deum, Dei filium, fabricatorem celi et terre, iure adoramus in 
 diademate quo coronavit eum mater sua, 1 quomodo non eundem hominem hominis filium, fabri- 
 catorem totius eeclesie non adoremus in diademate quo coronavit eum pater suus? Mater coro- 
 navit Deum corona humanitatis igne sancti spiritus conflate ac fabricate. Pater coronavit 
 hominem gloria et honore divine claritatis increate siinul et immense. Mater Syon dicet homo 
 filio Dei. Pater Deus filium hominis dicit filium suum, contestans hominem esse Deum, cui 
 dicit: Tu es Filius dilectus in quo mihi complaeui. 2 Non dicit: Tu placuisti, quod etiam 
 cuilibet sanctorum dici potest, qui placens Deo dilectus est, sed, In te, ait, mihi complaeui, 
 quia in te manens extra te mihi placere non potui. Ego pater qui extra te filium numquam fui, 
 cetera creata videns extra me laudavi eo quod erant valde bona ; 3 te videns intra me laudo bonum, 
 non accidentali dono, sed essentiali (51) bono, quo et quanto nemo bonus nisi, solus Deus.* Ideo 
 in te mihi complaeui, quia bonitatem meam totam in te aspexi et dilexi etiam ante mundi consti- 
 tutionem, eum ante creationem hominum luderes in orbe terrarum et delicie tue fuissent esse 
 cum filiis hominum:' Egredientes filie Syon vident regem Salemonem'' in diademate quo 
 coronavit eum mater sua. Filie namque sunt et non filii, sola exteriora videntes que de matre 
 sua habet Deus, non interiora, que de patre suo habet homo, cui et dixit ipse pater, ego ero illi 
 in patrem et ipse erit mihi in filium,' 1 quod evidenter claret homini potius assumpto quam 
 verbo assumenti promissum, quia verbiun numquam non fuit patri Deo filius, neque ipse pater 
 fuit imquam ei non pater, quia sicut numquam fuit non Deus, ita numquam fuit non pater. 
 Homini ergo in Deum, Dei filium, assumendo facta est ilia patris promissio, quam commemo [ra] 
 vimus, et hec altera. Ipse invocabit me, paler meus es tu et ego primogenitum ponam ilium 
 excelsum prae regibus terrae.* Et ponam in seculum seculi sedem eius et tlironum eius sicut 
 dies celi? Et sedes eius sicut sol in conspectu meo et sicut luxperfecta in eternum. 10 Propter 
 hec et similia contemplanda ingredimini, filii Syon, et videte regem Salemonem in diademate 
 quo coronavit eum pater suus dignatione inestimabili, hominem dignum iudicans accipere omnia, 
 que verbiun eternaliter habuit. Unde non adulatione falsa sed laude verissima canit ecelesia. 
 Dignus est aguus qui occisus est accipere virtutem et divinitatem et sapientiam et forti- 
 tudinem et honorem et gloriam et benedictionem." Que omnia verbiun eternaliter habuisse non 
 dubitatur, sed homo assumptus eadem plenarie (52) accepisse cum gratiarmn actione memoratur, 
 quia totum, quod verbiun habuit per naturam, datum est homini per gratiam, virtus scilicet qua 
 invictissimus, divinitas qua Deus est, sapientia qua eque ut pater novit omnia praeterita. prae- 
 sentia et futura, fortitudo qua potest omnia quecumque vult eque ut pater omnipotens honor et 
 
 i That is, the body of Christ. 5Prov.8:31. «Song of Songs 3:11. 
 
 2Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3: 22; 2 Peter 1:17. ' 2 Kings 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13; Heb 1:5. 
 
 3 Gen. 1 : 10, 12, 18, etc. 8 Ms. e. p. r. t. '■> Ms., s. d. celi. 
 
 4 Matt. 19:17; Luke 18:19; Mark 10:18. '« Vs. S8 : 27 ff. "Rev. 5:12. 
 
 202 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 53 
 
 gloria regni omnium seculorum et dominationis in omni generatione et generatione, benedietio 
 qua dedit illi Deus sacerdotium magnum et beatiflcavit ilium in gloria fungi sacerdotio et habere 
 laudem in nomine ipsius. 1 Ipse est enim benedictus qui solus venit in nomine Domini? taliter 
 scilicet ut sit nomen eius Dominus, non solum in ilia natura, qua invisibilis permansit, sed etiam 
 in ilia qua visibilis venit. 
 
 X. DE ADREA LAMINA 
 
 Unde hie pontifex non solum in aurea lamina 3 super caput eius posita expressum habet 
 signum sanctitatis, nomen Dei fulgens in fronte, scilicet in superiore ipsius natura, caput enim 
 Christi Deus, verum etiam in vestimento et in femore suo scriptum habet, rex regum et Bom in us 
 dominantium* Vidit hoc Petrus apostolus, qui, de filio hominis interrogatus, ait: Tu es 
 Christus Jilius Dei vivi? Petri quoque successor Leo Papa id ipsum tide Petri eruditus 
 agnovit dicens in sermone ad popuTum: 6 Deus, Dei Jilius, de sempiterno et ingenito pat re 
 unigenitus, sempiternus manens, in forma Dei incoiiimutabiliter atque intemporaliter habens 
 non aliud esse quam pater, formam servi sine detrimento sue maiestatis aecepit, ut in sua nos 
 proveheret, non in nostra deficeret. Unde utrique nature, in suis proprietatibus permanenti 
 tanta est united is facta communio, ut quicquid ibi Dei est, non sit ab homine separatum, et quic- 
 quid est (53) hominis non sit a divinitate divisum. Item idem: 7 Absint a cordibus vestris 
 dilirium diabolicarum inspirationum virulenta mendatia; et seientes ejuod sempiterna filii 
 divinitas nullo apud patrem crevit augmento, prudenter advertite quod cui nature in Ada 
 dictum est: Terra es et in terrain, ibis," eidem in Christo dicitur/ Sede a dextris meis'. 
 Secundum illam naturam, qua Christus equalis est patri, numquam inferior fuif unigenitus 
 sublimitate generatoris. Nee temporalis ei est cum ■ pat re gloria, qui ipsa est dextera Dei 
 patris, de qua in Exodo dicitur: Dextera tu a Domine glorificata est in virtute."' Et in 
 Ysaya : Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro et brachium Domini cui revelatuni est " ? " Idem 
 quoque ut nomen Domini tarn in vestimento et in femore quam in capitis aurea corona etiam 
 populo videndum et legendum proponeret in sermone ad populum de Epiphania ( Leo ) elicit 
 inter cetera : I2 Adorant itaque magi Dominum et offerunt munera ut impleretur quod ait ille 
 praecipuus prophetarum David: Afferte Domino patrie gentium, afferte Domino gloriam et 
 honorem. 13 "Domino et Domino" quod ait, Dominum ilium esse secundum Deum Dominmn et 
 secundum hominem mystico sermone declarat. Quod enim Deus est creator est mundi, quod 
 homo est redemptor est mundi. Quomodo ergo non privilegio utriusque sub-(51)stantic Dominus 
 est omnium Christus, qui sibi universa ant creatione aut redemptione subegit? Afferte Domino 
 gloriam et honorem. Honoris est ergo, karissimi, quod offerunt gentiles munera, glorie quod 
 adorant. Hec apostolice fidei sanissima testimonia non ita suscipimus ut in Christo Deum et 
 hominem, duos dominos praedicari estimemus, quia quod erat in substantiis proprium non erat 
 in potestate diversum, ait idem Leo Papa, ut iam supra memoravimus, atque ideo verbi et homi- 
 nis assumpti imum dominium, una potestas, una virtus, una sapientia, una fortitudo, una pleni- 
 tudo divinitatis, que et in verbo est naturaliter et in homine assumpto inhabitat corporaliter, id 
 est, incorporata et incarnata. Si queris quomodo id fieri potuerit audi beatum Gregorium pru- 
 dentie humane ista rnysteria claudentem et fidei sane aperientem. Quis, inquit, investigare 
 potest quomodo corporatur verbum, quomodo summus et vivificator spiritus intra uterum virginis 
 aniniatur? Cessa igitur investigare quomodo ista ininvestigabilia fieri potuerint et crede quod 
 angelus virgini credendum persuasit, quia scilicet non est inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum. 
 
 1 Ms. h. 1. i. n. i ; Ex. 2$ : 1 ; Eccles. 45 : 19. » Ps. 109 : 1 ; Matt. 22 : 21 ; Mark 12 : 32 ; Luke 20 : 12. 
 
 2Matt. 21:9, 23:39; Mark 11:10; Luke 13: 35. M> Exod. 15 : 6, " Isa. 53.1; John 12:38. 
 
 3Exod. 28:38. * Rev. 19:16. 5 Matt. 16:16. 12 What follows appears to bo a free paraphrase of sev- 
 
 6 Leo I., Sermo VIII, In Nativitate Domini, cap. I. eral Passages. It seems also that the copyist has omitted 
 
 ., T -r ,-, -l-TTTT r *T .. • -.1 J T, ■ • TT T SOlliething. 
 
 7 Leo I., Sermo vIII, In Nativitate Domini, cap. VI. 
 
 8 Gen. 3:19. UPs ' 93:7 - 
 
 203 
 
54 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 Cum ergo audis verbum carnem factum, crede hoc factum sine ipsius verbi permutatione, sed 
 cum ineffabili (55) carnis mutatione, permanente siquidem naturalis essentie proprietate, sed 
 accedente veteri substantie ilia uovitate, de qua dixit Ieremias: Faciet novum Dominus super 
 terram, femina circumdabit virum? 
 
 XI. DE VETEEI HOMINE AO NOVO 
 
 Primus et vetus homo de terra terrenus, secundus et novus homo de celo celestis.' An 
 non mirabile ac novum est hoc ut celestis homo de celo terrenam simul et celestem naturam in 
 se habens ipsam terrenam super omnes celos in semetipso exaltaverit atque ornni plenitudine 
 divinitatis corporaliter inhabitantis ditaverit? Alieni sint a nobis, qui personam verbi a natura 
 ipsius alienantes ita personam dicunt incarnatam ut inde separent ipsius verbi naturam. Inde 
 est quod ipsi delirantes putant fideles delirare in canticis spiritalibus ubi canunt : 
 
 Mirabilis natura 
 Mirifice induta, 3 
 
 assumens quod non erat, manens quod erat. Induitur nativra divinitas humana. Quis audivit 
 talia, die, rogo, facta? Talia canentibus ecelesie filiis in incarnatione Dei gloriantibus illi movent 
 risum, nescio quam personam fingentes incarnatam, que, ut illi dicimt, non est substantia 
 divina, cum nee persona . hominis aliquatenus fingi possit, que non sit substantia rationalis. 
 Equidem et hoc ipsi fatentur esse descriptionem persone, substantia rationalis individua. 
 
 XII DE PEESONIS 
 
 Que descriptio tarn divinis quam et humanis personis adaptatur, quoniam sicut Petrus, 
 Paulus, et Andreas tres humane persone sunt, quarum quisque substantia rationalis est, ita 
 pater et filius et spiritus sanctus tres divine sunt persone, quarum quisque substantia rationalis 
 est. Et potest quidem aliquoniodo significari substantia (56) sine persona, ut cum dicimus : Deus 
 est ineffabilis maiestas continens omnia creata, vel homo est omnis creatura secundum quod 
 dicitur: Praedicate evangelium, omni creature. 4 In istis enim propositionibus natura sup- 
 posita est non persona vel Dei vel hominis, quamquam extra personas nee Dei nee hominis 
 naturam invenias, licet earn sine respectu personali vel supponere vel praedicare conpetenter 
 valeas. Verum personas extra substantias vel naturas suas velle significare nichil est aliud quam 
 delirare, ut, verbi gratia, si patris personam in trinitate intelligas, vel intelligendam suadeas 
 non esse Deum, aut Petri personam non esse hominem. Propterea tarn in theologia quam in 
 phisica rectius praedicamus substantiam de persona quam personam de substantia, quamquam 
 interdum videatur in divinis praedicatum et substantia subpositum, ut cum dicimus inmensus 
 pater, inmensus filius, inmensus et spiritus sanctus, item eternus pater, eternus filius, eternus 
 et spiritus sanctus, item, omnipotens pater, omnipotens filius, omnipotens et spiritus sanctus, 
 item, increatus pater, increatus filius, increatus et spiritus sanctus. Istis enuntiationibus viden- 
 tur persone praedicari et substantia supponi. Verum non ita est, quoniam convenientius de 
 unoquoque trium praedicatur quod sit omnipotens, eternus, inmensus, increatus, absque omni 
 falsitatis scrupolo, quam si de eterno, inmenso, increato, et omnipotente praedices personas. 
 Unde ubi dicit Iohannes : Deus erat verbum? tractatores huius dicti asserunt verbum supponi, 
 Deum praedicari. Et recte nimirum, quia supposita persona inevitabiliter coherens intelligitur 
 persone substantia, ut Petrus est homo, Paulus est homo, Andreas est homo. Item, pater est 
 Deus, filius est Deus, spiritus sanctus est Deus. Homine autem vel Deo supposito, ut verbi gratia, 
 si dicas, homo est Petrus, Deus est pater, vera quidem est counexio, sed (57) inconsequens. Non 
 
 iJer. 31:22. 21 Cor. 15:47. *HarklG:15. 5 John 1:1. 
 
 3 1 have not. been able to discover from what poem these 
 lines are quoted. 
 
 201 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 55 
 
 enim quern hominem esse proposueris consequenter Petnim affirmare poteris, quemadmodum 
 quern Petrurn esse propouis consequenter hominein inevitabili veritate intelligis. Ita etiam in 
 theologia, quern patrem proponis, hunc Deurn omnipotentem, eternum, inmensum, increatum 
 consequenter intelligere debes. At non ita quern omnipotentem Deum, eternum, inmensum, pro- 
 ponis consequenter esse patrem est inevitabile, cum possit aut Alius aut spiritus sanctus ibidem 
 intelligi. Et est quidem Veritas in propositione, qua dicitur, Deus est pater, sed est inconse- 
 quentia in locutione. Inconsequentia tamen locutionum non aufert veritatem dictorum. Necesse 
 est autem esse inconsequentia locutionis ubi non fuerit consequentia suppositionis, neque tamen 
 praeiudicat veritati dictorum inconsequens connexio dictionum. Est ergo verum si dixero, 
 inmensus pater, id est, qui inmensus est ipse pater est, ut inmensus habeatur pro subiecto, et 
 pater pro praedicato, sed est inconsequens connexio dictionum, dum substantia, que trium com- 
 munis est, subicitur et persona singularis praedicatur, que ad tale subiectum necessario non 
 connectitur, cum et alia persona de illo possit intelligi. At si, ut ratio conexionis exigit, persona 
 supponatur, quicquid connatirrales persone habent substantial, totum inevitabiliter connectitur 
 uni persone supposite, ut pater est inmensus, omnipotens, eternus, et cetera huiusmodi. Item 
 Petrus est homo, animal, corpus. Que connexio communium praedicatorum ad singularia sul>- 
 iecta ita est inevitabilis, ut quicquid de singulari persona qualibet supposita praedicamus, etiam 
 de qualibet eius regulari praedicato praedicare possis, ut, verbi (58) gratia, si vere proposueris 
 Petrurn esse crucifixum, consequenter inferre poteris hominem et animal et corpus et Christianum 
 et apostolum crucifixum. Non autem e converso, si proposueris hominem vel apostolum vel 
 Christianum esse crucifixum, poteris inferre Petrum crucifixum, licet hoc verum sit, quoniam 
 eadem ratione probaretur et Paulus crucifixus, quod falsum est. Eodem modo si proponas Deum. 
 Dorninurn glorie, crucifixum non inde consequitur filium Dei esse crucifixum, licet hoc verum sit, 
 quoniam, si hoc esset consequens, eadem ratione probaretur et pater crucifixus, quod falsum est. 
 Proposito autem, quod Alius Dei sit crucifixus, inevitabiliter consequitur Deum, Dominum glorie. 
 crucifixum. Hinc est quod, filio Dei incarnato et passo, consequenter et confidenter asserimus 
 Deum omnipotentem incarnatum et passum. Neque tamen, Deo incarnato et passo, consequitur 
 patrem aut spiritum sanctum esse incarnatum, sicut, homine crucifixo, non est consequens Paulum 
 vel Iohannem esse crucifixum. Frustra ergo laborant novi doctores huius temporis idcirco Dei 
 substantial!! sequestrando ab incamatione ne, hac incarnata, videatur pater incarnatus et spiritus 
 sanctus, quorum una est cum filio substantia, ut fides habet catholica, quia sicut in humanis, 
 cum tota huraanitatis natura sit in una sui persona, [tantum] ilia paciente vel moriente, non 
 necesse est ahas eisdem nature personas conpati vel comnori. Sic in divinis, cum tota divinitatis 
 natura sit in una qualibet sui persona, ilia paciente vel moriente, non necesse est alias eiusdem 
 nature personas conpati vel comnori. Passo igitur Deo, Dei filio, (59) non inde consequitur 
 patrem quoque passum esse, ut voluerunt Sabelliani, 1 qui et a nomine sui erroris Patripassiani 
 dicti sunt. In hoc permaxime decepti quod essentie uni atque, ut illi voluerunt, singulari tres 
 proprietates attribuerunt, ita dicentes unus idemque Deus, quando vult, pater est, quando vult, 
 filius, et quando vult, spiritus sanctus est, atque ita filio passo, consequens arbitrabantur etiam 
 patrem passum. 
 
 XIII. DE NOVIS SE1IISABELLIANIS 
 
 Novi autem Semisabelliani et ipsi quoque essentiam Dei singularem praedicant et hoc 
 nomen singularitatis magistri Gisilberti scripta super Boetium et apostolum frequenter incul- 
 cant. Ne autem sint omnino ad plenum Sabelliani, tres trium personarum proprietates essentie 
 Dei, ut aiunt, singulari minime attribiumt, sed eas forinsecus affixas dicunt, nee eas Deum esse 
 concedunt. Naturales inquiunt persone his, quibus unaqueque est aliquid, prius a se invicem 
 sunt alie ut de his per hec a se aliis deinde huiusmodi extrinsecus affixa praedicamenta dicantur, 
 
 i Sabellius, Jlor. in the first half of the third century, was the head of that group of theologians who declared in 
 favor of a modal trinity. 
 
 205 
 
56 Studies Conoeening Adrian IV. 
 
 quorum oppositione, et si non sint alia, recte tamen eorum, quibus sunt, oppositione probantur 
 esse alia. Theologies vero persone, quoniam eius, quo sunt, singxdaritate unum sunt, et sim- 
 plicitate id quod sunt essentiarum oppositione a se inviceni alie esse non possunt, sed hanim que 
 dicte sunt extrinsecus afSxarum rerun: oppositione, a se invicem alie et probantur et sunt. Eec 
 et similia magister Gillibertus in (60) suis glosis in Boetiuni dicens, deitatis unius tres personam 
 vel earuni proprietates asserit forinsecus affixas. Hoc dicendo, a Sabellianis dissentiens et 
 eisdem in eo consentiens quod triuin personarurn essentiam praedicat singularem, quo dicto 
 excludit patris et filii substantialem similitudinem et coequalitatem. Singularitas enim admittit 
 vel similitudinem vel coequalitatem, quam bene admittit unitas. Atque ideo ne similitudinis 
 aut equalitatis inter patrem et filiurn significatio perimeretux, singularitas reprobata et unitas 
 commendata est ab orthodoxis doctoribus. Quod sanctus Hylarius in epistola de synodis 
 affirrnat hec inter cetera dicens.' Secundum, essentiam, et virtutem et gloriam patri fit ins sim His 
 est — Ita similitudo proprietor est, proprietas equalitas est,et equalitas nichil differt. Que 
 autem nichil differunt unum sunt, non unione persone, sed imitate substantia. Idem, unam 
 substantiam proprietatis similitudinem intelliganvus ut quod unum sunt non singularem 
 signifieet, sed equates — Equalitas autem nature non potest esse nisi una sit, una vero non 
 persone unitate, sed generis. 
 
 XIV. DE SIM1LITUDINE PATEIS ET FILII 
 
 Non nos latet quosdam hereticos fuisse quorum errorem, ipsius auctoris tacito nomine 
 commemorat Epiphanius," qui sic inter patrem et filium affirmarent similitudinem ut negarent 
 equalitatem, recipientes omeusyon, 3 quod est similis essentia, repudiautes ornousyon, 3 quod c>t 
 interpretatum (61 ) unius essentie. Quibus et consentit concilium Ariminense 4 ab Arrianis habi- 
 tum. Hos iam dictus Hylarius ostendit reprobatos in synodis orientalibus, quibus catholici 
 patres et omeusyon receperunt contra Sabellium et omousyon adversus Arrium ; 5 omousyon, id 
 est, unius essentia, propter id quod dicit Alius : Ego et pater unum sumus;" omeusion, id est. 
 similis essentie, propter id quod dicit : Sicut habet pater vitam in semetipso sic dedit et filio 
 vitam habere in semetipso. 1 Item, quecumque ille facit hec et filius similiter facit? Quod 
 autem similitudo et equalitas in Deo idem sint, praemissa Hylarii dicta coufirmant ubi secun- 
 dum essentiam et virtutem et gloriam patri filius ft similis et equalis ostenditur, quibus omni- 
 bus in essentia divina singularitatis nomen repudiatur, dum secundum essentiam patri filius, ut 
 dictum est, equalis ostenditur, quod nee esset nee esse posset, si essentia duorum singularis 
 existeret. Proinde quod in dictis Ysidori, 9 essentia Dei singularis dicitur, singularitatem pro 
 simplicitate positam intelligamus, ne magnis conciliis et catholicis patribus nomen singularitatis 
 a diviua usya sequestrantibus inuriam faciamus et filiiun patri substantialiter equalem degenare 
 videaniur. Nam quod secundum substantiam patri filius sit equalis, cum praemissa Hylarii 
 dicta evidenter osttmdant, id ipsum quoque beati Augustini dicta comprobant. Qui in libro 
 De Trinitate dicit inter cetera: Non secundum hoc, quod ad patrem dicitur, equalis est patri 
 filius. Rested ergo ut secundum id equalis sit quod ad se dicitur. Quicquid autem ad se dici- 
 tur secundum substantiam dicitur. Rested ergo ut secundum substantiam sit equalis. Item 
 Hylarius in epistola de synodis ait: 10 Non fallit, f retires karissimi, quosdam esse qui simili- 
 tudinem confiteut.es negant equalitatem (62). Si loquantur ut volunt, et blasphemie sue virus 
 ingerant ignorant ibus. Si inter similitudinem et equalitatem differre dicunt, quero, unde 
 comparetur equalitas'? Nam quia secundum essentiam et virtutem et gloriam. patri filius 
 similis est, interrogo, ex quo non videatur equalis? Nam etiam hec in superiori fide consti- 
 
 i Micne, Pat. Lett., Vol. X, cols. 529 f., par. 74-7G. * The Council of Rimini, anno 359. 
 
