Title VI: On Election and the Authority of the Elected

Latin source headnote: A collegiate church ought not to be provided with a prelate through collation or provision, but through a canonical election to be made by the college itself. This it says. Abbas.

Pope Lucius.

In a church where two or three brothers are assembled in a congregation, no priest is to be chosen except by their canonical election, after those brothers and the parishioners have been summoned and have come together in agreement. But if anyone has obtained a church otherwise, because he acquired it through cupidity and acted contrary to the discipline of the canonical rule, let him be expelled.

Latin source headnote: A person elected in response to the clamor of the people ought not to be confirmed by the superior.

From the Council of Sardica.

Bishop Hosius said: “If anyone should be so rash that, perhaps bringing forward such an excuse, he asserts that he received letters from the people, although it is manifest that many of those who do not have sincere faith could have been corrupted by reward and payment so that they shouted in the church and appeared to seek him as bishop, I judge that these frauds ought entirely to be condemned. Such a man is not even to receive lay communion at the end of his life unless he has repented of this. If this pleases everyone, decree it.” The synod answered: “It pleases us.”

Latin source headnote: A canonical election is to be confirmed; nevertheless, before confirmation the superior ought to inquire into the conduct and life of the person elected in the place where he has lived.

Gregory III.

After [the man who had been elected to the episcopate of the city of Sorrento did not appear suitable to us, they elected Amandus, priest of the oratory of Saint Severinus situated in the castrum Lucullanum. Therefore we command your experience to take care, every excuse being set aside, to send that priest to us with all haste, so that] the desires of those seeking confirmation [with Christ’s help] may be fulfilled, if there is nothing which impedes the person elected. Since his life and acts can be better known there, where he has lived [for a long time], let inquiry be made there. [And if no, etc.]

Latin source headnote: The Apostolic See will not deliver the pallium to a person elected as archbishop unless he first takes an oath of fidelity and obedience.

Paschal to the Archbishop of Palermo.

You signified, dearest brother, that the kings and magnates of the kingdom were moved to wonder because the pallium was offered to you by our representatives on this condition: that you should render the oath which they carried, written by us.

In the pallium, brother, the fullness of the pontifical office is granted, because according to the custom of the Apostolic See and of all Europe, before receiving the pallium metropolitans are by no means permitted either to consecrate bishops or to celebrate a synod. In this matter let them marvel also at our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when he committed the care of his sheep to Simon Peter, imposed a condition, saying: “If you love me, Simon Peter, feed my sheep.” If the maker of consciences and knower of secrets used this condition—not only once, but a second time also and even to the point of sorrow—with what solicitude and what providence ought we to impose so great a prelacy of the Church and so great a care of Christ’s sheep upon brothers whose consciences we do not see, especially those whom we know through no experience and whose love we wholly ignore?

They say that all oath-taking is prohibited by the Lord God in the Gospel, and that after the Lord it cannot be found established either by the [Apostles] themselves or in councils. What, then, does the same Lord mean when he says immediately afterward: “What is more than this is from evil”? For evil, with him permitting, compels us to require this “more.” Is it not evil to draw back from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the Apostolic See? And is it not evil to break forth against the statutes of the [sacred] canons? How many have presumed to do this even after an oath was rendered?

Did not your predecessor condemn a bishop without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff? In what canons, in what councils, is this read to be permitted? What shall I say concerning the translations of bishops which among you are presumed not by apostolic authority but at the royal nod? An oath of this kind is required to avoid these and other evils.

The Apostle James, adding the words “so that you may not fall under judgment,” clearly teaches why the Lord prohibited an oath: lest anyone, as Augustine also explains, through the habitual frequency of swearing slide by custom into perjury. Therefore [one] should not use an oath except from necessity, when one sees that men are slow to believe what it is useful for them to believe unless it is confirmed by an oath. Plainly, by this evil and necessity we are compelled to require an oath for faith, obedience, and unity. Moreover, his own epistles testify that the Apostle Paul swore because of the distrust of his hearers.

They say that no such statute is found in councils, as though any councils had prescribed law to the Roman Church, although all councils have both been held and received force through the authority of the Roman Church, and the authority of the Roman Pontiff is manifestly excepted in their statutes.

[Was it not established in the sixteenth action of the Council of Chalcedon that, before all else, the preeminent honor of primacy was to be preserved for the most reverend Archbishop of ancient Rome according to the canons? Accordingly, because the king and magnates have determined that you should be released from the aforesaid condition of the oath, does this appear to you an evangelical judgment? Does it appear to be the preeminent honor of our primacy? Has that saying of the Lord fallen from their minds: “A disciple is not above the master”? Was it said to the Hungarian prince: “And you, when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers”? Do we require these things for the advancement of our own advantage, and do we not establish them as a bulwark of Catholic unity?]

They can despise the Apostolic See; they can lift their heel against us; but they cannot overthrow or take away the privilege given by God, by which it was said to Peter: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Nevertheless, by the decrees of the four councils the manner of giving the pallium was prescribed and the order of profession or obedience was sanctioned [as law].

Since, therefore, you seek from the Apostolic See the insignia of your dignity, which are taken only from the body of blessed Peter, it is just that you also render to the Apostolic See the signs of due subjection which declare that you have them with blessed Peter as members from a member and that you preserve the unity of the Catholic head. In these matters such moderation has been employed by our predecessors that nothing injurious and nothing difficult has been imposed which ought not, even apart from our exaction, to be observed by all bishops who have resolved to persist under the obedience and in the unity of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Do not the Saxons and Danes dwell beyond you? And yet their metropolitans both affirm the same oath, treat the legates of the Apostolic See honorably, assist them in their necessities, and visit the thresholds of the Apostles through their legates not merely every three years but every year. [Thus you, etc.]

Latin source headnote: If a schismatic who has returned to the unity of the Church is elected bishop, the election does not hold, but by dispensation it can be confirmed.

Alexander III to Peter, Cardinal-priest and Legate of the Apostolic See.

Because your diligence carefully inquired of us through our beloved son S. whether you ought to confirm the election of a person elected who recently, after abjuring schism, returned to the unity of the Church and to devotion to us, we have considered that this answer should be given to you: if he received no order from a schismatic and his election was celebrated unanimously and concordantly according to the form of the canons, we permit him, by way of dispensation and provided that no other matters impede him, to be confirmed. We command you to cause him to be ordained bishop by the Catholic bishops who are suffragans of the church of Aquileia, saving nevertheless the justice and reverence due to that church when it has returned to Catholic unity.

Latin source headnote: A person elected Roman Pontiff by two-thirds of the cardinals is Pope, notwithstanding any exception; but a person elected by the smaller number who conducts himself as Pope incurs, together with those adhering to him, the penalties contained here.

The same, in the Lateran Council.

Although sufficiently manifest constitutions concerning the avoidance of discord in the election of the Roman Pontiff have issued from our predecessors, nevertheless, because after those constitutions the Church has often suffered grave schism through the audacity of wicked ambition, we too, to avoid this evil, have decreed with the counsel of our brothers and the approval of the sacred council that something should be added.

§1. We therefore establish that, if perhaps, with the enemy man sowing weeds, full concord among the cardinals concerning the appointment of the Supreme Pontiff cannot be achieved, and, while two-thirds agree, the third part should be unwilling to agree or should presume to name another for itself, the man who has been elected and received by the two agreeing thirds shall, without any exception, be held as Roman Pontiff by the universal Church.

§2. But if anyone, relying upon the nomination of the third part—which cannot have a rational basis—should usurp for himself the name of bishop, both he and those who have received him shall be subject to excommunication and punished by deprivation of every sacred order, so that even communion as viaticum shall be denied them except only at the end of life. If they do not come to their senses, let them receive their portion with Dathan and Abiram, whom the earth swallowed alive.

§3. Moreover, if anyone is elected to the apostolic office by fewer than two-thirds, unless greater concord intervenes he shall in no way be assumed; and he shall be subject to the aforesaid penalty if he is unwilling humbly to abstain. Nevertheless, no prejudice shall thereby be generated against the canonical constitutions or against other churches, in which the judgment of the greater and sounder part ought to prevail, because whatever doubtful matter arises in them can be determined by the judgment of a superior. In the Roman Church, however, something special is established because recourse cannot be had to a superior.

Latin source headnote: Election to the episcopate ought to be made of a person worthy in learning, morals, and age, who has completed his thirtieth year and was born of a legitimate marriage. This it says as far as § “But when.” — §1. The benefices of a person elected bishop become vacant through confirmation, acquisition of possession, and subsequent consecration, or after the appointed time for seeking consecration has elapsed. This it says as far as § “The lower.” Abbas Siculus. — §2. For dignities and offices below the episcopate and for benefices with cure of souls, the person to be assumed ought to have attained his twenty-fifth year and otherwise be suitable in learning and morals. If he is not in the required order, he ought to cause himself to be promoted at the next ordination times; otherwise, if he does not obey after being admonished, he is deprived of the benefice notwithstanding an appeal, unless he is excused by a lawful cause. This it says as far as § “Clerics.” Abbas Siculus. — §3. Those who elect an unworthy person contrary to the form of this chapter are, for the first occasion, deprived of the power of electing; the same applies to a collator. The bishop supplies the defect of the chapter, and conversely. If the chapter is negligent, devolution occurs to the metropolitan. This it says as far as the end.

The same, in the same council.

Since in all sacred orders and ecclesiastical ministries maturity of age, gravity of morals, and knowledge of letters are to be sought, much more ought these things to be sought in a bishop, who, being placed over the care of others, ought to show in himself how others should conduct themselves in the house of God. Therefore, lest what was done concerning certain persons because of the necessity of the time be drawn by posterity into an example, by the present decree we establish that no one shall be elected bishop unless he has already completed the thirtieth year of age, was born of a legitimate marriage, and is also shown to be commendable in life and learning.

§1. But when he has been elected, has received confirmation of the election, and has had administration of the ecclesiastical goods, after the time defined by the canons for the consecration of bishops has elapsed, the person to whom the benefices which he held pertain shall have free power to dispose of them.

§2. Let no one at all receive lower ministries—such as a deanery, an archdeaconry, and others which have the care of souls annexed—nor the governance of a parish church, unless he has already attained the twenty-fifth year of age and is commendable in learning and morals. When, however, he has been assumed, if an archdeacon has not been ordained to the diaconate, and a dean and the others, after being admonished, have not been ordained to the priesthood within the time appointed by the canons, let them be removed from that office and let it be conferred upon others who are both willing and able to fulfill it fittingly. Nor let the refuge of appeal profit them if perhaps they wish to protect themselves through an appeal in transgression of this constitution. We command that this be observed not only concerning persons to be promoted but also concerning those who have already been promoted, if the canons do not obstruct it.

§3. Clerics, indeed, if they elect anyone contrary to this form, should know themselves [to be] deprived on that occasion of the power of electing and suspended from ecclesiastical benefices for three years. For it is fitting that those whom fear of God does not recall from evil should at least be restrained by the severity of ecclesiastical discipline. But if a bishop acts or consents to action contrary to these provisions, he shall lose [his] power in conferring the aforesaid offices and benefices, and appointment shall be made through the chapter, or through the metropolitan if the chapter cannot agree.

Latin source headnote: Those who commit an election to another are bound to receive the person elected by the compromissary if she is suitable.

The same to the Archbishop of Ravenna.

Some time ago we committed to your experience for termination the cause which is known to be conducted among the nuns of Saint Margaret concerning the discord and dissension of the election which they made. But because that cause is prolonged to such an extent, and, as we have learned, you have not yet proceeded, and because it is dangerous and damaging to the monastery that the cause is prolonged so greatly, we command your fraternity by apostolic writings to proceed in that cause within forty days, or two months at most, according to the tenor of our other letters.

You are to proceed in such a way that, if the sisters committed the election to the bishop, promising that they would receive the woman whom the bishop provided for them, you cause the woman whom the bishop has provided to be received by them as their abbess, appeal being removed, provided nevertheless that she is suitable. But if you are unable to proceed in the cause, you are to signify on our behalf to our beloved sons I., cardinal-priest of the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles and Legate of the Apostolic See, and the Prior of Saint Victor that they are to proceed in the same cause and decide it with a due conclusion.

Latin source headnote: Before confirmation, a person elected cannot confer benefices or otherwise administer.

The same to the Bishop of Worcester.

You know, as a prudent and wise man, that our beloved son G., Bishop-elect of Lincoln, does not have the faculty of granting honors or prebends, or of otherwise disposing of the property of the church, since his election has not been confirmed.

For this reason we command your fraternity by apostolic writings, by way of precept, not to delay more strictly prohibiting the aforesaid elect on our behalf from presuming to confer upon anyone the archdeaconry of Norantine or the prebend which W., archdeacon of that place, held. And if—which we do not suppose—he has granted that archdeaconry or prebend to anyone, we therefore command you to order him by our authority to take care, as quickly as possible and with every contradiction and appeal ceasing, to revoke any grant which he made concerning the aforesaid matters. [But if he delays, etc.]

Latin source headnote: An election made after an appeal, while the first election had not been quashed, and contrary to the privileges of the church, is to be quashed.

The same.

We considered that the election of John Frontinus had been celebrated after an appeal to us had been interposed and contrary to the tenor of the privileges of your church. We also perceived that the election of B. was made after that election of whatever quality had not been quashed, and also after an appeal through which all things ought to be restored to their former state, and after violence had been inflicted, although the king wholly denies that any violence was ever perpetrated in this matter with his assent or knowledge.

Therefore, with the common counsel of our brothers, we wholly quash each election and grant you free power to agree upon another suitable and honorable person. This is nevertheless to be done so that the reputation of each of the aforesaid men is preserved no less entirely on account of this, and so that they may, if God grants it, be promoted to dignity in other churches. Apart from this disposition for your church, however, it shall be lawful for you, if it is your will, to agree again upon either of them and to provide him canonically as your abbot and master.

Latin source headnote: A confirmed metropolitan, although he has not yet received the pallium, can cause his suffragan to be consecrated.

The same.

It is lawful for the suffragans of a metropolitan, at the mandate of that metropolitan after confirmation of his election, to consecrate a person elected who belongs to his jurisdiction, even if the metropolitan has not received the pallium. When the metropolitan is suffering from illness or otherwise impeded, after his reception of the pallium—and even before it, if his election has been confirmed—his suffragans can, at his mandate, confer the office of consecration upon the person elected.

Latin source headnote: A person whose election was quashed not because of a defect in the person but because of the manner of election can be elected again; it is otherwise if it was quashed because of a defect in the person.

Clement III.

Concerning what you wished to inquire—if, after someone’s election has been quashed, the same person is elected to the governance of another church, whether his election ought to be confirmed—we wish your discretion to hold this: if the earlier election is quashed not because of a defect in the person but because of the manner of election, it ought not to impede his promotion even in the same church, unless perhaps it is established that some depravity of simony intervened.

Latin source headnote: A person who has not made profession can be postulated as abbot if a postulation of this kind is made for some good cause. This it says according to the reading which is more particular.

Celestine III.

Since the monastery of Pellicia situated in your episcopate has come to such dissolution, as the intimation of your letters disclosed, that the brothers of that house have cast off the observance and order of religion and, after its goods were squandered and consumed, have hitherto been unable to agree upon electing an abbot for themselves from the body of that church, nevertheless, at the insistence of your admonition and exhortation, they assembled together and unanimously agreed upon a man of good testimony who had lived laudably with his brothers in a hermitage. Postulating him as abbot with all their desires, they asked to be subjected to his disciplines and habit.

You, with the counsel of prudent and discreet men, assented to their postulation and humbly petitioned that the same appointment be confirmed by the Apostolic See. We, liberally imparting our favor and assent to your petition, confirm that appointment as having been canonically made and fortify it with the protection of the present writing. [Concerning that matter, etc. (compare chapter 1, On Confessions, II.18.)]

Latin source headnote: An election ought to remain within the freedom of those electing, and a contrary custom is not valid.

The same.

Since the land which was regarded as the measuring-line of the Lord’s inheritance ... (And below:) As we have learned from the tenor of certain letters and the report of many persons, a disease of depraved custom formerly crept into elections: namely, when the election of some prelate is to be celebrated, the convent to which it is known to belong names two persons, who are secretly to be declared in the ears of the patriarch or prince, so that the same patriarch or prince may thus have full power either to choose one of them or wholly to invalidate the entire election.

Since this redounds to the burden and destruction of ecclesiastical liberty, we decree that the aforesaid depravity of custom is to be wholly abolished. We establish that the form of canonical election be observed in all conventual churches: namely, when provision is to be made for a church deprived of the governance of a pastor, the electors are to assemble in one place where the election is to be celebrated and, after the grace of the Holy Spirit has been invoked, solemnly name a person upon whom all, or the [greater] part of sounder counsel, can agree. Without contradiction from anyone, that person is to be admitted to the governance of that church, provided that the person is suitable and the election was celebrated without simoniacal depravity.

But if there was fault in the person or in the manner of election, the electors are to apply diligence of inquiry in the election until they can provide a suitable person for the vacant church according to the aforesaid form. When this has been done, we do not prohibit the assent of the king or of the patriarch then in office from being sought; but we do not wish the election itself to be impeded on this account.

Latin source headnote: Through confirmation of an election the power to exercise those things which belong to order is not transferred, for those things are transferred through consecration. Abbas.

The same.

