Title III: On Rescripts

Latin source headnote: A special rescript, even one making no mention of a general privilege obtained according to the common law, prevails over that privilege. This it says according to the more common understanding.

Alexander III to the Archbishop of Sens.

Just as the Roman Church is, by the Lord’s ordering, the mother and teacher of all churches, so also we, who, although unworthy, preside over that Church by the providence of the heavenly disposition, [and] insofar as the Lord shall supply to us, are compelled to answer the consultations of individuals and, by the providence of apostolic circumspection, to clarify the things which appear doubtful. Indeed, it has been asked of us on your behalf whether, if a certain cause between certain persons is committed to delegated judges with the remedy of appeal removed, and the other party is fortified by apostolic letters by which it is generally granted to him that he may freely appeal, if he should break forth into a declaration of appeal, deference ought to be given to his appeal in that same cause.

To this inquiry of yours, therefore, we respond by the present letters in this manner: his appeal in this matter ought not to be admitted after the cause has been committed to judges with appeal removed, because a special mandate derogates from a general one. [Moreover, etc.; compare chapter 5, *On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.*29.]

Latin source headnote: In an apostolic rescript the clause “if the petitions rest upon truth” is implied. And if a rescript prohibits cognizance of the cause, it is suspect of falsehood.

The same to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It has been intimated to our ears on behalf of our venerable brother, the Bishop of Coventry, that, while lawfully adjudicating the cause which is pending between the clerics G. and F. concerning the prebend of Novals, in accordance with the tenor of our letters—which contained that, if it were established that F. himself had been convicted of perjury and had renounced that prebend forever, he was, appeal ceasing, to be removed from it—when this had been adjudicated and proved, he adjudged that same prebend [to G.]. F. himself broke forth into a declaration of appeal and brought back to you our letters directing you to restore the prebend to him peremptorily and without cognizance of the cause, and, with appeal ceasing, to deprive the bishop who had despoiled him of the prebend after the appeal of authority to confer a benefice upon anyone, until he should come to the Apostolic See, in person, through a messenger, or by his letters, to make satisfaction for so great an excess; and to bind the aforesaid G., if he presumed to molest F. in the said prebend, with the bond of excommunication until worthy satisfaction.

But because we do not believe that we wrote so peremptorily, and, if we did write in such a manner, this occurred from excessive occupation, and because in letters of this kind this condition is to be understood even if it is not appended—“if the petitions rest upon truth”—by apostolic writings, commanding, we order your fraternity, after inspecting the letters which we directed to the aforesaid bishop, that if you find that we wrote to him in the aforesaid manner, and appeal was prohibited in our letters, and no mention of the earlier letters was made in the letters which the aforesaid F. brought back to you, you are, every occasion and appeal ceasing, to confirm the sentence of the aforesaid bishop and to compel the often-mentioned F. to come into our presence with our letters which he brought to you.

Latin source headnote: If, in a second rescript obtained by an adversary, no mention is made of the first, the first is valid and not the second; otherwise, the second is valid. And if the first was obtained by the common consent of the parties, a second obtained by one party while this was concealed is not valid.

The same to the Bishop of Winchester.

Furthermore, if anyone has obtained from the Apostolic See letters of commission to judges concerning a cause, and his adversary afterward obtains the same cause to be committed to others without mention being made of the earlier commission, the first judges may proceed to the decision of the cause, and the second letters obtain no firmness of any force. But if mention of the earlier commission is made in the second letters, the aforesaid cause is removed from the judgment of the first judges, since those same letters were not obtained with the truth suppressed.

But if a cause is committed with the assent of the parties, and in the course of time, or even immediately, either party, without the other’s knowledge, obtains the cause itself to be delegated to another judge while the making of the earlier commission is concealed, the person who by such guile or fraud compelled his adversary to labor ought, not undeservedly, to be condemned to pay that adversary’s expenses.

Latin source headnote: If the Pope commands in a rescript that inquiry be made alternatively concerning two matters, proof of either is sufficient for obtaining the specified effect.

The same to the Archbishop of York.

Among your other consultations, [this] was proposed before us: what you ought to hold when certain things are commanded under a disjunction, of which one is true and the other false—for example, if it is proposed that a certain man is the son of a priest and was begotten during his priesthood, who most recently ministered in a certain church, or that he occupied the same church unlawfully. To this question we respond in this manner: it is fitting that, whichever of these matters is established before the judge, the aforesaid church ought to be adjudged to that person. And the same is to be observed in similar cases. Indeed, if, etc. (Compare chapter 8, *On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.*29.)

Latin source headnote: The person to whom a papal rescript is directed ought to obey it or assign a reasonable cause why he cannot obey.

The same to the Archbishop of Ravenna.

If at any time we direct certain writings to your fraternity which appear to exasperate your mind, you ought not to be troubled or moved, or to believe that we wish to render your person contemptible or despised, because we love you with most abundant charity as our dear brother and an immovable column of the Church, and we desire in every way the increase of your honor and exaltation. For although we often write harshly and severely to our brothers and fellow bishops according to the variety of the matters suggested to us, this nevertheless occurs not from diminished affection, but so that we may be proved to give satisfaction to the complaints of those protesting, according to God and according to the duty of our office. Therefore we admonish your prudence and earnestly exhort you that henceforth you be neither moved nor troubled, nor let your mind be cast down, if we write something severe or harsh to you; but, as a provident and discerning man, diligently considering and attending to the character of the affair concerning which it is written to you, you are either devoutly and reverently to fulfill our mandate or, through your letters, to set forth a sufficient and reasonable cause why you cannot fulfill it, because we shall bear it patiently if you do not do what was suggested to us by a depraved representation.

Latin source headnote: The Cistercians are privileged so that they cannot be sued through a papal rescript unless mention of their order is made in it.

The same to the Cistercian Brothers.

Since, having professed the Cistercian order, you enjoy the privilege which the other brothers [of the same order] enjoy, when a dispute concerning tithes has arisen between you and other secular clerics, those clerics, concealing the fact that you are of the Cistercian order and obtaining letters from the Apostolic See against you as though against monks of another order, then trouble you with oaths and litigation, as we have learned from your report, and with burdensome expenses. Wishing therefore solicitously to provide for you, lest by the temerity of any persons you be vexed contrary to the tenor of your privileges, by apostolic authority we command you that, if letters have been obtained from the Apostolic See against you concerning tithes or other things which the Apostolic See has specially granted to your order, without mention being made of the Cistercian order, you are by no means bound to answer by virtue of them.

Latin source headnote (Abbas Siculus): If, while a see is vacant, a chapter is written to, as exercising the bishop’s functions, that it confer a prebend upon someone, and a bishop is created before the mandate has been executed, then, if the collation of prebends pertains to him, he is bound to fulfill it. This it says according to the commonly approved reading.

The same to the Bishop of Tournai.

Her [or it], you ... (And below:) Some time ago, before your promotion, if we remember correctly, letters issued from us by which we gave a mandate and command to the dean and the church committed to you, while you were still a member of that chapter, that they should receive as a canon our beloved son P., the bearer of the present writings, who derived his origin from the Jewish people and by divine grace humbly and devoutly received the faith of Christ, in consideration of his manner of life and in consideration of his learning, in which he has so advanced that he is not undeservedly considered worthy of an ecclesiastical benefice; and that, upon receiving our letters, they ought generously to confer upon him a prebend, if any were vacant, or the first one which should happen to become vacant. (And below:) But they, as we learned from the report of the same M., having received our letters after your consecration, could not, as they asserted, put our command into due execution, because the grant of prebends pertained to you.