 2 Epiphanius, died 403. For his writings, cf. Migne, 5 Arius, d., 336. 6 John 10: 30. 
 
 Pat. Graeca, Vols. XLI-XLIII. ' John 5 : 26. 8 J hu 5 : 19. 
 
 sTechnical terms, the catchwords of the Arian and 'Isidorus, De Summo Bono. Bk„ I. 
 
 trinitariau parties. >" Cf. MlGXE, Pat. Lot., Vol. X, Cols. 5'JS f. 
 
 206 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 57 
 
 tuta dampnat /o est, ut anathema esset,qui patrem et fllium dissimilis sibi essentie diceret. 
 Si ergo naturam neque aliam, neque dissimilem ei, quern, inpassibiliter generabat, dedit, nee 
 potest alia m dedisse nisi propriam. Ita similitude proprietas est, proprietas equalitas est. 
 Et equalitas nichil differt. Que autem nichil differunt, unum sunt, non unione persons, sed 
 equalitate substantie — Ita similitudo res ipsas naturales coequat, per similitudinem non 
 differentis essentie. Omnis itaque fllius, secundum naturalem nativitatem, equalitas patris 
 est, quia est et similitudo nature. Et beatus Johannes docet in naiiira patris et filii, quam 
 Moyses in Seth,filio Adam ad consimilitudinem dicit, hanc equalitatem eandem esse nature. 
 Ait enim : Propter hoc eum magis querebant ludei interficere ' quondam non solum solvebat 
 sabbatum sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, equalem se faciens Deo. Et post pauca : Per 
 Moysen Seth Ade similitudo accepta per Iohannem filius patris equalitas est per hec pie 
 potest quod unum sint x>raedieari. 
 
 XV. QUOD FIDES EQOALITATIS ET SIMILITFDINIS ET CNITATIS IN DEO PLURIMFM CONTRA PLURES 
 
 HERETICOS VALET 
 
 In his igitur, que dicta sunt, similitudo, equalitas, et unitas naturalis inter patrem et filium, 
 que nichilominus attinet ad spiritum sancta commendata, plurinurn contra plures hereticos 
 operatur. Nam similitudo facit contra Noetum 2 et eius discipulum Sabellium. Itemque, contra 
 Praxeam 3 et Herrnogenem* et Priscillianum, 5 qui unum eundemque (63) putant esse patrem et 
 filium et spiritum sanctum. Quod si verum esset nulla inter eos esset similitudo. Quia ut de 
 duobus tantum loquaruur, patre videlicet ac filio, subintellecto eodem sensu de spiritu sancto, 
 nee pater filio nee filius patri similis recte aut vere dieeretur, si idem pater, qui filius, aut idem 
 filius qui pater esset, cum similitudo non possit esse unius ad semetipsum. 6 Item, duorum 
 equalitas eosdem confutat hereticos, quia, dum alter alteri asseritur equalis, opinio singulari- 
 tatis excluditm-, quam docent praedicti heretic!, simulque inequalitatis, quam docent Arriani, et 
 dissimilitudiuis, quam docent Ethius'et eius discipulus Eimomius. s Porro unitas, qua unum 
 sunt pater et filius, non solum confutat antiquos Arrianos inducentes duos Deos diversos, 
 alterum increatum, alteram creatum, sed et novos Iudeos eidem unitati contradicentes. Cum 
 enim Christus dixisset, Ego et pater unum sumus, intellexermit ludei quod non intellexerunt 
 Arriani, quodque nondum intelligunt Iudeorum suppares, novi heretici. Hoc enim dicendo 
 Christus ostendit se ivnius essentie cum patre, quod Greci omousyon, Latini consubstantialem 
 dicunt. Notandum vero quod cum hie sensus de divinitate verbi offenderit Arrianos non inde 
 offenderat Iudeos, quipjDe (61) de genitura verbi nullam fidem habentes. Arriani quippe negant 
 Christum in divinitate sua unum esse cum patre, unius videlicet substantia, vel essentie, quod 
 utique a ludeis sicut non est creditum ita non invenimus denegatum, ubi Christus se testatus 
 est esse unum cum patre, neque adhuc denegant eorum semipedissequi, equanimiter cum 
 catholica ecclesia hoc recipientes, quod Christus, in divinitate sua similis et equalis patri, unum 
 est cum eo. 
 
 XVI. DISTINCTIO INTER IDDEOS ET ARRIANOS 
 
 Quid est ergo quod vel tunc offendit Iudeos vel nunc eorum sequaces? Audi ex eorum 
 verbis. De bono, inquiunt, opere non lapidamus te sed de blasphemia, et quia tu homo cum 
 sis facis te ipsum Deum." Igitur in hoc erat ludeis praecipue offendiculum, quod iutellexerant 
 
 1 John 11 : 53. 6 cf. Hil., Epis. de Synod; Migxe, Pat. Lat., Vol. X. 
 
 2 Noetus, flor. between 150-240, taught monarchianism. TAetius, a bishop in Coelesyria, a teacher of Arianism 
 He was opposed by Hippolytus. W ent to Alexandria where he labored to spread his doc- 
 
 3 Cf. Tertullian, Adversus Praxeam. trines. 
 
 ^Hermogenes, flor. 200 A. D., a Christian with Gnostic " Eunomins went to Alexandria c. 356-7, where he heard 
 
 tendencies. Cf. Tertullian, Adversus Herrnogenem. Aetius, whose teachings he adopted. He died probably 
 
 5 Priscillianus held heretical views on the trinity. He soon after 392. 
 was executed as a heretic in Trier, 385, perhaps the first 9 John 10: 33. 
 
 Christian to suffer the death penalty for heresy. 
 
 207 
 
58 Studies Concerning Adeian IV. 
 
 honiini attribui honoreoi divinum. Similiter eorurn sequacibus, novis doctoribus, omniiio vide- 
 tur absonum, quod nos homiui assurnpto in Deum, Dei filium, attribuinms honorem divinum 
 confitentes eum esse ipsum Deum, utpote naturalern non adoptivum Dei filium. Quod cum et 
 ipse confessus esset in concilio malignantium Iudeorum, filium, scilicet, hominis venturum in 
 nubibus 1 celi cum pote state magna et se, ut interrogatus fuerat, esse Christum, fiilurn Dei bene- 
 dicti; offensus hac ipsa confessione summus sacerdos: Ecce, ait, audistis blasphemiam. Quid 
 vobis videturf (65) Et illi acclamantes: Blasphemavit, inquiunt, quid adhuc desideramus 
 testimonium? 3 Item, ad Pilatum: Nos, inquiunt, Legem habemus et secundum legem nostrum 
 debet mori, quia filium Dei se fecit.* Hec et similia dicentes Iudei ostenderunt se praecipue 
 offensos in eo quod Christus, cum homo esset, fecit se ipsum Deum, probans hoc ipsum testi- 
 moniis operum divinorurn. Si, inquit, mihi non creditis, operibus credited Item, cum se 
 filium hominis ostendens dominum etiam sabbati, et potenter solveret sabbatum dixissetque: 
 Pater metis usquemodo operatur et ego operor? subnectit evangelista: Propter ea ergo magis 
 querebant eum Iudei interficere quia non solum solvebat sabbatum sed et patrem suum dicebat 
 Deum, equalem se faciens Deo. 1 Patrern suum dicebat Deum, quod nulli angelorum vel honii- 
 num praeter ipsum est concessum, ut videlicet patrem suum dicat Deum. Et nos quidem prae- 
 ceptis salutaribus moniti et divina institutione formati audemus dicere Deo; Pater noster qui 
 es in celis, s pro nomine plurali dicendo "noster," quia multi sumus per adoptionem filii vocati, 
 licet, pauci electi. 3 Solus, vero filius hominis per operationem divini amoris, qui spiritus sanctus 
 est, conceptus in virgine, veraciter potest Deum, patrem verbi sibi uniti, suum quoque patrem 
 appellare, dicens "pater mens" vel (66) "mi pater" singulariter, non quod sit geinina filiatio 
 verbi assumentis et hominis assumpti, sed quod in filiolitatem verbi eternaliter geniti sit homo 
 assumptus, qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis, quo, 
 ut diximus, operante, conceptus et natus est, angelo praetestante. Quod enim, ait, in ea natum 
 est de spiritu sancto est. 1 " Cum igitur iste homo dicit: Ego et pater unum sumus, equalem se 
 faciens Deo, non rapinam arbitrates esse se equalem Deo patri, qui dedit ei esse in forma Dei, n 
 sed confitetur gratiam sibi prae consortibus datam, sapientibus et prudentibus absconditam, 12 
 ut videlicet cum sit homo secundum humanitatis conditionem minor patre, ut catholica fides 
 habet, tamen secundum virtutem et gloriam eidem sue humanitati collatam sit non inferior aut 
 minor Deo patre, quod Iudei et Iudeorum suppares nolunt recipere, arbitrantes blaspherniarn 
 esse creaturarn creatori aliquomodo coequare. Quod et re vera magna est blasphemia nisi cum 
 agitur de ilia creatura, cuius magnitudo est ipsa divinitas inmensa non ad mensuram illi data, 
 in quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter. vi Cum enim ut Leo Papa dicit incor- 
 porea sit divinitas quomodo corporaliter (67) inhabitat nisi quia caro nostri generis facto est 
 caro deitatis? Igitur incarnata in una persona ipsa divinitas contulit homini esse Deum, Deo 
 patri equalem, quod ei conferre non potuisset persona, que Deus non esset, vel proprietas per- 
 sone que, item Deus non esset, si forinsecus affixa esset deitati vel personis eius. Pereat igitur 
 hec nova doctrina negans divinitatem incarnatam et nature humane sensibus vestitam nostreque 
 mortalitatis pelle calciatam. Pereant etiam proprietates ille vel persone que divina substantia 
 non sunt et in cordibus impiorum non Deum simplicem, sed symulacrum talibus proprietatibus 
 compositum representant mentesque ipsorum a Deo vero ac simplici alienant. Audiamus nos 
 potius antiqua patrum testimonia non proprietatem filiationem inanem sed ipsam filii Dei per- 
 sonam substantivam incarnatam atque in ea carnem nostre nature deificatam, glorificatam, clar- 
 ificatam et super omnes creatm-as (68) in inmensum exaltatam contestantia. Testimonium 
 itaque Christi dicentis, Ego et pater unum sumus, 1 * diverso sensu et Arrianos et Iudeos offendit. 
 
 i Luke 21: 27. i John 5: 18. «Matt. 6:9. 
 
 2Matt. 27:65; MarV 14:64. a Matt. 20 :16, 22 : 1 1. i"Matt.l:18. 
 
 3 Matt. 26:65. * John 19: 7. " Phil. 2:6. "Matt. 11:25. 
 
 5 John 10: 38. 6 John 5: 17. 13 Col. 2:9. "John 10:30. 
 
 208 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatches 59 
 
 Arriani quippe in.de sunt offensi quia verbo quod erat in principio denegabant esse umim cum 
 patre. Iudei vero inde quia honiini apud se contemptibili graviter indignabantur, quod, homo 
 cum esset, patrem suum dicebat Deum, equalem se faciens Deo, 1 quod in eo intellexerant ubi 
 dixerat, Ego et pater unum sumus. Et Arriani quidem iam confutati conticuerunt. Iudei 
 vero et Iudaizantes heretici adhuc indignantur hominem assumptum in Deum, Dei filium, credi 
 cum patre sic esse unum ut assumpto nichil divinum, et assumenti nichil desit humaum, sicut 
 afHrmat Leo Papa. Interponamus adhuc plura patrum testimonia id ipsurn contestantia non 
 (69) accidentalibus connexionibus ut illi, qui dicunt sicut coloratus intelligens dicitur propter 
 persone unitatem, que corpore colorata mente intelligit. Sic in Christo divina homini et humana 
 Deo attribuuntur propter persone unitatem, ut homo est Deus omnipotens et Deus ac Dominus 
 glorie crucifixus est. Non, inquam, sic intendimus assignare vel homini divina, vel Deo humana 
 sola personali unitate, quomodo coloratus dicitiu - intelligens, verurn longe altius, natura inferiore 
 in Christo, salva sui essentia, in superioris nature omnimodam virtutem et gloriam provecta, 
 quod est earn ad dexteram patris exaltatam esse. Non enim divinitas humanitati sic est incapa- 
 bilis, ut color menti, vel intelligentia (70) corpori, sed omnino pura in Christo humanitas, tani- 
 quam nubes Candida? capax divini luminis et illud ei capabile fuit. Propter quod pluvia totius 
 divinitatis in vellus purissime 3 humanitatis descendens denuo prelo crucis expressa in concham 
 totius mundi sparsit et spargit gracias divisivas, non inminuta vel inminuenda umquam pleni- 
 tudine semel infusa homini assumpto, cuius, ut ait lohannes, vidimus gloriam, non quasi 
 adoptivi sed quasi unigeniti a patre pleni gracia et veritate. i Paulus quoque asserit omnem 
 plenitudinem divinitatis corporaliter inhabitare in, Christo 5 et ipsum Christum esse Dei 
 virtutem et Dei sapientiam, 6 Christi nomine significans humanam et unctam naturarn prae suis 
 consortibus unctam, 1 et non solum filium Dei persone unitam, (71) sed etiarn ipsius filii Dei 
 divini tati coadunatam. Unde Augustinus de verbis Domini: Adveniens divinitas in uterum 
 virginis Marie auctoritate ilia, qua, in Paradyso Adam de limo formavit, carnem sibi ex sub- 
 stantia ipsius Marie fabricavit, quam pro salute nostra suscipiens et sibi coadimans natus est 
 Deus et homo. Ecce in his dictis habemus de duarum naturarum coadunatione qualis non 
 potest esse coloris ad mentem vel intelligence ad corpus, quamquam in una persona sit et 
 corpus coloratum et mens intelligens. Audiamus in Christo, natura inferior, licet permanente 
 sue conditionis essentia, quousque in superioris nature gloria sit magnificata, glorificata et 
 exaltata. Iam dictus Augustinus item de verbis Domini exponens illud Si diUgeretis me gau- 
 deretis s utique dicit inter cetera: Nature humane gratulandum est, eo quod sit assumpta a 
 verbo unigenito ut inmortalis const itueretur in celo atque ita fleret terra sublimis ut incor- 
 ruptibilis p>ulvis sederet ad dexteram patris. Hoc enim modo se iturum ad patrem dixit. 
 Item Leo Papa in sermone ad populum: Et re vera magna et ineffabilis erat causa gau- 
 dendi cum in conspectu sancte multitudinis super omnium creaturarum (72) celestium digni- 
 tatem humani generis naturarn conscenderit, supergressura angelicos ordines, et ultra 
 archangelorwm altitudines elevanda, nee ullis sublimitatibus modum sue provectionis 
 habitura, nisi eterni patris recepta consessu illius glorie sociaretur in throno, cuius, nature 
 copulabatur in fllio. Item Augustinus in Libro Retractionum 10 dicit: Exposui epistolam 
 apostoli ad Galathas non carptim, id est, aliqua praeter mitt ens, sed continuanter et, totam. 
 Hanc expositionem uno volumine comprehendi. In quo illud quod dictum est priores ergo 
 apostoli veraces, qui non ab hominibus, sed a Deo per hominem missi sunt per Iesum Christum, 
 scilicet adhuc mortalem. Verax etiam novissimus apostolus, qui per Iesum Christum, totum 
 iam Deum, post resurrectionem eius missus est, propter immortalitatem, dictum est totum iam 
 Deum, quam post resurrectionem habere cepit, non propter divinitatem semper immortalem, a 
 
 1 John 19: 1. «Rev. 14:14. ?Ps.44:8. «John 14:28. 
 
 3 Ps. 71 : 6. 4 John 1 : 14. 9 Leo I., Sermo i", de Ascensione Domini, cap. IV. 
 
 5 Col. 2:9. c 1 Cor. 1 : 24. 10 S. Augustini, Betractationum , Liber I, cap. 24. 
 
 209 
 
00 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 qua numqnam recessit, in qua totus Deus erat, et emu moriturus adhuc erat. Hunc autem 
 sensum sequentia manifestant. Adiunxi enim dicens priores sunt certi apostoli per < 'hristum 
 adhuc ex parte hominem, id est, mortalem. Novissimus est autem apostolus Paulus per 
 Christum iam totum Deum, id est, omni ex parte immortalem. Hoc enim dixi exponents quod 
 ait, non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per lesum Christum et Deum patrem, 1 quasi 
 Christus iam non sit homo. Sequitur enim, qui suscitavit ilium a mortuis, 2 ut hinc apparen t 
 cur dixerit, neque per hominem, proinde propter immortalitatem iam nunc non, homo Christus 
 Deus propter substantia»!, vero nature humane cum (73) qua ascendit in celum,et n unc mediator 
 Dei ethominum,homo Christus Iesus, 3 quoniam sic veniet quomodo viderunt emu, qui viderunt 
 euntem in celum.* Idem, in epistolaacl Philippenses: Homini donatum est nomen quod est super 
 oinne nomen? no\i Deo, ut cum forma servi, 6 nominetur unigenilus filius Dei. Quisquis hec 
 dicta beati Augustini fideliter legendo perspexerit sane intelligere poterit quia tantus doctor 
 numquam sensit quod isti sentiunt, qui volunt vocari ab hominibus Rabbi 1 et magistrali, ut 
 dicitur, auctoritate astruunt hominis in Deum assumpti solam personam, non etiam naturam 
 divinitatis habere virtitutem et gloriam quasi non magis divinitatis possit esse humani spiritus 
 et corporis quam color mentis vel intelligentia corporis. Quod si sensisset ille beatus non 
 affirmasset pulverem sedere ad dexteram patris, 8 cum pulvis nomen sit inferioris portionis in 
 humana substantia. Item, cum dicit propter inmortalitatem Christum iam totum Deum, claret 
 humanam in Christo naturam talem accepisse inmortalitatem per quam deificata sit plene in 
 Deum, sicut verbum ab eterno Deus fuit, verificata sententia, que Iudeos offendit, quando ipse 
 Christus, cum homo esset, adhuc (71) mortalis, tamen sibi conscius inmortalitatis divine, quam 
 ipsius divinitas ab eterno habuit, queque humanitati eius iam tunc in proximo cum hec loqueretur 
 conferenda fuit, equalem se hominem faciens Deo, dixit, Ego et pater unnm sumus? Absit ut 
 inmortalitatem solummodo, qualem habent angeli sancti vel habituri sunt homines beati, arbi- 
 tremur homini assumpto, qui filius Dei est, collatam, sed potius que soli Deo assignatur asser- 
 tione apostolica, ubi dicitur, qui solus habet inmortalitatem, 10 quam intelligendam asserit beatus 
 Gregorius divine substantie inmutabilitatem, quoniam omne quod mutatur ab eo statu, in quo 
 prius erat, moritur. Deus autem, quia nullatenus mutatur, nullatenus moritur. Qua inmuta- 
 bilitate sive inmortalitate homo assumptus recte intelligitur, vel si non potest intelligi, sane 
 creditur in throno paterne glorie honorificatus, ubi sedet homo quiescens, regnans, iudicans, eque 
 ut Deus pater eius. Unde non sub patre sed iuxta eum et ad dexteram eius habet sessionem, 
 non localiter, ut uniformii putant. sed divinitus requiem et iudicandi ac dominandi habens potes- 
 tatem, que recte sedes eius intelligitur. 
 
 XVII. QDALITER FILIUS PATRIS SDBICIENDDS INTELLIGATUR 
 
 Neque vero te moveat quod, (75) cum omnia subicerit ill i Deus, ipse quoque ab apostolo 
 affirmatur Deo subiciendus." Lege Ambrosium in Libro ad Gracianum 12 de hac subiectione 
 futura pie disputantem et opiniones tuas de subiectione iniuriosa fortiter exsufilantem. Dicit 
 enim inter cetera: 
 
 Apostolicura recenseamus capitulum. "Novissime, inquit, inimica destruetur mors omnia sub 
 pedibus eius. Cum autem dicat, omnia subiecta sunt, ei sine dubio praetur eum, qui sibi subiecit 
 omnia." "Videinus igitur quia nondum subiectum sed subiciendum esse scriptura eommemorat." 
 "Sicut enim si in me concupiscat caro adversus spiritum et spiritus adversus carnem, non videor esse 
 subiectus. 13 Ita quia omnis ecelesia ununi corpus est Christi, quamdiu dissentit humanum genus 
 Christum dividimus. Non ergo subiectus est Christus, cuius adhuc membra non sunt subiecta. Cum 
 autem tuerimus non rnulta membra, sed unus spiritus, tunc et ipse subiectus erit ut per ipsius subiec- 
 
 1 Gal. 1:1. 2 Rom. 4:21. 3 1 Tim. 2:5. i Acts 1 : 11. 9J o hnl0:30. I» 1 Tim. 6 : 10. " 1 Cor. 15 : 27 ff. 
 
 5 Phil. 2:9. oPhil. 2:7. 'Matt. 23:7. i2Gerhoh here quotes detached sentences from St. 
 
 s Col. 3:1; Heb. 10 :12 ; 1 Peter 3: 22; Matt, 20 : 04 ; Mark Ambrose, De Fide, Book V, par. 160, 101, 104, and 109. 
 
 16:19. 13 Gal. 5:17. 
 