Your affection has now repeated the question which, as you took care to intimate, was previously transmitted to our hearing. You asked what is to be done by you concerning the fact that clerics of your diocese, when they are struck for their excesses by a sentence of suspension, interdict, or excommunication, make light of it, abandon their churches, and transfer themselves to the commercial occupations of laymen. Certain of them also set aside the clerical habit, put on lay garments, and, involving themselves like lay merchants in base gains, join the company of laymen like themselves and elude ecclesiastical correction through contempt. They say that you do not have the power to correct them unless the Apostolic See has specially granted it to you.

We therefore answer that, whenever you find such persons, if after being admonished they are unwilling to be recalled from such base acts, to make full satisfaction for their contempt, and to return to clerical dress, you, supported by our authority, are to subject them to excommunication with appeal ceasing and cause them to be more strictly avoided by everyone until they have purged their guilt by suitable satisfaction, especially if any of them have been established in sacred orders.

You could execute these things even without a special mandate, since from the time when you received confirmation of your election you have free power to establish what is just and accords with ecclesiastical utility concerning such and similar matters, apart from those things which require examination through a greater inquiry and demand the ministry of consecration.

Latin source headnote: One who renounces an election made concerning himself cannot appeal in order to impede the election of another. And an election celebrated by suspended persons does not hold.

Innocent III to the Abbots of Cella Sancti Petri and Modena.

When a dispute concerning the abbey of Schaffhausen arose between our beloved son R. the elder and R. the younger, and they appeared in our presence, we appointed as their auditors our beloved sons G., cardinal-deacon of Saints Cosmas and Damian, and G., cardinal-deacon of Santa Maria in Aquiro. In their presence [on behalf of R. the elder] there were proposed [the matters which follow.

When H., former abbot of that monastery, had spontaneously resigned the burden of governance against the will of his chapter and had absolved the monks from obedience to him, they unanimously elected the aforesaid R. the elder as their abbot, with the said H. also consenting and obeying him together with the others. Afterward the elect was presented to the diocesan bishop and received from him the office of blessing, administering that church as its proper abbot for two years and more.

But because he placed the nuns of Saint Agnes of that town—who were furnishing the younger monks with material for sin—under stricter custody, the young monks, seizing an occasion from this, stirred up others against him on the ground that the aforesaid resignation of H. had been less than canonical. Hearing this, the aforesaid bishop approached the place and inquired into the cause of the dissension. He paternally rebuked H. as though he had sown an occasion of hatred in the church, but learned from him that such things were not being done through him. When certain of the monks said in the bishop’s presence that they had by no means been absolved from obedience to H., H. declared that he had absolved them. To remove every ground of suspicion from himself, he vehemently asserted with an oath before the bishop that he wished henceforth to have neither that abbey nor any other.

After the bishop’s departure, however, the monks returned nevertheless to their customary devices and conducted a controversy against R. before the said bishop and the chapter of Constance on the ground that H. had relinquished the abbey less than canonically. When R. was prepared immediately to prove the justice of his position, the monks, seeing the defect in their cause, appealed to the Apostolic See although aggrieved in nothing. Through letters obtained by subreption within the period of appeal, an unjust judgment was promulgated against R. by messengers while he was appealing, and his adversary was restored.

R., prosecuting the appeal interposed through a messenger, obtained letters of commission within the appointed term to specified judges. Those letters commanded that, after what had been adjudged against him on occasion of the earlier commission had been restored to its due state, they should restore the abbey to him and cause the monks to show him due reverence. But the monks remained obstinate and were unwilling to obey him.]

Both parties approached the Apostolic See. Pope Celestine of good memory, our predecessor, appointed as their auditors ourselves—when we were then established in a lesser office—and our beloved son John, cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Stephen. When argument had been made at length on each side before us and we had explained the course of the affair to our aforesaid predecessor, Celestine of good memory, our predecessor, compelled R. the elder, who urgently demanded a judgment, to enter a settlement against his will. Thus, renouncing the abbey, he received from H.’s hand the custodianship and also the priory, to be possessed without any dispute while H. lived.

Although R. consented to this arrangement unwillingly, when he returned home he was unable to obtain the things [granted to him], because his adversaries were unwilling to observe the settlement. Rather, what is worse, they afterward laid violent hands upon him. But, aided by the men of that place and escaping the hands of the monks, he flew to the aid of an appeal.

Meanwhile our beloved son P., cardinal-deacon of Santa Maria in Via Lata and Legate of the Apostolic See, approaching those regions, both suspended the monks and placed the monastery under interdict because of the aforesaid and many other excesses. But they, despising the cardinal’s sentence, celebrated the divine offices more promptly than before; and while this suspension remained, the aforesaid adversary of R. was taken from their midst by death.

On learning this, R. came to the church and, when he wished to comply with the aforesaid settlement but the other party was unwilling, placed before them the obstacle of an appeal so that they should not proceed to the election of an abbot until the dispute between them was terminated. But the monks, contumacious in every respect, together elected the said R. the younger and presented him to the diocesan bishop to be blessed. The bishop blessed him after the appeal had been interposed and in a church under interdict.

[For this reason R. the elder, again approaching the Apostolic See, obtained letters from us directing that what had been improperly attempted by the monks after an appeal had been lawfully interposed should be restored to its due state. If it were established that the election had been made by persons suspended and under interdict, the judges were to declare that it did not hold at all; concerning the restoration of R. the elder and the other matters which they considered should be proposed on each side, they were, with appeal removed, to establish what the order of reason required.

When the delegated judges received those letters, they cited the parties into their presence. When the monks wished to prove that the letters had been obtained through suggestion of falsehood, and the judges were unwilling to receive their proof, they appealed to the Apostolic See. But the delegates, because appeal had been removed in the letters, nevertheless proceeded in the cause. When the truth of the affair was established before them through the depositions of witnesses, they rendered judgment for the often-mentioned R. the elder and adjudged the aforesaid church to him. He therefore petitioned that what had been done by delegation of the Apostolic See obtain due firmness through us, so that, after the contumacy of the monks had been repressed, he might enjoy peaceful possession of the abbey.

On the other side, however, it was alleged against R. the elder that, when the former abbot H. had resigned less than lawfully and the monks were treating concerning an election, R. the elder employed fraud and procured that, while vespers were being sung and the election was to be celebrated on the following day, the men of the town approached the church and violently intruded R. there while almost all the monks protested. Afterward, recognizing that the resignation of H. had by no means held and considering also that the monastery could prosper under his praiseworthy conduct, the monks sought him as their proper abbot.

Hence it happened that, after many altercations and commissions, a commission was at length obtained with the assent of each party: if it were established before the delegated judges that the resignation of H. was formless and the substitution of R. the elder useless, they were to remove R. and restore the abbey to H. This was carried into effect.

Afterward, while R. nevertheless murmured, both men together approached the presence of our predecessor, who, as we have already stated, appointed us and the aforesaid cardinal-priest as their auditors. When the cause had at length been conducted for a long time, a settlement was celebrated by our predecessor with the assent of each party: H. was to obtain the abbey, and R. the priory and custodianship, on account of which R. promised obedience to H. When they thus returned home, R. approved the aforesaid settlement before the diocesan bishop. But when afterward he was asked a third time by the abbot whether he wished to have the custodianship and priory, he came after a third citation and said that he wished to have the aforesaid offices not through the abbot but through the Roman Pontiff; and therefore he was unwilling to show the abbot any obedience.

Departing without the abbot’s permission, he remained outside the monastery for a considerable time and was bound by H., with the counsel of the brothers, by the bond of excommunication. When he did not return to the monastery for a long time, the abbot, with the brothers advising, assigned those offices to others, who held them peacefully as long as the abbot lived.

When the abbot died, the brothers assembled together in the presence of certain abbots and other religious men who had gathered for the burial of the deceased, and, in the absence of R. the elder, unanimously elected R. the younger as abbot. The diocesan bishop confirmed and blessed him after he had been presented.

Thereafter R. the elder approached our presence and, by falsehood, obtained letters to judges four days’ journeys distant and suspected by the monks. A party of the monks approached those judges before any citation and, after obtaining a copy of the commission, alleged that the letters had been obtained through suggestion of falsehood: they said that it was written in the letters that the settlement had not been observed for him, that the monastery was under interdict, and that he had appealed before R. the younger was elected abbot, all of which they asserted to be wholly false. He also concealed that he had been excommunicated by the deceased abbot and certain other matters which, if expressed, would by no means have allowed him to obtain those letters.

When they wished sufficiently to prove everything which we have stated, and the judges refused to receive their proofs on the ground that this had not been committed to them, the monks appealed before entry into the trial, as was proved from the depositions of witnesses. The delegates nevertheless proceeded, received the witnesses of the opposing party, and by judgment decreed that R. the elder was to be installed. The monks humbly petitioned us to invalidate their act as unjust.]

When the aforesaid cardinals had prudently and faithfully reported these and certain other matters to us and our brothers, we, considering that by assent to the settlement received—which our predecessor had also confirmed—R. the elder had lost whatever right had belonged to him, and that on this account he could by no means lawfully have appealed to prevent the monks from proceeding to an election, since those whose interest is not involved are not ordinarily heard when they appeal, declare with the counsel of our brothers that the appeal was not lawful. Hence the election could not be impeded by it.

[But because it was established before us that the monks reasonably appealed before the beginning of the litigation on the ground that the delegates were unwilling to admit proof concerning the suggestion of falsehood, and consequently that, by the very fact that a proper appeal had been made, the jurisdiction of the judges had expired, we declare by judgment that whatever was improperly attempted by them—whether in receiving witnesses before joinder of issue or in rendering judgment—does not hold.]

Although our beloved sons P. the provost and the chapter of Constance inserted in their letters the interdict which the cardinal had imposed, nevertheless, because the fact that the diocesan bishop conferred the office of blessing upon R. the younger seems to conflict with what we have stated—so that either the writing prejudices the deed or the deed the writing—and because, although it was alleged, it was not proved that the election had been celebrated by persons under interdict, we could not invalidate it, especially since nothing was attempted against the person elected.

We have therefore considered that the cause should be committed to you with the assent of the parties under this form: if it is established that the election was made by suspended persons, after it has been wholly quashed and suitable satisfaction has been made, let the sentences of suspension and interdict be relaxed, and let provision be made for the monastery in a suitable person. Otherwise, lest the utility of the monastery be delayed, we wish the aforesaid election to be confirmed by you with appeal removed and R. the younger to enjoy peaceful possession of the abbey, [but the other, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the seventh day before the Ides of April, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: If the person elected does not have sufficient learning, or if he administers before confirmation, his election ought to be quashed.

The same to the Chapter of Penne.

You, as the authors of his election, know more fully how, after the death of the Bishop of Penne of good memory, when your church was vacant, and after first receiving our letters concerning the election to be made, you elected your primicerius as your pastor. But because the man elected by you irreverently involved himself in administration of the episcopate before obtaining confirmation, receiving oaths from both clerics and laymen, and did not consider that, according to the Apostle, no one ought to assume the honor for himself except one who is called by God as Aaron was—especially since he had not obtained the gift of learning fitting for a pontiff, although according to the word of the Lord, “He who shall do and teach shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”—after you presented that elect to us, and after sufficient examination had first been conducted and the counsel of our brothers shared, we considered that the election made concerning him should be invalidated as justice required. We declare that whatever was done from it and on its account does not hold at all. [But lest the flock, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of October, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: If persons who need not be summoned to an election are summoned, an election made without waiting for them is valid. This it says according to the common reading.

The same to the Chapter of Capua.

Since among all metropolitan churches Capua is nearer to the Apostolic See, we aspire more particularly to make provision for it, desiring that such a person be set over it as excels other metropolitans in the affection of devotion just as he does in proximity of place, through whom the metropolitan church itself may receive the desired increase in spiritual as well as temporal matters.

We learned through our beloved sons I. and F., your canons, and through the letters which they brought to the Apostolic See, that the dean and your other canons remaining at Palermo intimated to you by letters that, considering the losses of the church of Capua, you should treat concerning the election of a replacement pastor in such a way that you would name no one in their absence. You sent one of your associates to them with letters, assigning a period of twelve days within which, after receiving your letters, they should begin the return journey. Yet ecclesiastical custom does not require that canons so far away be summoned to the election of a pastor, especially those who knew in person of the death of your metropolitan long before you did, some of whom returned to the church of Capua after his death.

Because a longer delay in elections is highly suspect and indeed often damaging, we command and instruct your discretion by apostolic writings, after invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit, concordantly to assume through canonical election a suitable person for the governance of the church of Capua. You are thereafter to send suitable messengers to our hearing, through whom you are to seek assent from us in place of the king and request the grace of apostolic confirmation. You are to provide attentively that you proceed with such zeal of discretion and charity that neither vice in the election nor defect in the person elected can be found. Otherwise, we would both revoke the act of election as void and punish the persons of those electing.

Latin source headnote: It ought to be considered not whether an election was celebrated after an appeal, but whether it was celebrated contrary to the appeal. And the right of electing remains with those who summon and possess the power of summoning if those summoned disdain to come. It also belongs to the office of the confirmer to examine the person elected, even when no one objects. Unless the person elected is shown to be of lawful age and learning, he is held not to have been lawfully elected.

The same to the Archdeacon and Chapter of Capua.

When formerly the death [of the Archbishop of Capua of good memory had been established before us through both your letters and your messengers, wishing, as the solicitude of our office requires, that a pastor be provided more quickly for the widowed church, we commanded you to make a canonical election of a suitable person through whom the church of Capua could be fittingly governed in spiritual and temporal matters.

You received our mandate humbly and devoutly and assembled in the metropolitan church on the appointed day. When you were sitting in chapter to treat concerning the election to be made, and you, son archdeacon, had begun the hymn invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit, our beloved son M., Archdeacon of Teano and canon of Capua, commanded silence and said: “The Lord Pope has commanded us to make a canonical election, and I prohibit an election from being made unless it is canonical, and I issue the voice of appeal to him.” When the aforesaid archdeacon was asked by certain of you what he understood by a canonical election, he answered that, according to the canonical decrees, no one should be elected bishop from another church while a suitable person could be found in one’s own.

After a small tumult had thus arisen, when you, son archdeacon, began the hymn again, the Archdeacon of Teano left the choir with certain of his accomplices and began to remain in a corner of the church, while you solemnly completed the hymn in the choir. When, after the grace of the Holy Spirit had been invoked, the election was to be treated, you chose one priest, one deacon, and another acolyte acting in place of a subdeacon—who was also chancellor of the church of Capua—to inquire successively into the votes of individuals. Diligently inquiring into the wishes of everyone, they found all of you who remained in chapter to elect concordant in the election and unanimously naming our beloved son R., our subdeacon and chaplain, son of our beloved son the nobleman P., Count of Celano.

Thereafter you took care through certain of your number to admonish the aforesaid archdeacon and those who had departed with him to come and make the election. But when they wholly refused to come, and the archdeacon said that you had not shown him so much honor and favor that he wished to remain with you in making the election, you published your election, sang Te Deum laudamus, and caused the bells to be rung solemnly so that what had been done by you might become known to the city.

When all the people came to the church at the sound of the bells and heard how the election had been celebrated by you, they commonly approved your act. Certain of them repeatedly pressed the archdeacon and the others who disagreed with the election to return to concord. But, as is alleged, the archdeacon answered that he would by no means consent to the election then, but wished to grant it his assent in our presence; and, as is said, he repeated this again and again in the presence of many persons.

You, son archdeacon, approached our presence with many of the canons of Capua, carrying the decree of election strengthened by the subscriptions of those electing. When you had remained with us for some time, three canons of Capua appeared before us some days later on behalf of the opposing party. When both you and they appeared in our presence and that of our brothers, we instructed each party to tell the truth. So far as the narration of fact extended up to the departure of the aforesaid archdeacon from the choir, neither party disagreed.

The aforesaid clerics nevertheless said that many who had departed with the archdeacon had been induced by threats and terrors to consent to the election afterward made by you. When we diligently asked both you and those clerics how many clerics of Capua ought to have participated in the election, you were not found to disagree in your answer, but both you and they designated a certain number concerning this. When we carefully asked how many had departed with the Archdeacon of Teano when he lodged the appeal, favoring the appeal interposed, the aforesaid three clerics disagreed with you on this point: they alleged that twelve or thirteen canons at most dissented from the election made, while you said there were only five or six. Nevertheless, according to the number of canons expressly given by both you and them, three parts and more were concordant in the election, even if the assertion of the aforesaid clerics—that thirteen canons dissented—were true.

Although, as we have said, we diligently inquired publicly into the truth, nevertheless, lest we appear to omit anything concerning which fuller proof should be furnished to us, we commanded certain of our brothers to examine you and those clerics individually, so that each of you might set forth the truth more fully and securely before them. They found nothing other than what had previously been proposed.

When the aforesaid clerics, who had said that certain canons were induced by threats and terrors to consent, were asked whether they had seen any coercion inflicted upon anyone, they answered that after the election had been made they heard certain canons threatening others and saying: “Let three hundred armed men be summoned from the city, and then it will appear who is unwilling to consent to our election.” But although this was said, they did not see anyone coming with arms on this account or inflicting any coercion upon them.]

Since it was established from the assertion of each party that a canonical appeal had been interposed when appeal was made to our hearing, according to the tenor of our mandate, that no election should be held unless it were canonical, it could appear that nothing ought to have been altered in the interval after the appeal. Hence an election of this kind was to be adjudged invalid and void as having been attempted after a canonical appeal had been interposed.