Since, therefore, the aforesaid P., as he asserts, earnestly required you concerning this on our behalf, you answered him that you had received no mandate from us concerning it, and thus you sent him away from you with the affair unfinished. You ought by no means to have done this if you had considered the date of the letters more diligently, since, at the time when those letters were given, you were a member of that chapter, as one who was archdeacon and canon of the same church, although you had not yet been consecrated bishop. (And below:) You ought not to disdain him because he was a Jew. (And below:) We command your fraternity to receive him as a canon of your church and assign him a stall in the choir and a place in the chapter.

Latin source headnote: A rescript obtained for benefices is not valid if the dignity of the person obtaining it is concealed in it.

Lucius III to the Bishop of Lincoln.

It has come to our ears through your report that deans, archdeacons, precentors, or others endowed with ecclesiastical dignities, when obtaining letters concerning lesser benefices through intermediary persons, very often suppress the name of their dignity and designate themselves by their simple name, as though they held no ecclesiastical office; and therefore you ask to be instructed by our rescript whether this fraud of concealment ought to produce prejudice against them.

To your consultation therefore we respond in this manner: since it is not our intention that persons abounding in many revenues should, through our letters, trouble poor clerics concerning lesser benefices, we will that letters in which a claimant suppresses the name of his dignity obtain no force whatsoever. Lastly, etc. (Compare chapter 36, *On Appeals, II.*28.)

Latin source headnote: A second rescript obtained by an adversary is valid, although it makes no mention of the first, if the first person obtaining a rescript did not use it through guile or negligence.

The same to the Bishop of Norwich.

But if anyone, drawn into judgment by authority of later letters obtained by his adversary, should object that he has earlier letters of which no mention is made in the later ones, he ought not to be excused if through guile or negligence he postponed using them. If, however, he did so because he was unable to obtain access to the delegated judge, he cannot be sued by virtue of the later letters.

Latin source headnote: Rescripts by which unspecified judges are appointed or future affairs are committed are not valid.

The same.

For this purpose we have been established by the Lord’s ordering in the seat of justice: that the things attempted contrary to justice may through our solicitude be recalled to the path of rectitude, etc. (And below:) Accordingly, it has been reported to us that certain persons in parts of your province have, as they assert, received from our chancery letters by which all their affairs are committed to the decision of one judge or of several whom they may choose for themselves. Thus it happens that, if they wish to bring an action against someone, they do not seek the examination of the ordinary judge, but have recourse, for examination of the dispute, to one judge or several delegates favorable to themselves and on that account suspect to the opposing party.

No one who has obtained even a slight knowledge of canonical instruction doubts how contrary this is to God and inimical to the sacred canons. We do not believe that such letters issued from our chancery; or, if perhaps they did issue, they escaped our awareness, which, impeded by diverse occupations, does not suffice for examining each individual matter. We therefore, wishing to oppose this disease with a swift remedy, command your fraternity by apostolic writings that, if you find such letters already obtained or to be obtained hereafter in your province, you are by our authority to decree that they lack force, and to prohibit their admission in judgment by anyone concerning any dispute whatsoever.

Latin source headnote: Faulty Latin invalidates a papal rescript. John Andrew says this; the Abbot agrees.

The same.

It has come to our hearing through your report that H. of Saint Stephen presented to you, concerning his absolution, letters which at first sight appeared apostolic. Because you regarded them as suspect and did not think that they had issued from the chancery of the Roman Church, you took care to send them back to us, consulting our apostolate—whence we commend your devotion in the Lord—as to whether, by occasion of those letters, you ought to regard the aforesaid man as absolved. Because they contain a manifest error of construction, we will that you place no faith in them.

Latin source headnote: Against a second rescript there can be no objection on the ground that a first rescript obtained by the appellant was concealed, when no mention of his appeal was made in the first. John Andrew says this; Abbas Siculus agrees.

Clement III.

It became known to us on behalf of S., a dignitary of the church of Tarentum, that, although the chapel of Emptonn. belongs by right to the aforesaid church, it has for a long time been unjustly withdrawn from it; and O. the deacon, who detains the said chapel, after making an appeal removed G., the chaplain of that church, who was ministering in it in the name of S. When S. had prosecuted the matter and obtained letters to judges, O. himself did not take care to prosecute his appeal. When by authority of the aforesaid judges he was summoned to court, he said that he had earlier letters of which no mention was made in the later ones. He suppressed them until the third citation and postponed using them through guile or negligence, as appeared from the length of time; in those letters no mention was made of the appeal taken by him, although two years had already elapsed from the time of the appeal.

Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if it is established that matters stand thus, after restoring to their former state everything which you find to have been attempted after O.’s appeal, you take care, appeal being removed, to restore the aforesaid chapel to the mother church; and, if it is established that O. did not prosecute his appeal, condemn the aforesaid O. to pay S. the necessary expenses.

Latin source headnote: A rescript addressed to several persons with the clause “But if not all, etc.” is understood with respect both to incapacity in fact and to incapacity in law.

Celestine III.

By a petition sent to us, you asked of what incapacity the provision is understood which is often customarily appended in our letters: that if two or three, or even more, to whom the letters are directed cannot be present together for their execution, one or more of those to whom it is written shall nevertheless execute them.

We hold in this matter that the incapacity is understood both in law and in fact. In law, if it is established that any of those to whom the letters are directed is a slave, infamous, or restrained by another lawful impediment; in fact, if it is established that he has died by the event of death, or is impeded by an instance of unavoidable necessity so that he cannot be present—provided that the person who by necessity cannot be present takes care, if he can, canonically to send his excuse to his colleagues, so that the other co-judges or executors may nevertheless proceed to the completion of the mandate enjoined. Nor can a person who merely does not wish to be present be excused in any respect by this interpretation of impossibility, unless perhaps it is expressed in the rescript in this manner: “if not all shall have been present,” or “if they shall have been unable or unwilling to be present together.”

Latin source headnote: In a dispute concerning the revocation of rescripts, recourse is had to arbitrators if the judges do not defer to one another in adjudicating the matter and do not agree with one another. This it says as far as § “Since.” — (§ “Since,” etc.): Through a general clause placed in a rescript, before the persons or things are specified, the delegate has jurisdiction in capacity but not in exercise. And special letters derogate from general letters with respect to matters not specified in the latter, although they make no mention of them. The Abbot.

Innocent III to the Bishop of Ely.

The pastoral office ... (And below: [compare chapter 28, *On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.*29.]) Moreover, you asked, when there is doubt concerning the revocation of letters, whether the earlier or the later judges ought to adjudicate the matter, and whether the first letters have been revoked by the second. To this we respond that, unless the later judges decide to defer to the earlier, or conversely, both sets are to adjudicate it together; and, if perhaps they are unable together to agree upon one decision, although there are more judges on one side than on the other, a dispute of this kind is to be quieted through arbitrators chosen jointly by the parties.

Since letters are often obtained from us under a form of this kind, namely, “We have considered that the cause which such a person proposes that he has against such a person and certain others concerning this and concerning certain other things should be committed to you,” you also solicitously asked whether, from a delegation of this kind, the judge has power over the persons or things to be specified before the specification of those persons or things. You added the question whether, before the persons or things have been specified by name, special letters concerning matters not expressed in the earlier commission but generally comprehended in it, making no mention of the earlier commission, should issue from the Apostolic See to other judges and obtain the same force.