 210 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 61 
 
 tionem sit Deus omnia in omnibus." Item post pauca : ' " Sicut in illo per carnem illam, que est 
 pignus nostre salutis, sedere nos in eelestibus 3 apostolus dixit, utique non sedentes, sic et ille per 
 nostre assumptionem nature dieitur subiectus in nobis." (76) Item, Seriptum est quia, cum mortui 
 essemus peccatis, convivificavit nos in Christo, cuius gratia estis salvifacti, et simul suscitavit simulque 
 fecit sedere in eelestibus in Christo Iesu. 3 Agnosco seriptum, sed non ut homines sedere ad dexteram 
 sibi patiatur Deus, sed ut in Christo sedere, quia ipse est omnium fundamentum, et ipse est caput 
 ecclesie, 4 in quo communis secundum carnem natura praerogativam sedis celestis emeruit. In Christo 
 enim Deo caro in carne autem humani generis natura omnium hominum particeps honoratur. Sicut 
 ergo nos in illo sodemus per corporee communionem nature, ita et ille, qui per susceptioneni nostre 
 carnis maledictum pro nobis factus est, 5 cum rnaledictum utique in benedictum filium Dei non cadat, 
 ita, inquam, et ille per obedientiam omnium erit subiectus in nobis ; cum gentilis crediderit, cum 
 Iudeus agnoverit quern crucifixit, cum Manicheus adoraverit quern in carne venisse non credidit, cum 
 Arrianus omnipotentem confessus fuerit quern negavit, cum postremo in omnibus fuerit sapientia Dei, 
 iusticia, pax, caritas, resurrectio. 6 Per sua igitur opera Christus et genera diversa (77) virtutum erit 
 in nobis patri subditus, cum, viciis abdicatis et feriante delicto, unus in omnibus Deo ceperit uno 
 sensu populorum omnium spiritus adherere, tunc erit Deus omnia in omnibus. Conclusionem igitur 
 totius absolutionis breviter colligamus. Unitas potestatis opinionem iniuriose subiectionis excludit. 
 Evacuatio potestatum et victoria de morte quesita triumphatoris utique non minuit potestatem. 
 Subiectionem operatur obedientia, obedientiam Christus assunrpsit, obedientia usque ad crucem, 7 crux 
 ad salutem. Ergo ubi opus, ibi et auctor operis. Cum igitur omnia Christo subiecta fuerint per 
 obedientiam Christi, ut in nomine eius omne genu flectatur. 3 Nunc enim quia non omnes credunt non 
 videntur omnes esse subiecti. Cum ergo crediderint omnes et Dei fecerint voluntatem, erit omnia et 
 in omnibus Christus. Cum Christus fuerit omnia et in omnibus erit omnia et in omnibus Deus ; quia 
 pater manet in filio." Hec est pie subiectionis interpretatio. Item alibi: "Quod si queris quemad- 
 modum sit subiectus in nobis, ipse ostendit dicens : In carcere eram et venistis ad me. Infirmus eram 
 et visitastis me. Quod uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis." 9 In eo infirmus, (78) in quo subi- 
 ectus. Item, lege Hilarium de hac subiectiono mirifice 10 disserentem et gloriosam potius quam 
 inuriosam illam esse demonstrantem. Dicit enim inter cetera, libro XI: 11 "Subiectis omnibus ei, 
 praeter eum qui subiecit ei omnia. Tunc subicietur ipse subicienti sibi omnia. Subiectionis vero 
 causa non alia quam ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Finis itaque est, esse Deum omnia in omnibus. 
 Et querendum nunc ante omnia est, an finis defectio sit, an traditio, qua dat rcgnum patri, amissio sit 
 an subiectio infirmitas sit." Et post pauca: 12 "Que autem subiectionis illius proprietas sit idem 
 apostolus testatus est, cum ait : Qui transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostre conforme corpori glorie 
 sue, secundum efBcatie sue opera, qua possit sibi subicere omnia. 13 Subiectio itaque etiam ea est, que 
 est ex natura in naturam concessio, dum a se secundum quod est desinens, ei subicitur, cuius concedit 
 in formam. Desinit autem, non ut non sit, sed ut proficiat. Fiat ex diminutione subitus, in speciem 
 subcepti alteris generis transeundo. Denique ut sacramenti huius esset, ratio absoluta, post novissime 
 devictam morten, dum ait : Cum autem dixerit omnia (79) subiecta absque eo, qui subiecit ei omnia, 
 tunc et ipse filius subiectus erit illi qui ei subiecit omnia ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Primus igitur 
 sacramenti gradus est, subiecta esse ei omnia, et tunc ipsum subiectum fieri subicienti sibi omnia, ut 
 quemadmodum nos glorie regnantis corporis sui subdimur eodem rursum Sacramento ipse regnans in 
 gloria corporis subicienti sibi universa subdatur." Et post pauca: 14 "Regnat autem in hoc eodem 
 glorioso iam suo corpore donee evacuatis magistratibus et morte devicta subiciat sibi inimicos. Et 
 quidem ab apostolo servatus hie modus est ut magistratibus et potestatibus evacuatio, 10 inimicis vero, 
 subiectio deputaretur. Quibus subiectis subicietur subicienti sibi omnia in omnibus Deo scilicet ut 
 sit Deus omnia in omnibus nature assumpti corporis nostri natura paterne divinitatis invecta. Per 
 
 i Ambrosius, De Fide, Book V, par. 179. " Hilarius, Book XI, par. 26-7. Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. 
 
 = Eph. 2:6. X. col. «7. 
 
 3 St. Ajibkose, De Fide, Book V, par. 181-3. 12 Hilarius, Book XI, par. 35. Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. X, 
 
 col 422 
 iEph.2:5. 5Eph. 5:23. " 
 
 6 Gal. 3: 13. I Phil. 2:8. "Phil. 3:21. 
 
 "Hilarius, Book XI, par. 40: Migne, Pat. Lat, Vol. X, 
 
 col. 425. 
 
 9 Matt. 25:36 ff. ; St. Ambrose, De Fide, Book V, par. 178. ,„,„,„ 
 
 15 MS. Evacutio. 
 
 !» MS. mififice. 
 
 211 
 
62 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 hoc e.nim erit omnia in omnibus Deus quia secundum dispensationem exDeoet homine, hominum 
 Deique mediator, habens in se ex dispensatione quod carnis est adepturus in omnibus ex subiectione 
 < 1 1" " 1 Dei est ne ex parte Deus sit sed Deus totus. Non alia itaque subiectionis causa est quam ut 
 omnia in omnibus Deus sit, nulla ex parte terreni (80) in eo corporis residente natura, ut ante in se duo 
 continens nunc Deus tantum sit, non abiecto corpore sed ex subiectione translato neque per defec- 
 tionem abolito, sed ex clariflcatione mutato acquirens sibi Deo potius hominem quam Deum per 
 hominem amittens, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus per quod non divinitatis infirmitas est sed assump- 
 tionis provectus dum homo et Deus iam Deus totum est. 
 
 XVII. HYLARIUS CONTRA SENSVJM IDDAICDM 
 
 Contra sensum quoque Iudaice inpietatis idem libro VIII loquitur. 1 Tulerunt igitur 
 lapides Iudei ut lapidarent eum. Respondens multa bona opera ostendi vobis apatre. Propter 
 quod eorum opus lapidatis me? Responderunt ei Iudei, pro bono opera non lapidamus te sed 
 pro blasphemia et quia tu cum sis homo facis te Deum? "Attu vero heretice quid agas ac 
 profitearis agnosce. Et eorum te intellige esse consortem, quorum mente refers perfidie exem- 
 plum. Ad id enim quod dictum est [Ego] 3 et pater unum sum us, Iudei lapides elevavenmt et 
 eorum impius dolor jad sacramentum fidei a salutaris inpatiens usque ad impetum iufereude 
 mortis erupit. Quid tu? Non liabendo quem lapides uegandc minus efficis? Non differt 
 (81) voluntas sed voluntatem tuam inefficacern celestis tronus effecit. Quantum irreligiosior 
 Iudeo! Lapides ille in corpus elevat, tu in spiritum. Ille in hominem, ut putabat, tu in Deum. 
 Ille in diversantem in terris, tu in sedentem in trono virtutis. Ille in ignoratum, tu in confes- 
 sum. Ille in moritmiim, tu in iudicem seculonim. Ille dicit : Tu cum sis homo, tu dicis, cum 
 sis creatura. Uterque dicitis: Facis te Deum. Hoc commune in eum impii vestri oris obpro- 
 prium est. Negas enim Deum ex generatione Dei. Negas filium ex nativitatis veritate. Negas, 
 Ego et pater unum minus, confessionem imius in utroque atque consimilis esse nature. Subicia 
 substantie nove et externe et aliene Deum ut aut alterius generis Deus sit, aut omnino nee Deus 
 sit, quia non ex Dei nativitate subsistat, sed quia ad sacramentum dicti huius commotus es, Ego 
 et pater unum sumus, et Iudeo dicente: Tu, cum sis homo, facis te Deum, tu pari inpietate 
 dicis: Cum sis creatura facis te Deum. Dicis enim: Non es filius ex nativitate, non es Deus 
 ex veritate. Creatura es praestantior cunctis, sed non es in Deum natus, ex incorporali Deo 
 nativitatem non admitto (82) nature. Non modo tu et pater non unum est is, sed nee filius es, 
 nee similis es, nee Deus es. Iudeis quidem Dominus respondit, sed magis ad impietatem tuam 
 omnis hec apta responsio est : Nonne scriptum est in lege quoniam ego dixi Dii estisP Si 
 ergo dixit illos Deos, ad quos verb/urn factum est Dei, et non potest solvi scriptura, quem pater 
 sanctificavit et misit in hunc mundum vos dicitis quia blasphemavi quoniam dixi filius Dei sum. 
 Si non facio opera patris mei, nolite mihi credere. Si autem facio et si mihi non vultis 
 credere, operibus eredite ut sciatis et cognoseatis quoniam pater in me est et ego in eo. 5 Cau- 
 sam responsionis causa obiecte ei blasphemie intulit. Id enim ad crimen deputabatur quod se, 
 cum homo esset, Deum faceret. Deum autem se facere per id axguebatur quod dixisset: Ego 
 et pater unum sumus. Demonstraturus itaque hoc, quod ipse et pater unum essent, ex nativi- 
 tatis usurpatimi esse natura, in eo primum ineptiam ridiculi obprobrii computat, cm - in reatum 
 vocaretur quod se, cum homo esset, Deum faceret. Cum enim lex huius nominis appellationern 
 (83) Sanctis hominibus decerneret et sermo Dei indissolubilis confirmaret banc inpertiri in homi- 
 nes professionem, quomodo hie quem pater sanctificasset et in hunc mundum misisset blasphe- 
 mus esset se Dei filium confitendo, cum cognominatos Deos per legem Deos indissolubilis Dei 
 sermo statuisset? Iam ergo non est criminis quod se Deum, cum homo sit, facial, cum eos, qui 
 homines sint, lex Deos dixerit. Et a certis hominibus non irreligiosa huius nominis est usurpa- 
 tio. Est ab eo homine quem sanctificavit pater? Omnis enim hie cle homine responsio est, quia 
 Dei filius etiam hominis filius est. Idem, in undecimo: Id enim homini acquirebatur ut Deus 
 
 1C/. Exlaktos, Book VIII, par. 43. 2 John 10: 32. 3 MS. omits. * Ps. 81:6. 5,j,,im 10.38. 
 
 212 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 63 
 
 esset, sed manere in Dei imitate assumptus nullomodo poterat nisi perunitatem Dei in unitatem 
 Dei naturalis evaderet ut per hoc, quod in natura erat Deus verbum, verbum quoque caro factum 
 rursum in natura Dei esset, atque ita homo Iesus Christus maneret in gloria Dei patris, si in 
 gloria verbi caro esset unita, rediretque tunc in nature paterne etiam secundum hominem unita- 
 tem, verbum caro factum cum gloriam verbi caro assumptatenuisset. Reddenda igitirr apud se 
 ipsum patri erat unitas sua ut nativitas nature sue in se rursurn glorifieanda (8-1) resideret, quia 
 dispensati novitas offensionem unitatis intulerat et unitas, ut perfecta fuerat, nulla esse nunc 
 poterat nisi glorificata apud se fuisset carnis assumptio. Item, donatur Iesu ut ei, celestia, ter- 
 restria, et inferna genu flectant et omnis lingua confiteatur 1 quoniam Dominus Iesus Christus 
 in gloria Dei patris sit confitendus. Audis itaque, Pater maior me est. Scito eum de quo ob 
 meritum obedientie, dictum est, Et donavit ei nomen quod est super omne nomen. Audis rur- 
 sum: Eijn et ■pater unum sumus et qui me videt videt et pat rem, et ego in patre et pater in me 
 est? Honorem donate confessionis intellige, qrua Dominus Iesus in gloria est Dei patris. 
 Quando igitur illud est pater maior me est ? Nempe cum donavit ei nomen quod est super omne 
 nomen. At contra, quando est Ego et pater unit in sum us ? Nempe cum omnis lingua confitetur 
 quia Dominus Iesus est in gloria Dei patris. Si igitur donantis auctoritate. pater maior me est 
 numquid per doni confessionem minor filius est ? Maior utique donans est, sed minor iam non 
 est cui unum esse donatur. Si non hoc donatur Iesu ut confitendus sit in gloria Dei patris 
 minor patre. Si autem in ea gloria donatur ei esse, (85) qua pater est, habes et in donantis 
 auctoritate, quia maior est, et in donati confessione quia imum sit. Maior itaque pater est filio 
 et plane maior, cui tantum donat esse quantus ipse est in nascibilitatis imaginem, sacramento 
 nativitatis impertit ei, quern ex se in forma sua generat, quern rursum de forma servi in formam 
 Dei renovat, quern in gloria sua secundum spiritum Christum Deum natum donat rursum esse in 
 gloria sua secundum camera Iesum Christum Deum natum. Idem, in epistola de synodis : 
 Conservatur dignitas divinitatis tit in eo quod verbum caro factum est, duin verbum caro sit, 
 non amiserit per carnem quod erat verbum neque translatum in carnem sit,ut verbum esse 
 desineret, sed verbum caro factum est, ut potius caro hoc inciperet esse quod verbum. Alio- 
 quin uncle carni in operibus virtutes, in monte gloriam, in cognitionibus humanorum cordium 
 scientiam, in passione secirritatem, in morte vitam? 
 
 XIX. DE SCALA IACOB 
 
 Hec et similia patrum catholicorum sensa congerendo videor mihi videre angelos descen- 
 dentes et ascendentes super filiurn hominis in scala que demonstrata est Iacob dormienti. 3 
 Annon ascendunt cum (86) sublimia de gloria Christi praedicant ut est illud, ego et pater unum 
 sumus, quod tarn de humane quam divine substantie in Christo gloria verbis Hylarii supra 
 exposuimus? Item, cum adtenditur Chistus ante passionem dixisse: Si diligeretis me gaudere- 
 tis utique quia ad patrem vado* quia pater maior me est, angeli hec praedicantes descendunt, 
 post passionem vero cum dicit Christus, Data est mihi omnis potestas in celo et in terra, 5 que 
 vox est hominis assumpti, cui data est omnis potestas verbi sibi uniti, ascensiones in corde ista 
 meditantes disponunt. Deseendit Athanasiuscum dixit " minor patre secundum humanitatem," 
 ascendit cum dixit " sedet ad dexteram Dei patris omnipotentis." Que utraque sunt de natura 
 humana, cuius in priore sententia per nomen humanitatis exprimitur nuda conditio, que non est 
 maior in Christo quam in Petro, nee maior in Petro salvato quam in Iuda perdito, in secunda 
 vero eiusdem humanitatis exaltatio et glorificatio, descendente videlicet atque ascendente hoc 
 angelo super filium hominis, qui et minor est patre secundum pure humanitatis conditionem et 
 equalis, (87) immo unum cum ipso secundum eiusdem sue humanitatis in divine potestatis altera 
 evectionem. 
 
 Sic enim premissa patrum verba testantur homini assumpto datum est esse in gloria 
 
 I Bom. 14:11. 2 John 10:30. 3 Gen. 2S: 12. * John 11:28. 5 Matt. 28:18. 
 
 213 
 
64 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 patris ita, ut hoc oiimis lingua confiteatur, quamquam Iudei et iudaizantes heretici valenter 
 literati hoc negare audeant, quorum quidam dictis et scriptis hoc docent, quod Christus in natura 
 huinana Dei filius non sit nisi per adoptionern, cum longe ante nos hie error sit condempnatas 
 in Bonoso 1 heretico et meo quoque tempore, cum essem Rome, 2 ab Honorio 3 papa Euerit exsuf- 
 flata hec perversa doctrina porrecto ei libello a quodam canonieo Lateranensi hoc rationabiliter 
 asserente, quod etiam secundum hominem Chritus est filius Dei naturalis, non adoptivus. Hinc 
 ei illud privilegium quod patrem suum dicit Deum, verbi gratia, Pater meus usquemodo operator 
 et ego operor, et alibi, ascendo ad patrem. meum et patrem •oestrum se videlicet naturalem filium 
 secernens ab adoptivis quorum nulli congruit dicere pater meus pro nomine singular! sed patei 
 noster commimiter habent onnes dicere quos et filius naturalis in fratres et pater in filios digna- 
 tur adoperare. Profecto istum sensum non quidem dilexerunt (88) sed tamen intellexerunt 
 Iudei cum, Christo nominante Deum patrem suum, iudicaverunt eum blasphemum, quod de 
 communi paternitate minime sensissent, quoniam et ipsi habebant hoc usitatum ut dicerent, 
 Unum patrem habemus, Deum.* Si quidem ista paternitas gratie non coequat filios patri omni- 
 potenti, ut ilia singularis et naturalis, in qua dicit filius unigenitus: Omnia, mihi tradita sunt a 
 patre meo ; item: Pater mens quod dedit mihi mains est omnibus. Alias autem ubi se fratribus 
 consociat sub paternitate gratie humilia filiisque adoptivis convenientia de se loquitur ut illuc: 
 Sed id cognoscat mundus quia cliligo patrem et sicut mandatum dedit mihi pater sic facio? 
 Non hie dicit patrem meum vel pater meus, neque commimiter dicit pater noster, sed absolute 
 pater; ut intelligas hoc nomine paternitate[rn] totius divinitatis homini assumpto mandata dictantis 
 cjuid faciat, quid iudicet. Unde ait: Non posstun ego a me ipso facere quiequam sed sicut 
 audio, iudico? Apostolus quoque hancpaternitatem notatubiait: Unus Deus et pater omnium 
 qui super omnes et per omnia et in om n ibus nobis. 1 Et nos cum dicimus pater noster qui es in 
 cells? totam invocamus trinitatem nomine (89) patris, cuius gratia datur nobis ut filii Dei voce- 
 mur 9 et simus qui natura eramus filii ire, 10 sed is qui numquarn erat filius ire, solus dignus fuit 
 audire a patre: Tu es filius meus dilectus in te mihi complacui." Item in Psalmo: Filius meus 
 es tu, ego hodie genui fa. 11 Ac si dicat: Alios mihi alienos regenerabo in filios adoptivos, te ab 
 eterno praedestinatum filiiun meiun in virtute genui mihi filiiun naturalern, qui solus invocabis 
 me dicendo Pater meus es tu, et ego primogenitum ponam te. n Magna dignitas huius priino- 
 geniti, qui et in divinitate sua primogenitus est omnis creature atque in hunianitate sua primo- 
 genitus mortuorum ut, sicut apostolus ait, Sit in omnibus ipse primatum, tenens tarn in 
 humanitate sua cui data est omnis potestas in celo et in terra, quam in divinitate sua cuius 
 potestas est eterna. 
 
 XIX. DE EO QUOD DIGIT FILIUS : NON POSSUM A ME IPSO FACERE QUICQUAM. 
 
 Neque vero movere debet quod dicit: Non possum a me ipso facere quiequam, sed sicut 
 audio iudico; u quasi per hec dicta notetur assunipti hominis in potentia, cum nee verbum Dei 
 Deus possit a se ipso facere quiequam, quia nee a se ipso est, sed a patre suo et est et potest, 
 atque sine illo nichil potest; quod tamen non est inpotentia (90) sed magna potentia, vel potius 
 omnipotentia, sicut ex opposite angelum vel hominem posse aliquid a semetipso magna est 
 infirmitas et inpotentia. Quid est enim facere hominem aliquid a semetipso nisi peccare? Sicut 
 enim cum quis loquitur mendatium, ex propriis loquitur; maxime si ita est mendax ut pater 
 
 1 Bonosus, bishop of Sardica. Cf. St. Ambrose's Letters * John 8: 41. 5 John 14: 38. 
 
 to the Synod of Capua, Anno 391 ; Mansi, Vol. Ill, pp. 683-86; 6J o hn5'30 7 Eoh 4-6 
 Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. XVI, cols. 1222 ft. ; Hefele, Vol. II, 
 
 2d ed., pp. 53, 300. 2 Probably 1126. 8 Matt. 6:9. 9 John 3:1. 
 
 3 Honorius II., 1124-30. Gerhoh went to Rome as the i»Eph. 2:3. 
 
 messenger of Conrad, archbishop of Salzburg, to beg the n Matt 3:17 . 2 Peter 1:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3: 22. 
 aid of the pope in his struggle against the secular clergy. 
 
 P/. Migne.VoI. CXCIV, col. 1377, also Vol. CXCIII, col. 1377; i=Ps. 2: 7; Acts 13: 33; Heb. 1 : 5, 5:5. 
 
 Libelli, Vol. Ill, p. 204. 13 Ps. 88 : 27. » John 5 : 30. 
 
 214 
 
Olivbe Joseph Thatcher 65 
 
 quoque et inventor sit eius mendatii quod loquitur, sicut diabolus, ita etiam cum quis peccat, ex 
 propriis et a semetipso facit quod facit. Cum ergo dicitur: Non potest filius a semetipso facere 
 quiequam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, vel non possum ego a me ipso facere quicquam, 
 verba hec sonant non inpotentiam sed omnipotentiam, quod ex adiunctis intelligi potest cum 
 dicitur: Quecumque enim ille facit hec et filius similiter facit. Quis inihi tribuat spoliari hac 
 potentia qua possum a me ipso facere aliquid, sicut primus homo de terra terrenus a semetipso 
 fecit quod ei serpens per mulierem suggessit ? Contingat mihi hac potentia privari et perf ecte 
 incorporari homini de celo celesti, qui non potest a semetipso facere quicquam, licet habens cum 
 patre sua eternam potentiam et virtutem invictissimam et gloriam magnam, quia quod dedit illi 
 pater maius est omnibus. Dicta hec exponens venerabilis (91) Beda presbyter ait: Maius 
 autem omnibus, quod mediatori Dei et hominum lesu Christo pater dedit, hoc est, tit sit uni- 
 genitus filius eius in ullo gignenti vel natura clissimilis vel virtute inferior, vel tempore poste- 
 rior. Quam videlicet equalitatem ipse Dominus in divimtate habuit priusquam mimdus esset 
 apud patrem, ipse in humanitate ex tempore incarnationis accepit. Maximus episcopus de 
 natale Domini tractans, ipsam nativitatem, qua Deus natus est ex femina, divinam potius quam 
 humanam nominandam censuit, dicens inter cetera: Secreto quodam incomprehensoque con- 
 ceptu procedit de mortali femina divina progenies. Nee mirum sane si extitit divina nativitas 
 ubi non erat humana conceptio. Idem: 1 Duas in Christo generationes legimus sed intitraque 
 incomprehense divinitatis est virtus, ibi enim ilium ex semetipso genuit Deus, hie eum virgo, 
 Deo operante, conceptt, ilia nativitate hominem fecit, hac generatione hominem liberavit. 
 Cum autem duas Christi legimus nativitates non bis asseritur Dei filius natus sed gemina in 
 uno Dei filio confirmatur esse substantia. Idem: Igitur Deus qui apud Deum erat prodivit 
 a Deo et caro Dei que in Deo non erat processit ex femina. Item, Verbum caro factum est 
 non ut Deus evacuaretur (92) in hominem sed tit homo glorificaretur in Deum. Ita nobis 
 notus est Deus sed ex duabus nativitatibus, id est, Dei et hominis, se ipsum tinigenitus patris 
 atque in sese hominem unum esse voluit Deum. Generationem eius quis enarrabit'? 2 Idem in 
 eodem: Quomodo comprehendere potest homo Deum f actus ingenitum, mortalis eternum? Si 
 investigare niteris qualiter Deus in hominem vel homo transmit in Deum, investiga prius, si 
 potes, quomodo ex nichilo f actus est mundus. Quid contra hec dicere habent qui humanam in 
 Christo naturam a divina virtute sic alienam fingunt ut assumpta in personam vel proprietatem 
 persons, que Deus non sit, nomen quod est super omne nomen, habere non possit, nisi, ut 
 dicunt, in persona ? Et utinam sic ista dicerent ut personam ipsam filii Dei, cuius in unitatem 
 asswinptus est homo, concederent esse Deum et divinam substantiam. 
 