To the contrary, however, since the appeal had been made not that no election should be held but that a canonical election should be held, if the act of election followed canonically, it appeared to have proceeded not contrary to the form of the appeal but rather according to it. Therefore, although the election was celebrated after the appeal, it was not celebrated against it, and for this reason it was in no way to be invalidated.

For although it is established in a canon that a person should then be elected from another church when no suitable person has been found in one’s own, nevertheless, since two-thirds and more consented and continue to consent to the election, and since this rule was introduced in favor of the clerics and anyone may renounce a right known to have been introduced on his behalf, you, who were two-thirds and more—since what two-thirds of a chapter do is regarded as done by the whole—could in this matter renounce the right which appeared to operate in your favor and celebrate the election of a person from another church.

This is especially so because that decree appears to have application when an outsider is imposed by the violence of some power against clerics who resist and are unwilling. For this reason it follows in the decree that clerics shall have the faculty to resist if they see themselves burdened, and shall not fear to reject those whom they see imposed upon them from outside.

Moreover, since the Apostolic See is the head of all churches and the Roman Pontiff is the ordinary judge of every individual, when someone from it is assumed as prelate of another church, it does not appear that it can be objected against him, because of the privilege of the head which possesses the fullness of power, that he was elected from another church, since the members ought not to be regarded as foreign to the head.

Likewise, after the appeal had been issued—not that no election should occur, because such an appeal would be null, but that a canonical election should occur—the Archdeacon of Teano departed from the choir with his supporters. You took care solicitously to recall them so that they would participate with you in the election to be made. Because they were unwilling to approach to make the election, they appear to have made themselves strangers to it, for which reason they seemed unable by law to contradict the election concordantly celebrated by you according to the form of the apostolic mandate, especially since the same archdeacon, when afterward questioned, answered that he wished to give it his assent in our presence.

Therefore, since according to the statutes of the Lateran Council, with appeal removed, that which has been ordained by the greater and sounder number ought always to prevail unless perhaps something reasonable has been objected and shown by the fewer and inferior, the election celebrated by you as the greater and sounder part ought and could reasonably be confirmed notwithstanding the contradiction or appeal of the few, since what was objected and shown appears from the foregoing reasons not to have been reasonable.

After these and other matters had been alleged, although nothing was ever said or objected against the person whom you elected, nevertheless, according to the word of the Apostle, “Lay hands hastily on no one,” we ought diligently to attend to those matters which were to be investigated concerning the person. We therefore considered that we should proceed from our office, as was fitting.

Indeed, since three matters are especially to be investigated in the person elected—namely, lawful age, honorable morals, and sufficient learning—we can bear praiseworthy testimony concerning his honorable morals, since he lived laudably with us for some time. The person elected is also of learning which, although not eminent, is nevertheless suitable, so that, as we learned more fully from those who knew him better, he ought not to be excluded from election because of a defect of knowledge. But we could not learn the full truth concerning lawful age, about which, as we have learned, you also thought nothing. For although we took care to inquire from many persons how old he was, we never heard from anyone that he had attained the thirtieth year of age.

According to the statutes of the aforesaid council, no one ought to be elected bishop who has not completed his thirtieth year. Although venerable old age is not prolonged nor measured by the number of years, but a man’s understanding is his gray hair and an immaculate life is the age of old age, nevertheless, after those three things which Solomon asserts are difficult, he reckons a fourth as almost impossible—namely, the way of a man in his youth—as though it cannot be investigated.

Wishing therefore to provide equally for the church and the person, and to observe both reason and the canons, after diligent deliberation concerning this with our brothers, because we understood your purpose to be provident, and therefore because of the urgent necessity and evident utility of the church of Capua—which we approve rather in this matter—we wish that purpose to endure firmly. With the common assent of our brothers, we grant you our aforesaid subdeacon as procurator, committing to him free administration in temporal as well as spiritual matters. [Therefore, etc. Given at the Lateran, 1220.]

Latin source headnote: A person of illegitimate birth can be postulated but cannot be elected; and the electors incur the penalties of the Lateran Council unless they prove that they elected him in ignorance.

The same to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It formerly became known to us through your letters, those of certain of your suffragans, and those of our beloved sons the prior and convent of the church of Worcester that, when the church of Worcester was deprived of a pastor, the said prior and convent unanimously elected as bishop our beloved son Master M., Archdeacon of York. When his election was presented to you, you deferred confirmation until the arrival of the man himself, who had been elected while absent and unaware.

At length, when he heard what had been done, he devoutly approached your presence and, contrary to the expectation of everyone—who believed that nothing obstructed the immediate confirmation of the concordant and canonical election—showed you by spontaneous and secret confession that his conscience was somewhat wounded by his birth. He declared that he was unwilling in any way to be promoted to the summit of so great a dignity apart from the indulgence of the Apostolic See, even if he found the person promoting him benign and accommodating.

You, as a provident and discreet man, having understood his conscience, were unwilling to proceed immediately to confirmation. Instead, intimating the sequence of events to us through your letters, through them you commended the merits and conscience of the same master. The chapter of that church explained through its letters sent to us that it did not know why confirmation of the election had been delayed by you, and petitioned that his election be confirmed by the Apostolic See, presenting to us the decree of election strengthened by the subscriptions of those electing.

Certain of your suffragans, however, asserted more explicitly in their letters what you appeared to intimate somewhat obscurely in yours: that he was the son of a certain knight and was begotten by him of a certain freeborn and unmarried woman. Meanwhile, that master unexpectedly approached our presence and explained what had been intimated to us concerning his birth through the letters of certain of your suffragans. He added that his father had never had a wife, but had snatched away, as if furtively, the flower of his mother’s virginity, and that she did not contract marriage within four years after his birth.

We therefore, after diligent deliberation concerning this with our brothers and rereading the canons, found certain canons which forbid those not lawfully begotten to be promoted to the pastoral office, perhaps deriving their rationale from the divine law through which the spurious and mamzeres are prohibited from entering the church of God down to the tenth generation. We also found others which do not prohibit persons of whatever birth from being promoted to sacred orders, provided that their merits support them, asserting that the fault of parents is not to be imputed to the children.

To prove this they adduce that our Lord Jesus Christ wished to be born not only from foreigners but also from adulterous unions, he who is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. They also appear to rely upon divine scripture, in which it is said: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son.” Through this the ancient proverb which was customarily spoken among the children of Israel appears to be removed: “The fathers ate a sour grape, and the teeth of the children are set on edge.”

Certain persons, however, recalling discordant texts to concord, appeared in some manner to quiet the conflict of the aforesaid canons. They said that persons born illegitimately, if they have lived religiously either in monasteries or among canons, are by no means to be removed from sacred ministries. Among persons born illegitimately, certain writers assert that only those who imitate their father’s incontinence are to be prohibited from sacred offices. They too appear to rely upon the authority of divine law, in which it is said: “I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation among those who hate me [without cause],” as though he said, “among those who imitate their father’s hatred toward me.”

But a canon of the Lateran Council issued in a general synod by Pope Alexander of good memory, our predecessor, agreeing with the first canons, not only forbids such persons to be promoted as bishops, but also imposes a penalty upon those electing such a person—indeed, it asserts that they incur the same penalty by the fact itself, so that in this respect it appears to be a canon imposing a latae sententiae penalty. Its tenor is as follows: “Lest, namely, what was done concerning certain persons because of the necessities of the time be drawn by posterity into an example, let no one be elected bishop unless he was born of a legitimate marriage”; and near the end it adds: “Clerics, indeed, if they elect anyone contrary to this form, should know themselves then deprived of the power of electing and suspended from ecclesiastical benefices for three years.”

The aforesaid canon was issued not by one who did not know the ancient canons, but [by] one who fully knew the canonical sanctions; it was issued in a council of many jurists and strengthened by the approval of that council itself. It appears to have closed every approach to promotion as bishops to those born outside lawful marriage, since it also prohibits from being drawn into a precedent what it intimates had been done in earlier times because of necessity, although nothing more than necessity may induce one dispensing to grant a dispensation.

Moreover, it intimates that the election of such persons is null, since it establishes as a penalty of the electors that they should know themselves then deprived of the power of electing. This would mean nothing if an election did not then have to be held; but that could not occur while the earlier election or even nomination continued in force. From this it is evident that an election of this kind is invalidated by the canon itself.

Although the canon of the Lateran Council issued by Alexander our predecessor so pursues those born illegitimately that it intimates their election is null, nevertheless our faculty of dispensing was not taken away through it. For this was not the intention of the one prohibiting, who could generate no prejudice in this matter against his successors, who after him would exercise an equal—indeed the same—power, since an equal has no authority over an equal. Rather, his intention was only that, because certain persons extended grace into license from the fact that something had once been done by dispensation because of the necessity of the time, took an example from it, believed that they could lawfully elect such persons, and elected such persons indiscriminately, [although] he prohibited such things from being done. Hence he inflicted a grave penalty upon the electors.

We nevertheless deliberated with our brothers whether, in such a case and with such a person, we ought mercifully to dispense or rather preserve the rigor of the law. For we found that Pope Urban of good memory, our predecessor, dispensed in a much more difficult case with the Bishop-elect of Le Mans, who was the son of a priest, and with the Bishop of León, who after his consecration humbly and spontaneously confessed that he had been born of an illegitimate mother whom his father had known while his own wife was living. But Urban prohibited this from being drawn thereafter into a precedent as though it were a rule.

It appeared that, since dispensation had for some time been granted to persons born illegitimately and perhaps would be granted in the future for a definite cause, in this cause dispensation ought the more readily to be granted to the person who had less imperfection and more perfection. Many things appeared to induce dispensation in this case: knowledge of letters, honorable morals, virtue of life, and the reputation of the person, all approved in many ways by certain even of our brothers who had known him in the schools.

Also contributing not a little to this were the concordant election of the chapter of Worcester, the petition of the people, the assent of the prince, your wish, the supporting votes of the suffragans, and the humble devotion of the one confessing, who spontaneously and humbly preferred to confess his guilt rather than ascend the pastoral throne with a wounded conscience.

After diligent deliberation concerning this with our brothers, however, we understood that the chapter of Worcester had not humbly postulated the same master but rather improvidently elected him, although, in order to obtain the benefit of dispensation, it should have proceeded not through a prohibited election but through a permitted postulation. We therefore declare the election quashed by authority of the aforesaid canon to be invalid and void. We spare the chapter of Worcester not a little, since we neither inflict upon them the penalty expressed in the aforesaid canon nor compel them to prove the ignorance which they allege.

Although after a quashing of this kind many persons humbly petitioned us that, for the aforesaid reasons, we deign mercifully to dispense with him—since no case more apt for dispensing in such matters could present itself—nevertheless, because we wish to reserve to the aforesaid chapter the free faculty of electing or postulating, we have not considered that a petition of this kind should be admitted at present. It was not made in the name of the chapter, since the chapter’s messengers were sent not to postulate a dispensation but to seek confirmation. We decree invalid and void whatever shall have been attempted concerning the ordering of that episcopate before receipt of our letters.

We therefore will and command that you cause it to be more strictly prohibited on our behalf throughout the province of Canterbury that what is known to have been done irregularly concerning many persons in that province—which we do not say without shame—shall hereafter in no way be attempted contrary to the form prescribed. But if the chapter of Worcester considers that the same master should be postulated because of the prerogative of his merits, let it take care to present his postulation before the Apostolic See.

Latin source headnote: The electors cannot enter into a compromise to the prejudice of the person elected; but, if he has consented to his election or wishes to consent, notwithstanding an arbitral award rendered to the contrary, he is to be confirmed if no other canonical impediment obstructs him, even though he is not from the body of that church, whatever the cause for which an appeal was made by the greater part. And in this last point this text is very notable.

The same to the Archbishop of Genoa and the Bishops of Piacenza and Bobbio.

When a dispute had arisen among our beloved sons the canons of Savona concerning the election of a bishop, the votes of those electing being divided in different directions, our beloved sons S., subdeacon of Savona, and I., proctor of the chapter, approached the Apostolic See. We assigned to them as auditors our venerable brother I., Bishop of Albano, and our beloved son A., cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Martin.

The aforesaid proctor proposed that, when each person was asked, all by common assent agreed upon the Provost of Asti, with the exception of the aforesaid subdeacon; and, while he persisted in his obstinacy, the assent of the others was thereafter reduced to a public instrument. But on behalf of the other party it was proposed to the contrary that, since there were seven canons of Savona, they withdrew into chapter to deliberate concerning the future election of a bishop, where different persons were nominated by different men. But when the archdeacon, archpriest, and provost nominated the said Provost of Asti, the aforesaid S. strongly opposed it, asserting that he suffered from epilepsy, for which on another occasion he had been rejected as unsuitable, and that there ought to be no passage to another church until a suitable person was found in the church of Savona.

(And below:) But the Provost of Savona, disregarding the appeals that had been interposed, elected the Provost of Asti, the opposing party objecting that an election of this kind was not valid because of the appeals interposed and also other impediments.

(And below:) But the same provost and all the others also left the city, except for the aforesaid priest and subdeacon, and, without their knowledge, carried the seal with them. Approaching the Archbishop of Milan, they petitioned that the election they had made be confirmed, although it had been made by the provost alone and after an appeal. But because the improper course of the election had previously become known to the archbishop, he did not assent to their petition but sent one of his brothers to Savona to investigate the course of the election. When witnesses were produced before him, however, and it was requested that they should make equal provision for that messenger, the opposing party invoked the aforesaid archbishop, while the other invoked the Apostolic See.

But when at the messenger’s command the parties had gone to Milan to seek apostoli—letters permitting prosecution of the appeal—they were diligently admonished by the archbishop to return to peace. The provost steadfastly asserted that he was willing to abide by his arbitration if the opposing party would do the same, which, after taking counsel, the aforesaid subdeacon promised. After this they returned to their own places and were then summoned again by the archbishop. The archpriest, furnished on behalf of the other party with letters of ratification, as he said, and S. himself on his own behalf took care to submit the matter by compromise to the Archbishop of Milan. He gave them as bishop Master G., described in the source as a Modicensis canon, and also confirmed him.

They publicly announced him as elected in the church of Savona, in the presence of the clergy and people of the city and with the customary solemnities employed. But, when the provost appealed to the Apostolic See, the archbishop deferred imposing the hands of consecration upon him.

(And below:) After these and similar matters had therefore been debated at length before the aforesaid auditors, who reported them to us sufficiently and faithfully, because full proof concerning them could not be made to us, we considered that the cause itself should be committed to your examination.

We therefore command your discretion by apostolic writings that, if it is established that the election of the aforesaid provost was celebrated and also subscribed by the greater and sounder part of the chapter, and if the said provost has consented to that election—so that through the mutual assent of the electors and the elected a bond as if of marriage has been spiritually contracted—unless it is sufficiently shown that the same provost suffers from epilepsy, concerning which it is said that an appeal was made against him, you are, relying upon our authority, to confirm his election, removing the impediment of every contradiction and appeal. The objection of the appeal is not to prevent this if perhaps an appeal is alleged to have been interposed for any of the other causes mentioned above, since from what was alleged before us we judge those appeals frivolous for a definite reason. Nor is what is alleged to have been done afterward by the aforesaid archbishop to prevent it, even if the parties submitted the matter by compromise to him, since the electors could not thus withdraw from such an election.

But if his electors did not submit the matter by compromise to the aforesaid archbishop, even if the said provost has not yet consented to the election made of him, nevertheless, if he wishes to consent and provided that he is free from the malady alleged, you are likewise to confirm his election.

Latin source headnote: A person elected by the greater and sounder part of the chapter, if he is and was suitable at the time of the election, will be confirmed. But if he was unworthy in orders, knowledge, or age and was knowingly elected, the person elected by the lesser part, if worthy, will be confirmed.

The same to the Bishop of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See.

Some time ago, when a dispute was brought to our hearing because, while the provostship of the church of Cologne was vacant, those electing had divided themselves into two bodies of voters, we considered that the cause should be committed to judges. After hearing what was proposed on each side, if this accorded with the will of the parties, they were to promulgate a definitive sentence; otherwise, they were to remit the cause, sufficiently instructed, to our hearing. They were to establish for the parties a suitable term at which they should approach the Apostolic See in person or through suitable representatives to receive sentence.

Wishing faithfully to execute the apostolic mandate, they summoned the parties before them, received the witnesses produced on each side, examined the consciences of those electing, and heard the allegations on both sides. And because the Provost of Saint George finally asserted that he was unwilling to abide by their sentence, they sent the proceedings to the Apostolic See, fixing for the parties the then approaching feast of Saint Michael as the term for coming to the Apostolic See, [which the Provost of the Holy Apostles, alleging that so prolonged a term had caused loss to the church, shortened to the feast of Saint Servatius.]

When the messengers of the Provost of the Holy Apostles approached our presence at the appointed term, the Provost of Saint George neither came nor sent a suitable representative for himself. [But our venerable brother the Archbishop of Cologne excused his absence, asserting that, after undertaking the journey to come to the Apostolic See, he had been captured and was being detained by the nobleman W., Count of Jülich. Lest we appear to dispose of anything to his prejudice, however, we commanded through our beloved son the Provost of Saint Gereon and B., his fellow canon, that both parties be cited under a peremptory order for the feast of the Lord’s Resurrection. As we learned from their letters, they cited the Provost of the Holy Apostles orally, and the Provost of Saint George both by letters and messengers; after receiving the citation, the latter wrote that he would approach the Apostolic See. But since, though awaited both at the term and beyond it for as many as eight weeks, he neither came nor sent a suitable representative, we adjudged him contumacious and condemned him to the opposing party’s lawful expenses.]