We therefore respond to these two matters in this manner: since without doubt a general provision is derogated from by a special one, the jurisdiction attributed by general letters is entirely weakened by special letters as regards the matters which are specially expressed, although they make no mention of the earlier letters. Hence the first question is left superfluous, even though it may rightly be said that, until the jurisdiction is revoked, the delegate possesses it over the articles concerning things or persons that are to be specified; but before the persons or things are specified, the delegate cannot exercise jurisdiction of this kind. [But because, etc. (Compare chapter 28, *On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.*29.) Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June, 1204.]

Latin source headnote: Through the general clause “certain other persons and other things,” neither an unrestrained multitude, nor persons or things greater than those expressed, are included, but only equal or lesser ones.

The same to the Archbishop of Sens.

The Apostolic See is accustomed to show itself liberal to petitioners; but certain persons wickedly abuse its grace, when they twist to malice what it grants out of benignity. For certain persons, wishing to act maliciously, express lesser and more insignificant persons by their proper names in our commissions, but do not designate greater and more dignified persons by specific terms; rather, they comprehend them under a certain covering of generality so that they may more easily obtain the commissions themselves from us, under this form: “Such persons complain of this or that person, and of certain others to be expressed by their proper names, who are exceedingly injurious and burdensome to them concerning such an affair and certain other matters.”

We therefore, wishing to oppose their malicious acts, decree that, when only lesser and more insignificant persons are designated in our commissions, greater and more dignified persons are not understood to be included under the general clause. Nor is it permitted, on occasion of generality of this kind, to summon an unrestrained multitude into judgment; nor are those who make mention only of lesser and lighter matters to be heard concerning greater and weightier affairs. But if anyone expresses certain persons not because he wishes to litigate with them in court, but so that he may be able to pass to their equals or inferiors, because fraud and guile ought not to aid him, let him, as a mendacious petitioner, be entirely deprived of the things obtained. [Given at Anagni, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of January, in the sixth year, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: One who obtains and uses different rescripts against one person concerning the same matter before different judges loses the benefit of both.

The same to R. the Cantor and R. the Prior of Mont-des-Lépreux.

From the tenor of the letters which you sent us through our beloved son Ph., the bearer of the present writings, we understood clearly that R., the priest of Colleville, had obtained apostolic letters to other judges concerning the dispute pending between himself and our beloved son, the abbot and convent of Bec, concerning the manor of Colleville and other property. When those judges cited the opposing party, the said priest refused to litigate before them. Later, however, that same priest presented to you our letters concerning the same affair, in which no mention of the earlier letters was made. And when you wished to proceed to cognizance of the cause, the parties having been summoned to your presence, the aforesaid abbot proposed before you that he was not bound to answer the priest by virtue of the letters directed to you, since by other letters he had been cited by other judges, and those letters had not been revoked by authority of the letters directed to you. But because you were in doubt concerning this, you considered that the Apostolic See should be consulted.

We therefore, attending to the fraud of the aforesaid priest, who obtained two commissions concerning the same affair, of which one made no mention of the other, decree—because fraud and guile ought not to aid anyone—that he is to be deprived of the benefit of both. [Given at Ferentino, on the fourth day before the Ides of July, in the sixth year, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: A rescript obtained for a benefice is not valid if it makes no mention of the benefice of the person obtaining it.

The same to the Archbishop of Milan.

Since we regulate the writings of the Apostolic See in such a way that we knowingly cause nothing to be appended in them which ought to be reproved at law, we wonder and are moved not a little that, whenever we direct our letters to you or to any persons subject to you, you write back that you wonder at them, as if we were commanding something dishonorable. For you wrote to us that, although the cleric P. had obtained a sufficient prebend for himself in the Modecensian church, you wondered that we had sent apostolic letters to the provost and brothers of the church of Gronzola concerning his reception in that church; although, if you had diligently attended to the sequence of our letters, you would have found nothing at all in them which ought to have offended your mind.

For in those same letters neither was mention made of P.’s prebend, nor was he called a canon of Modecia—indeed, he was not even called a cleric in them—and this condition was appended in the letters themselves: “if he should be worthy to obtain an ecclesiastical benefice, and if the same church had acquired from the gift of his parents a certain chapel with its endowment, and for a time received offerings and mortuary dues from his kinsmen, and tithes annually.” You could have understood how those letters had been obtained, in which no mention was made of the benefice of the person on whose behalf it was written. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, whenever apostolic letters are directed to you or to persons subject to you, you diligently attend to their tenor and cause what is commanded in them to be put into effect, provided that they were obtained neither by suppression of the truth nor by expression of a falsehood. [Given at Rome, etc., on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of June, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: The order of a rescript receives its interpretation from the common law.

The same to the Bishop-elect, the Dean, and N., Canon of Cambrai.

We remember that we committed to your discretion the cause pending between the Praemonstratensian and Pramonensian churches concerning the possessions of Anapia, to be terminated by a canonical conclusion. But because we observed that it was inserted in those letters that, if either party, having been lawfully cited, disdained to come into your presence or to obey your judgment, you were nevertheless not to delay in receiving the proofs of the party present and, so far as you could by law, in proceeding to cognizance and decision of the cause, we wish the clause “so far as you can by law”—which ought to have been inserted before mention was made of the reception of proofs—to precede that clause concerning the reception of proofs.

We therefore command your discretion by apostolic writings, understanding it to be placed there, not to delay in proceeding in the same cause according to the tenor of those letters, taking earnest care that, if lawful proceedings have been conducted in the same affair by authority of the earlier letters, they remain firm and stable. Otherwise, if it is established that, on occasion of the aforesaid clause, anything was attempted to the prejudice of the other party, we decree that it shall lack force; wishing nevertheless and commanding that, in deciding the affair itself, as was set forth above, you proceed canonically, appeal being removed, concerning both the principal and the incidental questions. [No contrary provisions, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of April, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: An impetration concerning a church with a fixed number is not valid when no mention of the number is made, if by it the number of canons is broken, although the number of prebends is not broken; and proceedings conducted from it are null. This states the meaning according to Panormitanus.

The same to the Archbishop of Sens.

Appearing at the Apostolic See, the cleric P. formerly proposed before our beloved son G., cardinal-deacon of Sant’Angelo, whom we had granted as auditor to him and to the other party, that Pope C., our predecessor of good memory, had commanded our beloved son, the dean, and the chapter of Bourges to receive him as a canon and brother and to confer a prebend upon him, if one were then vacant in their church or the next one to become vacant, our venerable brother the Archbishop of Bourges having been granted to him as admonisher. When they did not take care to admit his mandate, our predecessor commanded them by way of precept to fulfill what he had commanded them, executors having been appointed for him in this matter.

[Meanwhile, when a messenger of the chapter came to the Apostolic See and suggested that P. himself had prebends in several churches, he obtained the absolution of the church of Bourges from his claim, and also obtained an indulgence that they should not be compelled to receive anyone as a brother within three years. When afterward the same P. returned to the Roman Church and took care to explain to our same predecessor that, although he had obtained in the church of Clermont a certain benefice which is customarily granted even to laymen and is called a familiaritas, nevertheless he could not be fittingly sustained from it or from another which he held, that predecessor enjoined the said dean and chapter, while the aforesaid indulgence remained in its force, to confer upon him the first prebend that should become vacant after the three-year period, and meanwhile to assign him a stall in the choir and a place in the chapter. Execution of this mandate was delegated to our beloved son the provost of Clermont. As was manifestly evident from his letters, after he had diligently admonished the said dean and chapter to fulfill the apostolic mandate and had made no progress at all, by apostolic authority he took care to invest the aforesaid P. with the first prebend to become vacant after the three-year period, granting him a stall in the choir and a place in the chapter.]