 XX. QUOD FILII PERSONA DIVINA SUBSTANTIA SIT 
 
 Non, inquiunt, possumus concedere quod proprietates in Deo quibus Deus non aliquid est, 
 sicut divinitate Deus, bonitate bonus, magnitudine magnus, vel ut ait Boetius, ipsum bonus, 
 ipsum magnus est, sed potius ad aliquid dicitur, ut pater non ad se, sed ad filium, et filius ad 
 patrem. Non, inquiunt, concedimus huiuscemodi proprietates forin-(93)seeus afExas inter sub- 
 stantialia vel inherentia computari neque in divina certe neque in humana substantia. Tibi 
 enim existenti in Arabia si filius nascatur in Hibernia que circa te queso ob hoc accidit per- 
 mutacio! Ad hec respondemus quod qui hec de dictis, ut aiunt, Boetii ac magistri Gilliberti 
 Boetiuni glosantis conceperunt, hoc pariter ibidem notasse debuerunt quod auctor dicit: In 
 naturalibus rationabiliter, in mathematicis disciplinaliter, in divinis intellectualiter, versari 
 oportebit, nee deduct ad imagines sed ipsam inspicere formam, que vere forma et imago est, 
 et que ipsum esse est et ex qua esse est. Cum ergo prohibeat auctoritas in divinis mathematice 
 versandum, quare tu mathematica consideratione abstractim consideras vel proprietates persona- 
 rum quasi extrinsecus affixas, que ipse persone non sint, ut in humanis personis promptum est 
 
 1 St. Augostine, Sermo XIII, in Natali Domini,!. 2Isa. 53:8; Acts 8: 33. 
 
 215 
 
66 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 aniinadverti vel personas ipsas quasi extra substantiam, quod neque in humanis iieque in divinis 
 personis reperire poteris? Ornnis eniin persona humana est humana substantia et omnis persona 
 divina divina utique substantia est. Nam et pater, quod est nomen persone, tarn in divinis quam 
 in humanis, nominat et nominando significat (94) substantiam cum proprietate relationis homini 
 quidem forinsecus, ut dicitur, affixe, ut, verbi gratia, patriarche Abrahe paternitatis relatio ad 
 Ysaac filium suum extra se positum pluribus accidentibus a se discretum. Que si omnia matbe- 
 matica distintione secernas locum tamen quo alter ab altero distat unum fingere non poteris. 
 Aliter vero est in Deo. Nam et ibi pater substantiam cum proprietate nominat et nominando 
 significat, sed eandem proprietatem sensu mathematico a Deo distingue sicut in homine, alienurn 
 est a fide catholica, qua credimus unum Deum in trinitate veneranduin, ita utque in trinitate 
 persona sit plenus Deus et divina substantia. Unde in trinitate una persona incarnata, credi- 
 mus eiusdem persone substantiam incarnatam, sicut magnus Basilius totam divinitatem in sui 
 persona incarnatam testatur in libra De Dispensatione, dicens: Sicut confttemur deitatis natu- 
 rani omnem perfecte esse in unaquaque ipsius personarum, omnem quidem in pdtre, omnem 
 in filio, omnem in spiritu sancto, unde et perfectus Deus pater, perfectus Deus et filius, per- 
 fectus Deus et spiritus sanctus. Sic etiam et inhumanationem unius persone sancte trinitatis, 
 Dei verbi, dicimus omnem et perfect-am naturam (95) deitatis in una ipsius persona unitam 
 esse omni humane nature et non partem, parti. Dicit autem divinus apostolus, quoniam in 
 ipso habitat 'omnis plenitudo deitatis in corpore Domini, id est, in came ipsius; et huius dis- 
 cipulus muttum divina intuitus (vel indutus), 1 Dionisus, quibus omnino nobis in una ipsius 
 communicavit personarum. Non autem dicere cogimur omnes deitatis piersonas videlicet 
 nobis secundum ptersonam uniri. Secundum nuttam enim communicavit rationem pater et 
 spiritus sanctus incarnationi verbi Dei nisi secundum beneplacitum et volwntatem. Omni 
 enim humane nature dicimus unitam esse omnem deitatis substantiam. Nichil enim eorum 
 que in. nostra a principio plantavit natura nos componens reliquit. Sed, omnia accepit 
 corpus, animam inteUectivam et rationalem, el horum propria. Animal enim sine unius 
 horum parte non homo est. Totus enim totum assumpsit, et, totus toti unitus est ut toti salu- 
 tem largiatur. Idem post aliqua: Eadem natura in unaquaque personarum consideratur 
 et cum dicamus naturam verbi incarnatam esse secundum beatos Athanasius et Cirillum 
 deitatem dicimus unitam esse carni. Quare naturam verbi dicentes ipsum verbum significa- 
 mus. Verbum autem et communitatem substantia et pro-(9Q)prietatem persone possidet. 
 Item, post pauca: Sciendum, autem quod quamvis ingredi invicem Domini naturas dicamus, 
 Sed enim scimus quod ex divina ingressus f actus est, hec enim omnia penetrat, sicut cult et 
 circumscribit, per ipsam autem nichil. Et hec autem propria carni assigned permanens ipsa 
 passibilis. Hec propter eos inducta sint qui sic putant personam filii Dei incarnatam, ut natu- 
 ram persone autument ab incarnatione alienam. Quorum sensum vel potius insaniam non satis 
 mirari possumus cum nomina hec, pater, filius, et spiritus sanctus, personarum praesentativa 
 denegare non possint etiam substantiam significare. Neque enim vacua sunt nomina, sed unum- 
 quodque illorum significat substantiam cum proprietate sua, quod significatum Greci ypostasin 
 (vwoa-TacTiv) id est, subsistentiam, Latini, personam vocant. Ideoque cum ex tribus personis vel 
 subsistentiis una incarnata conditur nullomodo substantia eius debet credi ab incarnatione 
 alienata. Nam cum verbum, ut Basilius ait, et communitatem substantie et proprietatem persone 
 possideat, verbo incarnate, substantia verbi non potest non esse incarnata. Et hoc est quod Leo 
 Papa dicit veram divinitatem veris nature humane (97) sensibus indutam, et quod Gregorius 
 dicit divinitatem caleiatam, et Boetius dicit humanitatem naturali imitate divinitati coniunctam. 
 Bene utique naturali, quoniam natura hominis ita est condita ut esset capax divine sapientie, 
 que verbum Dei est. Que cum se multis hominum personis participandam indulserit, quos et 
 sui participacione prophetas et sapientes fecit, solum sibi unitum hominen sic implevit ut non 
 
 1 Added in the margin. 
 
 216 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 67 
 
 tarn recte sapiens quam ipsa Dei sapientia dici possit, praedicante apostolo, Christum Dei virtu- 
 tern et Dei sapientiam} Dicis itaque inihi: Si verbi divinitas incarnata est, patris autem atque 
 verbi ac spiritus sancti una est divinitas, quomodo, verbi divinitate inearnata, pater non est 
 incarnatus ac spiritus sanctus? Respondeo tibi quia quomodo illud sit non est huius teinporis 
 scire, credere autein necessarium. Credenti autem non erit inpossibile omne verburn, quia omnia 
 possibilia credenti? Et plures quidern plura inducunt ad unius essentiae in tribus personis 
 dernonstrationern, verbi gratia, unius anime rnentem, noticiam, aniorem, vel unius mentis memo- 
 nam, iutelligentiam, voluntatem, vel unius radii calorem, et splendorem, vel (98) unius arboris 
 radicem, trimcum, et rarnurn, vel imius aque fontem, rivum, et stagnum. Sed nos de ornnibus 
 huiusmodi similitudinibus id magis eligimus quod intellectum dat parvulis. Quis enim vel 
 parvulorurn non intelligat quod unius aque fons, rivus, et lacus tria hec omnino substantie sunt 
 unius ac nature? Denique si talem fontem cogites, qui de sese rivum emittat, ita ut rivus in 
 lacum se colligat, lacusque ipse venas fontis contingat, iuxta quod omnia flumina redeunt ad 
 fontem suum ut itenun fluant. Nonne aqua ista in fonte, rivo, ac lacu, est una et eadem quarn- 
 quam ilia tria de se invicern praedicari non possint, ita ut dicatur fons esse rivus, aut rivus 
 lacus? Adde quod, rivo infistulato, in solo rivo tota substantia illius aque infistulata cernitur, et 
 tamen neque fons neque lacus vere dici potest infistulatus, cum tota eorarn substantia in solo 
 rivo sit infistulata. Item, Ex uno radio splendor et calor procedit nee ab illo recedit. Suntque 
 tria hec, radius, splendor, et calor, licet suis proprietatibus distincta, tamen localiter indivisa, et 
 splendor solus inter hec tria suscipit illumi-(99)nationem, sicut calor solus desiccationem. Verum 
 quia in similitudinibus huiusmodi a creaturis ad creatorem accomodans, non licet usque ad 
 imaginationes mutabilium descendere contemplantem vel disputantem, illuc per ista mutabilia 
 mens est elevanda ubi non in unius singularitate persone sed in unius trinitate substantie sic 
 tres unum sunt, ut unitas qua unum simt ipsi sint quemadmodum ipsa divinitas, qua Deus sunt, 
 et ipsa Veritas et bonitas, qua verum bonum sunt, ipsi sunt. 
 
 SSI. CONFUTATIO PRAVE DOCTRINE 
 
 c 
 
 Miror autem cum auctoritas habeat patrem esse veritatem, filium esse veritatem, spiritum 
 sanctum esse veritatem, patrem, filium, et spiritum sanctum non tres veritates sed unam esse 
 veritatem, quare magister Gillibertus talem glosam posuerit ut diceret in Boetium: Pater Veritas, 
 id est, verus est. Item, Alius Veritas, id est, verus est. Item, spiritus sanctus Veritas, id est, 
 verus est. Et collectim, pater, filius, spiritus sanctus non sunt tres veritates sed sunt una singu- 
 lariter et simpliciter et simpliciter Veritas, id est, unus verus. Qualem putamus espositio hec 
 sensum iniportat nisi ut nee pater intelligatur esse ipsa Veritas, sed veritate verus? Item, filius 
 non Veritas, sed veritate verus, et item de spiritu sancto et de tota trinitate idipsum astrait, quod 
 Deus trinus non sit una Veritas, sed, sicut ipse ait, unus verus veritate, quern secundum eius 
 doctrinam nee pater nee filius nee spiritus sanctus nee trinitas (100) sit nee Deus sit, quomodo 
 in alio loco divinitatem introducit, qua Deus sit non que Deus sit, ita enim dicit : Qui est homo, 
 ut Plato, vel Cicero, vel Tripho, vel qui est Deus, ut pater, vel filius, vel spiritus sanctus, quod 
 dieitur illorum quilibet esse homo, et istorum quilibet esse Deus, refertur ad substantiam non 
 que est, sed qua est. Auctoris autem verba sic se habent. Qui homo est vel Deus, refertur ad 
 substantiam, qua est aliquid, id est, homo vel Deus. Planiora fateor verba sunt auctoris quam 
 espositoris, quoniam auctor eum, qui homo est, verbi gratia, Petrum vel Paulum, per homims 
 vocabulum substantivum substantiam significat humanam esse, et item ilium qui Deus est, verbi 
 gratia, pater, aut filius, aut spiritus sanctus, per Dei nomen substantivum substantiam divinam 
 significat esse. Ac proinde quia substantia, tarn divina per nomen Dei, quam hmnana per nomen 
 hominis, de pluribus vera et naturali connesione praedicatur, sicut nee humanam ita nee divinam 
 substantiam dicit auctor alicubi singularem, cum iste novus espositor seu transpositor divinam 
 
 H Cor. 1:24. 2Mark9:22. 
 
 217 
 
6S Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 substantiam creberrime dicat singularem contra synodalem diffinitionem, qua, ut Hylarius com- 
 memorat in synodis orientalibus et singularitas est reprobata contra Sabellium et Fotinum, et 
 substantia vel equalitas ac similitudo naturalis inter patrem et filium est recepta contra 
 Eunomium et Arrium, (101) ita ut essentia deitatis nee singularis diceretur necdiversa, quoniam 
 singularis non est, que trium est, nee diversa que unitas ipsorum trium est, necdifferens in se, 
 quainquam de tribus alteritate relationis differentibus, ipse praedicetur magis et rectius per 
 nomina essentialia quam per nomina surnpta. Magis enim proprie dicitirr pater ac Alius ac 
 spiritus sanctus atque totus trinus Deus esse bonitas, Veritas, iusticia quam bonus, verus, iustus, 
 et sirnilia, que omnia sunt in Deo una simplex, non tamen singularis, essentia. Si enim singu- 
 laris esset ipsorum trium Veritas, cum Veritas de terra orta sit, quam intelligimus ipsum Dei 
 filium de Maria natum, consequeretur id quod Sabellius voluit, patrem videlicet esse incarnatum 
 et passum, filio eius, qui Veritas est, incarnato et passo. Sed hoc secernit patrem veritatem ab 
 incarnatione veritatis geniie, quod ipse pater est Veritas a nullo, films autem est Veritas de veri- 
 tate, sicut est lumen de lumine, Deus de Deo, sapientia de sapientia, iusticia de iusticia. Unde 
 recte patris imago dicitur et figura substantie eius in ipsius patris, scilicet, expressa substantia, 
 tamquam si regis imago in auro expressa dicatur aurea substantia. Figura, inquit, substantie 
 eius ne personam filii non substantiam intelligas, aut etiam proprietatem ipsius person? putes 
 extra substantiam separatim intelligendam, aut forinsecus affixam, cum (102) sit in patre totus 
 filius et totus in verbo pater. Non sic se babet relatio similis ad similem, equalis ad equalem, 
 patris ad filium, atque ut auctor ait, eiusdem ad idem, licet non eiusdem ad eundem in creatrice 
 trinitate sicut in rebus creatis, quia cognata rebus caducis alteritas bene admittit quorundarn 
 praedicamentorum inherentias et forinsecas afhxiones, ut auctor assignat, que omnia vera theo- 
 logia procul a Deo removet, docens euin, ut ait Augustinus, sine qualitate bonum, sine quantitate 
 magnum, sine indigentia creatorem, sine situ praesentem, sine habitu omnia continentem, sine 
 loco ubique, totum sine tempore sempiternum, sine ulla sui mutatione mutabilia facientem, 
 nichil patientem. Quisquis Deum ita cogitat et non dum potest omnino invenire quid sit, pie 
 tamen cavet, quantum potest, aliquid de illo sentire quod non sit. Et tamen sine dubio sub- 
 stantia, vel si melius hoc appellator essentia, quam Greci usj'am vocant, hec usya sive substantia 
 divinitatis minime susceptibilis est contrariorum sive ullorum accidentium quoniam relationes 
 que insunt ei non sunt accidentales, proprietates, quia pater Deus, sicut numquam fuit non 
 Deus, ita numquam fuit non pater, et filius Deus, sicut numquam non Deus, ita numquam fuit 
 non filius, et amborum connexio, sicut numquam fuit non connexio, praecedens ab utroque nee 
 recedens. Unde ( 103) patri Deo non accidentale, aut sicut aiunt, forinsecus est affixuin esse 
 patrem, vel fiho Deo esse filium, sed omnino patri eterno naturale est naturalem filium habere, 
 similiterque filio eterno est naturale naturalein patrem habere, et illis ambobus naturale est 
 invicem diligere se non extrinseca vel, ut aiunt, extrinsecus affixa dilectione, sed ea que Deus 
 est, que divina substantia est, que tercia in trinitate persona est, et unius cum reliquis duabus 
 usye, vel potius cum eis una usya est, quoniam sicut auctoritas habet, relatio multiplicat trini- 
 tatem, substantia conservat unitatem. Hec substantia divina de singulis personis divinis praedi- 
 catur, quomodo humana substantia de singulis, personis humanis. Et enim sicut Petrus vel 
 Paulus est homo et humana substantia, ita pater Dei, seu filius Dei, Deus est et divina sub- 
 stantia, atque ideo, filio Dei incarnato, recte credimus divinam substantiam incarnatam, non 
 tamen incarnato patre, qui nichilominus est divina substantia. Quomodo, inquis, potuerunt hec 
 fieri? Et ego dico tibi : Tu es magister in Frantia et hec ignoras f 1 Si terrena exempla de 
 unius aque fonte, rivo, et laco propositi vobis et non intelligitis, quomodo si dixero vobis celestia 
 credetis? Annon intelligitis, rivo iniistulato, in ipso substantiam fontis et laci esse infistulatam, 
 nee tamen fontem esse infistulatum seu lacum ; amplius autem si naturam ( 104) verbi verbum 
 dicit Basilius, doctor catholicus, ut supra ostendimus, quomodo non similiter naturam patris 
 patrem nominabimus? Atque ita secundum hunc sensum catholicum nichil est aliud dicere 
 
 1 John 3 : 10. 
 
 218 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatchek 69 
 
 substantiam seu divinitatem filii esse incarnatam, quam ipsum filium, qui substantia divina et 
 ipsa divinitas est, esse incarnatum, neque tamen inde consequitur patrem, qui similiter sub- 
 stantia divina et ipsa divinitas est, esse incamatum in sua persona, cuius tamen substantia in 
 filio suo est incarnata. Si enim Dei filius iam totus inpassibilis est licet in sue nature humane 
 consortibus fratribus esuriem, aut famem, sitim, nuditatem, exilium, carcerem, et infirniitatem se 
 pati contestetur, quia natura videlicet in ipsum assumpta in suis hec patitur, ipso tamen in sue 
 inpassibilitatis gloria permanente, quid minim quod Deus pater semper inpassibilis creditur 
 permansisse ac permanere, cuius tamen filius naturalis natm'e videlicet paterne consors exinan- 
 ivit se ipsum, formam servi accipiens, 1 et in ea mortem crucis perferens, patris tamen et sua 
 divinitate in sue inpassibilitatis gloria permanente ac implente carnem, que in ipso Dei filio 
 passaest? Sic dicit Augustinus: "Implevit carnem Christi pater (105) et spiritus sanctus, 
 sed maiestate, non susceptione." 
 
 CARNEM CHRISTI SIT CREDENDUS 
 
 Quidam in his dictis Augustini non aliud intelligunt nomine maiestatis carnem Christi 
 implentis quam tunc intel[l]igitur cum omnis creatura maiestate Dei plena praedicatur, ipso Deo 
 dicente, Celum et terrain ego impleo? Item, canit ecclesia: Pleni sunt celt et terra gloria tua. 
 Sed hie sensus ex i[l]lis est ad magnificandum illud singulare sacramentum dominice incarna- 
 tionis, in quo Maria exultans dicit: Magnificat anima meet Dominum* Ergo, ut estimo, altius 
 est intelligendmn quod pater et spiritus sanctus dicuntur maiestate sua implevisse vel implere 
 hominem ilium qui dicit, Pater in me manens ipsefacit opera? qui in digito Dei, quern spiritum 
 sanctum intelligimus, eicit demonia? Si enim non aliter implevit patris ac spiritus sancti 
 maiestas carnem Christi quam implet lapidem vel nos omnes, qui dicere possum us: In ipso 
 vivimus, movemur, et sumus, 1 quid attinuit super tali plenitudine ammirari evangelistam dicen- 
 tem: Vidimus gloriam eius gloria quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratia et veritate. 8 Item, 
 alius evangelista plenum spiritu sancto ilium commemorat, quando regressus est ab Iordane in 
 Galileam' 1 post baptismuni, ubi et coliunba super ipsum conspecta hoc indicavit (106) quod tota 
 plenitudo sancti spiritus perpetuo in ipso esset mansura, sicut Iohanni praedictum fuerat: 
 Super quern videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hie, est qui baptizat in 
 spiritu saricto 10 Homo igitur bona opera faciens, quo operante, operatur simul et pater et quern 
 videns quis, videt et patrem, quique baptizat iu spiritu sancto," longe aliter impletus est maies- 
 tate patris et spiritus sancti quam vel sancti angeli et homines beati vel etiam tota creatura. 
 
 XXIII. DE VOCE PATRIS AD FILIUM ET DE SPECIE COLUMBE 
 
 c 
 
 Quid dicemus de voce patris audita cum videretur sanctus spiritus in specie columbe super 
 hominem verbo ipsius patris unituin? Nonue tibi hec adtendenti omnis plenitudo divinitatis in 
 homine assumpto inhabitantis manifestat semetipsam in patris voce, in filii corpore, in sancti 
 spiritus columbina specie? Tu es, inquit, filius meus dilectus iu quo mihi complacui}' 2 Hoc 
 ut iam supra commemoravimus, ab initio non dixit cum imiversa conderet, cum celi fabrieam 
 extenderet, vel mari terminum poneret, et omnia visibilia sive invisibilia mirabilis artifex com- 
 ponens, suo singula loco vel ordine distingueret. Et quidem placebant crmcta que fecerat quia 
 erant valde (107) bona. 13 Sed nusquam in omnibus illis se ipsum sibi complacuisse insinuat. 
 In hoc autemuno sibi complacet et dicit mihi complacui, quod longe aliud est quam si dixisset 
 tu mihi complacuisti. Adtendamus ergo quid in Christo factum sit et videbimus quod 
 vere pro maguitudine vel qualitate operis recte pater in illo sibi complacuerit, videlicet cum 
 
 iPhil.2:7. 2 MS. implessesse. 9Luke4:14. i»Johnl:33. 
 
 3Jer. 23:24. «Luke 1:46. " Cf. John 5:17, 14:9,1:13. 
 
 'John 14:10. 6 Luke 11: 20. '2 Matt. 3: 17, etc. 
 
 ' Acts 17 : 28. 8 John 1 : 14. 13 Gen. 1 : 10, 12, etc. 
 
 219 
 
70 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 omnia fecisset Deus nichil omnino simile sibi vel equals fecerat, quamquam ad imaginem 
 et similitudinem sui hominem fecerit. 1 Nee enim benivolentie creatoris sufficiebat quod ea 
 que fecerat erarit cuncta valde bona, quia nichil inter omnia simile sibi vel equale videbat, 
 sed ut iam dictum est tale quid omnino qualis ipse est creari non poterat. Quapropter 
 multitudo creature infirma utpote de nichilo facta partim corruerat, neque suis viribus 
 ullomodo restaurari valebat. Suggessit igitur tunc ipsa, que post apparuit in specie col- 
 unibe, mitis et benevola patris caritas, quatinus ipsain virtutem, ipsum verbum per quod 
 omnia fecerat, quoniam nichil equale sibi condiderat facture sue uniret et sic unum quid, cui 
 nichil deesset, in ordine creature produceret, essetque creatura licet dispar conditione, tamen 
 compar creator! suimet in Deum assurnptione et (108) glorificatione. Quo facto, gratulatus 
 omuipotens bonitas et applaudit sibimet dilectio columbina omnis invidentie nescia quod ope 
 sua compar sibi facta sit humana creatura, dignum laude iudicans quod inopi nature sue eius- 
 dem sue nature divitiis a Deo subvenerit ut totum regnum patris regere umversam omnino celi 
 ac terre rempublicam disponens, et in throno eius dominari eque ut ipse deinceps idonea sit. 
 Hoc ojaus suum a Deo collaudat et in hoc sibi complacet in tantum ut cuicumque non compla- 
 cuerit, quicumque cum laude et gratiarum actione non aspexerit, eurn velut ingi'atum et vere 
 superbum et invidum, a salute sua et ab eiusdem Ckristi, filii sui, regno repellat. Cuiusque 
 utique regni, quia non est finis, cum sit inmensum, recte quoque ipse res inmensus praedicatur, 
 sicut ex opposito regulus dicitur, cuius regnum coangustatum est etiam si contingat ipsurn 
 gygantea statura extensum. Christus autem, id est, homo prae consortibus suis unctus in regem 
 regni omnium seculorum, licet parvulus in cunis apparuerit, idem in throno maiestatis paterne 
 magnitudine sue claritatis etiam angelorum pascit et toti curie celesti gaudium facit. 
 