Having viewed the attestations and diligently inspected the judges’ acts, therefore, we found that authority favored the Provost of the Holy Apostles, but the number of electors favored the Provost of Saint George, since the first had been elected by fourteen persons—both dignitaries and canons—who preceded the others in dignity, age, and length of service, while the second had been elected by twenty-four.

Less knowledge, deficiency of age, and the fact that he had been constituted only in minor orders were objected against the Provost of Saint George. Hence, since an archdeaconry was annexed to that provostship, the dignity was not yet to be conferred upon him, by reason of which he was compelled to be promoted to the diaconate within the period fixed by the canons. On behalf of the other it was proposed that he was a man commendable in age, knowledge, and morals. His electors confessed that, led by a better zeal, they had therefore agreed upon him. Not only his own electors but also certain electors of the other asserted that he was more prudent, especially in spiritual matters, although they declared that the other, because of his power, was more useful, particularly in temporal affairs.

But because the allegations proposed before those judges on behalf of the same Provost of Saint George were not presented to us, for which reason we could not know for ourselves what he had objected or what he had answered to the objections, and thus the remitted cause had not been sufficiently instructed, [then] we did not consider that we should proceed to a definitive sentence. Instead, we committed the decision of the cause itself to the judges under this form: if it either was notorious or was established through the matters already stated that, at the time of the election, the Provost of Saint George suffered a defect in orders, knowledge, or age that, according to the canonical sanctions, prevented him from being promoted to such an office, then, removing the impediment of appeal and notwithstanding his bodily absence, they were to impose silence upon him, adjudge the same provostship to the Provost of the Holy Apostles, and, putting him into bodily possession, cause him to enjoy peaceful possession.

Otherwise, since not only more persons but nearly two parts had agreed upon him, and, impediments ceasing, it appeared that they had elected him with good zeal, they were, after quashing the election of the Provost of the Holy Apostles and removing appeal, to confirm his election, cause the aforesaid provostship to be assigned to him, and cause answer to be made to him thereafter as provost, [restraining objectors, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the fifth day before the Ides of April, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: Those who receive a man postulated to a church as instituted or as administrator before the postulation has been admitted by the superior are deprived of the power of electing, and the power of electing devolves upon the others, although they are fewer. And if all are deprived, in cathedral churches it devolves upon the Pope. Say this according to the more principal understanding, which agrees more closely with the text.

The same to the canons of Mainz.

After C. of good memory, Archbishop of Mainz and Bishop of Sabina, entered upon the way of all flesh, your votes divided in different directions. Some petitioned for the Bishop of Worms, while others elected as their pastor our venerable brother, now your archbishop but then Provost of Saint Peter of Mainz. Our beloved son Master P., scholasticus of Mainz, approached the Apostolic See as proctor, together with certain others, for those who postulated the Bishop of Worms; for the others, our beloved sons E. and R., [Mainz] clerics, came, one of whom was appointed proctor.

When the parties were therefore constituted in our presence and had been diligently and sufficiently heard in our consistory, by the counsel of our brothers we commanded our venerable brother the Bishop of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, that, if it were established that the same bishop had received the church of Mainz with respect to temporal or spiritual matters or had administered temporal or spiritual affairs in it, as had been objected by the other side, he should, removing the impediment of every appeal, declare invalid the postulation made of him. By our favor he was to permit the same man to retain the church of Worms. For by the common law, because he presumed to transfer without our authority, he was to be despoiled of both, so that [also] he would lack that which he avariciously coveted and that which he proudly despised. But if he scorned to obey, the legate was by our authority to declare him deprived of both churches.

Then he was to inquire more diligently into the truth concerning the election of the archbishop himself. If the violence which he and his men feared were established to him, he was, notwithstanding that the archbishop’s election had been proceeded with after an appeal was interposed to us, to confirm the election, provided that nothing in the canonical institutes obstructed it, removing the impediment of appeal. For the others, who did not consider that they should defer to the appeal interposed to us lest an election be proceeded with without him and his associates, could not use this exception against him, since he who commits an offense against the law invokes the law’s aid in vain. Hence it did not seem that they could object that the same man had been elected by fewer persons, according to their assertion, since by contemning the appeal lawfully interposed to us and receiving the aforesaid bishop without our license, they had rendered themselves unworthy.

But if it were established that the aforesaid bishop had neither received the aforesaid church with respect to spiritual or temporal matters nor administered spiritual or temporal affairs in it, the same legate was to hear what was proposed on each side concerning his postulation and the archbishop’s election, receive witnesses on both sides, and, after publication of their depositions, proceed as far as the point of definitive sentence. He was to send all the acts under his seal to our presence, fixing for the parties a suitable term at which they should present themselves before the apostolic sight to receive sentence.

Although the matters objected against the said Bishop of Worms and his supporters were notorious, the aforesaid legate nevertheless, for greater caution, received many eminent witnesses produced by the archbishop’s party, who gave sworn depositions concerning the aforesaid matters. Hence, proceeding according to the tenor of our mandate, he quashed the postulation made of the Bishop of Worms and took care by apostolic authority to confirm the election of the aforesaid archbishop, although it had been celebrated by very few. He ordained him priest and finally consecrated him archbishop.

The archbishop himself, humbly approaching our presence, petitioned that we confer upon him the pallium, namely the insignia of the pontifical office, from the customary benevolence of the Apostolic See. But a certain simple messenger sent by his adversaries to the Apostolic See presented to us on their behalf open letters with a pendent seal. Through them the same canons signified that the aforesaid legate, corrupted by money, had rendered an unjust sentence. They added that the citizens of Mainz had likewise sworn that they would never have him as bishop and that all the clerics, with a few exceptions, favored their own elect.

When we began to deliberate concerning these matters with our brothers, two things appeared to obstruct the election of the same archbishop: namely, that he appeared to have been elected by very few and after an appeal interposed by himself. For, since the postulation of the Bishop of Worms had been quashed by reason of the preceding appeal, the archbishop’s election ought also to have been quashed for the same cause.

But to the contrary, as was expressed above, those who had offended against the appeal could not allege that appeal against the same archbishop. It could also be said that, although the often-mentioned archbishop had been elected after the appeal, he nevertheless was not elected contrary to the form of the appeal, since he had appealed under this form: that the canons residing at Mainz should not proceed with the election without him and his associates. Nor is it harmful that it could be replied by the other side that neither ought he and his associates to have proceeded without them, because, by contemning the appeal interposed before us, they had rendered themselves unworthy and abused their right.

Hence, since it was established in the Lateran Council concerning those who elect certain prohibited persons that they should know themselves then deprived of the power of electing and suspended from ecclesiastical benefices for three years, when the others fell from the power of election as unworthy for a far greater offense, the right of electing remained only with the same man and his associates. Consequently, even if far fewer than did agree upon him had agreed upon him, it must nevertheless be understood that all those who were then able to elect elected the same man.

Against the legate’s procedure, however, it appeared to count that he proceeded without citing the Bishop of Worms and his supporters. But according to the canonical sanctions, a notorious excess requires no examination; and in favor of those things done by a judge it is presumed that all were regularly celebrated. Moreover, that they were not cited could not easily be proved, because by the nature of things there is no direct proof of a negative fact. Although each of you could assert of himself that the citation did not reach him, nevertheless each would be a singular witness in his testimony.

They could also, had they wished, have sent a suitable proctor safely to the legate himself, just as [also] they had sent a messenger, as is proved from their letters directed to us. He safely approached the same legate and returned to his own place, since the legate himself was also prepared to provide security in every respect. Nor does it obstruct this that the same messenger is said to have appealed, since he renounced the appeal and the impediment of appeal had been removed in our commission, which each party had carried back. But it also did not appear who could object and prove anything against the legate’s act, since not a sufficient proctor but a simple messenger had been sent to us against the aforesaid archbishop.

[Furthermore, even if such a person appeared, he should by no means be heard, since the archbishop’s adversaries rendered themselves unworthy of a hearing before us through presumption, contempt, and blasphemy. It was presumption that, contrary to canonical form and without our authority, they presumed not only to elect but also to receive a man endowed with pastoral dignity and joined to another church by spiritual marriage. Contempt was added from the fact that, after their proctor reported our letters, in which it was expressly commanded that, if the Bishop of Worms had received the church of Mainz with respect to temporal or spiritual matters or had administered temporal or spiritual affairs in it, his postulation should be quashed, it did not come into doubt for them but rather was manifestly established that the man of Worms had at least received the temporalities and administered them. Nevertheless, they thereafter rashly obeyed him as their elect, as appears from their letters, in which they call him their elect and assert that they favor him by unanimous assent; and they assented to him, perpetrating spiritual adultery with him, since through the messenger last sent to us they also petitioned in public consistory that his election be confirmed. Blasphemy then followed in that, setting their mouth in heaven and defaming, so far as lay in them, our legate—who exercised our office in those regions and who, even before he was assumed to the pastoral office, had been a man of great religious life, inasmuch as he had first been an abbot in the Cistercian Order—they lied that he had been corrupted by money.]

We therefore, although because of judicial authority we presume in favor of those things done by the legate, nevertheless rely more upon the reason that the archbishop’s adversaries, for the three aforesaid causes, rendered themselves unworthy to such an extent that they ought not to be heard against him. Hence, what had been done concerning him could not be impeded by them. Indeed, even if the electors of his party had likewise offended so that they rendered themselves unworthy, provision for the church of Mainz would on this occasion have devolved upon us. Consequently, without injury to the law, we could have placed the said archbishop over that church as its pastor, especially since he had been consecrated Bishop of Mainz by a legate of the Apostolic See.

Therefore, having held diligent deliberation with our brothers concerning these matters, by their counsel we hold ratified the quashing of the postulation made of the Bishop of Worms, confirming the election of the aforesaid archbishop. [Given at the Lateran, on the tenth day before the Kalends of April, 1202.]

Latin source headnote: For the elected person to obtain the office, it is sufficient to show that the elector was in quasi-possession at the time of the election, although he does not prove that ownership of the right of electing belonged to him.

The same to the clerics of Saint Agatha.

The complaint which our beloved son G., now cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Vitalis but then cardinal-deacon of Saint Mary in Aquiro, brought through the administrator of your church, of which the same cardinal is governor, against P., now priest but then deacon of the church of Saint Saviour called de Cornutis, before Pope C. of good memory, our predecessor, concerning that church itself, Pope C., our predecessor, committed to us, while we were constituted in a lesser office, to be heard and examined.

The same administrator therefore sought the removal of the aforesaid P. from the church of Saint Saviour, which he had presumed to occupy to the prejudice of your church and the injury of the aforesaid cardinal, since the church of Saint Saviour belonged by full right to the church of Saint Agatha. He also sought the restoration to him of the pension of sixteen Pavia denarii owed to the church of Saint Agatha for the same church of Saint Saviour of the Baths, which had newly been withheld.

The aforesaid cleric P., however, answered that he had inflicted no injury upon the cardinal and had not received the said church to the prejudice of your church, since it belonged to it by no right and he owed no pension to it; rather, through election by the people, to whom the election belonged by ancient custom, he had been canonically instituted by the cardinal of Saint Susanna, to whose title the same church of Saint Saviour was subject in spiritual matters as a chapel.

When each party had many times produced witnesses to prove its assertion, we received and diligently examined them, and, when their depositions had been published, we heard disputation upon them. But before a controversy of this kind could reach an end, our aforesaid predecessor discharged the debt of the flesh. At length, however, each party urgently petitioned us that we deign to decide the cause itself.

We therefore, having diligently heard and more fully understood the arguments of each party and taken the counsel of our brothers, absolved the said P. from the claim of your administrator concerning the election and institution made of him in the church of Saint Saviour, and considered that silence should be imposed upon the aforesaid administrator concerning these matters. For it was clearly established to us through suitable witnesses that the people were in quasi-possession of presenting a cleric to that church when they elected the priest himself to it, and that the same church pertains by full right in spiritual matters to the title of Saint Susanna, saving the question concerning the right of patronage between your church and the people of the often-mentioned church of Saint Saviour.

But because it was clearly proved through witnesses greater than every exception that the pension of sixteen denarii of Pavia currency had for many years been paid annually to the clerics of your church for the church of Saint Saviour of the Baths but was newly withheld, we decree that your church is to be restored to the same state of receiving a pension of this kind from the church of Saint Saviour of the Baths. We condemn the aforesaid priest to payment of the pension withheld, saving the question of ownership between the aforesaid churches. [Given on the second day before the Nones of June, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: Those knowingly electing an unworthy person are deprived of the power of electing in the election that first occurs to be made.

The same.

When the church of Winchester was without a pastor, the archdeacon with his supporters elected the Dean of Salisbury, while the prior and his associates elected the Precentor of Lincoln as bishop.

[When because of this the parties had approached our presence, since they disagreed not a little concerning the sequence of what had been done, we caused witnesses to be received on both sides and ordered the attestations to be published. Having understood them perspicaciously, after sufficient allegation had been made by each party, we deliberated diligently with our brothers concerning the rendering of sentence. We found that both elections had been attempted contrary to canonical form; and, to say nothing of conspiracies, appeals, and excommunications, we discovered that the first was made through disorderly presumption and the second through violent pressure. Therefore, proceeding by the royal road, we considered that both should by the demand of justice be judicially invalidated.

But after some days, the party that had elected the Precentor of Lincoln approached our presence and produced a certain instrument under the chapter’s seal, in which it was expressly contained that the convent of Winchester had committed its authority to the prior and certain brothers concerning the election of a bishop to be celebrated in our presence and had conferred upon them full and free power to elect a bishop for it. It therefore humbly petitioned from us license to elect. We caused the instrument to be exhibited to the other party, and, when it had been approved by all, we asked whether these wished to elect with those or rather without them. Having taken counsel, they answered that, saving the exceptions they had against them, they wished to celebrate a unanimous election with them.]

Therefore, although they all deliberated in common concerning making the election, nevertheless, because they were unable to be concordant, they had recourse to us with the business unfinished. Those who had elected the precentor asserted [firmly] that those who had elected the dean were deprived of the power of electing, especially for the reason that they had knowingly presumed to elect a man not legitimately born. Hence, according to the Lateran Council, they had both lost the power of electing on this occasion and ought to lack ecclesiastical benefices for three years. They humbly petitioned that we deign to pronounce an interlocutory sentence upon this.

The others answered that, although the man whom they had elected had been less than legitimately born, nevertheless he had merited to be legitimated through the favor of the Apostolic See, and they asserted that they would lawfully prove this. We therefore, considering that the former had admitted the latter to celebrating the second election after the first election, and that the decree of the aforesaid council decreed that presumers of this kind were deprived of the power of electing for one occasion only, judged that they were to be admitted to elect, since the election they wished to celebrate before us was now not the second but the third to occur, in such manner that the proctor of the archdeacons should participate without prejudice to the monks.

When they had again assembled in one place to deliberate in common concerning making the election, they were nevertheless unable concordantly to agree upon one vote, although each party agreed in common upon this: that unless the election was celebrated before us, irreparable harm threatened the church of Winchester. But, through him who makes both one, at last they returned to unanimous concord, electing for themselves by equal assent the aforesaid precentor as bishop.

We, wishing to safeguard both our honor and ecclesiastical liberty, decreed that the election should not be confirmed before they had publicly sworn in our consistory that they were neither bound by any obligation nor induced by any coercion to celebrate an election of this kind. The oaths having therefore been received in this manner, we examined both the election and the elected person.

When through the letters of our venerable brother [name omitted], Archbishop of Tours, as well as those of many others, it had been most fully established to us and our brothers that his ordination was canonical and his birth legitimate, and when our dearest son in Christ J., illustrious King of the English—to whom, with willing spirit, we defer as much as we can with honor—had given his assent, as became known to us from his letters patent, with the other requirements regularly concurring, because no delay or difficulty ought to be brought against upright arrangements, lest the Lord’s flock long lack pastoral care, we considered that the election itself should be confirmed by the common counsel of our brothers. [Wherefore, to all of you, etc. Given on the eleventh day before the Kalends of July, in the eighth year, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: One who knowingly elects an unworthy person as bishop is for this reason suspended from the benefices of the church for three years and cannot meanwhile be elected or assumed to one of its dignities.

The same to the Abbot of Cîteaux and the monks R. and P. of Fontfroide.

Through the inquiry which you conducted at our command concerning the condition of the bishopric and Bishop of Toulouse, we clearly understood that Mascaron the chancellor asserted under oath that he knew for certain that R., formerly Bishop of Toulouse, and his friends had, before his election, held a conference with certain canons expressly named and solicited them with entreaties to elect him as bishop. He also asserted that he had both seen and heard when the aforesaid bishop, while in the house of Saint Peter de Coquinis, acknowledged in the presence of certain canons that he had sworn to those canons who had opposed his first election in the house of Acton de Montibus. He believed for certain that that oath was unlawful and was furnished according to a pact so that the same R. would be elected. He also asserted that, after the first election of that man had been quashed, he himself held the episcopal house in that man’s name, receiving certain rents and revenues which, with the bishop’s knowledge and assent, he expended in that man’s affairs.

Therefore, since by knowingly electing such a person as bishop, as he affirmed by his own oath, he rendered himself unworthy of ecclesiastical benefices, we bear it heavily and grievously that the same Mascaron is said to have been substituted as provost for our beloved son the Provost of Toulouse, who was elected Bishop of Comminges.