But the opposing party answered that, since a fixed number of canons had been instituted in the church of Bourges, confirmed by oath and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, and since the aforesaid P. had made no mention of this in his letters, it was to be understood that he had circumvented our predecessor and obtained the said letters with the truth suppressed. For although, when a fixed number is established in a church, this condition is appended or is understood to be appended—“the authority of the Apostolic See being preserved”—nevertheless it was not to be believed that he had knowingly commanded that P. be received contrary to their oaths, since nothing concerning this had been expressed in his letters. We therefore, having been instructed concerning the foregoing by the aforesaid cardinal, command your discretion by apostolic writings, by way of precept, that, if it is lawfully established before you that the canonical number which now exists in the same church was confirmed by oath by the dean and chapter of that church before the aforesaid cleric obtained executory letters from our predecessor, you decree that whatever was done on occasion of those letters, which the same cleric is known to have obtained from the Apostolic See, is to be regarded as void and invalid. Otherwise, after removing the obstacle of any appeal, cause a prebend in that church to be assigned to him, if one is vacant. [Those contradicting, etc. Given at Spoleto, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of September, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: A difficult and famous chapter, and the key to this entire title. In sum it says this: one who states a falsehood or conceals a truth in a rescript, if he does so maliciously, is wholly deprived of what he obtained. But if through simplicity or ignorance he would, with the truth expressed and the falsehood suppressed, have obtained at least letters in the common form, the delegate proceeds with the order of law observed and not according to the special form of the rescript; it is otherwise if he would in no manner have obtained letters.

The same to A., Canon of Poitiers.

Concerning letters obtained from us by some persons through malice and by others through ignorance, with the truth concealed or a falsehood suggested, we have understood different persons to hold different opinions. Some assert that they ought to be entirely deprived of every benefit of the letters, since a mendacious petitioner ought to be wholly deprived of the things obtained; others say that, although the special form expressed in our letters ought not to benefit them, nevertheless the delegated judge is to proceed in the affair according to the rigor of law.

We therefore believe that this distinction is to be employed between those who obtain letters from us through fraud or malice and those who obtain them through simplicity or ignorance: those who in the former manner state a falsehood or suppress the truth are, as a penalty for their perversity, to obtain no benefit from those letters, so that, after proof concerning this has been made before the delegate, he is in no way to adjudicate the cause.

Among the others, however, who obtain letters in the latter manner, we have considered that a distinction is to be made according to what falsehood was suggested or what truth was suppressed. For if the falsehood stated or the truth concealed is of such a kind that, although that falsehood had been concealed or that truth expressed, we would nevertheless have given letters at least in the common form, the delegate, not following the form appended in the letters themselves, is to proceed in the cause according to the order of law. But if, through the expression of such a falsehood or even the suppression of the truth, letters were obtained which, had that falsehood been concealed or that truth expressed, we would not have given at all, the delegate is not to proceed in any respect—except perhaps only so far as, after summoning the parties to his presence, he may adjudicate the character of the petitions—so that in both cases the same reason which would move the delegating authority may also move the delegate, and where the delegating authority would refuse its letters, the delegate likewise is in no way to interpose the office of his cognizance. [Given at Ferentino, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November, in the eleventh year of our pontificate, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: In a cause belonging to a monastery, an abbot is sued through a rescript in which no mention of the convent is made; nor can an appeal be taken for this reason, unless the goods of the abbot and of the convent are wholly distinct.

The same to the Abbot and Convent of Prémontré.

By your letters you asked to be instructed by us whether, by virtue of letters obtained against abbots of your order without any mention being made of their convents, the abbots themselves are bound, in causes which pertain to the convents and to those same abbots, to answer persons complaining against them concerning those causes; and whether, although appeal has been prohibited, they can protect themselves by raising an appeal so that they need not answer.

Concerning this we have considered that this answer should be given to you: those same abbots, unless another reasonable cause supports them, cannot protect themselves through an appeal so as not to be bound to answer lawfully by authority of letters of this kind, since by virtue of their office abbots are bound to manage the affairs of their congregations—unless perhaps the affairs of the abbot and of the convent are wholly distinct. [Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Kalends of March, in the eleventh year, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: Proceedings conducted under surreptitiously obtained letters are invalidated; but proceedings conducted contrary to the form of a rescript are declared invalid.

The same to the Archbishop and Master W., Canon of Magdeburg.

When our beloved daughter in Christ R., custodian of the church of Hesia, and the cleric Volpert, proctor of the nun G., had formerly approached the Apostolic See [now] [and] had litigated for some time before us concerning the elections celebrated in that church of the said custodian and nun,

[after diligently hearing the matters proposed both by the proctor himself and by the custodian, we commanded the abbots of Helerward and Herg and the provost of Geismar that, supported by our authority and notwithstanding any contradiction or appeal, they declare void and invalid whatever had been done concerning the election of the said nun; and, after inquiring more diligently into the truth concerning the election of the custodian, if they found her election canonical and her person suitable, they were to confirm her by apostolic authority, restraining those who contradicted through ecclesiastical censure, appeal being set aside.

But when the custodian presented this mandate to the judges, they declared void and invalid what had been done concerning the aforesaid nun. When she refused to relinquish the abbey, the judges bound her with the bond of excommunication and ordered her to be more strictly avoided; but after several days she appealed through a messenger concerning her election, together with those who had elected her. The judges showed no deference to the appeal, especially since her election had been invalidated by our express mandate and appeal was prohibited in our letters. After citing the convent of Herisia, they took care to inquire into the custodian’s election as had been enjoined upon them. When they found her election canonical and her person suitable, after taking the counsel of prudent men they confirmed her election and by a definitive sentence adjudged the abbey of Herisia to her by our authority.

Although the diocesan bishop appealed and prohibited the convent of Herisia from presuming to obey her as abbess, the judges nevertheless introduced her with all gentleness into corporal possession of the abbey. She was violently ejected from it by the brother of the aforesaid nun and her supporters; and, in addition to other evils wickedly perpetrated there by them, they compelled R. to confirm by oath that until the next approaching feast of Saint Martin she would not enter the church of Herisia or make use even of the simple house or stipend which she held there.

When R. was gravely vexed concerning these and other matters, she considered that recourse should be had to our presence, the aforesaid nun G. likewise coming. R. proposed a complaint concerning them and requested confirmation of the proceedings of the aforesaid judges and satisfaction for the damages and injuries inflicted upon her. G. proposed to the contrary that, since she had been elected abbess of the church of Herisia by the greater and sounder part of the convent and her election had been confirmed by the diocesan bishop, the custodian obtained letters to the abbot of Conradesburch and his co-judges. When G., having been cited, came into their presence and showed that she had been despoiled on occasion of the custodian, she considered that by sentence of those judges she was in no way bound to answer the custodian unless she were first restored. But the custodian, appealing from that sentence, personally prosecuted her appeal.