 XXIV. DE GAUDIO DISCIPDLOBDM 
 
 Ad quod gaudium discipulos suos adhuc mortalis invitabat (109) dicens: Si diligeretis me 
 gauderetis utique quia ad patrem vado, quia pater maior me est. 2 Cum enim ipse in divinitate 
 sua numquam patre minor extiterit, luce clarius constat, quod hec dicens filius Dei de natura 
 hominis egit tanquam diceret: Quamdiu mortalis homo sum pater maior me est, at postquam 
 transibo ex hoc mundo ad patrem, exaltata videlicet humanitate mea usque ad paterne glorie ineffa- 
 bilem celsitudinem a qua numquam discessi per divinitatem, ex tunc videbitis me Dominum et 
 salvatorem vestrum propter passionem mortis gloria et honore coronatum. Igitur si diligeretis 
 me gauderetis utique transire me ab exilio miuidi et ex ternaliter sessurum ad dexteram patris intrare 
 in gloriam regni mei quia videlicet hactenus ex quo carnem indui pater maior me est, et ego secun- 
 dum mortalitatem eiusdem carnis non solum patre sed etiam inmortalibus paulo minor sum 
 angelis. Postquam vero usque ad patris consessum exaltatus fuero ex tunc inplebitur quod 
 scriptum est: Dixit Dominus Domino (110) meo, Sede a dexteris meis 3 (et cetera). Item, Gloria 
 et honore coronasti eum, Domine, et constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarnm.* Quanta 
 in hoc Christum diligentibus gaudendi causa est ! Magna plane et ineffabilis. Unde nee illi 
 plene inveniuntiu- Christum diligere, qui de iam facta hominis usque ad patrem exaltatione 
 gaudentibus fidelibus nolunt congaudere, contendentes filium hominis eundemque Dei filium 
 adhuc minorem patre in sua quantumlibet glorificata humanitate. Quam sane minoritatem, si 
 referunt ad humanitatis naturalem conditionem, non ad eiusdem supernaturalem exaltationem 
 recte tolerantur, quoniam in hoc sensu neque nobis neque fidei catholice adversantur, verimi si 
 hominis iam in Deum glorificati arbitrantur non eandem gloriam, omnipotentiam, omnisapien- 
 tiam, omnivirtutem, onmimaiestatem, que est patris altissimi, timendum sine dubio est ne a 
 regno ipsius repellantur tamquam detractores invidi cum illo 'consortium habitiui qui primus 
 invidit altitudini huius Altissimi dicens in corde suo: Ero similis AltissimoJ' Nos vero congau- 
 
 1 Gen. 1:27. 2 John 14:28. 4 Ps. 8 : 6 f . j MS. c. e. d. et c. e. s. o. m. t. 
 
 3 Ps. 109 : 1 ; Matt. 22 : 44 ; Mark 12 : 36 ; Luke 20 : 42. & Isa. 1 1 : 14. 
 
 220 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 71 
 
 denies nature(lll) nostrein Dei verbo deificate et glorificate, deificate in conceptione, glorificate 
 
 in resurrectione simul et ascensione, accedamus cum fidutia ad iron urn gratie, sicutait apostolus, 
 ut misericordiam consequamur et gratiam inveniamus in auxilio oportuno} Magnam quippe 
 dat fidutiam nobis hominibus Deus homo in se naturaliter benedictus, qui venit in nomine 
 Domini, pro nobis maledictum factus, ut nos natura filii ire filii benedictionis efficiamur in ipso. 
 Licet enini contristrare nos debeat quod nostra peccata causa mortis et contumelie illi fuerant, 
 tamen quia ob eandem mortis contumeliam consecutus est homo assumptus magnam gloriam de 
 qua dicit, nonne sic oportuit pati Christum et ita intrare in gloriam swam, 2 fiducia datur nobis 
 peccatoribus ad tronum gracie ipsius puro corde accedentibus. Si enim Ioseph suis fratribus 
 gratiam et misericordiam exinde promptius inpendit, quod, occasione malici»? illonun Deo mala 
 ipsorum vertente in bonum, fuit exaltatus, quomodo verus Ioseph cui peccavinius, Deo vertente 
 in bonum (112) quod inique gessimus, propter nos passus malaque illi venerunt in bonum 
 credendus est non parcere nol>is maxime si ad ipsum confugerimus, et corde contrito planxeri- 
 mus quod peccavimus in ipsum fratrem nostrum eundemque Dominum et iudicem nostrum. 
 Ac(e)cedamus igitur ut dixi cum fiducia ad tronum gracie, dominante ac residente super ilium 
 tronum fratre nostra, qui etiam non confunditur fratres nos vocare dicens: Nuntiabo nomen 
 tuum fratribus meis. 3 Postulemus ab eo alimenta nobis et parvulis nostris, nee a precibus 
 quiescamus donee ipse manifestet se ipsum nobis, dicens: Ego sum Joseph,* vos cogitastis de 
 me malum et Deus vertit illud in bonum, et exaltavit me sicut inpresentiarum cernitis. Ostendat 
 se nobis dominatorem non solum in celo sed etiam in tota terra Egypti, ordinando regniun totius 
 rnundi ad sui honorem, ad suorum consolationem. Deinde quoque accedamus cum fiducia ad 
 tronum dignitatis apostolic? praesidente nimirum tali fratre qui, ut speramus, etiam pauperes 
 nostri similes recognoscet ut fratres. 
 
 XXV. DE BENIAMIN 
 
 Unde illo principante (113) speramus fratres eius couterinos habundantius benedici quam 
 non couterinos ; quomodo et ipse Ioseph cum reliquis fratribus penitentia condigna purgatis 
 daret singulis binas stolas, Beniamin fratri suo uterino dedit trecentos siclos cum quinque stolis 
 optimis, qui et in convivio recumbens cum fratribus quinque partibus habundasse super illos 
 inventus est, 5 ammirantibus ipsis fratribus et fortasse indignantibus quia non erat eis ipse 
 Beniamin couterinus, qui omnes de Lia vel de ancillis nati filios Rachelis eo quod a patre 
 cunctis fratribus plus ainarentur, non sincere primitus amaverunt donee postmodum correpti et 
 correcti huiuscemodi emulationem deposuerunt. Nonne Ioseph qui legitur oves patris pavisse 
 fratresque suos de crimine pessimo apud patrem accusasse, qui et postmodum pavit universam 
 Egyptum, nomine simul et officio designat ordinem clericorum religiosorum crimina detestantium 
 et regulari disciplina se ostendentium esse filios Rachelis (111) ecclesie videlicet primitive que 
 quasi duos filios nobiles genuit 6 Ioseph pastorem ovium, in ordine clericorum sub apostolica 
 regula tarn paterne nobilitatis, quam et materne puleritudinis insigne praeferentium, sicut de 
 Ioseph legitur quod erat decorus aspectu 1 et Beniamin filium dextere in ordine monachorum 
 item sub apostolica regula delectationes in dextera Dei querentium. 
 
 XXVI. DE CYPHO IOSEPH 
 
 Neque vero illud est otiosum quod ciphus Ioseph argenteus, disponente ipso Ioseph, in 
 sacco Beniamin fuit repositus s cuius figure veritatem nunc impleri videmus, quotiens de ordine 
 monachorum secundum nomen Benonim, 9 quod intei-pretatur filius doloris se et mundum lugen- 
 tium et secundum nomen Beniamin 9 quod est filius dextere delectaciones in dextera Dei quer- 
 entium quis assumitur ad regimen sacerdotale vel pontificale, sicut beatus papa Gregorius vere 
 cipho Ioseph argenteo ditatus et in pontificem Komanum electus egregia (115) moralitatis pocula 
 
 iHeb. 4:16. 2 Luke 24: 26. '- Gen. 43 : 34, 45 : 22. «Gen. 41:50. 
 
 3 Ps. 21:23; Heb. 2:12. *Gen.45:3ff. 'Gen.39:6. 8Gen.44:2ff. 9Gen.35:18. 
 
 221 
 
72 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 de ipso cipho ministravit. Notandum tamen quod ipse ciphus non dicitur esse Beniaruin sed 
 Ioseph, quia non ad monachi silentium,sed ad clerici rninisteriurn pertinet, quod isqui sic assumptus 
 est in ecclesia docet, ut f ratrem suuui Ioseph adiuvet. Sic Petrus apostolus in sacerdotio princeps 
 doctorum curn in sua nave Dorninus resedisset atque inde turbas docuisset postea in altum 
 ducta navicula cum laboraret ipse et frater suus Andreas intrahendo reti piscibus usque adeo 
 repleto ut etiam rete rumperetur ascivit socios qui erant in alia navi, scilicet Iohannem et Iaco- 
 bum, ut adiuvarent euni. 1 
 
 XXVII. DE DDABDS NAVIBDS APOSTOLORDM 
 
 Navis Petri apostoli, ordo cleri apostolicis disciplines informati non incongrue intelligitur. 
 Navis autem Iohannis qui super pectus Domini recubuit apte notat monachorum religiosorum 
 quietem sanctam, de qua nonnumquam sic excitantur et in adiutorium cleri vocantur, ut pulch- 
 rum exhibeant spectaculum Petri et Iohannis (116) Ioseph et Beniamin sese invicem fraterne 
 amantium et adiuvantium in domo Iacob filios Rachelis plurimum diligentis. Fratres enim 
 ceteri sive Lie sive ancillarum filii, licet incliti et benedicti, minus inveniuntur a patre dilecti, 2 
 maxime Rubenite, licet numero multi, tamen merito inminuti. Emulantur enim filios Ioseph 
 crescere cum sui ut estimant aliquanta diminutione. Nam cum pene occupaverint una cum 
 prebendis omnes plebales ecclesias conducticiis committendo eas in tota Germania et Gallia, 
 dolent saltern sibi eas esse subreptas, quas vident et invident cenobiis religiosis episcopali con- 
 cessione subtitulatas vel' commissas. Nonne, inquiunt, sicut monachi et regulares canonici 
 habent plebales ecclesias, ita et nos item canonici, licet seculares, habere possumus eas, quod si 
 nobis non licet, uti que nee illis, ut unaqueque ecclesia, cui facultas suppetit, proprium habeat 
 sacerdotem? 
 
 XXVIII. DE EACHELE 
 
 Hoc dicentes et spiritalibus viris avariciam (117) quasi scelus ydolatrie inpingentes, non 
 adtendunt pulcritudinem sen latitudinem vestimentorum pulcherrime Kachelis quibus teguntur 
 ista ecclesiastica beneficia cenobiis collata, sicut ilia texit idola de domo Laban 3 surrepta. 
 Denique habemus privilegia sedis apostolice, ut quicquid ex concessione pontificum vel dona- 
 tione principum seu pia oblatione fidelium iuste possidenius, auctoritate apostolica teneamus, 
 inter que nominatim aliquotiens exprimuntur ecclesie capelle ac decirne. Nonne sic scribens 
 ecclesia Romana quasi Rachel formosa expandit se super p>ossessiones cenobiorarn, ut non quasi 
 avaricia, sed quasi benedictio iudicentur que illius auctoritate ac benignitate a spiritalibus pos- 
 sidentis? Verumtamen nee ipsis viris religiosis hoc licere concedimus, ut in ecclesiis eoram 
 sit conducticius vel minister absolute ordinatus, qualibet vage discurrentibus et se nunc hie 
 nunc illic prostituentibus heu! plena est Germania et Gallia. Ipsi vero religiosi viri suas 
 ecclesias aut per semetipsos regant, sobrie, iuste, pie vivendo * et populum sibi commissum in 
 idipsum fideliter erudiendo, aut secundum canones obedientie stabilitatem exigant ab his, quos 
 in adiutorium sui ad regendum populum volunt assumere, ne, si ovibus neglectis lanam et lac 
 (118) accipiunt, non sub veste Racheline pulcritudinis tecti ab avaricia, que est idolorum 
 servitus, 5 excusentur, sed tamquam idolatre ipsi eque ut seculares canonici darnpnentur, immo 
 etiam tanto illis deterius pereant, quanto speciem pietatis habentes et virtutem eius abnegantes 
 dampnabilius peccant. Ubi enim salute animarum neglecta sola queruntur lucra terrena, ibi, 
 quoniam 6 habundat iniquitatis avaricia querentis que sua sunt, refrigescet caritas 7 non querens 
 que sua sunt. Que cum ex eo dinoscatur, quod comnumia propriis, non propria communibus 
 anteponit, non habet locum in illis congregationibus, ubi omnes querunt que sua sunt* propria 
 communibus, non communia propriis anteponendo, immo et si qua illic videntur incommunia in 
 privatas abusiones distrahendo. Sicsic inordinate viventibus neque clericis neque monachis 
 
 i Luke 5: off. '-' Gen. 37:3 ff. 5 Eph. 5:5. SLibelli, quando. 
 
 3Qen. 31:34. * Titus 2: 12. ■ Matt. 21: 12. 81 Cor. 13:5. 
 
 222 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 73 
 
 ecclesias vel ecclesiastica bona defendirnus, quia talibus congruit quod Iudaeis Christus 1 dicit: 
 Ideo auferetur a vobis regnum et dabitur genti facienti fructus eius. 2 Item questus iniquos et 
 turpes non aliquo velainine religionis defendendos, sed tamquam idolatriam cavendos iudicarnus 
 et velut inmundieiam repudiamus, quia ubi talia pacienter sustinentur, non tain sub Rachele 
 desuper sedente quam sub strauiento cameli absconduntur idola. Sicut se habet istoria, ubi 
 legitur ipsa Rachel subter strarnento 3 canieli, anirnalis scilicet inmimdi, primitus idola posuisse 
 ac deiude ipsa desuper sedisse, ut ostenderetur (119) differentia inter mundos, quibus omnia 
 mimda sunt, 4 et inmundos et infideles, quibus nicliil mimdum, quorum etiam si qua religio 
 praetenditur, stramentis cameli assimilatur ac proinde repudiatur. Quia ergo in domo Iacob 
 regnante Christo, ut supra memoravimus, Petrum Petrique successorem quemlibet nomine 
 Iacob vel potius Israel recognoscimus honoratum, cum fiducia bona petamus ab eo iudicium 
 super turpitudine Ruben, super furore Symeon et Levi, 5 quatenus et non sinatur ultra crescere 
 in domo Iacob, et illi bellatores importuni conipellantur se vasa iniquitatis agnoscere, qui cum 
 sint clerici et clericonim magistri, longe indisciplinatius movent guen'as in domo Iacob quam 
 laici principes. 
 
 XXIX. DE BELLIS INORDINATIS 
 
 Nam sine ordine iudiciario castra obsidentes, incendia facientes et inter hec homicidia multa 
 perpetrantes atque insuper divina sacramenta dispensantes cogunt nos gemere non quidem super 
 militia ecclesiis a regibus et imperatoribus data, sed super malitia ex occasione militie subintro- 
 ducta. Unde non hoc desideramus, ut ecclesia perdat militiam, sed malitiam, 6 prescripta vide- 
 licet salubeirima regula, secundum quam pontifices uti et non abuti debeant ipsa militia. Et 
 quidem regulas antiquas super hoc habernus in scriptis Nycolai ' pape specialiter ad Carolum 
 Pranconun regem scribentis et universaliter in conciliis Toletanis depromptas, 3 ( 120) quas non 
 putamus canonum peritis Romanis ingerendas, maxime quia temporis novitas exigere videtur 
 novas regulas, cum illis antiquis omnino sit iudicium ac negotium sanguinis interdictum sacerdo- 
 tibus et reliquis personis Deo servientibus, nostri autem temporis qualitas fortasse aliud requi- 
 rit, sicut ad beate memorie pontifices Romanos Innocentium et Eugenimn' 1 scripsisse nos meinini- 
 mus. Erat autem summa tunc nostre suggestionis, ut ecclesia sibi collatos honores tenendo 
 uteretur et non abuteretur illis, gladium verbi per spiritales, gladium ferri per seculares minis- 
 tros ordinate ac iudicialiter vibrando ; ne levitis inordinate pugnantibus eveniat ilia maledictio, 
 qua maledicti sunt Symeon et Levi a patre Iacob, 1 " sed potius ipsis levitis ex obedientia iusta et 
 iuste bellantibus proveniat ilia benedictio, qua benedixit Moyses levitas, qui precipiente ipso 
 pugnantes consecraverant manus suas in sanguine fratrum suorum. Videns enim Moyses popu- 
 lum, quod esset nudatus, spoliaverat enim eum Aaron propter ignominiam sordis et inter 
 hostes nudum constituerat, et stems in porta castrorum ait: Si quis est Domini, iungatur 
 mihi. Congregatique sunt ad eum omnes filii Levi. Quibus ait: 'Hec elicit Dominus Deus 
 Israel. Ponat vir gladium super femur suum. lie et reelite de porta usque ad portam per 
 (121) medium castrorum et occidat unusquisque fratrem suum et amicum et proximum suum.' 
 Fecerunt filii Levi iuxta sermonem Moysi. Cecideruntque in illo die quasi XXIII milia 
 hominum. Et ait Moyses: Consecrastis manus vestras hodie Domino unusquisque in filio et 
 fratre suo, ut detur vobis benedictio. 1 ' Ecce hie filiis Levi propter bellum inordinatum a 
 
 l Libelli, Dominus. 2 Matt. 21 : 43. 590. Gerhoh quotes it also in his Com. to Ps. LXIV, chap. 
 
 ZLibelli, stramentum. *Titus 1 : 15. 61, and in De Ordine Donorum. 
 
 5 Gen., chap. 3i, and 49:5-7. «Synod of Toledo, IV, chaps. 31 and45; Mansi, Vol. 
 
 0C/. Geehoh's De EdificioDei, chaps. 23, 24, in which he S ' cols - 628 - 30 ; Hinschtos, p. 369 f. : Synod of Toledo, XI, 
 
 criticises Adalbert II., archbishop of Mainz, for surround- cha P- 6 ; Mansi, Vol. XI, col. 141 ; Hinschius, p. 409. 
 
 ing himself with a large body of knights, armed retainers, 9 To Innocent II. Gerhoh sent his Dialogus Inter Regu- 
 
 etc. Libelli, Vol. Ill, p. 153 f. larem et Secularem Clericum. To Eugene III. he sent his 
 
 7 Nicholas I., 858-867, to Charles the Bald. Cf. Mansi, Commentary on Ps. LX1V. 
 
 Vol. XV, col. 291; Deusdedit. Coll. Can., Vol. IV, chap. 99, p. i» Gen. 49 : 6 f . ; Ex. 32 : 25-29 ; Deut. 33 : 8-11. 
 
 416; Grat., chap. XXIII, qu. 8; J. L., 2788; N. Archiv, Vol. V, " Ex. 32: 25 ff. 
 
 223 
 
74 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 Iacob rnaledictis, item propter belluni ordinate peractum a Moyse promittitur benedictio in 
 Exodo, que deprompta est in Deuteronornio, 1 quia nimirum sic erat futurum, ut benedictio in lege 
 promissa filiis Levi daretur evangelio coruscante illis potissimurn, qui ordinate procedunt ad 
 bella, sive gladium spiritalem per semetipsos sive materialem per legitinios ministros movendo, 
 ita ut quisque 2 miles prelietur suo modo et ordine, alter que sunt iusta docendo, alter docenti 
 obediendo 3 alter gladio spiritus, quod est verbum Dei, armatus dicat cum apostolo : Anna 
 nostra non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Deo ad destructionem munitionum extollentium se 
 adversus scientiam Christi : * alter, ad preceptum sacerdotis ingrediens et egrediens, imitetur 
 Iosue ducem Israhel, cui mandatum fuit a Domino, ut ad preceptum Eleazari sacerdotis 5 egre- 
 deretur et ingrederetur. (122) egrederetur scilicet ad pugnandum, ingrederetur ad vacandum. 
 
 XXX. DE BENEDICTIONIBUS IACOB ET MOYSI 
 
 Puto autem consideratione dignum quod collatis et consideratis benedictionibus Iacob et 
 Moysi 6 super XII tribus cum satis concordent amborum sententie in re[li] quis tribubus de sola 
 tribu Levi quasi opposita et pene contraria videntur proposuisse. Nam ille Iacob scilicet de 
 Symeon et Levi ait : Vasa iniquitatis bellantia, in consilio eorum ne veniat anima mea, et in 
 cetu illorum non sit gloria mea quia in furore suo occiderunt virum et in voluntate sua 
 suffoderunt murum. Maledictus furor eorum quia pertinax et indignatio eorum quia dura. 
 Dividam eos in Iacob et disperdam eos in Israel. 1 Moyses autem dicit in benedictione Levi : 
 Perfectio tuaet doctrina tua viro sancto tuo quern probasti in temptatione' et iudicasti ad 
 aquas contradictionis. Qui dixit patri suo et matri sue nescio vos et fratribus suis ignoro 
 illos et nescierunt ftlios suos. Hi custodierunt eloquium tuum et pactum tuum serraverunt 
 indicia tua, Iacob et legem tuam O Israel. Ponent thumiama in furore tuo et holocaustum 
 super altare. Benedic, Domini, fortitudine eius et opera manuum illius suscipe. Percute 
 dorsum, inimicorum eius et qui oderunt eum non consurgantp (123) Unde, queso, ista diver- 
 sitas in patriarcha et legislatore, ut alter maledicendo, et alter benedicendo loqueretur de uiiius 
 tribus hominibus? Profecto non sine causa diversa diversitas ista. Nam de tribu ilia erant 
 futuri sacerdotes mali qui essent vasa iniquitatis bellantia et quorum furor pertinax et indignatio 
 dura. Horum principui fuerunt poutifices et Pharisei qui collegemnt concilium et iniermit 
 consilium adversus Christum. De quo videlicet consilio et concilio intelligitur illud patriarcne 
 dictum in consilio eorum ne veniat anima mea et in cetu illorum non sit gloria mea quia in furore 
 suo occiderunt virarn. Secuntur eos adhuc nonnulli Christum in suis membris occidentes et 
 furore pertinaci pauperes eius persequentes maxime indisciplinati cathedrales clerici clericis 
 disciplinatis et regularibus adversantes furore pertinaci. Dico igitur in consilium eoruni ne 
 veniat anima mea et in cetu illorum non sit gloria mea. Et quia iniqui sunt cetus eorum fiat 
 secundum quod scriptum est dividam eos in Iacob et disperdam eos in Israel. Divisio et dis- 
 persio sive disperditio hec Levitarum perversorum per principes Romauos, Titum et Vespasia- 
 num 10 ceptum per poutifices Romanos tandem consumetm' ut veris et bonis Levitis in eorum 
 locum introduces ac per ecclesiam totam multiplicatis ilia detm- benedictio que per Moysen 
 deprompta sed (121) per verum legis latorem data est. Et enim benedictionem dedit nove legis 
 lator quam veteris legis lator et si potuit praemmtiare non potuit dare. Perfectio, inquit, tua et 
 doctrina tua viro quern probasti in temptatione. 
 