Wherefore we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, entirely removing the same Mascaron from the office of provost, you cause a suitable man to be assumed to that office. [Restraining objectors, etc. Given on the second day before the Nones of July, in the eighth year, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: If one who is not professed is elected to the governance of a regular church, the election is quashed, notwithstanding a custom to the contrary.

The same to the Prior of Saint Fridianus and G. and G., canons of Lucca.

When we formerly considered that the cause being conducted between Bonus the priest and Brunus, a canon of the church of Saint Peter of Lucca, should be committed to you—concerning the fact that the said priest Bonus is said to have been elected prior by the greater part of the canons of the same church, the aforesaid B. and a certain other dissenting—you took care, as we learned from your letters, to cite the parties, so that according to our mandate you might be able to conclude the cause itself by a canonical end.

When they were constituted in your presence, the said priest Bonus urgently petitioned that by apostolic authority you take care to confirm the election made of him. But the aforesaid Brunus answered to the contrary that he was not worthy of the governance of the priory, objecting against him the crime of simony, and that his election had not been canonically celebrated. And, because he was not professed, he asserted that he was deservedly to be rejected.

But since nothing concerning simony had been proved and nothing had been shown against the manner of the election, the privilege of the church itself greatly moved you. It expressly contained that no one should be placed over it through any cunning of subreption unless the brothers by common assent, or the sounder part of the brothers’ counsel, according to the fear of God and the Rule of Blessed Augustine, should provide that he be elected. Although many priors continuously, one after another, had been unprofessed in that church throughout many and long periods, nevertheless, because the aforesaid priest B. has not professed regular observance, you doubt—and rightly—to proceed without consulting us contrary to the privilege granted to the aforesaid church by the Apostolic See.

Therefore, since we ought not to consider only what has been done but rather what ought to be done, we answer your consultation in this way: because according to divine law one must not plough with an ox and an ass, nor ought anyone put on a garment woven of wool and linen, removing the impediment of any appeal, you are to invalidate the aforesaid election. You are to compel the aforesaid priest and the other unprofessed clerics either to profess and observe the Rule of Blessed Augustine established in that church or to leave the church entirely. [Restraining objectors, etc. Given at Ferentino on the eighth day before the Ides of July, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: The nomination or appeal of one who has no interest does not impede an election. But if one who should be summoned is contemned, and he prosecutes the contempt, the election is quashed even if confirmed; and he can prosecute it unless he has consented to the election, which he can do even after the fact. This is what it says down to § Concerning this. — § 1. A bishop, while the Mass of his consecration is being celebrated, or an archbishop before receiving the pallium, ought not confer orders. This is what it says down to the words But as to. — § 2. This passage is not summarized, both because of the diversity of readings and because it does not pertain to the title. Abbas.

The same to I., cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Stephen in the Caelian Hill, legate of the Apostolic See.

That, as we learned from your letters [recently presented to our apostolate, after many labors by sea and land and among diverse peoples you prosperously arrived by God’s grace to execute the office of legation enjoined upon you, and that you endeavored as far as you could to reform the Irish church for the better, as the manifestation of the work itself makes evident, we hold most gratifying and acceptable, and we greatly commend in the Lord the zeal of your solicitude.

But you were unwilling to conclude without our counsel the business of the church of Armagh, which appeared arduous and difficult to you. Rather, you considered that the sequence of that business should be intimated to us through your letters, so that from our subsequent rescript you might know how you were to proceed in the business itself.

For, as we perceived was contained in your letters, when the Archbishop of Armagh of good memory entered upon the way of all flesh, the royal justiciar summoned the Archdeacon of Armagh so that, for the substitution of a bishop, lest the peace of the kingdom be in any way impeded, he would summon the suffragans of the church of Armagh and all those who ought to assemble to hold a convention. Thus all were said to have been summoned through him. But few of those to whom the election belonged assembled at the village of the Bridge: namely, two suffragans of the church of Armagh, the Abbot of Mellifont, who displayed a privilege that he had the first voice in the election, and the aforesaid Archdeacon of Armagh.

Having taken counsel, they are said to have agreed upon three persons: namely, the Bishop of Meath, who was one of the suffragans, the Archdeacon of Meath, and Master Manfred, the royal chaplain. But one of the two bishops who had assembled for that nomination, when asked, steadfastly asserted that he had been present at that election but had remained silent and had not given his assent in the election itself. The others asserted to the contrary that they believed he had assented because he was present and in no way contradicted it.

Afterward, when many days had elapsed, the aforesaid Archdeacon of Armagh summoned the suffragan bishops at Armagh. All who assembled in the metropolis itself, except the Bishop of Meath and the Abbot of Mellifont, who could not for any reason assemble there among the Irish, elected the abbot of the regular canons of Bangor as archbishop. As they said was customary, they consecrated him bishop on the following Sunday. After his own anointing and before the solemnities of the Masses had ended, he ordained a certain man as acolyte and presumed to administer. When you gravely reproved him concerning this, he said—and others from his regions confessed—that such a custom had hitherto been observed in Ireland.

There was indeed the greatest contention concerning an election of this kind between the Irish and the English, because the English steadfastly asserted that they were wholly unwilling to have any Irishman as their archbishop and would in no way suffer it. Certain English and Irish persons, proposing very many things in this manner in your presence, asserted that, if an Englishman were placed over the church of Armagh, useful provision would not be made for that church and the peace of the whole land.

Afterward, when administration had been forbidden by you to the said elect and granted to the aforesaid archdeacon, one of the suffragans objected against him that he had alienated a certain silver tablet from the church of Armagh. He finally confessed to you that he had received the tablet itself from the clerics and laymen of Armagh and sold it for twenty-five marks, but he steadfastly promised that, whatever should befall him, he would guard against loss to the church itself concerning this.

You signified to us besides that, after the first election was held at the village of the Bridge, an appeal was made to our hearing lest anything be done to the prejudice of that election and of the dignity of the king, who asserts that his assent is required in elections.]

We therefore, having diligently inspected the tenor of your letters, perceive six things contained in them, of which three appeared to operate against the aforesaid elect and three others against his election. The first is the nomination made of three persons, which in your letters you several times call an election; if it was a true election, nothing ought in any way to have been attempted against it before it was quashed. The second is the appeal interposed, which, if lawful, wholly impeded the subsequent election. The third is that the Bishop of Meath and the Abbot of Mellifont, who ought to have participated, did not assemble for the election. Hence, if one or both were contemned, their contempt ought to have impeded the aforesaid election more than the contradiction of many.

The fourth is that the aforesaid abbot, thus elected, presumed to administer before obtaining confirmation. The fifth is that he celebrated orders on the day of his consecration, although he had not yet obtained the pallium. The sixth is dilapidation, because he did not at all fear to alienate the silver tablet.

But since the first election, which was made of three persons, appears rather to be called a nomination, since only four of all those to whom the election belonged assembled—namely, two suffragans of the church of Armagh, the aforesaid Abbot of Mellifont, and the Archdeacon of Armagh—and no right was acquired by the nominated persons from such a nomination, it was lawful to proceed to an election regularly celebrated, especially in the church of Armagh, since according to the canonical constitutions an election ought, if possible, to be celebrated in the cathedral church.

Nor could such an appeal as was interposed impede that election, since nothing in it was attempted to the prejudice of the royal dignity. For not a simple nomination but a solemn election ought to be presented to the prince so that he may give assent to the postulation, even if some persons, through usurpation, sometimes abusively do otherwise.

But if the aforesaid Bishop of Meath and Abbot of Mellifont, who ought to have participated, were not contemned but were summoned to the election—provided that they could have been summoned without danger—then whether they were unable or unwilling to approach for celebrating the election, their absence could not impede the election. For, if they could not safely travel to that place among the Irish, neither could the others securely assemble at another place among the English. Because of this, we believe that you should inquire more diligently into the truth concerning this. If it is established that they were summoned, and if, after being summoned without danger, they were unwilling or unable to come to celebrate the election, then, if no other canonical impediment obstructed it, the election itself ought not in any way to be invalidated because of their absence. But if it is established that they were not summoned but were contemned, the election thus celebrated is to be entirely invalidated, unless afterward, having been diligently admonished for the good of peace, they take care to consent.

Moreover, since that election was celebrated before you arrived in the Irish regions and the elect himself immediately began to administer, you can sufficiently pass this over by dissimulation. For, as you know, the Roman Church tolerates this concerning the metropolitans of England, France, Germany, and other remote regions who are concordantly elected, the utility of the churches having been weighed. For if, during the great length of time until the elect could obtain confirmation with the pallium from the Apostolic See, he did not receive the regalia, the church, which in the meantime would lack an administrator, would incur no slight loss.

§ 1. Concerning the fact, however, that on the day of his consecration, before the solemnities of the Masses had ended, he ordained an acolyte, you are to reprove and chastise him for such an excess, unless perhaps you learn that this belongs to an ancient custom of the church of Armagh. If it is established to you concerning that custom, you will be able mercifully to tolerate what has now been done because of the simplicity and rudeness of that people. You are nevertheless strictly to prohibit on our behalf that anything similar be attempted hereafter.

For only the Roman Pontiff—who, as you know, is consecrated before the angelic hymn and afterward himself begins and, having been consecrated, completes the solemnities of the Masses—can celebrate orders on the day of his consecration. But the others, who are consecrated between the Epistle and Gospel, because after being consecrated they concelebrate with the principal celebrant, ought not then celebrate orders, lest the mystery of unity be divided.

Furthermore, since an archbishop without the pallium is not permitted to summon a council, confect chrism, dedicate basilicas, ordain clerics, and consecrate bishops, he surely presumes greatly who hastens to ordain clerics before he obtains the pallium, since he appears to do this not as a simple bishop but as an archbishop.

§ 2. But as to the fact that he is said to have sold the silver tablet, provided that he renders the church of Armagh free from loss, as he promised, you will be able to pass it over with equanimity, since this proceeded from the will of the clergy and people. Indeed, according to the matters you intimated to us through your letters, we considered that we should write back to you in the aforesaid manner. But since you are able to have fuller knowledge of the circumstances of the same business and we greatly trust in your discretion, we believe that in this and other affairs you will, with the Lord as your author, proceed in such a manner that the prudence of your solicitude can deservedly be commended and your legation will redound in many ways to the honor and advantage of the Apostolic See. [But after the letters, etc. Given. … 1202.]

Latin source headnote: An election made by the lesser part of the chapter is not valid and cannot be ratified by subsequent assent. This is what it says according to the common understanding.

The same to the Bishop of Toledo and the Abbots of Sagon and Ardenne.

Having heard and understood the merits of the cause concerning the two elections celebrated in the church of Bayeux—one of G. the archdeacon and the other of R. the subdeacon—we found that both had been attempted contrary to canonical form. For, when the wishes of each person had been ascertained, the dean with the fewer agreed upon R., and the cantor with the more numerous agreed upon the said archdeacon G. Afterward, when the cantor alone nominated a certain other man, namely Master R. de Algediis, an appeal was made to our hearing that the dean, who had the first voice in the election, should not proceed to an election without the assent of the entire chapter or of its greater and sounder part, so that the door of discord, which already seemed open, might be closed through the impediment of appeal.

But the dean himself, without having the assent of the greater part of the chapter but only that of a far lesser part, suddenly broke forth into an election, appealing that no one should attempt anything against the election itself. This was so although he asserts that immediately afterward several others assented to the election made; nevertheless, what was not valid from the beginning could not acquire validity after the fact, since an election which was invalid by the law itself could not be made ratified through subsequent assent, especially while an appeal was pending.

Therefore, after they returned to their own places, the cantor and the others who had remained in the chapter, after that election had not yet been quashed and an appeal had been interposed to us, withdrew from the nomination of the said archdeacon. Anew they presumed not only to elect the aforesaid subdeacon without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff or even of their own metropolitan, since he was a subdeacon, but also, with the bells rung and a solemn procession, to conduct him into the church while singing a hymn.

We therefore, having diligently heard these and the other matters proposed before us, considered by the common counsel of our brothers that both elections should be invalidated. [By apostolic writings, etc. Given at Rome at Saint Peter’s, on the tenth day before the Kalends of May, in the eighth year, 1205.]

Latin source headnote: Power given to compromissaries to elect a prelate cannot be revoked when the matter is no longer intact; and the matter ceases to be intact after the compromissaries have begun to deliberate.

The same to the Abbots of Grand-Selve and Belleperche.

In causes which [are referred to the examination of the Apostolic See, the laws ought to be subtly observed, because what is adjudged by the Roman Pontiff in one cause provides a form of judging in other causes.]

Indeed, when the church of Toulouse was vacant, two persons were nominated through the division of its chapter, namely our venerable brother the Bishop of Comminges and our beloved son R., Archdeacon of Agen. R., canon of Saint-Lizier, B. the archdeacon, and R., canon of Saint Stephen of Toulouse, approached our presence on behalf of the said bishop; and on behalf of the other party our beloved son Master P. de Rama and G., his associate, approached. We appointed as auditors for them our venerable brother the Bishop of Albano and our beloved son H., cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Martin.

Before them the aforesaid messengers proposed that, when the chapter of the church of Toulouse assembled to deliberate concerning the election of a bishop, they elected two men, namely R. de Ponte and M. the cellarer, to choose five electors from the same chapter. These, after furnishing an oath, were to deliberate concerning the election of a bishop to be substituted. It was established and conceded by each person of the chapter that the person whom those five concordantly, or three of them, elected should, if the person were suitable, be held by them as bishop without any contradiction.

It was also expressly established that, if the five electors could not agree upon one person, when three of them agreed the remaining two would be bound to follow their assent and hold their election ratified. Afterward, when five electors had been selected by the aforesaid two and had withdrawn apart to deliberate concerning the election, but were not all able equally to agree upon one person, three of them agreed upon the aforesaid Bishop of Comminges, who had been archdeacon of the church of Toulouse. Before they announced his nomination, they placed it under apostolic protection; then they published to the chapter the election they had made to postulate the same bishop. The remaining two, subsequently on the third day and together with a few from the chapter while the others were absent, elected the aforesaid Archdeacon of Agen.

The aforesaid R. and the other messengers also added that a special messenger had been sent by that party to our beloved son I., cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Prisca and legate of the Apostolic See. Since the bishop himself had to be postulated from us and the legate had no power to grant or transfer him, because a dispensation of this kind is reserved to the Apostolic See alone, the messenger appealed to our hearing lest anything be done to the contrary.

But the aforesaid messengers of the archdeacon answered to the contrary before the aforesaid auditors that, when the aforesaid five electors, to whom the entire chapter had transferred the power of electing, were deliberating separately concerning the election, they dissented among themselves to such an extent that their contentious voices were heard by the brothers who remained in the chapter. The chapter, holding them suspect because of contentions of this kind, sent two canons to them, through whom they prohibited them on our behalf and that of the aforesaid legate from proceeding further in the matter. Thus they revoked the power of electing which they had committed to them, commanding them to return to the chapter and deliberate concerning the election equally with the other brothers.

Two of the electors gave their assent to this revocation, and, while the remaining three did not contradict it, those two returned with the chapter’s messengers to the chapter itself. But the other three, having followed them as far as the doors of the chapter, afterward departed from them. The chapter, wondering at their absence, after waiting for their presence for that whole day, on the following day caused the bell to be rung, as is customary, to assemble the chapter. While the aforesaid three with a few of their associates kept themselves contumaciously absent, the prior, sacristan, and greater cellarer of the church of Saint Stephen, because they had a special mandate concerning this from the absent provost, together with the greater and sounder part of the chapter and after summoning abbots, priors, monks, and other religious men, elected the aforesaid archdeacon as bishop.

The messengers of the same archdeacon also exhibited the letters which the aforesaid legate sent to us concerning this. [Their contents were that, when the chapter of Toulouse held deliberation concerning the election of a bishop, with some electing the Bishop of Comminges and the rest the Archdeacon of Agen, it divided its votes in two, and each election was presented to him by the different parties at different times] (and below).

When the aforesaid auditors had faithfully reported the foregoing matters to us and our brothers, we believed for certain that the aforesaid legate had had a pious intention in this matter. Nevertheless, from the very tenor of his letters we understood that he had been circumvented, and we perceived that, with the truth suppressed, whatever had been obtained from him had been elicited and extorted through subreption, since in those letters he had not expressed the form of the postulation.

For the postulation of the Bishop of Comminges had preceded and had been made by those to whom the whole chapter had transferred the power of electing, for which reason it is understood to have been made unanimously by the assent of the entire chapter. The chapter could by no means revoke that power when the matter was no longer intact, because the electors had already proceeded in deliberation and three, while two dissented, had agreed upon one person. This is especially so since the reason was that those five were discordant, whereas in the transfer of that power it had been manifestly expressed that, if it happened that the five dissented, they should hold the election of the three ratified and firm.

Furthermore, it is clear that the same legate was deceived, since in his commission, passing over the election of the bishop—who had to be postulated from us alone—he committed an inquiry under the form expressed above concerning only the election of the archdeacon. They would in no way have proceeded thus concerning these matters if everything had been narrated to him in order, just as it truly occurred.

Hence, after sharing the counsel of our brothers, we decree that the election of the archdeacon himself is to be entirely invalidated, not because of any defect or fault of his own person, but because we recognized that its course was less than canonical and that the legate himself was multiply circumvented.