Furthermore, although G. sent a proctor solely so that the same sentence might be confirmed, her proctor, exceeding the bounds of his mandate, permitted the custodian to obtain what she wished against G. and brought letters back to the aforesaid judges. One of those judges lay under a sentence of excommunication, as the letters produced before us by our venerable brother the Archbishop of Mainz contained. The other, with the third absent, proceeded irregularly in every matter; and, although both G. and the chapter of Herisia appealed on account of various grievances, they nevertheless proceeded and caused the custodian to be introduced into corporal possession through Albert, her familiar—who, as was proved by the same letters of the aforesaid archbishop, was bound by the bond of excommunication—and B. the parish priest.

To prove that the said proctor had received a mandate to prosecute the appeal interposed, G. produced witnesses before the auditor granted to her. It was answered to the contrary that, even if those witnesses had proved such a mandate, this by no means showed that he had not received another; and therefore, since the presumption was in favor of the sentence, especially because it had been promulgated by us with mature counsel, it could plainly be understood that the aforesaid proctor had received a general mandate concerning the principal affair, as the same custodian demonstrated more fully through the single witness whom she produced.

Having understood these and other matters proposed by each party, we considered that the aforesaid nun G. should be removed by sentence from administration of the abbey. By our letters we commanded our beloved sons, the scholastic of Hildesheim and the custodian and scholastic of Minden, to approach that church in person and take care to commit administration of the abbey to another suitable person, to whom restitution from both sides of the things taken away should be made for the use of the church. Meanwhile, adjudicating the sentence of confirmation rendered by the delegated judges concerning the custodian’s election, they were, as justice required, to confirm or invalidate it. That is, if it were established that the sentence should be invalidated because one of the delegated judges who rendered it was publicly bound by the bond of excommunication when it was rendered, as was shown by the metropolitan’s letters, or for another cause, they were to quash it and adjudicate the custodian’s election anew. Hearing more fully both the matters proposed concerning the facts and concerning the person, they were to invalidate her election if it were found canonical; otherwise, after wholly invalidating it, they were to give the sisters free power to elect and, appeal being removed, confirm the election of the woman whom they should consider regularly to be elected as abbess. They were also to cause provision to be made for the aforesaid custodian’s lawful expenses from the goods of the church, and to compel those contradicting or rebelling, through ecclesiastical censure with appeal removed, to desist from their temerity. If named witnesses withdrew through favor, hatred, or fear, they were likewise to compel them, by the same constraint and with appeal ceasing, to bear testimony to the truth.

Those judges summoned both the custodian and the convent of the church of Herisia to their presence and granted them a period of delay. But while the delay was pending, the provostess of Herisia and her accomplices presented our letters to the abbot of Reinvehusen, the provost of the New Church, and the parish priest of Eschenshuseim. In those letters the same judges were commanded, justice being observed, to compel the aforesaid custodian by ecclesiastical censure, with appeal removed, to restore certain ornaments of that church, the proceeds of the custodianship pertaining to the use of the church, the revenues from Meinchsern which ought to minister to the sisters’ necessities, and certain other things from their prebends which she had maliciously taken through certain robbers and detained at the decision of her own will.

After the custodian was cited by authority of these letters, because she could not appear before the judges on the day appointed for her, after an appeal had been interposed on her behalf by the cleric Lambert they pronounced a sentence of excommunication against her. Although her proctor appeared before them that same day and requested relaxation of that sentence as having been rendered less than reasonably, he was heard in nothing at all; he therefore ratified the appeal interposed by Lambert and withdrew. Showing no deference to the appeal, the judges received the witnesses produced on behalf of the provostess and her accomplices. After publishing their depositions in the custodian’s absence, they condemned her and her accomplices to restitution of one hundred and fifty marks and likewise for theft and sacrilege, subjecting them to a sentence of excommunication.

Afterward, when the custodian’s proctor presented himself at the appointed time before the aforesaid scholastic of Minden and his co-judges to proceed in judgment on her behalf, those judges asserted that, since the custodian had been excommunicated by the aforesaid judges, just as she could not bring an action, so neither ought her proctor to be heard; by sentence they repelled her from acting. The proctor answered to the contrary that such a sentence of excommunication could harm neither him nor the custodian, since it had been impeded at law by the obstacle of a lawful appeal which preceded it. When the judges, regarding this allegation as frivolous, refused to adjudicate the appeal, the proctor appealed to the Apostolic See. Refusing to defer to that appeal, they received the witnesses whom the other party wished to produce to prove that one of the delegated judges who had rendered the sentence for the custodian had been excommunicated when the sentence of confirmation for her was rendered, taking as their occasion that some of the witnesses had come from remote regions.

For this reason certain sisters of Herisia appealed to the Apostolic See for themselves and the custodian. Disregarding the appeal interposed, the judges removed the nun G. from administration of the church of Herisia and committed it to the provostess of that church, who was to receive certain suitable persons as her assistants. The same judges also omitted the article concerning restitution of the things taken away, which had first been inserted in the mandate of our letters, and received witnesses concerning another article: namely, that a lawful appeal had formerly been taken from the aforesaid abbot and his co-judges because they refused to provide the parties with a copy of our rescript.

Afterward, publishing the witnesses received concerning the aforesaid articles, they wholly invalidated the sentence of confirmation rendered for the often-mentioned custodian. Inquiring nevertheless into her election, they quashed it as having been celebrated less than canonically and granted the sisters free power to elect. Assembling together, the sisters unanimously elected the often-mentioned nun G. The said judges confirmed her election and solemnly assigned her possession of the abbey and its chair, publicly declaring the aforesaid custodian and her supporters excommunicated.

Subsequently, those who had been appointed by the aforesaid judges as auditors concerning the foregoing article, namely the restitution of the things taken away, received the witnesses produced by the aforesaid provostess and her accomplices and transmitted their depositions, enclosed under their own seals, to the same judges. But when the custodian began her journey to come to the Apostolic See, the aforesaid judges refused to publish the statements of the witnesses and sent them enclosed under their seals to our presence.]

We therefore diligently considered these and other matters which both the aforesaid custodian and the cleric I., who had come against her concerning the same affair, wished to propose when recently appearing at the Apostolic See, as well as the records of the judges produced before us by those same persons. We plainly discovered that the aforesaid letters obtained for the abbot of Remech and his co-judges had been obtained by subreption. For cognizance of the article concerning restitution of the things taken away had been committed in them without our knowledge, although that article had been inserted in the earlier letters obtained for the scholastic of Hildesheim and his co-judges, of which no mention was made in the second letters. We therefore considered that what is known to have been attempted on occasion of those letters should be wholly invalidated.

We also found that the said scholastic of Hildesheim and his co-judges had proceeded less than providently. For our letters principally commanded them to approach the aforesaid church in person and commit administration of the abbey to a suitable person, to whom restitution from both sides of the things taken away should be made for its use. But they, transposing the form of the apostolic mandate, omitted that article and adjudicated other articles at great length and out of order. We therefore decree void and invalid their proceedings attempted contrary to the form of our rescript and the order of law.

Accordingly, we command you, after assembling in a suitable and safe place and restoring G., A., and certain other sisters of the same church as justice requires, to observe the form of our mandate with exact diligence and, appeal being removed, to proceed in the affair itself with reason going before, according to the tenor of the preceding letters, so that through your circumspect solicitude a due conclusion may at least on this occasion be imposed upon an affair so long protracted. [But because, etc.]