 XXXI. DE AQDA CONTRADICTIONIS 
 
 Virum probatum in temptatione cognoscimus Petrum apostolum et cum illo cetum apostoli- 
 cum precipue ad aquas contradictionis," apostolis videlicet Christum iilium Dei credentibus 
 hominibus autem huic fidei contradicentibus et aliis eum Iohannem, aliis.Helyam, aliis Ieremiam 
 
 iGen. 34; Ex. 32 : 25 fE. ; Deut. S3:Sff. 'Gen.49:5ff. «MS. tcptatiouo. 9 Dcut. 33:8 ff. 
 
 -Libelli, quisquis. 3 Libelli. inserts a. 10 Refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in 
 
 « 2 Cor. 10: 4f. 5 Num. 27:21. <• Gen. 49, and Deut. 33. TO A. D. n Ps. 80:8, 105:32. 
 
 221 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 75 
 
 aut uiiuin ex prophetis esse dicentibus. Apud aquam contradictionis huius probata est fides 
 apostolorum cum Petrus respondit pro omnibus Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. 1 Perfeetio 
 quoque ac doctrina Christi dicentis si vis perfectus esse vacle vende que habes et dapauperibus 
 et sequere me,- item, qui non renuntiat omnibus que possidet non potest mens esse discipulus, 3 
 in illis et eorum sequaeibus est inventa qui etiam parentes relinquendo ac Alios suos nesciendo 
 cum nudi nudum Christum sequerentur custodierunt eloquium Domini et pactum eius servav- 
 erunt. Dnde prae ceteris hanc benedictionem promeruerunt : Ponent thimiama in furore tuo 
 et holocaustum super altare tuo, quibus dictis commendatur eorum sacerdocium. Conclusio 
 vero totius benedictionis hec est : Benedic, Domine, fortitudini eius et opera manuum eius 
 suscipe. Percute (125) dorsa inimicorum eius et qui oderunt eum non consurgant. 4 Pulchre 
 cum de sacerdotio 5 loquens pluraliter praemississet de istis filiis Levi "ponent thimiama in 
 furore tuo" de principatu locuturus ad singularem numerum transiens ait " Benedic Domine 
 fortitudini eius,'' etc. Inter ceteros enim Christi apostolos unus constitutus est princeps 
 apostolorum cui et dictum est : Confirma fratres tuos* Nonne magna et benedicta est fortitudo 
 principatus illius, cxiiporte inferi non poterunt prevalereV' Item quod dicitur : Percute dorsa 
 inimicorum eius et qui oderunt eum non consurgant, s nostris in diebus etiam ad literam factum 
 cernimus, cum populus Romanus principatui apostolico inimicus nuper cesus est non in facie 
 tamquam strenue pugnans, sed in dorso tamquam ignaviter fugiens ante faciem principatus 
 apostolici et imperatoris ab illo coronati. 9 
 
 XXXII. DE PRINCIPATU LEGITIME 0RDINAT0 
 
 Sic in principatu legitime ordinato nostris in diebus exurgat Dens et dissipentur inimici 
 eius et fugiant qui oderunt eum a facie eius. 1 " Gaudemus plane gaudendumque censemus 
 populo Christiano sic humiliato populo Romano, quia populus urbis magis inde superbiens quod 
 dicatur populus Romanus, quam inde gaudere volens ut dicatur populus Christianus, contra 
 leges divinas erigit potestates inordinatas, 11 quibus qui resistunt Dei ordinationi utique non 
 resistunt, quoniain que a Deo sunt ordinate/, sunt. 1 '- Memini me (126) cum fuissem in urbe, 13 
 contra quendam Amoldinum " valenter literatum in palatio disputasse, et ipsa disputatio, 
 monente papa Eugenio, reducta in scriptum pluribus auctoritatibus aggregatis, posita est in 
 scrinio ipsius, ubi cum adhuc possit inveniri, non opus est iam scripta iterum scribi. 
 
 XXXIII. DE REGALIBUS COLLATIS 
 
 Attamen adhuc eadem scribere mihi quidem non pigrum, lb sicubi videretur necessarium, 
 sicut illud quod ibidem copiose traetatuin est et nunc succincte perstringendum videtur de 
 regalibus ecclesie collatis. De his enim cum alii contendant ecclesiis eadem occasione talium 
 periclitantibus auferenda, alii vero ea semel ecclesiis collata in usus earum tenenda, 16 posterior 
 magis placet senteutia quia, sic ipsa regalia bona ecclesiasticis interserta sunt, ut vix ab invicem 
 discerni valeant. Hue accedit, quod que Deus coniunxit homo separare non debet. 17 Coniunxit 
 
 1 Matt. 16 : 13 £f. ; Mark 8 : 27 ft. ; Luke 9 : 18 ff . wrote this letter, in Bene veil to, because he was not allowed 
 
 2 Matt. 19 : 21 ; Mark 10 : 21 ; Luke 18 : 22. to enter Rome. 
 
 3 Luke 14: 33. «Deut. 33:8fl. 1 2 Rom. 13:2. 
 
 5 MS. sacerdotium. 6 Libelli. suos. Luke 22 : 32. I3 c f- Com - to Ps - 5 *< Mi ene, Pat. Lot., Vol. CXCIU, col. 
 
 1672. Com. Ps. 64 Migne, Vol. CXCIV, col. 19. Com. Ps. 65 
 Migne, CSCTV, col. 139. 
 
 "A follower of Arnold of Brescia. Probably the same 
 Frederick I. on the day fit his coronation by Adrian IV., ,. ,. , . , „ , , ,. . , . ^, . x> ^. 
 
 , _ * _ _ . „ ., . . „ ,' disputation which Gerhoh mentions in his Com. to Ps. 64. 
 
 June 18, lloo; cf. Otto of b keisixg, Gesta Fridertci, Book 
 H, par. 33. 15 Phil. 3:1. 
 
 io Ps. 67:2. 16 Gerhoh had, in his earliest writings, urged that the 
 
 7Matt. 16:18. SDeut. 33:11. 
 
 9 A reference to the battle between the Romans and 
 
 n in 1143 the lower nobility in Rome rebelled against the 
 
 churches be deprived of the regalia, in order to end the 
 
 Pope, expelled him from the city and established a govern- struggle about investiture. 
 ment of their own. Adrian IV. was, at the time Gerhoh IT Matt. 19:6. 
 
 225 
 
76 Studies Conceening Adrian IV. 
 
 ve.ro ea Deus Christus in sua propria persona indutus apud Herodem primo veste alba,' que 
 sacerdotalis est, deinde apud Pilatum - veste purpurea, que regalis est, ut ostenderet, se non 
 solum ex pontificali, sed etiam ex imperiali dignitate super omnes principatus totius orbis 
 dominaturum. Dicis itaque mini: Si non debent ecclesiis auferri ipsa regalia, ex quibus 
 episcopi habentes ea debent Cesari que Cesaris sunt, sicut ex ecclesiasticis facultatibus (127) 
 Deo que Dei sunt, 1 quomodo puniri poterunt episcopi vet abbates nolentes reddere Cesari que 
 Cesaris sunt, cum eadem auferri eis non poterunt, ne, sicut oblatio tedium in sanetuario fuit 
 clevota, sic oblatio eorum. a sanetuario flat sacrilega'i Respondeo plane mini placere, ut red- 
 dantur que simt Cesaris Cesari, et que Dei Deo, sed sub ea cautela, ut non vastetur ecclesia vel 
 nudetur saltern veste alba, si nimis ineaute abstrahitur ei purpura. Feeerunt hoc milites ill i 
 pagani, qui Christum spoliaverunt veste i utraque nudum crucifigendum, sed absit ut idipsum 
 faciant milites Christiani. Verumtarnen ut insolentia non creseat ultra modum contra imperium, 
 ex necessitate iusiivrandum, licet hoc ipsum sit a nialo, intei-ponitur, ut sibi fidem servent mutuo 
 pontifices et reges, 5 quemadmodum patriarcha fidelis Abraham contentione orta pro eadem 
 sopienda et in posterum cavenda iuravit regi Abimelec 6 et ille sibi seeus puteum iuramenti. 
 Ergo sicut illi sibi mutuo mraverunt, sic adhuc reges iurant iusticiam ecclesie, cum consecrantur 
 et coronantur, et episcopi quoque regalia tenentes regibus iurant fidelitatem salvo sui ordinis 
 officio. Si ergo fuerit violatum iurisiurandi sacramentum, violator, sit abbas aut episcopus, iure 
 utroque spoliatur honore coram suo iudice sacerdotali (128) scilicet et illo quern de regalibus 
 habet. Si enim periurus episcopus tenens eisiscopatum, spoliandus regalibus exponatur militi- 
 bus inde consequetur eonfusio magna, qua invalescente minuentur et vastabuntur ecclesiastica 
 bona, dum nimis ineaute abstrahentur ipsa regalia et ita scindetur pallium Samuelis, 7 quo scisso 
 scindetur et regnum et periclitatur 8 sacerdotium. Quod ita denium precaveri poterit, si epis- 
 copus nonnisi prius alba veste indutus purpuram suseipiat, 9 quam nee amittat, nisi et alba 
 propter infidelitatem carere debeat, ut videlicet peccatum persone in detrimentum non vertatur 
 ecclesie ; sicut iam alicubi factum scimus personis quibusdam inordinate purpuratis, antequam 
 veste alba prout oportuit induerentur, dum necdum spiritaliter post electionem examinati aut 
 consecrati, sunt regalibus amplificati et ita nimis confortati, ut postmodum non potuerunt 
 examinari, sed oporteret eos ad placitum regis et militum consecrari. Similiter personis quibus- 
 dam ante iudicium spiritale depurpuratis contigit ecclesiastica bona vastari, minui et scindi, 
 scisso consequenter et regno, sicut Samuelis pallio (129) scisso scissum est regnum a Saule 
 pallium sacerdo tale scindente. Enimvero arbitrantur quidam iuxta illud apostoli: Non prius 
 quod spirituale, sed quod animate est 10 animalia et temporalia, que a regibus habentur, primitus 
 electe persone conferenda et inde spiritualia spirituali" consecratione pcrcipienda, quod esset 
 primitus purpurea, deinde alba veste indui contra ordinationem ipsius Christi qui primitus alba, 
 deinde purpurea veste voluit in passione sua indui. Quibus humiliter suggerimus, ut apostoli 
 verba premissa dicta sciant non de novo, sed de veteri Adam, in quo non prius quod spirituale, 
 sed quod animale hoc prius erat. 
 
 XXXIV. OOLLATIO VETEEIS ADB AD NOVUM 
 
 Pormavit enim Dominus hominem de limo terre secundum id quod in homine animale seu 
 etiam corporale est, ac inde inspiravit in faciem eius spiraeulum viie, Yi quod spiraculum spir- 
 ituale est. Atque ideo episcopi secundum ipsum formati creduntur, qui prius in corporalibus, 
 
 1 Luke 23: 11. 2 John 19: 2. 3 Matt. 22:21. « Gen. 21 : 23 ff. ' Sam. 15:27 S. 
 
 •1 Cf. Matt. 27 : 35 ; Mark 15 : 24 ; John 19 : 23 f. 8 Libelli, pcriclitabitur. 
 
 5Gerhoh here refers to the oath which the emperor 9 Which would be contrary to the terms of the Concordat 
 
 took to the pope at the time of his coronation by the latter, D f Worms. 
 
 and to the oath which the pope took to the emperor, and . ,, T ., „. 
 
 i i.i. .. _,. i. ji i_. i. i . iU 10 Cor. 1d:46. n Libellt omits. 
 
 also to the oaths which the bishops took to the emperor 
 
 when invested by him with the regalia. 1- Gen. 2 : 7. 
 
 226 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 77 
 
 deinde in spiritalibus perficiuntur. Secundus vero Adam prius erat in spiritu ac deinde oepit 
 esse in corpore, quod cum ipse in spiritu et spiritus esset, propter nos accepit mortale sive 
 animale; ac proinde secundum ipsum fiunt episcopi, qui primo regulariter electi et spiritaliter 
 examinati atque consecrati postremo propter imminentem necessitatem super albam vestem 
 suscipiunt et purpuream, (130) ne hac repudiata periclitetur ecclesia ipsis commissa. Qua si 
 obrepente perfidia in regnum commissa iudicabuntur spoliandi, veste simul alba stmt privandi, 
 ne item periclitetur ecclesia cum sui honoris integritate illi auferenda et alteri committenda, ut 
 sola puniatur persona perfida, ecclesia permauente in integritate sua, quoniam, ut dictum est, 
 que Deus coniunxit non est bonum, ut homo separet. 1 
 
 XXXV. DE PURPURA REGIS VINCTA CANALIBUS 
 
 Sint ergo pariter in una persona vestis alba et purpurea, sed ita, ut sit purpura regis iuncta 
 canalibus, frequenter scilicet in illis canalibus tinguenda, quibus et purpura Christi regis intincta 
 dum regni sui omnia consilia et negotia secundum beneplacitum Dei patris ordmavit promo- 
 venda. Unde Pilato aliam sibi tincturam offerenti et ingerenti respondit: Regnum. meum non 
 est de hoc mundo." Ac si diceret: Non me regem nego, sed regnum meum non est de hoc 
 mundo, quia nee ego secundum beneplacitum huius mundi regnare dispono, neque per favorem 
 huius mundi regnum mihi collatum recognosco. Item, aliam tinturam offerebant ei fratres eius 
 dicentes: Transi hino et vade in ludeam ut et discipuli tui, videant opera tua que facts. 
 Nemo quippe in occulto quid facit et querit ipse in palam (132) 3 esse. Si hec facts, manifesto, 
 te ipsum mundo. Neque enim fratres eius credebant in eum. i Eece canale plenum sordibus 
 mundane glorie in quod iste rex glorie purpurarn suam nolebat intingere. Bespondens enim 
 dixit istis consiliariis indisciplinatis : Tempus meum nondum advenit, tempus autem vestrum 
 semper est paratum. Non potest mundus odisse vos,] me autem odit quia ego testimonium 
 perhibeo de Mo quia opera eius mala sunt. Vos ascendite ad diem hunc, ego autem non 
 ascendam quia tempus meum nondum advenit? Maluit autem iste rex glorie, mutuando 
 consilio de canalibus divine scripture ita regnare, ut haberet odium mundi quam laudes mundi 
 captando suam regalem purpuram sordidare, sicut nunc purpurain suam sordidant qui pro 
 ampliando numero militmn beneficia.nt vel potius inmaleficiant non solum que habent regalia, 
 sed insuper ecclesiastica bona, etiam decimas, usui solius pietatis divinitus mancipatas. Et 
 revera isti digni essent nudari non solum purpurarn sed etiam veste alba, illi precipue, qui ad 
 augendum non solum numerum militie, sed etiam cumulum malitie, portionem sacerdotum in 
 decimis eatenus in usu ecclesiastico qualitercumque habitis diminuimt atque in laicas abusiones 
 transferunt, sacrum de sacro auferentes atque in hoc sacrilegium grande committentes. 
 
 XXXVI. DE DECIMIS 
 
 Cum enim secundum canones exceptis ecclesiis vite communis, ubi asserente (133) sancto 
 Gregorio nulla deeirnarcim sive oblationum facienda est portio, sicut idem beatus instruit Augus- 
 timun Anglonun archiepiscopum, quatuor fieri debeant portiones de decimis et oblationil>us ex 
 omnibus his partibus, vix ilia sola remansit ecclesie que ad clericos pertinere videbatur ceteris 
 decimarum partibus in laicorum beneficia immo maleficia profligatis. Verum qiua cleric! per 
 divites ecclesias constituti videbantur episcopis alicubi superhahundare, cathedrales canonici 
 clericos ipsos plebales vel ecclesias eorum susceperunt ab episcopis in beneficium, et ipsi a Deo 
 comminuenint portionem sacerdotum, trahentes pene omnia in suas abusiones, ut non possunt 
 inveniri clerici, qui talibus portiunculis vellent esse contenti nisi vilissimi concubinarii conduc- 
 ticii, usurarii, aleatores, venatores, negotiatores, girovagi absolute ordinati, sacerdotum filii 7 
 
 'Matt. 19:6. 2 John 18:36. 8 Libelli, beneficium. 
 
 3 Through carelessness the number 131 was omitted. 7 No ,j oa t,t very unpalatable to Adrian IV. since he was 
 
 * John 7 : 3 ff . 5 John 7 : 6 ff. the son of a priest. 
 
 227 
 
78 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 ceterique in hunc modiun sacris officiis indigni. Cui malo volens remediari beate memorie 
 Papa Eugenius in Remensi concilio statuit ut unaqueque ecclesia, cui facultas suppetit, pro- 
 prium habeat sacerdotem, cui de bonis ecclesie tantum prebeatur beneflcii uncle convenienter 
 valeat sustentari. 1 Occasione huius capituli subtrahuntur multa sacerdoti plebeni regenti et 
 exindo inbeneficiantur laici, quasi non sufficiat magnitude) illius antiqui sacrilegii, quo prefer 
 clericorum partes peue (131) omnia laici oeeupaverunt, nisi accedat illis et portio clericorum de 
 novo noviter invento sacrilegio. Interduin quoque suis capellanis talia beneficia decimarum 
 prestant, et hoc esset utcumque tolerabile, nisi quod decime semel ab ecclesiis abalienate ac sub 
 nomine beneficiorum prestite, licet cathedralibus clericis vel capellanis, illis decedentibus facile 
 succedunt laici in locum talis beneficii, quod et iam factum scimus. 
 
 XXXVII. DE PARASCEVE 
 
 Dnde malum simile futurum timentes, hoc ipsum nunc sollicitudini apostolice suggerimus 
 ut in ista parasceve 2 qua altaria sic penitus nudantur ut nee panniculus hucusque illis relictus 
 relinquatur, saltern una hora evigilet Petrus, lamentationibus Ieremiae plorantis exeitatus et 
 mulierum sedentium ad munumentum Iesu planctu attonitus, dum quasi extinctis iii ecclesia 
 Dei luminaribus expectatur a fidelibus divina contra tantas desolationes consolatio in qua post 
 lamentationes Ieremie sonet illud canticum in auribus ecclesie realiter quod in pascali vigilia 
 profertur vocaliter archidiacono dicente: 
 
 XXXVIII. DE VIGILIA PASOE 
 
 Exultet iam angelica turba celorum et pro tanti regis victoria tuba insonet salutaris. 
 Gaudeat tellus tantis irradiata fulgoribus eterni regis splendore illustrata totius orbis se 
 sentiat amisisse caliginem. Letetur et mater ecclesia tanti luminis (135) adornata fulgoribus. 3 
 
 Nudatis in parasceve altaribus et extinctis noctu luminaribus non canticum leticie sed 
 planctus tristicie auditur in ecclesia sed in candeia quain Zosimus 4 Papa sacrari statuit quasi 
 columpna ignis pariterque accensis aliis luminaribus pascali lesto congruentibus atque ornatu 
 sollempni vestitis altaribus quasi pro summi regis victoria tuba intonat salutaris amicos ipsius 
 victoris letificans et hostes altarium eius nudatores et luminum suorum extinctores conturbans. 
 Quis sett si convertatur et ignoscat Deus peccatis* nostris quibus irain meruimus et relinquat 
 post se. benedictionem qua super ecclesiam Dei thesaurizarita et manifestata vel in pascali vigilia 
 universali resurrectione proxima exultet iam angelica turba celorum exultent divina misteria 
 dum pro Christi regis eterni victoria tuba intonet salutaris. Quenam hec tuba est nisi tuba 
 novissima cuius in Apocalipsi clangor praeauditus est in hunc modum : factum est regnum 
 huius mundi Domini nostri et Christi eius et regnabit in secula seculorum.* In principio nove 
 gratie secrete unus angelus non quasi tuba grandisona sed tamquam sibilus aure lenis auribus 
 virginis insonuit, dicens : Ecce concipies et paries filium et dabit illi Dominus Deus seclem 
 David patris eius et regnabit in domo, Iacob, in eternum (136) et regni eius non erit finis. 1 
 At in novissima tuba facte sunt voces magne in celo dicentes : Factum est regnum huius mundi 
 Domini nostri et Christi eius et regnabit in secula seculorum. Et XXIIII seniores qui in 
 conspectu Dei sedent in sedibus suis ceciderunt in fades suas et adoraverunt Deum dicentes: 
 Gh'atias agimus tibi Domine Deus omnipotens qui es et qui eras qui accepisti cirtutem tuam 
 magnam et regnasti et irate sunt gentes et advenit tua ira et tempus mortuorum iudicari et 
 
 ] The council at Rheims, 1148, can. 10; Mansi XXI, col. 3 This is sung in the service of blessing the candles on 
 
 716. the Saturday of Holy Week. The full text is to be found 
 
 - On Good Friday, after the mass, it is the'eustom to in the missal. It is popularly attributed to St. Augustine, 
 
 strip all the altars in all the churches of their vestments but on what ground I do not know, 
 and decorations. This is done as a symbol of sorrow, and i Zosimus 417-18. 
 
 the altars remain thus completely denuded tmtil the next 
 day when they are again decorated and put in order for 
 
 5 Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9. 
 
 service. «Rev. 11:15. 'Luke 1:31 a. 
 
 228 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 79 
 
 reddere mercedem tuis servis prophetis et timentibus nomen tuumpusillis et magnis, et exter- 
 minandi eos qui eorruperunt terrain.' Quod regnurn huius mundi ad gloriam Christi regnantis 
 in donio Iacob sit omnino translatum vero Ioseph super currum Pharaonis exaltato quodque 
 inde irate sint gentes iuaniter super hoc frementes, 2 non indiget expositionem, ipsa rerum 
 evidentia demonstrante verurn Ioseph iu tota terra Egypti dominanteru et regnantem in doino 
 Iacob. Dominus quippe generaliter omnium, specialiter est rex bonorum et fidelium quibus et 
 reddet mercedem, sibi digne ministrantes honorificando, et exterininando eos qui eorruperunt 
 terrain, corrupti videlicet et abhominales facti in studiis suis. Inter omnes autem et super 
 ornnes qui eorruperunt terrain notabilis et culpabilis ille magis invenitur de quo in Esaia legitur : 
 In terra sanctorum inique gessit (137) et non videbit gloriam Domini. 3 Cum enini dicat 
 sanctus lob : Terra data est in manus inpiorum,* quod exponente Gregorio, de corpore Christi 
 ac deinde quoque de sanctorum corporibus intelligi potest, qui corpus Christi de quo scriptum 
 est : Non dabis sanctum, tuum m'dere corruptionem^ quantum in ipsis est corrumpuiit rursum 
 cracifigentes et ostentui habentes rei facti corporis et sanguinis'' eius indigne sacramentis eius 
 participando et sanguinem Testamenti Novi conculcando, ipsi merito exterminaudi sunt, id est, 
 excommunicandi, vel nunc, si eorum praevaricatio manifesta est, vel in divino iudicio, quando, 
 in finem canente hac septima et novissima tuba, 7 non erit qvu se abseondat a elangore eius. 
 Cum autem nunc a pluribus gratie Dei contumelia fiat et ipsa in luxuriam seu maliciam trans- 
 feratur quia hoc sacrilegium publice commissum latere non potest, cum facta eoruni sint mani- 
 festa praecedentia ad indicium, iure a iudicibus ecclesie forent exterminaudi, si non iudices ipsi 
 essent actores vel auctores tanti sacrilegii. Actores enim sunt cum ipsi hoc faciant, auctores 
 cum suos clerieos ad idem iuvant, praestando illis ecclesiastica beneficia que rursum ipsi clerici 
 praestant militibus aut expendunt in luxuriis et inpudiciis, episcopis eorum hoc scientibus, 
 neque enim in occulto fiunt ista, et minime prohibentibus, immo eos qui (138) talia inprobant 
 odientibus et persequentibus. Hue accedit quod pro scuto sue defensionis usurpant sibi 
 praenotatum capitiUum Kemensis concilii arbitrantes hoc sibi permissum, dummodo sacerdos 
 ecclesie ad placitum eorum, non secundum diffinitiones canonum, accipiat, unde, sicut illic dictum 
 est, convenienter sustentari valeat, ut quod illi superest prout volunt expendant vel militibus 
 infeodando vel clericis cathedralibus prestando, qui ipsis non prohibentibus eadem prestant 
 militibus vel expendant in suis mulieribus. 
 