Wherefore we command and strictly order your discretion by apostolic writings that, if you find the person of the bishop himself useful and necessary for the governance of the church of Toulouse, and suitable both in knowledge of letters and by the example of his manner of life for rooting out from the diocese of Toulouse the perfidy of the heretics, which through the negligence of the prelates has hitherto miserably and damnably sprouted there, and if this is thus established to you, you are by our authority to grant him license, because of the urgent necessity and their utility, to transfer to the church of Toulouse, removing the impediment of every contradiction and appeal. Otherwise, after rejecting his postulation, you are by apostolic authority to enjoin the chapter of the same church to elect a person suitable for this as pastor.

Latin source headnote: By custom the election of canons can belong to the chapter alone. This is what it says, and it is customarily alleged every day.

The same to the Bishop of Florence.

When the church of Volterra had for a long time been destitute of the due service of canons, our venerable brother the Bishop of Volterra, wishing to repair the deficiency of ministers in that church, elected certain canons and instituted them in it. The resident canons refused to receive them, asserting that an election of this kind had been attempted to their prejudice.

When the bishop himself sent us his complaint concerning this, we committed the cause to you to be concluded by a canonical end.

[When the parties were constituted in your presence, the same bishop petitioned you through his representative that you prohibit our beloved sons Master Mitidus, Ildebrandus, Placidus, Ptolemy, and Sofredus from the injury which they inflicted upon him concerning the election of canons of the church of Volterra, and that you cause them to permit him freely to use the right of election and not contradict him when electing or wishing to elect. The same bishop asserted that the right of electing canons belonged to him in many ways.

He proposed that this belonged to him by common law because, as the statutes of the sacred canons declare, a bishop has full disposition, provision, and jurisdiction in his own church. For although any of his subjects might precede in his own office and honor, the bishop is nevertheless provider and ordainer in all things.

He also proposed that, by approved custom, the election of canons in that church belonged to him, as it did to the other prelates of the region, who were accustomed to make elections of clerics either by themselves or with associates. But even if it were doubtful what kind of custom was observed there in such matters, recourse should be had to the Apostolic See, since in other churches subject to a metropolitan, recourse is had in doubts of this kind to the custom of the metropolitan church. Hence, since at the Roman Church the Supreme Pontiff alone elects cardinals, the same bishop proposed that the election of canons in his church belonged to him alone.

He alleged in addition that, even if an election of this kind belonged to him by no law, the authority of electing had nevertheless devolved upon him because of the canons’ negligence. For it is permitted by the sacred constitutions that every bishop, with pastoral diligence, supply the negligence of his clerics. It is also known to have been established in the Lateran Council that, when the grant of a dignity or benefice belongs to a chapter, if it delays conferring it within the space of six months, the bishop is to carry this out.

On behalf of the chapter, however, it was answered to the contrary that by common law the election of canons belonged not to the bishop but to the chapter itself, to prove which they alleged certain canons. But since diverse statutes of the canons have been issued concerning this, a diversity of this kind appeared rather to be referred to the customs of the different places: in some places the election of canons belongs to the bishop alone, elsewhere to the chapter alone, and in some places equally to both.

Nor did the custom of the Apostolic See, which the aforesaid bishop introduced on his own behalf, appear able to prejudice the canons. For although the Supreme Pontiff alone elects cardinals, in his own cathedral church—namely, the Lateran—or in the basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, the chapter is accustomed to elect fellow canons for itself. Nevertheless, in those churches as in others, the Roman Pontiff sometimes elects canons from the plenitude of power.

To the objection the bishop then made—namely, that the right of electing had devolved upon him because of the chapter’s negligence—the party of the chapter answered that, because of a neglect of this kind, the bishop could not claim the right of electing for himself unless a canonical admonition had first been given. In such a case no time that might supply the place of an admonition or be deemed to make a demand is fixed by the canon, especially since he himself, according to the decision of his own will, refused to confirm those elected by the canons and presented to the bishop.

Since it belongs to ordinary law that admonition ought to precede punishment, and the bishop, under the pretext of negligence and with admonition omitted, inflicted a penalty, the same party proposed that what is known to have been rashly attempted by him should deservedly be disapproved.

The party of the chapter also added that the statute of the Lateran Council claims no place in those churches in which ecclesiastical benefices are by no means distinct, but rather in those in which there is a fixed number of canons and distinct prebends. Furthermore, if according to the tenor of the council the aforesaid canons were found negligent, nevertheless the bishop, who had been negligent for a longer time, acquired no right from this. He should deservedly be punished for it, since no one ought to merit both penalty and reward from the same act. Indeed, in this case the power of electing had deservedly devolved upon the superior, as is manifestly inferred from the tenor of the council, and therefore the bishop ought not to have put his sickle into another’s harvest.

When these and other matters had been proposed before you, but you wished to deliberate concerning the sentence to be rendered, because you found councils that were excessively diverse, and almost everyone whose counsel you wished to use in this matter was for some reason held suspect by one or the other party, you remitted the instructed cause to our presence, transmitting under your seal the attestations and allegations of each party.]

We, having diligently inspected the attestations and arguments of each party, by the counsel of our brothers command your fraternity by authority of the present writings that, concerning the first article of the bishop’s petition—in which he petitioned you to prohibit the aforesaid canons from the injury which they inflicted upon him concerning the election of canons of the church of Volterra—you are not to delay, appeal being set aside, absolving the often-mentioned canons from the claim of the bishop himself. For, as the rule of law says, one who uses his own right does not appear to inflict an injury, since it was proved by far better witnesses that the aforesaid canons used this right before the aforesaid bishop did.

Concerning the second article of the aforesaid petition, in which the same bishop sought that the said canons permit him freely to use the right of election, you are likewise to take care to absolve the often-mentioned canons, especially if it is notorious that the general custom observed in Tuscany is that, in cathedral churches, the chapter alone, without consulting the bishop, has the faculty of electing canons. [But lest, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of November, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: Those making a compromise are bound to receive the person elected by the compromissaries if he is worthy, unless he appears to have been elected contrary to the form of the compromise.

The same to the Abbot of Saint Victor, the Dean of Paris, and Master R. Decortonensis, canon of Thérouanne.

When our beloved son the Archdeacon of Thérouanne had intimated to us (And below:) that, the church of Thérouanne being destitute of the consolation of a bishop, the canons of the same church, deliberating concerning the substitution of a pastor, unanimously conferred upon three canons of Thérouanne the power of electing a bishop. With an oath interposed, they promised to receive as pastor the man whom those three should consider should be elected bishop from the body of that church. Afterward, having examined the wishes of each person, those three elected as bishop John, archdeacon of the same church, a learned, provident, and discreet man.

The metropolitan also diligently examined both the election and the person of the elect and solicitously inquired into the truth concerning his age, about a deficiency in which certain persons had doubted. Declaring by sentence that the elect himself suffered no deficiency in age, he solemnly confirmed the election made of him as canonically celebrated.

Afterward, having received the regalia from the king, at the petition of the same chapter he was ordained priest by our venerable brother the Bishop of Arras at the command of the aforesaid metropolitan. For some time, with no one contradicting, he obtained free and peaceful administration of the church of Thérouanne in both spiritual and temporal matters.

Hence those proctors humbly petitioned us that we impose silence upon those who, after all these things and stirred by the goads of envy, presume rashly to come against their own act and raise material for discord against the elect himself; that we approve the aforesaid election, celebrated so concordantly and solemnly confirmed; and that we cause the gift of consecration to be bestowed upon the elect himself. Concerning this, letters were presented to us not only from many abbots and chapters of the city and diocese of Thérouanne, but also from other priests, who bore testimony concerning all the foregoing matters and commended the elect himself to us in many ways for learning, discretion, and honorable conduct.

Indeed, they also offered us letters of the electors themselves concerning this, within which was inserted word for word—as the same electors assert—the tenor of those letters that had been drawn up in chapter concerning the power delivered to them according to the aforesaid form and sealed with the seal of the chapter.

But the aforesaid B., who had come against the aforesaid elect, proposed to the contrary that the power of electing had been conceded to the aforesaid three, after an oath had been furnished, under this form: that the chapter would be bound to receive the man whom those three elected as pastor after he had been nominated from the body of that church by all or by the greater and sounder part. The electors themselves, not observing the limits of the power delivered to them, presumed to elect the aforesaid archdeacon, whom few of the chapter had nominated.

Hence the canons of Thérouanne, afterward wondering how the aforesaid archdeacon had been elected when there were several worthier persons in the same church, began, as they spoke with one another concerning the course of the election, almost all publicly to profess that they had in no way nominated the aforesaid archdeacon. Judging that they had been deceived in this matter, they took care through the same B., to whom they assigned their testimonial letters, to disclose to our apostolate what had been done concerning this.

He solicitously petitioned before us that, after quashing the same election, we cause canonical provision to be made for that church from a suitable person, since, as he asserted, truly all the canons of Thérouanne were prepared to affirm by a furnished oath that they had never nominated the aforesaid archdeacon as bishop. It could lawfully be shown that authority to elect had been conferred upon the aforesaid three according to the aforesaid form: namely, that they should elect from the body of the church the person upon whom all or the greater and sounder part of the chapter agreed. The same B. asserted that he would likewise prove that the often-mentioned elect suffered a deficiency in age.

We, however, considering that it would be a matter pernicious as an example if anyone should ascend to the summit of dignity through the cunning of subreption, considered by the counsel of our brothers that provision should be made in this manner. After the objectors have furnished an oath that they are not maliciously bringing a question of this kind against the aforesaid elect, the aforesaid three electors are to be bound by the bond of an oath to tell the truth concerning how many of the canons agreed upon the aforesaid archdeacon at the time of the examination.

If all three together, or at least two of them, say under oath that the greater part of the canons agreed upon the archdeacon himself, you are to impose silence upon the objectors, since their proof against this would be insufficient because they would each be singular in their testimonies.

But if it is established through their depositions that the often-mentioned archdeacon was nominated by the fewer, you are then at last solicitously to hear whatever each party proposes to prove the form according to which the power of electing is asserted to have been conceded to the aforesaid three electors. If it is sufficiently shown that, according to the form delivered to them, they ought to have elected from the body of the church the man upon whom all or the greater and sounder part of the chapter agreed, you are entirely to quash the election of the archdeacon himself and cause provision of a suitable person as bishop to be made for the church of Thérouanne through canonical election.

Otherwise, holding ratified what was done concerning him, you are, appeal being set aside, to restrain the objectors from their claim against him through ecclesiastical censure. You are to despoil the aforesaid B. of his prebend in the church of Thérouanne, since he bound himself to this penalty if perhaps he failed in his proof. Nor is the objection made against the elect concerning deficiency of age to prevent this, since the same canon did not greatly insist upon this objection and judgment concerning it was rendered by the metropolitan. His sentence passed into a matter adjudged because it was not suspended by a lawful appeal within ten days. [But if not all, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Nones of April, in the eleventh year, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: If, out of seven compromissaries, three elect a fourth, and he consents and is suitable, the election will be confirmed.

The same to the Bishop of Bayeux.

Since you are learned in the law and have an abundance of learned men, we cannot but wonder that you wished to consult us concerning certain articles of law which are known to contain no doubt or very little doubt.

The first article of your consultation contained that, when the dean of a certain church had died, the chapter of the same place submitted the matter by compromise to seven of its canons under this form: that the chapter itself would receive as dean the man whom all of them equally or the greater part of them nominated from among themselves or from others of the body of that church. Hence, when one of those seven was nominated as dean by three of them and another, who was not of their number, was nominated by three others, you asked which of them ought to be assumed by the chapter as dean.

Concerning this we answer you as follows: the man who is known to have been nominated by three of them from the number of the seven ought, according to the tenor of the compromise, to be assumed as dean, provided that he consents to the election made of him and no canonical impediment obstructs him. Furthermore, etc. (Cf. c. 31, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.29.) [Given at the Lateran, on the tenth day before the Kalends of December, in the eleventh year of our pontificate, 1208.]

Latin source headnote: The election of the emperor belongs to the German princes—three prelates and four laymen—and an election made by the greater part of them, the others not having been contemned, is valid. It belongs to the Pope to examine and approve the elect and, if he is worthy, to anoint, consecrate, and crown him; or, if he is unworthy, to reject him, as because he is sacrilegious, excommunicated, a tyrant, a fool and heretic, a pagan, a perjurer, or a persecutor of the Church. And when the electors are unwilling to elect, the Pope supplies their default. And when the votes of those electing are equal and no greater concord follows, the Pope can show favor to whom he wills. This is what this text notably says.

The same to the Duke of Carinthia.

We benignly received our venerable brother the Archbishop of Salzburg, our beloved son the Abbot of Salem, and the nobleman the Margrave of Austria, who were sent to the Apostolic See as messengers of certain princes, and considered that a benevolent hearing should be granted to them. We also caused the letters which certain noble princes sent through them to be diligently read through, and we noted everything contained in them.

Among other matters, certain princes especially employed this objection, saying that our venerable brother the Bishop of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, acted either in the person of an elector or of a judge. If of an elector, he had put his sickle into another’s harvest and, intruding himself into the election, derogated from the dignity of the princes. If of a judge, he appeared to have proceeded wrongly while one of the parties was absent, since it had not been cited and therefore ought not to have been adjudged contumacious.

But we, who according to the office of apostolic service are debtors to each person in justice, just as we are unwilling that our justice be usurped by others, so are we unwilling to claim for ourselves the right of the princes. As we ought, we recognize in those princes the right and power of electing the king who is afterward to be promoted as emperor, to whom it is known to belong by law and ancient custom, especially since a right and power of this kind came to them from the Apostolic See, which transferred the Roman Empire in the person of the magnificent Charles from the Greeks to the Germans.

But the princes also ought to recognize—and certainly do recognize, as they themselves acknowledged in our presence—that the right and authority of examining the person elected as king and to be promoted to the empire belongs to us, who anoint, consecrate, and crown him. For it is regularly and generally observed that examination of a person belongs to the one to whom imposition of the hand pertains.

For if the princes, not only in discord but even in concord, elected as king any sacrilegious or excommunicated man, a tyrant or a fool, a heretic, or a pagan, ought we to anoint, consecrate, and crown a man of this kind? Entirely far from it.

Therefore, answering the objection of the princes, we assert that our legate the Bishop of Palestrina, by approving our dearest son in Christ King Otto and rejecting Philip, Duke of Swabia, acted neither in the person of an elector—as certain princes objected to us through their letters—inasmuch as he neither caused anyone to be elected nor himself elected, and thus in no way intruded himself into the election; nor did he present the person of a judge, since he considered that the election of neither man, with respect to the act of those electing, should be confirmed or invalidated. Thus he in no way usurped the right of the princes for himself or acted against it.

Rather, he exercised the office of a denouncer, because he denounced the person of that duke as unworthy and the person of the king as suitable for obtaining the empire, not so much because of the partisanship of those electing as because of the merits of the elected persons. Nevertheless, more of those who by law and custom possess the power of electing the king to be promoted as emperor are reported to have assented to King Otto himself. And from the fact that the supporters of Duke Philip presumed to elect him while the others were absent and contemned, it is evident that they proceeded wrongly, since it is a rule of manifest law that the contempt of one person obstructs an election more than the contradiction of many.

Hence, because those who abused the power permitted to them merited losing their privilege, it can not undeservedly appear that, notwithstanding an injury of this kind, the others could use their own right. And because the aforesaid duke received the crown and anointing neither where he ought nor from whom he ought, whereas the aforesaid king received both where he ought—namely, at Aachen—and from whom he ought—namely, from our venerable brother the Archbishop of Cologne—we, as justice requires, regard and name not the duke but the other man as king.

In the rejection of the aforesaid Philip, Duke of Swabia, because of the manifest impediments of his person, there was need not of accusation but rather of condemnation, because manifest matters require not accusation but condemnation.

That, when the votes of the princes are divided in an election, after admonition and waiting we can favor one of the parties—especially after anointing, consecration, and coronation are sought from us, as each party has sought them from us many times—is evident equally from law and example. For if the princes, after being admonished and awaited, either could not or would not agree upon one purpose, shall the Apostolic See lack an advocate and defender, and shall their fault redound to its punishment?

The princes know, and your nobility is not ignorant, that, when Lothair and Conrad had been elected in discord, the Roman Pontiff crowned Lothair, and the crowned man obtained the empire, with Conrad only then returning to his favor.

We therefore considered that they should be admonished that, just as we refrain from injury to their right, so should they in no way show themselves injurious to our right. Rather, they should withdraw from the aforesaid duke, rejected by us in a just judgment, and should not refuse to adhere to the aforesaid King Otto, unless at last something lawful should be objected and shown by them against his person or the act.

(And below:) For the impediments of the Duke of Swabia are notorious: namely, public excommunication, manifest perjury, and the widely known persecution which his progenitors and he presumed to exercise against the Apostolic See and other churches.

He was also, because of the invasion and devastation of the patrimony of Blessed Peter, with admonition often first given, publicly and solemnly bound by the bond of excommunication by Pope Celestine of good memory, our predecessor, while he was dwelling in Tuscany. He afterward acknowledged this when through his messenger he sought the benefit of absolution from our same predecessor. Later, after his election, he caused himself to be absolved secretly at Worms by the then Bishop of Sutri, whom we had sent into Germany with the Abbot of Saint Anastasius for the liberation of our venerable brother the Archbishop of Salerno, contrary to the form of our mandate and merely in fact, since in law he could not be absolved. Hence it is evident that he was elected while excommunicated.