Latin source headnote: A second rescript is valid although it makes no mention of the first, when the person who obtained the first was unwilling to use it within a year.

The same.

It very often happens that certain persons, after obtaining our letters against others concerning certain matters and postponing their use for a long time, finally produce them when, by authority of other letters, they begin to be sued by those against whom they had first obtained letters, saying that the later letters are not valid because they make no mention of the earlier ones. Since human malice is not to be indulged, by authority of the present writings we establish that, if anyone obtaining our letters postpones using them through malice or negligence for a year after he has had access to the judges, he may be sued by authority of the later letters, although no mention of the earlier ones is made in them.

Latin source headnote (Abbas Siculus): If something is commanded to an ordinary by a delegate, he ought humbly to execute it. But if another delegate, through other letters, commands the contrary after execution, or if before execution it becomes known to the ordinary that there is a dispute over jurisdiction between the delegate who issued the command and another, he is to cause copies of both sets of letters to be produced to him—not so that he may adjudicate the matter jurisdictionally, but so that he may inform himself whether the first letters are revoked by the second. If the first are revoked, he is to execute the second command. But if they are not revoked, or if he is in doubt about this, he is not to execute the second command until the dispute over jurisdiction is terminated.

The same to the Archbishop of Rouen.

When it happens ... (And below: [compare chapter 11, *On Age and Quality, I.*14.]) Moreover, when certain persons litigating over a matter obtain letters to different judges, some of whom, obtained by one party, command you to declare that the opposing party lies under a sentence of excommunication, while other judges afterward enjoin you to declare that same party absolved, you ask us whether in this matter you ought to obey both sets, neither, or at least one of them.

Responding concerning this to your prudence, we believe that a distinction is to be made: when you are known to have received the first command, had it perhaps become known to you that a dispute over jurisdiction had arisen between those judges and the others, or did you know nothing at all about this? If nothing at all concerning a dispute of this kind has become known to you when you happen to receive the first command, you ought humbly to put it into execution. But if the contrary is later commanded to you by others, then, after a copy of the letters obtained from the Apostolic See for both sets of judges has been requested—which by authority of the present writings we strictly command to be produced to you—if from their tenor you clearly discover, so that there is no room at all for doubt, that the letters obtained for those from whom you received the second command expressly revoke the letters of the others, you are fearlessly to execute what is commanded to you in the second place.

But if from inspection of the letters it is manifestly established before you that the letters obtained for those who gave the first command are by no means revoked by the others, you are in no way to execute the second command. If you rightly have doubt concerning this, you ought not to proceed to execute the second command until, according to the tenor of one of our constitutions, this dispute between them is quieted. You ought to do the same if, after the first command has been received but before it has been put into execution, it should become known to you that they have begun to dispute among themselves concerning the jurisdiction committed to them.

In all these matters, however, it is fitting that you have a pure and provident intention, lest, in order to decline a command, you say that you are in doubt where no doubt exists, or, in order to execute [a command], assert that you are certain where you ought not to be certain. Although from these things definite instruction is given to you concerning how you ought to conduct yourself in these matters, no power is attributed to you to adjudicate the jurisdictional dispute between the delegates or the parties. [Moreover, etc. (compare chapter 36, *On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.*29.) Given at the Lateran, on the Kalends of September, in the thirteenth year, 1210.]

Latin source headnote: When several matters producing different effects are narrated in a rescript, it is not sufficient for the person obtaining it to prove only one of them in order to obtain both effects.

The same to Master G. and P. of Firmisca.

Formerly it was intimated to our ears from the letters of our beloved sons, the abbots of Saint-Nicaise of Reims, Sargiensis, and Vallis Regia, that letters had issued from us to them once and again concerning the fact that P., a cleric of Saint-Remi of Reims, detained the parish of Salice Saint-Remi, which the cleric R. de Clivo proposed had been conferred upon him by the abbot of Saint-Remi through an intermediary person. They cited the parties a first, second, and third time; and because the said P. of Saint-Remi, although cited repeatedly, refused to appear before them in person or through any representative, they bound him with the bond of excommunication and caused the fruits of the parish to be sequestered.

When that same P. afterward approached them, promised that he would submit to the law, and obtained absolution, they granted him letters of absolution and assigned him a day and place on which he should fulfill before them what he had promised. Erasing the day and place from those letters, he wrote in the place of the erasure that they commanded the sequestered fruits to be assigned to him. He ultimately confessed this before two of them, the third having excused his absence by letters.

Since an excess of such temerity was not free from the taint of falsehood, we commanded you that, if matters stood thus, you should impose perpetual silence upon that presumptuous man concerning the said parish and assign it, with the sequestered fruits, to the aforesaid cleric R. de Clivo. But, as you, sons G. and P., intimated to us by your letters, when the said R. had proved the aforesaid erasure before you through suitable witnesses and on this account requested that the said church be assigned to him, you were in doubt whether the clause “if matters stood thus” ought to be understood of all the foregoing matters or only of the article concerning the erasure. You therefore postponed proceeding further in the affair, choosing rather to implore an oracle of the Apostolic See concerning this than rashly to determine anything.

We therefore, commending your diligence in the Lord, respond that the clause ought to be referred to all the foregoing matters in order that the aforesaid church be conferred upon R. For although the vice of falsehood is sufficient to impose perpetual silence concerning that church upon the person who perpetrated falsehood of this kind, the same church is not on that account to be assigned to the adversary unless full proof has been made concerning the other matters. [Given at the Lateran, on the sixth day before the Nones of March, in the fifteenth year of our pontificate, 1212.]

Latin source headnote: A rescript obtained for restoration to a benefice is not valid when it makes no mention of the cause of the excommunication and removal of the person obtaining it.

The same to the Bishop of Imola.

Our beloved son, the abbot of Saint Stephen of Bologna, intimated to us by his letters that, when he—to whom we committed the office of visitation in the city and diocese of Bologna—had considered that the priests B. and A. should be removed from their churches because of their grave and manifest excesses, those priests obtained from us letters in the common form directed to you concerning their restoration, making no mention at all of the cause of their removal or of the excommunication by which they remain bound.

When the proctors of the neighboring inhabitants and of the churches themselves proposed the aforesaid exceptions in your presence, you decreed that proceedings in the affair should be suspended until you received our good pleasure concerning our will. We therefore, commending your prudence in this, command your fraternity by apostolic writings that, if matters stand thus, you decree that the letters themselves, as obtained through suppression of the truth, lack force; and, appeal being removed, command that what was providently done concerning the aforesaid priests by the aforementioned abbot be firmly observed.

Latin source headnote: By letters of justice a bishop is not bound to provide for one who has a perpetual vicarage or sufficient patrimony; nor are letters of grace for obtaining a benefice valid when the person obtaining them concealed a perpetual vicarage. This states both meanings comprehensively.

The same to the Bishop of Veratisama.

You asked to be instructed by the Apostolic See whether you are bound, under the common form “Since according to the Apostle,” to provide an ecclesiastical benefice for the perpetual vicar of a church who has from the proceeds of his vicarage and his paternal goods that from which he can be fittingly sustained. We have considered that this answer should be given: since, through the aforesaid form, the Apostolic See has considered that relief should be given to the needs of poor clerics who have obtained no ecclesiastical benefice, as it is customary to express there, a perpetual vicar, unless he has made mention of the vicarage, ought to obtain no benefit from letters of this kind, as being obtained with the truth suppressed. For one for whom competent provision has been made from the proceeds of a perpetual vicarage ought not to be said to lack an ecclesiastical benefice. And for one who has the support of a sufficient benefice we do not readily write knowingly concerning the obtaining of another benefice without making mention of the first in our letters. [You, finally, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the sixth day before the Ides of January, in the sixteenth year of our pontificate, 1214.]