 XXXIX. DE ABHOMINATIONE DESOLATIONIS 
 
 Atque ita sive per episcopos sive per clerieos inbeneficiantes, dum semel in manus laicorum 
 venerint res ecclesie, ille quoque de quibus actenus ministri altaris qualescumque sustentaban- 
 tur et altaria vestiebantur, ecclesie ornabantur, post antiquam desolationem nostris in diebus 
 augmentata desolatione potest cognosci abhominatio desolationis in quolibet loco sanclo s suis 
 pertinentiis omnino spoliato et denudato atque in laicas abusiones alienatis rebus, que si minis- 
 tris altaris alicubi habundare viderentur, non militibus aut inpudicis mulieriljus, sed Christi 
 pauperibus aut cum Petro et Augustino militantibus aut cum Iohanne ac sancto Benedicto' 
 sic manentibus, ut de ipso Iohaune dictuin: Sic eum volo manere, 10 aut certe cum Lazaro 11 men- 
 dicantibus erat dandum quod superesset iuxta illud evangelicurn : Quod superest date et omnia 
 munda 12 erunt (139) vobis. n Certe ut multum condescendatur in ista causa, si episcopi vellent 
 suos cathedrales clerieos iuvari de superabundantia plebanorum sacerdotum, rectius et tolera 
 bilius ilia superabundantia plebanis detracta firmari poterat in commune stipendium fratribus 
 in congregatione viventibus a preposito distribuenda, prout cuique opus esset, quam quod 
 aliquo fratrum de multarum ecclesiarum beneficiis ditato et altero in sua paupertate neglecto 
 
 1 Eev. 11 : 15 : cf. Rev. 5. 2 Ps. 2 : 1. 9 St. Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine order of 
 
 3 Is. 26:10. 4 Job 9: 24. monks. 
 
 5 Ps. 15:10; Acts 2: 27, 13:35. 8 1 Cor. 11:27. 10 John 21:22. " Lake 16: 19 ff. 
 
 'Rev.ll:15. » Matt. 21:15. " Libelli, mundi. " Lute 11 : 41. 
 
 229 
 
80 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 alius quidem esurit, alius autem ebrius est, quod apostolus in Corinthiis inprobat. 1 dum habentes 
 confundunt eos qui non habent, ac proinde apostolo iudice sic illis convenientibus in unum iain 
 non est dominicam cenam manducare. Multo autem convenientius esset, ut ipsi plebani reten- 
 tantes omnia, que secundum eanones ad se pertinent, cogerentur de sibi conditis rebus recte 
 agere, sufBcientes ministros canoniee sibi aggregates una secum fraterne sustentando. Et hoc 
 fortasse intendit papa Eugenius decernens, tantum sacerdoti relinquendum, unde convenienter 
 sustentari valeat. J Hie dixit ' convenienter,' sed nunc agitur valde inconvenienter, dum et sacer- 
 dos ultra modum pariterque sibi commissa ecclesia depauperatur, et id quod ei detrahitur eccle- 
 sii? alienatur et mundo inmundo, qui in maligno positus est, 3 confertur, ut fiat (MO) supra modum 
 nuda ecclesia, non habens vel panniculos hucusque sibi relictos ad vereennda saltern sua tegenda. 
 Neque vera nos hec dicendo favemus ipsorum plebanorum irreligiositati, sed vollemus peccata 
 personarum non verti in detrimentum ecclesiaram immo vellemus ipsas personas emendari vel 
 mutari, manente omnimodis ecclesiarum substantia in usum ecclesiastico vel ipsorimi plebanorurn 
 vel aliorum pauperum vel certe saltern ipsius episcopi procurantis eeclesias, monasteria, xeno- 
 dochia, 4 pauperesque alios, ut ipsis distribuerentur per eum, prout cuique opus esset.* 
 
 XL. DE VESTIJ1ENTO MIXTO SANGUINE 
 
 Nam de militia, quam exinde augent episcopi vel eorum clerici ultra modum ditati, quid 
 dicam? Num quidnam regalis eorum pompa censenda est esse purpura regis iuncta canalibus ? 6 
 Hoc fortasse ipsi ptitant, sed verbis estimatur esse vestimentum mixtum sanguine quod iudi- 
 cante propheta erit in combustionem quia omnis violenta praedatio cum tumutto et vestimentum 
 mixtum sanguine erit in combustionem 1 et cibus ignis, 6 eo quod non facile potest emundari a 
 mixtura sanguinis. Huiusmodi vestis maxime ubi sit quod dictum est in Apocalipsi ut qui in 
 sordibus est sordescat adhuc et qui nocet noceat adhuc? Etenim si is qui in sordibus est vere 
 penitens nollet ultra sordescere et qui nocet amplius nocere caveret, vestimentum licet mixtum 
 sanguine cibus ignis (111) minime fieret, sed iuxta doctrinam prophete querentibus iudicium, 
 subvenientibus oppresso, defendentibus viduam, quiescentibus agere perverse, diseentibus bene- 
 facere, auferentibus malum cogitationum suarum ab oculis Domini, si essent peccata eorum id 
 coccinum qui color est rubeus sanguineus (/nasi nix dealbarentur} Hoc autem sacrilegiis 
 antiquis in decimarum alienatione commissis adicientes nova sacrilegia, sicut longe sunt quidam 
 eorum a vera penitentia, sic longe sunt a vera indulgentia. Quidam tamen per gratiam Dei, 
 vexatione auditui eorum dante intellectum, discunt et sentiunt, verum esse quod propheta dicit: 11 
 Multiplicasti gentes et non ■magnifieasti leticiam, 12 quia, multiplicata illis militum copia nume- 
 rosa, incipit ipsa militia simul cum malitia sua esse onerosa. Et tamen tantus est ardor insanie 
 qua res ecclesie student, alienare ut quidam licet formidantes infeodare decimas, tamen non 
 formident aliis modis illaqueare illas scilicet vel impignoraudo, vel sic, nescio quibus artificiis, 
 tolerando, ut laici eas possideant, quoadusque ab ecclesiis alienate in laicas abusiones transeant. 
 
 Audivi nuper de quodam episcopo, 13 cuius nomen ad presens taceo, quod predia ecclesie 
 sibi commisse laicis infeodavit, super quibis non infeodandis anathema promulgatum fuit (142) 
 me presente a legato sedis apostolice cardinali Octaviano," tribus episcopis, et multis viris reli- 
 giosis illi cooperantibus et sermonem huius anathematis eonfirniantibus extinctis candelis in 
 
 1 1 Cor. 11 : 20 B. « From Geehoh's Com. to Ps. CXXXIII it is apparent 
 
 2 The Council at Rheims, 1148, can. 10; Mansi, Vol. that he hero refers to Conrad, bishop of Augsburg. 
 
 XXI, col. 716. "Octavianfirstappcarsinapapaldocumentascai'dinal 
 
 3 1 John 5:19. *MS., Xenocliia. deacon of St. Nicolaus in Carcere Tulliano, 1138, April 9. 
 
 r ..., r »o peine In 1153, March 3! I, he appears as cardinal presbyter of St. 
 
 ■>Acts4:35. f ' Song of Sol. 7 : 5. ... ' .. * ' 
 
 Cecilia. In papal politics he was the leader or the laction 
 ■< Libelli omits " quia omnis .... in combustionem." iu tho co i leg0 of car di na ls which favored the German em- 
 
 s Isa. 9:5. 8 Rev. 22:11. peror. On the death of Adrian IV., 1159, he contested the 
 
 10 Isa. 1 : 16-18. n Libelli, dixit. electionof Alexander III., receiving the votes of his party. 
 
 nisa. 9:3. 
 
 He is reckoned as au auti-pope and known as Victor IV. 
 
 230 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 81 
 
 signum videlicet, quod esset extinguendus episcopus, qui contra illud anathema faciens laicis 
 prestaret predia ecclesiastieis usibus a suo predecessore collata, etiam ea que tunc episcopus 
 habuit ad mensaru suam. Et ecce, ut vulgo dicitur et rei evidentia cornprobatur, ilia predia 
 ecclesiastica usui ecclesie subtracta et laicis infeodata sunt. 
 
 Mundi Roma caput si non ulciscitur illud, 
 
 Que caput orbis erat causa fit ut 1 pereat, 2 
 ait quidam, versiflcando propter improbandum quoddam similiter nefandmn nefas. Nos vero, 
 his malis crebrescentibus, non versiflcando, sed orando, pulsamus ad ostium gracie divine, ut 
 Petrus inter hec dormiens a Domine excitetur, quatinus per ilium bene vigilantem sacrilegiis 
 episeoporum simulque clericorum cathedraliuin de rebus ecclesie milites sibi multiplicantium 
 racionabiliter obvietur, ita ut contenti sint episcopi de solis regalibus antiquitus infeodatos 
 milites et principes conservare in defensionem ecclesie qualeincumque desinantque novos de 
 novis beneficiis multiplicare, maxiinede decimis ac ceteris oblationibus ecclesiastico usui collatis, 
 ut fiat secundum verbum Christ! dicentis : Reddite que sunt (143) Cesaris Cesari, et que sunt 
 Dei Deo, 3 dum et Christo servitur de decimis et liberis oblationibus fidelium, et regi sive imper- 
 atori de regalibus et injaerialibus obsequium persolvitur in consiliis bonis et eompetentibus 
 auxiliis ecclesie simul et regno utilibus atque ante omnia honori et timori divino eompetentibus. 
 Petrus enim apostolus dicturus : Regem honor i fie ate, premisit : Deum timete:* ut iu omnibus, 
 quibus regem honorificamus vel honorificandum predicamus, t imorem Dei pre oculis habeamus? 
 Quanto magis in ceteris principibus et laicis honorificandis et ditandis episcopi ceterique spirit - 
 ales viri, quibus commissa sunt victualia paupenim, pre oculis habere debent illud iudicium 
 tremendum, quo impios arguet Dominus pro mansuetis terre!' Notandum saue quod pro 
 mansuetis celi qui sunt sancti angeli non arguentur inpii sed pro mansuetis terre dicente 
 iudice : Esurivi et non dedistis mihi manducare, sitivi et non dedistis mihi bibere (etc., usque), 
 quandiu non fecistis uni de m inimis meis nee mihi fecistis. 1 Isti minimi Christi sunt mansueti 
 terre quibus cum subtrahuntur debita stipendia ira divina irritatur super inpios maxime inde 
 inexcusabiles quod episeoporum seu clericorum legem Dei scientium nomine simul et offlciis 
 honorificantux et tamen contraria suo nomine suoque honori scienter et sine respectu (144) divini 
 timoris operantur. Verum de his plura loqui ad presens omittimus et tibi, pater Adriane, qui 
 regimen tenes in domo Iacob, talia multa his similia per te consideranda relinquimus atque, ut 
 id competentius possis, libellum "De Consideratione" ab abbate Claravallense predecessori 
 tuo sancte recordationis Eugenio papae dictatum sic legens considerare curato, quasi optima 
 congruentem sancto apostolatui tuo. Nam cum tu sicut ille homo es sub potestate divina con- 
 stitutus et regularibus disciplinis exercitatus habens sub te pontfices. Et hoc est miserabile, 
 quod dicis huic : "Vade"et non vadit, et alteri : "Veni" 8 et non venit. Si tamen tu illud 
 dicis, quod antecessores tui dixerunt Innocentius et Eugenius, quibus emittentibus precepta 
 saluberrima in suis conciliis nondum est obedientia exhibita, Deo fortasse ordinante ut quod illi 
 seminaverimt tu meteres et in labores eorum tu introires. . In hoc enim verbum verum 9 est, quia 
 alius est qui seminat, alius qui metet.' 
 
 XLI. DE INADKIBDS THEHEBINTO SUFFODIENDIS 
 
 Insuper tibi regimen tenenti, sicut dictum est, in domo Iacob, complaceat exemplum 
 patriarche Iacob qui portatas ad se inaures filiorum et filiarum ad se pertinentiuin, infodit eas 
 subter therebintmn " profecto significans hoc facto eos qui a veritate auditum avertentes ad fabu- 
 
 ■MS., et. 3 Matt. 22:21. «1 Pet. 2:17. 
 
 2 The poem from which this couplet is quoted was 5 Rom. 3:18- Ps. 13:3. 6 Ps. 75:10; Job 24: 4. 
 
 edited by Wattenbach, Anzdger fiir Kunde der deutscken ... u „. , off Rlu - ,, Q 
 
 tt i xt i x-\. ,. nm . <rt , mi i • e i i ' Matt. -j : 4. II. ° Matt, o : y. 
 
 Vorzeit, Vol. XX (1S73), p. 101. These lines are found also 
 
 in a poem published in the A r . Archiv, Vol. VIII, p. 191. *Libelli, vestrum. l»Jn. 4 : 37 f . 
 
 Cf. also N. Archiv, Vol. XIV, p. 418. " Gen. 35 : 4. 
 
 231 
 
82 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 las auteni conversi eo acervant sibi magistros prurientes auribus (145) humiliandos esse sub 
 misteriura crucis doininice, ut noverint illuru sapientiorem qui nichil se scire fatebatur nisi 
 Christum Iesum et hunc crucifixum 1 quam coacervatos illos magistros de quorum doctrina non 
 fulget ecclesia sed fumant scolae plures in Francia et aliis terris per maxime a duabus caudis 
 ticionum fumigautium, videlicet, Petri Abaiolardi et episcopi Gilliberti. 
 
 XLII. NOVITATES IN DOCTRINA FILII DEI 
 
 Quorum discipuli eorum dictis et scriptis inbuti hominem verbo Dei unitum negant esse 
 filiuin Dei Deum dicendum nisi accidentali, ut aiunt, connexione. Item negant divinitatem 
 verbi incaruatam. Dicunt persouas divinas et earum proprietates extra substantiam Dei 
 considerandas. Dicunt ipsas proprietates personis forinsecus affixas, unde nee ipsas nee earum 
 unitates dicunt inesse sed adesse divinitati, ipsasque personas etsi divinitate esse vel divinitatem 
 appellari non tamen divinitatem esse fatentur, sed et ipsam divinitatem qua Deum esse 
 affirmant esse Deum negant, eritque secundum eos Deus iam non perfecte simplex si alio est 
 quod est, et aliud ipse est et sic inveniretur aliquid Deo melius hoc scilicet quod conferret ei ut 
 esset Deus. Dicunt in Deo quattuor unitates inter se distinctas, unam unius usye, tres trium 
 proprietatimi ut secundum eorum sensum intelligatur in quattuor unitatibus quaternitas non 
 trinitas. Quoniam, inquiunt, paternitas et filiatio (1-46) et connexio diversa sunt oportet unitates 
 quoque que illis assimt a se invicem esse diversas. Item ait episcopus Gillibertus: Unitates 
 que assimt. paternitati et filiationi et counexioni, quibus sunt tria non modo hec praedicata, verum 
 etiam ilia de quibus praedicantur, idem pater et filius et spiritus sunt nequaquam potuerunt esse 
 substantie. Item dicunt humanam in Christo naturam summa et inmensa Dei gloria non 
 glorificatam. Item, glosantes epistolam ad Philippenses, dicunt nomen quod est super omne 
 nomen non esse datum homini assumpto, ita ut sit Deus nominandus, nisi forte, ut aiunt, per 
 adoptionem, in qua significatione hoc nomen Deus non est super omne nomen. Dicunt soli 
 verbo tunc illud nomen esse datum, curn post resurrectionem et ascensionem assumpti hominis 
 fuit manifestatum id quod ipsi verbo assumenti fuit, unacum patre naturale nomen et eternum. 
 Cuius nominis significatum asserunt ab homine assumpto sic alienum, sicut a corpore intelli- 
 gentia, et a mente color cmn tamen propter persone unitatem dicatur vere coloratus intelligere 
 et intelligens coloratus esse. Dicunt in Christo neque divinitatem incaruatam neque 
 humanitatem deificatam. Item, astruere conantur, hominem esse assumptum in Dei filio, sive 
 in Deo, non in Dei filiuin sive in Deum, tali versutia verborum negantes hominem assumptum 
 filium (147) Dei esse sive Deum proprie nominandum, utpote sicut estimant sic assurnptum, ut 
 sit in Deo quasi unus ex prophetis vel paulo amplius honorandus, non tamquam Deus 
 altissimus adorandus cum de filio Dei etiam secundum quod factus est ei ex semine David, 
 secundem carnem constet apostoli testimonium dicentis, tanto melior angelis effectus quanto 
 differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit. Item adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. In sola quippe 
 assumpta natura melior angelis ipse factor effectus et excelsior celis factus est, in qua et 
 promissiones habuit patris dicentis: Ego ero illi in pair em, et ipse erit mihi in filium? Neque 
 enim hoc verbo assumenti sed homini assumendo fuit prornissum, quia nomen super omne 
 nomen, scilicet, Deus quod verbum eternaliter habuit, homini assumendo ipsa sui in Deum Dei 
 filium assumptione conferendum fuit ex testimonio prophetarum et mmc esse collatum constat 
 ex testimonio apostolorum. Item dicunt patris et filii et spiritus sancti divinitatem esse 
 singularem, quo dicto favent Sabellio, et tres personas tres habere unitates, quo dicto favent 
 Arrio; in neutro assentientes catholice fidei trinitatem in imitate non in singularitate veneranti 
 contra Sabellimn et trium non tres unitates sed unam unitatem asserenti adversus Arrium. 
 Cum enim (148) filius dicat ego et pater unum siunus per " imum " Arrius, per " sumus " conf u- 
 tatur Sabellius. Per utrumque instruitur catholicus ut nee singularitatem admittat ubi audit 
 
 11 Cor. 2:2. 2 1 Chron. 22 : 10. Heb. 1:5. 
 
 232 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 83 
 
 " sumus " uec plures imitates ubi audit " unum" sed credat per "sumus " verbum substantivum 
 substantias exprimi personas, per " unum " prohiberi ne substantias plures intelligamus nos 
 qui trinitatem in unitate et unitatem in trinitate venerandam praedicamus. 
 
 Item, de eternitate Dei Gillibertus in Boetium dicit inter cetera: Cum semper esse dicitur 
 Deus quod usia semper eternitate intelligitur eternitatis cum temporibus hoc sensu facta colla- 
 tio. Idem, sicut est una et singularis et individua et simples et solitaria essentia qua eternus 
 ipse fuit, est, erit Deus, ita est una et singularis et individua et simplex et solitaria mora qua 
 vocatur eternitas qua Deus ipse fuit, est et erit eternus. Ipse, namque et est et Deus et est eternus, 
 sed est et est Deus essentia, est vero eternus mora. Non sic ortodoxi distingunt inter Dei essentiam 
 et eius eternitatem sicut iste novus et recens recentis Dei repertor et assertor. Uncle ad huius 
 recentis Dei, repulsam libenter audimus frequentari canticum istud in domo Iacob. Israel, si me 
 audieris non erit in te deus recens neque adorabis deum alienum. 1 Dominus enim qui colitur 
 in domo Iacob non ita est compositus ut aliud sit ipse, aliud quod est in ipso sed quod in ipso est 
 hoc ipse est. Verbi gratia, (119) bonitas, iusticia, eternitas in ipso est et ipse est ipsa bonitas, iusticia, 
 eternitas, qua bonus et eternus est. Unde Hylarius in libro VIII : 2 " Deus, inquid, inmense virtutis 
 vivens potestas, que nusquam non assit, nee desit usquam, se omnem per sua edocet, et sua non 
 aliud quam se esse significat; ut ubi sua insint ipse esse intelligatur." Non aliud autem sunt 
 quam quod est ipse que sua sunt. Idem, in eodem: 3 "Non humano modo ex compositis est Deus, 
 ut in eo aliud sit quod ab eo habetur, et aliud sit ipse qui habet; sed totum, quod est, vita est." 
 Secundum hec dicta Hilarii sic Deus habet sapientiam, iusticiam eternitatem ut sit quod habet, 
 sapientia videlicet, iusticia, eternitas, et cetera, in hunc modiun que in Deo non sunt multa sed 
 unum. Et quidem hie sensus patet in sapientia et iusticia seu bonitate ac ceteris, quarurn nomina 
 in homine qualitativa, in Deo intelliguntur substantiva, quoniam in summa natura nihil differt 
 sive dicatur iusta sive iusticia, sive dicatur bona sive bonitas, idemque in ceteris intelligitur, que 
 Deo sunt naturalia et essentialia, immo cum dicantur multa una sunt essentia. Eternitas autem 
 sic intellecta sicut in praemissa glosa descripta est ab essentia Dei tarn videtur aliena cum sit 
 mora quedam sempiterna sicut ab hominis essentia mora etatis eius aliena est. Non sic intel- 
 lexerunt eternitatem (150) in Deo patres antiqui veri Dei cultores et praedicatores in domo Iacob. 
 Audi quid dicat Augustinus de trinitate: "Cum aliquis homo dicatur corpus et rationalis 
 homo non uno modo vel una consider at ione hec tria dicuntur. Secundum aliud enim corpus 
 et secundum aliud rationale est et singulum horum non est totum quod homo. Ilia vero 
 summa essentia, summa vita, summa iusticia, summa sapientia, summa magnitudo, summa 
 eternitas, et alia similiter quecumque, sunt in vocabulis multiplicia non plura significant, * sed 
 unum. Nota in his dictis eternitatem inter cetera essentialia nominata a beato Augustino. 
 Idem, in libro Conf essionum : "O eterna Veritas et vera caritas et cara eternitas, tu es Deus 
 meus." 5 Nequaquam iste sanctus eternitatem Deum suum diceret si earn divinam substantiam 
 non esse intelliget. Gregorius in V. libro moralium: 6 " Quisquis iam aliquid de contempla- 
 cione eternitatis apprehenderit hancper coeterna^m] 1 eius speciem conspicit." Item: 8 " Nimi- 
 rum mens cum in contemplationis sublimitate suspenditur, quidquid perfecte conspicere praeva- 
 let, Deus non est; cum vero subtile aliquid conspicit, hoc est quod de incompreliensibili sub- 
 stantia eternitatis audit." Secundum hec dicta patruin substantiam eternitatis veneremur in 
 Deo nostro abdicantes moram eternitatis que falso attribuitur Deo quam sicut auctor ait, nostrum 
 nunc quasi currens facit sempiternitatem eius ab initio (152) 9 temporis usque protractionis ad 
 finem mora extenditur. Divinurn nunc vero permanens neque movens sese atque consistens 
 eternitatem facit, ait Boetius, nos autem expressius dicimus quia tale nunc eternitas ipsa est qua 
 
 !MS. d. r. n. a. d. a.; Ps. 80:10. ^Gregorius I, Libri Moralium sive Exposiiio in librum 
 
 2 Book VIII, par. 24 ; Migne, Vol. X, col. 255. beati Job, Book V, par. 63. 
 
 3 Book Vin, par. 13 ; Migne, Vol. X, col. 269. ' MS., coeterna. 8 See note 6, par. 66. 
 <MS., signicant. 9 The number 151 was omitted by the one who affixed 
 'St. Augustine's Confessions, Bk. VII, 10 (16). numbers to the pages of the MS. 
 