It appears not undeservedly that he is still bound for the same cause by the sentence of excommunication, since the aforesaid bishop could not absolve him by his own authority, while by the authority of our delegation he could do no more, nor was he permitted to act otherwise, than had been conceded to him by the Apostolic See.

He is also manifestly believed to lie under the sentence of excommunication from this: the perfidious Markward, enemy of God and the Church, together with all his supporters, both German and Latin, is bound by the bonds of a publicly proclaimed excommunication for the merits of his iniquity. As we remember intimating to you through our letters directed through P., judge of Piacenza and the messenger of Philip himself—which we believe reached Philip’s hearing—nevertheless, although this came to his knowledge not only from the report of the judge himself but also through public rumor, he not only communicates with the same excommunicated man but supports him in his malice and, through his messengers and letters, sharpens his fury so that our dearest son in Christ Frederick, illustrious King of Sicily, his nephew, whom he has already deprived of his paternal inheritance, may still be deprived of his maternal possession.

Contrary to his own oath, concerning which he did not seek counsel from the Apostolic See, the same man also presumed through the vice of ambition to usurp the kingdom for himself, rather than elect another as king because of necessity—which would have appeared somewhat more tolerable—although the Roman Church, in which by divine institution the plenitude of power resides, ought first to have been consulted concerning that oath, just as certain persons prudently consulted it.

Nor does it avail for his full excuse if that oath is said to have been unlawful, since he ought nevertheless to have consulted us concerning it before acting against it by his own temerity. This is especially so from the example that, although the Gibeonites obtained an oath from the children of Israel through fraud, nevertheless, after the fraud became known, the Israelites were unwilling rashly to act against it. No one of sound mind is ignorant that whether the said oath was lawful or unlawful, and therefore whether it had to be observed or not observed, belongs to our judgment.

We do not believe that the princes doubt that Philip is descended from a family of persecutors. Henry, who first received the empire from this family, presumed to capture Pope Paschal of good memory, our predecessor, together with bishops, cardinals, and many nobles of the Romans. Frederick, the father of Philip, for a long time fostered a schism against Pope Alexander of happy memory, our predecessor. You know sufficiently how Henry, Philip’s brother, conducted himself toward the killers of Albert, Bishop of Liège of sacred memory, whom he had first compelled to go into exile, and how Conrad, who had captured the aforesaid Bishop of Ostia, conducted himself.

We believe it has reached your hearing and that of the other princes how that same Conrad caused our venerable brother the Bishop of Osimo to be struck with slaps, the hairs of his beard to be torn out, and him to be treated dishonorably in many ways; how he also caused certain familiars of the Roman Church to be mutilated in the nose; how he imprisoned the aforesaid Archbishop of Salerno; and how he caused certain ecclesiastical men to be roasted by flames and certain other men to be submerged in the sea.

Moreover, if the aforesaid duke—which God forbid—obtained the empire, the liberty of the princes in election would perish, and confidence of obtaining the empire would thereafter be taken from the others. For if, just as formerly the brother of the said duke succeeded their father, so the duke himself succeeded his brother, the empire would appear to be owed not by election but by succession. It would redound to the prejudice of the princes if it appeared that no one should be assumed to the empire except from the household of the aforesaid duke.

Therefore, since we can by no occasion whatsoever be deflected from our purpose but rather persist in it most steadfastly, and since you have often considered that it should be suggested to us through your letters that we should in no way favor the same duke, admonishing your nobility, we command by apostolic writings that, just as you trust in our favor and we hope in your devotion, you withdraw entirely hereafter from the aforesaid Duke Philip, notwithstanding an oath, if any, which you made to him by reason of the kingdom, since, he having been rejected with respect to obtaining the empire, an oath of this kind ought not to be observed.

But you are openly and powerfully to adhere to the aforesaid King Otto, whom, with the Lord granting, we propose to summon to the imperial crown, so that, when you have adhered to him at our admonition, you may especially merit obtaining his favor and benevolence among the first. For this, out of love for your nobility, we shall employ effective effort. [Given at the Lateran.]

Latin source headnote: Those absent within the province are to be summoned to the election, and the election of the greater and sounder part is confirmed.

The same.

Before our beloved son, the cardinal-priest of the title of Saint Pudentiana (And below:) But if the election of each party has been quashed, you are, after summoning all the brothers who shall be in the province, to cause what you see to please the greater and sounder part of them concerning the aforesaid matters to be firmly observed through ecclesiastical censure.

Latin source headnote: An election made by the greater part is quashed when the lesser part has been contemned, even if it consists of one person alone; nevertheless, the right of electing does not devolve upon the lesser part. This is what it says according to the common understanding.

The same to the Bishop of Parma and his fellow judges.

When S., Bishop of Cremona of good memory, was at the point of death and his recovery was despaired of, the chapter of Cremona caused H., its canon who was applying himself to scholastic studies at Reggio, to be cited for a fixed term on the vigil of Pentecost for the election of a future bishop.

But on the second weekday after Pentecost, when the said bishop had entered upon the way of all flesh, the chapter, before his body had been delivered for burial and while the aforesaid canon was absent, conferred the power of electing a bishop upon four men from the chapter itself and three from the clergy of the city, with the express condition that the lesser part of those seven should follow the greater part in the election.

Accordingly, when deliberation concerning the election of a future pastor had been held after the death but nevertheless before the burial of the bishop himself, and their votes divided into parts—with four assenting to the archpriest, two to the archdeacon, and one to another man—at last, after he had been buried and the judgment of the lesser part acceded to that of the greater, they concordantly elected the same archpriest. The archdeacon assented to this election with the chapter and clergy of the city, no one contradicting.

But Hu., arriving afterward and asserting that he had been contemned and that an election of this kind was therefore of no moment, as though the right of electing had devolved upon him, elected the aforesaid archdeacon by himself as best he could.

When the said H. was constituted before us on behalf of his election and our beloved son I. on behalf of the election of the archpriest, we considered that the election presumed by H. after the election of the archpriest had not been quashed should be invalidated. Although it concerned a man of great learning, honorable life, and illustrious reputation, it had nevertheless been presumed with no little temerity, since H. ought to have awaited our judgment concerning the first election before proceeding to a second. As a penalty we prohibited him from having a voice of contradiction while the chapter persisted in its first assent.

But, as justice required, we quashed the election of the archpriest, although praiseworthy testimony was given concerning him: both because they held deliberation concerning the election itself, contrary to the canonical sanctions, while the body of the said bishop had not yet been delivered for burial, and because H. was found to have been contemned, although he was one person alone, since in such matters the contempt of one is customarily more prejudicial than the contradiction of many—as in the present case.

Nor ought the aforesaid citation to be said to have been valid, because, since it preceded the death of the bishop, it was excessively rash and therefore could not bind the person cited.

Moreover, wishing to provide for the church of Cremona with special solicitude, we grant and command that, if the chapter wishes to persist in its assent, you concede the archpriest himself by our authority as pastor to the church of Cremona. Otherwise, unless within eight days they provide for themselves and their church with a suitable person as bishop through a canonical and concordant election, you are by authority of the Apostolic See to take care to provide for them from the same archpriest or the archdeacon or another suitable man.

Latin source headnote: One who is not a monk cannot be elected as a regular prelate.

The same.

When it recently came to our knowledge that H., who conducted himself as Abbot of Lisieux, had not been a monk before he was elected, we, considering that this had been attempted contrary to the regular traditions—since one ought to become a monk while having no hope or promise that he will be made abbot—took care, with the assent of our brothers, to invalidate the election made of him.

Wherefore we command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you take care more strictly to prohibit on our behalf both the monks and the other faithful of the aforesaid monastery from daring to exhibit any obedience or reverence to the aforesaid H. by reason of the aforesaid election. If by making dispositions he has already wrongly attempted anything in the same monastery, we will that it have the force of no validity but be entirely invalidated. [But if contrary to this, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the third day before the Ides of January, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: No one can be elected abbot unless he has been instructed in the monastic rule.

The same to Master C., cardinal-priest and legate of the Apostolic See.

You pursue the praiseworthy action of your office when you petition to be instructed by us concerning those matters about which you are in doubt.

Indeed, you intimated to us through your letters that, when a certain monastery suitably enriched with possessions but situated in the midst of a nation equally wicked and perverse lacked a pastor, the monks, deliberating concerning the election of an abbot, considered it necessary to elect some person through whose power they could be liberated from their persecutors. When they could not find a suitable person of their own order, they directed their eyes toward a certain nobleman through whom they could be better defended. At the counsel of certain men learned in the law, they approached his father, humbly petitioning that he induce his son to assume the monastic habit, giving the father no assurance concerning his promotion.

The father induced his son to do this. The son was provident and discreet, learned, and twenty-five years of age. He became a monk, no hope of elevation having been given to him, as he asserts; but on the day on which he became a monk, he was elected abbot. His election was confirmed by our beloved son G. de Lab., our subdeacon, rector of Messina, and legate of the Apostolic See, who was present for all the aforesaid matters.

Since the same man is prepared to purge himself of having been induced to this by any ambition, you petition through our letters to be instructed whether the said legate was able to confirm an election of this kind or to grant a dispensation, whether what was done can stand, and whether, after the election has been duly quashed, he can again be elected abbot.

We answer your consultation in this manner: since from the things which immediately followed it is shown that such a person cannot be elected abbot in such a manner, especially because he wished to be a master before he was a disciple, we have decreed that the election is invalid and void.

But after he has been competently instructed in the rule, if the urgent necessity and evident utility of the monastery itself demand it, after his purgation has been received he can be assumed as abbot, lest the monastery be oppressed by the incursions of the wicked. [Secondly, etc.—Cf. c. 11, On Testaments, III.26.]

Latin source headnote: An election otherwise canonical is confirmed although certain of those electing were bound by a minor excommunication.

The same.

That daily pressure—[namely, the care of all the churches which surrounds the ministry of apostolic service—especially induces us to attend solicitously to their consolation and benignly to pursue their just desires with swift effect when they are destitute of the consolation of pastors, lest for want of a pastor they sustain loss in spiritual and temporal matters and the Lord’s flock be left to the bites of wolves if there is no one to keep the watches of the night over it.

Indeed, when our venerable brother Albert, your archbishop, then elect, approached our presence, wishing with paternal solicitude to take counsel for the church of Magdeburg as for a special daughter—which has always shown itself devoted to its mother, the sacrosanct Roman Church, not only in prosperity but also in adversity—we had already some time ago diligently heard and understood what our beloved sons [name omitted], Provost of Saint Sebastian; [name omitted], Provost of Saint Mary; [name omitted], Provost of Mildensee; C. and C., canons of the greater church; Master Gernandus, canon of Saint Nicholas; and Litulfus, canon of Saint Peter of Magdeburg, had solicitously proposed before us both orally and in writing.]

Because we learned for certain that the election made of him had been canonical, we considered that it should be confirmed by apostolic authority, supplying from the plenitude of power any defect that might have existed in it from the fact that certain persons participated in his election who, merely through participation, had fallen into the snare of a simple excommunication, [as, etc. Given at Rome at Saint Peter’s, on the sixth day before the Ides of February, in the ninth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: If a postulation concurs with an election, and the number of those postulating is twice greater, and the person postulated is suitable, the postulation is admitted and the election rejected. But if the person postulated is unworthy and the greater part of those postulating were ignorant of this, the postulation and the election are rejected. But if they knew it and the elect is suitable, the election is confirmed; and likewise if the number of those postulating is not twice greater. This is what it says, understood according to what the common law contains.

Likewise to Master Maximus, our notary.

It is written in the Apocalypse of John that in the midst of the throne and around the throne were four living creatures, [full of eyes before and behind. The first living creature was like a lion; the second living creature was like a calf; the third living creature had a face as if of a man; and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each of them, had six wings.

This throne is understood to be the Roman Church, which by customary expression is called the Apostolic See—certainly the throne of the Lamb, the throne of the one living forever and ever. In its midst, as if daughters in its bosom, reside, and around it, as if handmaids in service, stand the four patriarchal churches—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople—which are designated by those four living creatures.

For Mark founded and governed the church of Alexandria. According to the vision of Ezekiel, he is understood through the lion because he began his Gospel from a roar, saying, “The voice of one crying in the desert”; and because, just as the lion is said after the third day to awaken its cub by its roar, so God the Father, by the power of his divinity, after three days raised his Son from the dead. That Son is described as the lion of the tribe of Judah, and Mark principally treats of his resurrection. Hence, on the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, his Gospel is read in the Church by preeminence.

Luke, however, was Antiochene by nation. For that reason he is described in the figure of a calf, in which the priestly offering is designated, because, beginning his Gospel from the priesthood, he treated especially of the sacrifice of the supreme and true priest, who is the saving offering—namely, the fatted calf which the father ordered to be killed for the returning prodigal son. Hence the church of Antioch is well designated through him, for in it the Prince of the Apostles was first elevated by the faithful to the chair of the supreme priesthood.

Matthew indeed was Jewish by nation, and he first wrote the Gospel, even in Hebrew, in Judaea. For this reason he is designated through the likeness of a man, because, beginning his Gospel from the incarnation of Christ, he principally shows his human birth. Christ himself, assuming that birth for us from the Jews and in Judaea, consecrated the church of Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jews, by his human presence. Concerning it, it had been said through the Prophet: “A man was made in her, and the Most High himself founded her.”

John, however, founded the church of Asia, and he himself wrote the Apocalypse to the seven churches which are in Asia. The church of Constantinople, which at length merited to be preferred and set over these and the other churches of the Greeks, is deservedly designated through the eagle. For just as the eagle excels all birds in flight and the ray of the sun does not offend the gaze of its eyes, so John, leaving the other three living creatures upon the earth and ascending above the heavens of the heavens, beheld the true light with unstruck eyes and began his Gospel from the divine birth of the Word. Although he was last in time among all the Evangelists, he was nevertheless foremost in dignity, because, reclining above the breast of Christ at the supper, he drank the streams of doctrine from the very fountain of the Lord’s sacred breast.

Thus the church of Constantinople, although later in time, was afterward, because of the honor of the most pious Constantine, elevated above the others in dignity. Thus the first were made last and the last first, so that it is deservedly said to her: “Many daughters have gathered riches, but you alone have surpassed them all.”

For the governance of that church, such a pontiff is to be assumed as, in the likeness of those four living creatures, is full of eyes before and behind, so that with full light he may contemplate the mysteries of the Old and New Testaments, seeing past things through experience and foreseeing future things through caution. He ought also to have six wings—namely, knowledge of the six laws: natural, Mosaic, prophetic, evangelical, apostolic, and canonical. Flying between heaven and earth with perfect balance by these wings, he may fly from earthly to heavenly things and from temporal to eternal things.]

Indeed, to this church—namely, Constantinople—two [certain] living creatures have been called, would that they were full of eyes and had six wings: namely, our venerable brother the Archbishop of Heraclea and our beloved son the parish priest of Saint Paul in Venice, as was proposed before us through the proctors both of those postulating the archbishop and of those electing the parish priest.

[The proctors of those electing the parish priest proposed that, when the church of Constantinople was vacant, the canons of that church elected Ph., their dean, as their pastor. We quashed that election because it had been celebrated while certain persons who ought to have been present were excluded. Lest the care of a pastor long be wanting to the flock of the faithful, both the canons and certain others who said that they possessed a right in the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople assembled together to deliberate concerning an election.

When seven persons offered themselves on behalf of seven provosts, and certain others intruded themselves into deliberation concerning the election on behalf of the other prelates, after much contention they received both those seven persons and two others at the insistence of the whole body—those two, however, were to have only two votes—with their right in all respects saved both for the present and for the future, for the good of concord.

But it happened, when the enemy of the human race, who strives to rend the unity of the Church, oversowed tares in the Lord’s harvest, that the votes divided into two parts. Nine of the canons and nine of the other aforesaid persons postulated the aforesaid archbishop; while fifteen canons and the Provost of the Holy Apostles elected the aforesaid parish priest. The cantor, who was absent for the utility of the church and before deliberation concerning the election had expressed through his letters his assent concerning the parish priest if he pleased the others, and eight other canons who were not present at the time of the election, furnished their assent. Thus the votes of twenty-four canons and one provost agreed upon the aforesaid parish priest.

They therefore said that the number of those postulating was smaller, since only eighteen postulated the archbishop. They endeavored to exclude certain of those whom they had admitted with the aforesaid reservation of their right—namely, the two Provosts of Blachernae and Boukoleon—because, since through a privilege of exemption obtained from the Apostolic See they had withdrawn themselves from the burden, they appeared tacitly to have renounced the honor, so that they did not pertain to the election of one to whom, once elected, they would in no way be subject.

Four others were not provosts but clerics of other churches who intruded themselves into deliberation concerning the election in the name of their provosts, because their lords were absent to such an extent that they neither could nor ought conveniently to be summoned to deliberation concerning the election. For if absent persons could be present through proctors, the rights of absent persons would scarcely ever devolve upon those present, since it would rarely happen that they could not participate either by themselves or through others.

The seventh, who had been present, had already been elected and confirmed as Archbishop of Verria and, having been transferred to his church, had obtained bodily possession of it.

Although the whole body of clerics had earlier petitioned that four persons be admitted on its behalf, nevertheless, because the party of the canons was unwilling to admit so many, lest the number of the others grow excessively, it was finally ordained for the good of peace that only two of them be admitted with the aforesaid reservation. Therefore, those electing asserted that the two had only two votes and not those of the others, especially since thirty provostships had been reduced to seven, although that reduction had not yet been approved by the authority of their judge.