Latin source headnote: Through apostolic letters making no mention of this constitution, no one can be drawn beyond two days’ journeys outside his diocese unless the letters were obtained with the consent of the parties. This it says as far as § “There are also others.” — §1. Letters obtained for lawsuits without the lord’s special mandate are not valid unless they are obtained by a connected person. This it says.

The same, in the General Council.

Certain persons, abusing the favor of the Apostolic See, strive to obtain its letters to remote judges so that the defendant, wearied by labor and expenses, may be compelled to yield in the suit or to buy himself free from the claimant’s importunity. Since access to injuries which observance of the law forbids ought not to lie open through judicial proceedings, we establish that no one may through apostolic letters be drawn to judgment more than two days’ journeys beyond his diocese unless the letters were obtained with the assent of the parties or expressly made mention of this constitution.

§1. There are also others who, turning themselves to a new kind of commerce, fabricate causes concerning which they obtain letters from the Apostolic See without their lords’ mandate, as though they could revive dormant complaints or introduce new disputes. They offer those letters for sale either to the defendant, so that he may not be troubled because of them by the loss of labor and expenses, or to the claimant, so that through them he may weary his adversary with undue harassment. Since lawsuits ought to be restricted rather than enlarged, by this general constitution we decree that, if anyone hereafter presumes to obtain apostolic letters concerning any dispute without his lord’s special mandate, both those letters shall be invalid and he himself shall be punished as a falsifier—unless perhaps he is among those persons from whom a mandate ought not by law to be required.

Latin source headnote: If, on occasion of two rescripts—one in the principal cause and the other in the cause of appeal—a dispute arises, not the judge appointed over the principal cause but the one appointed over the appeal ought to adjudicate the validity of the appeal.

Honorius III to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Co-judges.

Our beloved son I. Sarracenus, a cleric, explained before us that, when Jordan, a cleric of Dummel, drew him into a cause before you by authority of our letters concerning the church of Saint Nicholas of Dummel, it was proposed by way of exception on behalf of I. in your presence that he ought not and could not be sued by authority of those letters, because you were distant by more than two days’ journeys from the diocese in which the aforesaid church was situated, contrary to the statutes of the General Council, of which no mention was made in those letters.

Because, refusing to admit this exception, you nevertheless proceeded in the cause solely on the ground that I. held benefices in the dioceses of Rochester and Ely, as though from this he were understood to have a domicile there, he appealed to our hearing. But you, disregarding his appeal, decreed that the other party was to be put into possession of that church for the purpose of custody. When I. prosecuted the appeal interposed and obtained our letters concerning the foregoing to our venerable brother the Archbishop of York and his colleagues, you nevertheless continued to proceed in the cause and prohibited those judges from proceeding in the affair committed to them. Therefore we command your discretion, if matters stand thus, to suspend proceedings in that cause, since not you but the said judges ought to adjudicate to whom jurisdiction should pertain.

Latin source headnote: If several persons obtain rescripts concerning the same church, the date is controlling, so that the first person obtaining one is preferred and alone admitted. The doctors commonly summarize it thus, and this summary proceeds according to the common opinion which prevails today because of the new laws.

The same to the Bishop and Archdeacon of León.

The chapter of Holy Cross of Cambrai showed us by a petition produced before us that, after the cleric Callimachus of the diocese of Noyon first obtained our admonitory and then our preceptory letters directed to them concerning his obtaining a prebendal benefice in their church, the cleric B. of the diocese of Tournai obtained from us executory letters against them concerning the conferral of a similar benefice upon him in the same church, directed to I., Archbishop of Tournai, and his colleagues, without mention being made of the aforesaid letters. After an appeal to us had been interposed, those judges pronounced sentences of suspension and excommunication against them. The said C. also obtained our writings to other judges concerning execution of the mandate made on his behalf, and those judges pronounced sentences of suspension and excommunication against the same persons.

They therefore humbly petitioned us that, since there are only twelve prebends in the same church and for that reason they could not provide for both at once without great burden, we should cause those sentences to be relaxed and one of the two to be provided with a prebend in the same church—especially since this clause was inserted in the letters of each: “unless the same church has been burdened by our mandate concerning the reception of another.” Therefore we command your discretion, after receiving as canon and brother, and assigning a prebendal benefice to, the one who first brought back the apostolic mandate to them, to relax the aforesaid sentences according to the form of the Church, after removing the obstacle of appeal, and to impose silence upon the other concerning a prebendal benefice in the same church.

Latin source headnote: If one who has papal letters for a benefice renounces them in return for an annual pension, beneficial letters afterward obtained by him with this concealed are not valid.

The same to the Archbishop of Bourges, Legate of the Apostolic See.

It has come to our hearing through your report that certain clerics, after obtaining letters from the Apostolic See concerning their provision in certain churches subject to you by diocesan law, receive annual pensions or other benefices from those churches, withdraw from their claims against them, and renounce the benefit of our letters. They then approach the Apostolic See and obtain other letters from it concerning their provision, without mention being made of the letters previously obtained, and thus, abusing the grace of apostolic benignity, trouble the churches in manifold ways.

Therefore, lest such men glory in the cunning of their circumvention, we command your fraternity to decree that those who, after selling our letters in this manner, shall hereafter obtain—or have hitherto obtained—others without mention being made of the former letters are deprived of the benefit of the latter; and not to permit the churches against which they were obtained to be vexed on their occasion, revoking as void anything which you find to have been done under their pretext.

Latin source headnote: A person received through apostolic letters, although he is awaiting a prebend, ought not to be received in another church through other letters which suppress that fact. This it says by adhering to the words of the letter.

Gregory IX to the Archbishop of Milan.

You proposed in our presence that certain clerics fraudulently obtain several letters from the Apostolic See, although the later letters make no mention of the earlier, so that they may be admitted in several churches. Thus, having sometimes been received in some churches, although they have not yet obtained an ecclesiastical benefice in them, they nevertheless assail and trouble other churches concerning their reception. (And below:) We command you to cause those clerics to remain content with the churches in which they have been received, and not to permit other churches to be troubled by them on occasion of letters of this kind, unless perhaps they made express mention of their reception.

Latin source headnote: A rescript which a revoked proctor, certified of the revocation, obtained outside judicial proceedings is not valid; it is otherwise, however, if he obtained it in judicial proceedings, provided the revocation had not come to the knowledge of the adversary or the judge. This it says according to the more common reading.

The same to the Bishop of Senlis and the Abbot of Chaalis.

It was proposed on behalf of the dean and chapter of Laon that, after they had pronounced a sentence of excommunication against the nobleman I. by authority of an apostolic indulgence, the proctors of the parties approached the Apostolic See on this account and, issue having been joined concerning various articles, we committed the cause to you for termination, adding that letters obtained without the assent of the parties should not obstruct it.