 233 
 
84 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 et Deus eternus et que Deus eternus est. Cui eternitati omnino simplici qui moram attribuit 
 sensum Boetii non elucidat, sed obscurat, cum ille saue fidei homo scriptis Augustini, ut ipse 
 fatetur, eruditus eidem nusquara reperiatur contrarius. Patet vero in praemissis Augustini ver- 
 bis quern sensurn beatus ille habuerit et docuerit de divina etemitate, quam nullatenus distingit 
 ab ipsa divinitate, quoniain ut ipse afErmat in Deo summa essentia, summa vita, summa eterni- 
 tas, unurn sunt. Igitur cum de Deo dicitur: Semper est, de homine vero heri venit, non eterni- 
 tatis ad tempus, sed tocius ad partem collatio est, quoniam Deus qui in etemitate sua non habet 
 praeteritum seu futurum, sed tamen praesentialiter esse absque omnis morae protractione, ipse 
 idem in omni temporalitatis nostre praeterito fuit, praesenti est, futuro erit quod est ei semper 
 esse, si tamen, ut auctor ait, divinum illud tempus semper dici potest. De praedicamento 1 enim 
 quando tractans et hoc Deo vel homini forinsecus assignans nusquam nominat eternitatem ne 
 putes infinitatis cum re finem seu principium, seu etiam utrumque habente ullam esse colla- 
 tionem. Dicit autem sanctus Hilarius (153) in libra II: "Infinitas in eterno s^jec/es in imagine 
 nsus in munere." -' Si ergo eternus est pater, eterna etiam imago patris filius, eternum quoque 
 muBUS utrumque, spiritus sanctus, consequens est. ut trinus Deus omnino sit infinihis ac proinde 
 nulli rei temporalitatis ant localitatis terminis incluse conferendus utpote substantialiter eternus, 
 quemadmodum substantialiter est infinitus et inmensus. Nam quicquid ad se dicitur Deus ut 
 omnipotens, eternus, inmensus, infinitus, inmortalis, incomprehensibilis, ad essentiam eius per- 
 tinet qua unum est, quomodo relativa nomina signant proprietatum differentiam qua trinus est. 
 Undo auctor, facta est, inquit, trinitatis numerositas in eo quod est praedicatio relationis, servato 
 vero unitas in eo quod est indifferentia vel substantie vel operationis vel omnino eius que secun- 
 dum se dicitur praedicationis. Ita igitur substantia continet imitatem, relatio multiplicat trini- 
 tatem. Hec Boetio dicente praedicatio eternitatis de Deo patre, filio, ac spiritu sancto, cum 
 singulus eorum secundum se dicitur eternus, et tamen non tres est sed imus est, potius ad essen- 
 tiam qua unum sunt quam ad proprietatum differentiam qua tres sunt, referenda est, et ideo 
 Deum ilium recentem cui eternitas asseritur non esse substantialis recipere differimus donee 
 audiamus quid hide censeat successor Petri cui non caro et sanguis per argurnenta philosophica, 
 sed pater celestis occulta inspiratione (154) revelavit quid inter adversa vel diversa sentientes 
 approbet vel improbet. 
 
 XLIII. DE ACCIDENTALI CONNEXIONE 
 
 Item, cum proponitur homo est Deus, vel Deus est passus accidentalis est, iuquiunt, ista 
 connexio, eo quod praedicamentum non secundum causam redditur subiecto quia non tamen 
 Deus imde homo vel inde passus unde Deus quemadmodum cum dicitur corpus esse rationale 
 vel rationale corporeum accidentalis est connexio, quia videlicet praedicatum non proprie vel ex 
 causa convenit subiecto. Et nos quidem si de homine vel Deo agatur absolute sine respectu 
 alicuius persone, cum proponitur homo est Deus, vel Deus est passus, propositio indefinita 
 verum vel falsum significans, ad utrumlibet se habet et quodammodo accidentalis dici potest, 
 quia invenitur et homo Deus et homo non Deus. Item invenitur Deus passus, filius scilicet, et 
 Deus non passus, pater scilicet. Verum si definite Homo quern pater sanctificavit et misit in 
 mundum supponatur, et hie Deus esse asseratur tarn naturalis est ista connexio acsi proponas 
 de Petro quod sit homo vel de homine quod sit animal. Item si definite hunc Deum et Domi- 
 num glorie affinnes crucifixum, Dei filiuin scilicet, incarnatum, passum siib Pontio Pilato tarn 
 conveniens est connexio qua Deus passus asseritur, quam ilia qua Paulus dicitur mortuus, cum 
 nee in Paulo huma-(155)nitas, nee in Deo divinitas mortua sit, quando vel Paulus secundum 
 solum corpus, vel Deus item secundum solum corpus mortem subiit; que intelligitur corporis et 
 anime separatio, tarn in homine Deo quam in homine non Deo. Unde huiuscemodi connexiones 
 cum de Christo agitur aecidentales dicere licet, ut aiunt, magistraliter dici possit, novitas doc- 
 trine videtur, apostolica discretione utrurn ne sit profana unacum ceteris que nova nunc dicun- 
 
 i MS., praecamento. - Migxe. Vol. X. col. 51. 
 
 234 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 85 
 
 tur, ventilanda, et aut roboranda si bonum, aut cassanda, si male dicuntur. Quod ipsum de ipsis 
 quoque meis dictis censeo servandum quia ego neque adversarios meos neque me ipsum iudico. 
 Qui autem in celis iudicat me Dominus est, qui super terrain iudicat me Romanus pontifex est. 
 Et ego divino simul et apostolieo iudicio me meaque scripta seu dicta ita submitto, ut si aliud, 
 quod absit, evangelizavero praeter quod apostolicis documentis congruit, documentum meum 
 anathema sit. Sic etiam nova documenta glosis in apostolum et Boetium a magistro Gilliberto 
 inserta credimus ventilanda et suffodienda subter therebintum. Therebintus denique arbor 
 resinam generans preciosissimam, lignum cruris, quod virtutis est optime, signiiicat subter quam 
 inaures totiusdomus Iacob sepeliuntur, ut eorum nullum ultra vestigium (156) reperiatur. Inam'es 
 enim tunc in domo Iacob non solum femine, sed viri more orientalium populorum habebant, quod 
 mollis et effeniinati animi erat instrumentum. Significant autem inanes false doctrine faleras 
 eloquentia nitidas et fulgidas sed sensu veritatis vacuas. Quibus omnibus et quod stultum est 
 Dei invenitur sapientius 1 et quod infirmmn fortius. Nos enim, ait apostolus, praedicamus 
 Christum crucifixum, Iudeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stulticiam, ipsis autem vocatis, 
 Iudeis atque Grecis, Christum Dei virtutem, et Dei sapientiam. 2 Nos autem frustra sed pro re 
 necessarias divinitus suggestum est beato Iacob ut inaures totius domus sue therebinto suffoderet 
 quando interfecto a filiis suis filio Emor principis terre compulsus est a Sichem fugere in 
 Bethel. Nam antehac ipse timidus adoraverat Esau, et time interfecto Sichem, timuit se suosque 
 omnes interfici in ultionem principis interfecti et omnimn illius civitatis mascidorum. Sepultis 
 vero inauribus et diis alienis de domo sua eiectis terror Domini invasit omnes per circuitum 
 civitatis et non sunt ausi persequi recedentes. 3 Forsitan et in diebus nostris doctrinis variis et 
 peregrinis de medio ecclesie ablatis et danipnafis, hostibus ecclesie terror incucietur, et Romanus 
 (157) pontifex vel alter Iacob nunc fugiens eosdem hostes, maxime cives Romanos ipsis humili- 
 atis habitabit secure in Bethel, quod 4 interpretatur domus Dei. 5 Suffosis enim iam dictis inauri- 
 bus venit Iacob in Bethel, ipse et omnis populus cum eo, edificavitque ibi altare appellavitque 
 nomen loci illius Domus Dei. 
 
 XLIV. DE LEGISTIS 
 
 Possunt quoque haut absurde surdis ad legem Dei auribus et ad leges Iustiniani patulis ac 
 pruritu magno estuantibus inairres, quas amant quasque decenter in forensi conventu ostentant, 
 in domo Iacob denegari, ubi decentius iudicatur secundum legem Dei quam secundum legem 
 Iustiniani vel Theodosii, quorum tamen leges non inprobamus, nisi forte alicubi discordent a 
 divine legis constitutionibus, verurn in domo Iacob simplex narratio et sincerum iudicium secun- 
 dum consuetudines antiquorum pontificum Romanorum perornat ipsam domiun, si lex Domini 
 inreprehensibilis presideat in ea, tamquam domina gentium princeps provinciarum, qua domi- 
 nante et regnante in domo Iacob lex forensis iudicii vel ancilla subserviat per contemptibiles ad 
 maiora minus idoneos amministrata, sicut apostolus consulit, ne maiores qui orationi et ministerio 
 verbi cum apostolis vacare 6 (158) debent, nimiiun secularibus negociis implicentur et per hec 
 utiliora suffocentur. Iudices enim tarn seculares quam spiritales in ecclesia Dei sufficienter ad 
 diremptionem litium constituendos exemplis Moysi 7 et monitis apostoli docemur, ut sit cuique 
 liberum pro causarum qualitate nunc ecclesiasticum nunc forense iudicium expetere, ut, si non 
 perfectionis amore vult sua contempnere, in hoc saltern valeat pulsato parcere sueque innocentie 
 lucra etiam cum dampno lucri terreni augmentare, si non apud iniquos et infideles forenses ilium 
 exponit forte cruciandum, forte spoliandum per iudicem cinctum, sed pocius trahens ilium ad 
 ecclesiasticos iudices geminum lucrum consequatur et in emendatioiie fratris et in suis rehabitis 
 absque vindicta sanguinis, quam non debet inferre iudex qui virgam tantiun, non etiam gladium 
 portat. Concordat his que dicimus Leo papa suis decretis, capitulo XXIImo dicens : " Aliud 
 quidem est debita iusta reposcere, aliud propria perfectionis amore contempnere. Sed illici- 
 
 U Cor. 1:25. =1 Cor. 1:23. 5 Gen. 28: 11 ff.; cf. Isidoki, Etymologiae, Bk. XV, par. 1. 
 
 3 Gen. 34 and 35. * Libelli, qui. 6 Acts 6: 1-6. ' Deut. 16:18. 
 
 235 
 
80 Studies Concerning Adeian IV. 
 
 torttm veniam pqstulantem oportet etiam Ileitis abstinere dicente apostolo : ' Omnia licent, sed 
 non omnia expediunt.' 1 Unde si penitentes habent causam quam negligere forte non debeant, 
 melius expetit quis ecclesiasticum quam forense indicium."' 1 Hec dicendo (159) sanctus Leo 
 papa ostendit satis, non solum forense, sed etiam ecclesiasticum iudicium ad hoc in ecclesia Dei 
 constitutum et suo tempore fuisse utrumque usitatum, ut in utrolibet servata distinctione lites 
 dissolverentur, non tamen ipsa indicia confusione Babilonica miscerentur et in quoddam neutrum 
 verterentur, sed in ecclesiastico legibus divinis institutis canonum consuetudinibus bonis virga 
 directionis moveretur per manmn iudicis non cincti et in forensi legibus imperialibus gladius 
 moveivtur ml rindictam" malefaetorum laudem vero bonorum* per iudicem cinctum, sed quia 
 tales aliquando, ut Iacobus apostolus ait, opprimunt et ipsi trahunt pauperes ad indicia? salu- 
 bris est consuetudo in ecclesia, ut apostolus audiatur dicens : Audet aliqiiis vestrum habens 
 negotium, iudicari apud iniquos et non apud sanctosf' atque ut ipse monet coram Sanctis et 
 spiritualibus 7 interdum tractentur negotia etiam civilia non inportune garritu legistarum, sed 
 censura legum divinarum terminanda. Esset tamen utcumque tolerabile, si fidelibiis et bonis 
 legistis ad aliquam causam discutiendam a iudice spiritali advoeatis, discussiones ille fierent 
 seorsum et ad ipsum differretur et deferretur (160) finale indicium de sententiis legistarum sive 
 concordantium sive discordantium, ut ipse velut alter Adam videret quid vocaret earn, 8 que a 
 legistis essent usque in finem discussa. Sic etiam papain Eugenium vidimus aliquando f ecisse, 
 cum haberet secum peritos legis humane, quibus in absentia sua negotia ventilantibus ipse 
 tandem ea consummavitiudieiis finalibus. Aliquotiens tamen idem 9 legiste permissi ante ipsum 
 strepitu clamo[ro]so et artificioso causas involvere sic eas intricaverunt, ut vix poterit vel ipse 
 vel cardinalium quisquam eas dissolvere, meliusque tunc fuisset illas cinomias domui Pharaonis ,0 
 inmissas in domum Iacob non fuisse intromissas, maxime regnante Christo in domo Iacob in 
 eternum. 
 
 XLV. DE RANIS ET CINIFIBCS ET CINOMIAS 
 
 Non enim erraverunt patres orthodoxi qui exponentes decern plagas Egypti ranas in luto 
 coaxantes poetarum loquacitati (sjciniphes rostro acuto ledentes mundanorum philosophorum 
 subtilitati, cynornias muscas caninaa causidicorum forensium mordacitati coaptaverunt, ac 
 proinde in conventibus ecclesiasticis eos non admisenmt, ne si invicem morderent et comme- 
 derent ab invicem consumerentur et per hoc iudicia ecclesie confunderentur. Unde rationabilis 
 apparet emulatio virorum (161 ) religiosorum super hoc dolentium quod ranis et ciniphibus a 
 domo Iacob segregatis adhuc sustinetur in ea cinomiarum tanta inportunitas, ut quotiens 
 psallitur misit in eos cinomiam et commedit eos cogantur gemere de his que hunt in medio 
 eorum que fieri decuit solummodo in medio Egyptiorum in campo Taneos" in terra Cham, filii 
 Noe cuius posteritas maledicta legitur, et ideo non minim de terra Cham, terra scilicet 
 Egyptiorum, filiorum Cham, sic esse scriptum. Edidit terra eorum ranas in penetralibus regum 
 ipsorum. Dixit et venit cenomia et ciniphes hi omnibus finibus eorum." Optamus ergo ut has 
 plagas ceterasque his consimiles auferat Dominus a terra sancta que data est in i^ossessionem 
 Iacob, cui benedixit Dominus commutans nomen eius Israel vocaretur et ad praevalendum 
 contra homines Dei visione confortaretur. Si, inquit, contra Deuni fortis fuisti quanto magis 
 contra homines praevalebis? 13 Cuius ergo fortitude» est in Domino utique non indiget causidi- 
 corum forensium verbositate adiuvari ad causas elirimendas, ad quam ilium satis adiuvat legis 
 divine auctoritas dummodo vel alter Moyses recipiat et teneat consilium Ietro," soceri Moysi, 
 tales iudices in cooperationem sui ministri statuendo quales ille consulit sub Moyse ordinandos, 
 
 UCor.6:12. 5J as .2:6. 61Cor.6:l. 
 
 2 Leo I., 440-61 ; c/. Epist.ola 1G7, ad Rusticum, Inquis. X ; 
 
 U Cor. 6:4. «Gen. 2:19. 
 
 Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. LIV, col. 1206; Hinschius, Deere- ^Libelli, tandem for tamen idem. 
 
 tales, p. 617. 10 Ex. 8:28. n Ps. 77:12, 43. 
 
 3 MS. vindicta. *1 Pot. 2:14. »2 Ps. 104:30 f. "Gen. 32:28. ' * Cf. Eiod. 18. 
 
 236 
 
Oliver Joseph Thatcher 87 
 
 qui videlicet Deum timeant, diligant iusticiam, oderint avariciam. Talium numerus in dorno 
 Iacob sufEcienter inultiplicatus et lege divina (162) instructus non indiget a causidieis forensibus 
 iustriii qui potius ab illo suut instruendi. Diximus quod sentimus de causidieis forensibus 
 discretioni apostolice, huniiliter suggerendo quod domui Iacob decorum putamus, parati sane in 
 talibus, etsi non libenter, attamen pacienter sustinere quod sustinet doniinus dornus. 
 
 XLVI. DE RECENTE DEO 
 
 In his vero novitatum doctrinis que Deum recentem introducendo apostolice ac sane fidei 
 adversari videntur inaures clialdaico igne conflate et malleo Babilonico fabricate notantur, et 
 ideo minime in domo Iacob sufferende putantur, cui dictum est Israel, Si me audieris non erit 
 in te deus recens neque adorabis deum alienum.' Deus enim qualem illi describuut recens et 
 alienus videtur nobis parvulis qui ab incunabilis lactati uberibus matris ecclesie, non ita 
 didicimus Christum sicut eum isti docent. Unde nee audemus temere in doctrina fidei 
 subtilitates dialecticas et interdum hereticas admittere contra illius consilium qui dicit: Videte 
 tie quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam secundum elementa mundi 
 secundum traditionem hominum, et non secundum lesum Christum. 2 
 
 Tn, ergo, Papa Adriaue, aurium prurientium vana oblectamenta, et ornamenta eatenus 
 inaudita partim superius a nobis perstricta, partim (163) sapientiorum diligentie ad investi- 
 gandum servata in glosis praenotatis, vel alter Iacob sub therebinto 3 crucis fortiter et alte 
 suffodiendo et dicendo : Si quis hoc vel hoc dixerit, quod sane doctrine adversari deprehensum 
 fuerit, anathema sit, comparabis gloriam tibi, contra hostes victoriam. Quia enim miseri- 
 cordiam et veritatem diligit Deus, gratiamet gloriam dabit 4 Dominus" misericordiam tenentibus 
 et veritatem defendentibus. Attinet autem ad misericordiam errantes corrigere ad veritatem, vero 
 in scriptis argute loquentium sola maledicta dampnare ac benedicta servare. Non enim est hoc 
 tuiun qui iudicas omnem terram, tit vel perdas iustum cum imjyio, 6 vel dampnes veritatem cum 
 mendatio. Sic in scriptis Origenis ' male dicta sunt confutata et benedicta servata. Nos vero 
 interim, donee super his indicium procedat apostolicum, tenemus consilium apostolicum, omnia 
 probando, quod bonum est tenendo, et ab omni specie mala, 8 quantum gratia divina dignabitur 
 iuvare, nos abstinendo 8 et eos qui nos audiunt in id ipsum conmonendo. 
 
 XLVII. COMMEMORATIO PRETERITORDM LABORUM 
 
 Cum essem iunior cingebam me et ambulabam ubi volebam, 3 visitando aliquotiens aposto- 
 lorum '" limina et apostolican sedem, 11 non tarn habens interdum specialem necessitatem quam 
 intendens ecclesie utilitatem communem, super quam et auribus apostolice (164) discretionis aliqua 
 suggessi, que utilia putavi, propter que in itineribus sepi laboravi, periculis fluminum, periculis 
 latronum, periculis ex genere, periculis in civitate, periculis in solitudine, periculis in falsis 
 doctrinis et falsorum fratrum 1 - infestationibus /oris pugnas, intus timores" excitantibus. Inter 
 huiusmodi pericula Dominus gratia suaastitit michi et sanctaEomana ecclesia. Hinc est, quod 
 Petro Leonis in urbe, tirannizante atque cum esset excommimicatus ipse suique fautores, mis- 
 sas tamen celebrarent et ego illos negassem 14 in scismate 15 sub excommimicatione corpus Christi 
 habere aut conficere posse cum grandi labore meo cogebar sententie, quam tenui et teneo, pal- 
 mam victorie coram beate memorie Innocentio papa optinere. Item contra doctrinas varias et 
 peregrinas Petri Baiolardi auxilium meum a domino in sede apostolica, quamqam ille discipulos 
 
 iPs.80:10. 2Col.2:8. 3C/.Gen.35. "Ms.. sede. 122 Cor. 11 : 26. i32Cor.7:5. 
 
 4 Ms. d.dns. Libelli, [dabit] Dominus Deus. n g EKHO h treats of this question in his letter to Inno- 
 
 5 Ps. 84:12. «Gen. 18:23. cent II ; cf Migne, 193, cols. 1375 ft. Libelli, III, 203 ff., espe- 
 'Origen died 240. « 1 Thess. 5 : 21 f . ciaUy 221 ff. 
 
 9C/. John 21: 18. 10 Libelli, apostolicorum. 15 Libelli, crismate. 
 
 237 
 
88 Studies Concerning Adrian IV. 
 
 in scola sua eruditos et doctrine sue consentaneos habuisset tunc in ecclesia Romana, sicut et 
 nunc in ea sunt qui ab episcopo Gilliberto instructi, fortasse nollent aliquid contra ilium dici, 
 sed tamen, ut spero, 1 etiam contra ipsum favebunt veritati. Similiter et pro causis aliis nichi- 
 lominus ecclesiasticis multum laboravi et favente gratia Dei (165) ac Romanorum pontificum 
 sepe optinui quod volui. 
 
 XLVIII. EXCUSATTO LABORDM DEINCEPS 
 
 Nunc autem quia senectute pariterque infirmitate corporis ita gravor, ut ultra non valeam 
 sicut ante valui laborare, optans cum beato lob, ut in nidulo meo mortar, 2 derident 3 quoqite 
 me ut ilium iuniores tempore, quorum von dignabar patres ponere cum canibus gregis met, 4 
 ait sanctus lob. Et ego patres ac doctores istomm, licet magistros in scolasticis conventiculis, 
 minime preferendos vol conferendos censeo ecclesiarum doctoribus orthodoxis, quorum doctrina 
 fulget ecclesia ut sol et luna. Unde quotiens inter ecclesiastica et scolastica documenta con- 
 trarietatem audio, ego magis ecclesiasticis quam scolasticis fidem habeo; Et quia debilis iam 
 corpore non valeo per me ipsum, saltern per literas inde quedam insinuare euro illi, ad cuius 
 pertinet officium confirmare tratres et confirmare hostes, ut parte inferi non prevaleant* in die- 
 bus nostris adversus ecclesiam Petro commissam, in petra fundatam, Petri fide roboratain. 
 
 1 Libelli, spiritu. <Job30:l. 
 
 2MS. moria; Libelli, mori. 3J b29:18. 5 Matt. 16: 18. 
 
 LofC. 
 
 238 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 021 342 712 A