But the said nobleman, having been cited, proposed that proceedings ought not to be taken under those letters because V., who had obtained them, was a false proctor, since before the letters were obtained the nobleman had revoked the mandate delivered to him on account of the suspicion which he had conceived against him. When they proposed to the contrary that a revocation of this kind had not come to us or to themselves, you pronounced by an interlocutory decree that you ought to proceed under those letters. (And below:) When their proctor then requested that you inspect the aforesaid indulgence, the nobleman’s proctor answered to the contrary that proceedings ought not to be taken under the said letters, producing certain other letters obtained later, which contained, among other things, that, if it proceeded from the will of the parties, you were to terminate the cause; otherwise, you were to remit it, sufficiently instructed, to the examination of the Apostolic See together with the aforesaid indulgence.

They said that these later letters were not valid because they had been obtained by the same V. after revocation of his mandate. Since, according to the statutes of the General Council, apostolic letters which someone obtains without his lord’s special mandate ought not to be valid unless he is among the persons from whom a mandate is not by law to be required, we command you that, if the revocation of the mandate came to the proctor, then—because letters obtained by one from whom the lord has revoked his mandate ought to possess less validity—you proceed in the affair according to the contents of the earlier letters, notwithstanding the later ones.

Latin source headnote: A rescript obtained against a man of one diocese does not extend to a man of the same name from another diocese.

The same to the Dean and Master G., Canon of Liège.

Know that we have learned from the report of V. that, when R. obtained letters to judges against V. of the diocese of Reims concerning certain cloths and other things, that same V. proposed by way of exception that, since he was not of the diocese of Reims but of Liège, he could not and ought not by law to be sued under letters of this kind, since they made no mention of the diocese of Liège. Because they refused to admit this exception, he appealed to our hearing. Therefore we command you, if matters stand thus, after revoking as void, etc.

Latin source headnote: Through a rescript obtained against the men of a diocese, men of the city cannot be sued.

The same to the Prior of Saint-Laud and the Succentor of Rouen.

Ralph, a cleric and rector of the church of Saint Christopher in the city of Sées, showed us by his representation that, when Master R. sued him before the judges of certain letters concerning that same church under the general clause “certain others”—letters obtained from us against the Bishop of Sées and certain others of the diocese of Sées concerning revenues and other property—the same rector proposed by way of exception that, since he was from the city of Sées and no one of the city itself was understood to be included under that clause, he could not be sued through it. Because the said judges refused to admit this exception, he appealed to our hearing. Therefore we command you, if matters stand thus, to revoke as void, etc.

Latin source headnote: If a person who was to be sued under a general clause dies while the matter remains untouched, his successor cannot be sued.

The same to the Abbot of Saint James.

The Countess of Namur reported to us that, when on the death of her brother the count she succeeded to his county, G. and B., through certain apostolic letters obtained against the Bishop of Toul and certain other clerics and laymen, sued her before the judges for whom those letters had been obtained, under the general clause “certain others,” concerning a certain sum of money which they said that they had lent to her brother, because she had succeeded to the aforesaid county.

Her proctor therefore raised the exception that, because the brother of the same woman was still living when those letters were obtained and had not been summoned to judgment by them while he lived, she could not be sued by their authority. Because the judges would not admit her exception, she appealed to our hearing. (And below:) Therefore we command you, if matters stand thus, after revoking as void, etc.

Latin source headnote: Executory letters in which the person obtaining them falsely said that admonitory letters had preceded are not valid.

The same to the Abbot of Saint Victor.

We learned from the representation of the Bishop of Amiens that the cleric I. obtained preceptory letters directed to him concerning provision for I., and afterward executory letters against him directed to you. (And below:) Therefore we command you that, if no admonitory letters concerning this preceded, you suspend the same executory letters, provided that those executory letters made mention of the admonitory ones; otherwise, proceed in the affair of execution, with reason going before, according to the mandate directed to you on his behalf.

Latin source headnote: When qualifying clauses are absent, in a doubtful case the Pope does not intend to burden the same collator with provision for two persons; therefore the second person obtaining letters is repelled, whether the first is awaiting provision or has already obtained the favor. This it says according to the understanding of the Gloss.

The same to the Bishop of Noyon.

You are not bound to prosecute the apostolic mandate directed to you—that you cause Master S. to be received as a canon and brother of the church of Noyon, if we have not written there on behalf of another person who is pursuing a favor of this kind—when another person has already obtained a benefice through our letters, since it was not the intention of the mandator that the aforesaid church be burdened with the reception of two persons.

Latin source headnote: A church to which one Pope first gave admonitory letters and another gave executory letters is understood to be burdened by the first Pope, not by the second.

The same.

Apostolic letters having been directed to you that you should receive the cleric G. as a canon and brother unless your church had been burdened by us on behalf of another, we will and command you to execute our mandate, notwithstanding that through our executory letters you received T. the subdeacon, who had obtained admonitory letters from our predecessor H. of good memory, since we were prosecuting the act of our predecessor rather than our own.

Latin source headnote: A diocesan to whom it is written that he provide, or cause provision to be made, in his diocese where it has not been written on behalf of another cannot execute this concerning a benefice belonging to the collation of another who has already been burdened on behalf of someone else.

The same.

The rule of law does not permit an abbot who has already received an apostolic mandate that he provide for the cleric S. in one of the churches of his monastery to be compelled, by virtue of general letters obtained to the diocesan bishop that he cause provision to be made in his diocese where it had not been written on behalf of another, or to be burdened further concerning the conferral of churches or benefices, even if by those letters the diocesan has power to make provision.

Latin source headnote: By a rescript directed to the person who imposed an excommunication, ordering him to absolve the excommunicated person if he excommunicated him contrary to the council, with executors appointed to execute it if he does not obey, cognizance is committed not to the person who imposed the excommunication but to the executors.

The same.

When an excommunicated person who asserts that he was bound contrary to the statutes of the General Council obtains letters to the person who imposed the excommunication, ordering that person, if matters stand thus, to absolve him without difficulty, and other judges are appointed to execute the apostolic mandate if he does not obey, cognizance is committed not to the person who imposed the excommunication—who ought to be certain concerning his own act, although deference is shown to him in this—but to those judges.

Latin source headnote: If a person obtaining a rescript for a benefice said that he had no benefice when nevertheless he had one, although a small one, the rescript is not valid.

The same.

If, when someone proposes that he has not yet obtained an ecclesiastical benefice, an apostolic rescript concerning provision for him is obtained which makes no mention that he possesses one, although it is less than sufficient, we declare that rescript invalid as fraudulently obtained.

Latin source headnote: Those who abuse an apostolic rescript in the cases enumerated here are deprived of the benefit of the rescript and condemned to pay their adversary’s costs and damages.

The same to the Bishop of Paris.

Because certain persons abuse apostolic letters in various ways, we establish that the following shall be deprived of the benefit of those letters and condemned to pay their adversaries the moderate expenses and damages which it is established they sustained on this account:

• those who deliver letters obtained in their own name to others of the same name, who unduly weary through those letters whomever they wish;
• those who receive them in this manner;
• those who cause persons against whom they have no dispute to be summoned to judgment;
• those who extend the letters to future controversies which had not yet arisen at the time they were obtained;
• those who draw anyone concerning one affair—or even maliciously concerning several personal actions which could more conveniently be tried before one judge—before different judges through various letters, so that, wearied by labor and expense, he may be compelled either to make a settlement or to yield his right; and
• a defendant who causes the claimant to be cited at the same time to different places, or without specification to a town which has a name in common with several towns of the same province, so that, when he does not appear, he may be excommunicated as contumacious and thus repelled from his claim.