They denied that there were at that time more than five or six conventual churches; and, if there had been more, they said nevertheless that their prelates were not present at the time of the aforesaid election.

Finally, they sought to convict those postulating of bad zeal because, as they proposed, the latter had knowingly postulated an illiterate and unchaste man. They said that his incontinence could be proved through a son begotten during his monastic life as a witness of his father’s lust.

They also marked the same archbishop with ambition because, on the vigil of the Lord’s Nativity, he withdrew himself from his church and was in the imperial city where the postulation was then to be celebrated, and he suffered himself, with the hymn “We Praise You, God,” to be placed in the throne in which the patriarch was accustomed to sit on ordinary days.

Also, distributing by his own authority the goods of the patriarchate after the death of the patriarch, he violently seized its seal from the chamberlain’s chest and sent to Ravenna certain letters upon which he impressed it. By the authority of those letters he caused a certain sum of money deposited there to be brought to him and distributed it according to the decision of his own will, to the prejudice and burden of the church of Constantinople. All this and other matters were proposed in the chapter when certain persons deliberated concerning postulating him.

Hence they petitioned that, since the party postulating the archbishop was smaller in number, inferior in zeal, and had fallen from its right by knowingly postulating an unworthy man, we deign to confirm the election canonically made of the said parish priest. This was especially so because they themselves had used the common law by electing an electable person, which belongs to ordinary law, while the others, despising the benefit of the common law, had flown to an extraordinary remedy.

To these matters the proctors of the other party answered that all the prelates of the conventual churches existing at Constantinople possess a right in the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople through our constitution. Hence, the whole body of prelates, for which express provision is made in that constitution, ought not to be restricted to seven, since by reason of their dignity good provision was made in this matter for the aforesaid church: both so that a sounder deliberation concerning the election might be held, since a judgment confirmed by the opinions of many is complete; and also so that, through the number of prelates, resistance might be offered to those who wished to possess God’s sanctuary by hereditary right.

They also added that the two exempt provosts in no way lost the benefit of the aforesaid constitution through the privilege of exemption, since those things which are introduced in someone’s favor ought not to redound to his injury, and through the privileges of the Roman Pontiffs additions, not subtractions, are customarily made for those to whom they are specially granted. This was especially so for the aforesaid reason: that they should prudently resist those who strive to usurp the Lord’s sanctuary as a hereditary right.

Hence the same provosts could not and ought not to be excluded, also for the reason that seven persons in the name of the seven provosts, and two in the place and name of twenty-three prelates for the whole body itself, were admitted by the canons to deliberation concerning the election. Thus, since the votes of seven provosts and eighteen prelates present, together with those of six others absent whose proctors were present in the city, concurred upon the person postulated through their assent, they alleged a number more than twice greater for their party. For only fifteen canons and one provost had assented to the parish priest at the beginning, and no right accrued to him in this case through the subsequent assent of nine canons who were not present at the time of the election and who neither could nor ought conveniently to have been summoned. This was especially so since eight of them had been absent for so long that, according to the constitution of the patriarch and chapter of Constantinople, they would in no way be held as canons.

They also introduced authority on their behalf, since regularly a prelate is held to have greater authority than a simple canon.

They proved good zeal for the reason that they had postulated a Venetian who, through long association, was known for avoiding scandal, proved in praiseworthy administration, dear to clerics, and acceptable to laymen. The assent of the prince, the votes of the suffragans, and the desire of the people concurred upon him. They ought not to presume anything sinister concerning one whom both the excellence of his dignity and common reputation rendered illustrious.

Nor ought the adversaries, who were silent at the time of his promotion, to be heard unless perhaps they proposed something new or something they had learned afterward. This was especially so because the subsequent honorable conduct of a long period had erased the alleged stain of incontinence, if any perhaps had preceded in him, which they nevertheless wholly denied.

They also proposed that, unless the other party restrained itself from injuries, they intended to propose certain matters against both the persons of those electing and the elect.

For the excuse of the same archbishop concerning the objection of ambition, they proposed that he had come to Constantinople for an honorable and probable cause and had need to approach it frequently, both because of the affairs of the patriarchal church and because of execution of the last will of the deceased patriarch committed to his discretion. Although he participated in vespers and matins in the patriarchal church because of the solemnity of the day, he nevertheless sat in the place of the dean and usurped nothing of the patriarchal things.

They also said that he was learned, although not eminently, nevertheless competently, having sufficient understanding and eloquence concerning the scriptures and in the scriptures.

They alleged nevertheless that, even if certain conventual churches were then vacant or perhaps did not have a number of clerics because of poverty, the chapter itself, or even one person who held the place of the chapter, ought to be admitted to the election in place of the prelate, since in such matters the chapter is often accustomed to supply the place of the prelate, and the name and right of a corporate body often devolve upon one person and are retained in one.

Those electing the parish priest were likewise accused of bad zeal because they had elected a man whom, at the time of the election, they believed to have been constituted in minor orders. They asserted that on the vigil of the Lord’s Nativity the other party at Constantinople had assented to the parish priest, who a little earlier had caused himself to be promoted to the subdiaconate at Venice.

From this it was inferred that, if this had been done by agreement, it could not lack ambition. But if it had not been prearranged, since because of the distance between the places this could not have reached those electing in so short a time, it followed that according to their own consciences they were electing an ineligible person. Or, if error—not free from accusation—were alleged as an excuse, negligence would come into the confession, which in these matters does not differ greatly from fault.

They added that it was more extraordinary to assent to a man constituted not only outside the entire patriarchate but even outside the entire empire than to a neighbor and familiar person, a suffragan of the same church concerning whose pastor’s election deliberation was being held.

They also marked the person of the parish priest with vehement ambition, saying that through his letters he had expressly asked certain canons of Constantinople to elect him as their patriarch, which the opposing party denied.

Hence those postulating the often-mentioned archbishop petitioned that, since the other party was lesser in zeal, authority, and number, after quashing what had been done concerning the parish priest, we deign to admit their postulation.]

But because full proof could not be made to us concerning the matters brought into judgment through the assertions of the parties—although concerning what was said about the number of those postulating, through a certain public instrument and also through the confession of the proctor of the opposing party, indeed made in court but afterward revoked, the other party asserted that its contention was founded—we considered that the cause should be committed to your discretion.

We command by apostolic writings that you inquire most diligently into the truth concerning these and other matters: at Venice, concerning the merits of the elect and of the person postulated, where they were born and lived for a long time; and at Constantinople, concerning the zeal of those electing and those postulating, and generally concerning everything which can instruct the cause, where a postulation and election of this kind were celebrated.

If the parties assent, you are to proceed in this manner. If it is established that it was agreed by mutual assent that seven provosts should be admitted to the election of the patriarch, whether by themselves or through others, and two others on behalf of the whole body for the other prelates of the conventual churches; and that so many conventual churches then had prelates that, together with the seven provosts and the nine canons who are known to have agreed upon the postulation of the aforesaid archbishop, they would make a number twice greater than the sixteen electors of the parish priest, you are in our place to admit the postulation—unless it is proved that something from the canonical institutes obstructs the person postulated which ought to impede his promotion. After quashing the election of the parish priest, you are to absolve the archbishop himself from the bond by which he is bound to the church of Heraclea and grant him as pastor to the church of Constantinople.

But if all the aforesaid persons together were by no means sufficient to make a number twice greater, whether the person postulated was worthy or unworthy, after rejecting the postulation you are by our authority to confirm the election of the parish priest, provided that nothing obstructs him which renders him unworthy of so great a prelacy.

But if the number of those postulating is found to have been twice greater, as aforesaid, and the person postulated is found unworthy, you are not to delay rejecting both the postulation and the election, unless perhaps all or the greater part of those postulating, with damnable presumption, knowingly postulated an unworthy person, so that on this occasion they ought deservedly to be deprived of the power of electing or postulating. In this case also, you are to confirm the election if it is established that it was celebrated concerning a suitable person. [Moreover, etc. Given at Segni, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of September, in the fifteenth year of our pontificate, 1212.]

Latin source headnote: If those to whom the election belongs neglect to elect the prelate of a cathedral or regular church within three months, the nearest superior will order the church; but if he does not do so within another three months, he will be canonically punished.

The same in the general council.

Lest for lack of a pastor the rapacious wolf invade the Lord’s flock, or a widowed church suffer grave loss in its property, wishing in this also to meet dangers to souls and to provide against loss to churches, we establish that a cathedral or regular church shall not lack a prelate for more than three months.

Within that period, if a just impediment ceases and an election has not been celebrated, those who ought to have elected shall lack the power of electing on that occasion, and the power of electing itself shall devolve upon the person who is known to preside as the nearest superior.

The person upon whom the power has devolved, having God before his eyes, shall not delay beyond three months canonically ordering the widowed church, with the counsel of his chapter and other prudent men, from a suitable person of that church itself or of another if a worthy person is not found in it, if he wishes to escape canonical punishment.

Latin source headnote: An election in cathedral churches must proceed through one of the three forms contained here—namely, scrutiny, compromise, and inspiration. An election celebrated otherwise is not valid, and those acting contrary to this are to be deprived of the power of electing on that occasion. This is what it says down to § But this. — § 1. It forbids appointing a proctor in the business of an election unless the conditions contained here concur, down to § Elections. Abbas Siculus. — § 2. It commands that elections be solemnly published and that clandestine elections be rejected. This is what it says down to the end. Abbas Siculus.

The same in the same council.

Because, on account of the diverse forms of elections which certain persons endeavor to devise, many impediments arise and great dangers threaten widowed churches, we establish that, when an election is to be celebrated, with all those present who ought, wish, and are conveniently able to participate, three trustworthy persons from the college are to be assumed. Secretly and individually they are diligently to ascertain the votes of all and, having reduced them to writing, immediately publish them in common, with no impediment of appeal whatsoever interposed, so that, after a comparison has been made, the person upon whom all or the greater and sounder part of the chapter agrees may be elected.

Or at least the power of electing is to be committed to certain suitable men, who in place of all may provide a pastor for the widowed church. An election made otherwise shall not be valid, unless perhaps it was celebrated in common by all, as if through inspiration, without defect. Those who attempt to elect contrary to the prescribed forms shall be deprived of the power of electing on that occasion.

§ 1. But this we entirely forbid: that anyone appoint a proctor in the business of an election unless he is absent in a place from which he ought to be summoned and, detained by a just impediment, cannot come. Concerning this, if there is need, he is to furnish proof by oath; and then, if he wishes, he may commit his authority to one person from that college itself.

§ 2. We also reject clandestine elections, establishing that, as soon as an election has been celebrated, it is to be solemnly published.

Latin source headnote: One who assents to an election made of himself through abuse of secular power is rendered ineligible for a dignity, and the election is null. Those electing are suspended from benefices for three years and are then deprived of the power of electing.

The same in the same council.

Whoever, contrary to canonical liberty, presumes to assent to an election made of himself through abuse of secular power shall both lack the advantage of the election and be rendered ineligible, nor without a dispensation can he be elected to any dignity.

Those who presume to celebrate an election of this kind, which we judge to be invalid by the law itself, shall be entirely suspended from offices and benefices for three years, being then deprived of the power of electing.

Latin source headnote: If through negligence a prelate has confirmed an unworthy person elected to the governance of souls, he loses the power of confirming that person’s first successor and is suspended from receipt of his own benefice, and the person promoted is cast down. But if he did this through malice, he is punished more gravely. Persons elected who are immediately subject to the Pope ought to approach the Pope in person or through instructed persons and seek confirmation. If they were elected in concord and are very remote—namely, situated beyond Italy—they administer in the meantime, in such manner, however, that they alienate nothing; but they are blessed and consecrated as has been customary.

The same in the same council.

There is nothing which harms the Church of God more than that unworthy prelates are assumed to the governance of souls. Wishing, therefore, to apply a necessary remedy to this disease, we sanction by an irrefragable constitution that, when anyone has been elected to the governance of souls, the person to whom his confirmation belongs shall diligently examine both the course of the election and the person of the elect, so that, when all things have duly concurred, he may bestow upon him the gift of confirmation. For if otherwise something has been incautiously presumed, not only is the person unworthily promoted to be cast down, but the person unworthily promoting is also to be punished.

We decree that the latter is to be punished by this correction: when his negligence is established, especially if he has approved a man of insufficient knowledge, dishonorable life, or unlawful age, he shall not only lack the power of confirming that man’s first successor but shall also, lest by some chance he escape punishment, be suspended from receipt of his own benefice until, if it is equitable, he can merit indulgence. But if he is convicted of having transgressed in this through malice, he shall lie under a graver punishment.

§ 1. Bishops also shall take care to promote to sacred orders and ecclesiastical dignities such persons as can worthily fulfill the office committed to them, if they themselves desire to escape canonical punishment.

§ 2. Moreover, those who pertain immediately to the Roman Pontiff shall, to receive confirmation of their office, present themselves personally before his sight if this can conveniently be done, or transmit suitable persons through whom diligent inquiry concerning the elections and the elected can be held. Thus at last, through the circumspection of his counsel, they may obtain the plenitude of their office when nothing from the canonical institutes obstructs them. Meanwhile, however, those very remote—namely, situated beyond Italy—if they were elected in concord, may by dispensation, because of the necessities and utilities of the churches, administer in spiritual and temporal matters, in such manner nevertheless that they alienate absolutely nothing from ecclesiastical property. They shall receive the gift of blessing or consecration just as they have hitherto been accustomed to receive it.

Latin source headnote: The necessary expenses which a chapter incurs for the election of a prelate ought to be made or repaid from the goods of the prelacy.

Honorius III to the Chapter of Constantinople.

So that, once the subject matter of the past contention has been decided, the occasion for future disputes may be cut off, by authority of the present writings we establish that the necessary expenses which the chapter of Constantinople or its messengers have incurred while the see was vacant for the business of the election shall be made entirely or repaid from the goods of the patriarchate, provided that they do not occupy or usurp the goods of the deceased patriarch.

Latin source headnote: An election celebrated after an interval following the comparison is not valid. This says, according to the more common opinion.

The same to the Bishop-elect of Lyon.

After the resignation of our venerable brother, the former Archbishop of Lyon, had been urgently sought and at last obtained, the votes of the canons of Lyon agreed unanimously upon you, then their provost. But, when at length we had examined the course of your election, as was fitting, we found that it had been delayed for some time after the publication of the assents and the discussion of the comparison, and that your assent had been sought before you were elected. Justice therefore requiring it, we quashed that election solely because of its disorderly course. [The third day before the Ides of January, in the eighth year—1224.]

Latin source headnote: A monk of one monastery who has been made abbot of another has no voice in the election of the abbot of the former monastery, even if such a right was reserved to him by the abbot and monks of the former monastery.

The same to the Prior of Évreux and Master Guy of Canopo.

When the proctors of our beloved sons, the abbots of Saint-Taurin of Évreux and Saint-Leufroy de la Croix, and of the monastery of Fécamp, had appeared in our presence, we appointed our beloved brother B., cardinal-priest of the title of Saints John and Paul, as auditor. Before him the proctors of the aforesaid abbots alleged that, when the aforesaid monastery—which belongs immediately to the Roman Church—was vacant, the monks of that place, in contempt of the aforesaid abbots, who conveniently could and by right ought to have been summoned, rashly proceeded to the election of an abbot and presumed to elect Ethard, formerly Abbot of Saint-Josse, who was insufficiently suitable for its governance. They therefore sought to have an election of this kind rendered wholly void. But when the proctors of those abbots were ordered to state by what right the abbots themselves ought to take part in the election of the abbot of the monastery of Fécamp, they answered that formerly, when they were taken up as abbots in their own monasteries, it had been specially granted to them by the abbot and convent of the monastery of Fécamp that they should have a voice in the chapter of the same. We, however, judging a reason of this kind frivolous, with the counsel of our brothers impose perpetual silence upon the aforesaid abbots concerning this matter.

Textual note: The source prints Eboracensi and Eboracensis, forms that ordinarily denote York. The Norman institutional context identifies the place here as Évreux (Ebroicensis): Saint-Taurin was an abbey of Évreux, and the dispute concerns Fécamp and Saint-Leufroy de la Croix.

Latin source headnote: An election ought to be made by word, and of him upon whom the greater part of the chapter has agreed, and not with regard to the other factions.

The same to the Chapter of Rouen.

Your church being deprived of a pastor, and your votes being divided in different directions when you were deliberating about the future succession of a prelate, some of you agreed upon Thomas, some upon the chancellor, and particular persons upon particular persons of the same church. But when many things had been alleged on both sides concerning these matters in the presence of us and of our brothers, we found that those who directed their desires toward Thomas, although they constituted the greater faction in comparison with the smaller factions, nevertheless did not amount to the greater part of the chapter. We considered, moreover, that after the publication of the assents and the discussion of the comparison no procedure toward an election had taken place, although the solemn ceremony of conducting him was carried out even after a lawful appeal; it would neither be fitting nor expedient for that ceremony to be held as an election. Hence, with the counsel of our brothers, we quashed what was done concerning the aforesaid T., the petition of those agreeing upon the chancellor likewise not being admitted.

Latin source headnote: One who has not made profession cannot be elected as abbot.

Gregory IX.

Since one who has not assumed the form of a disciple ought not to be assumed as a master, nor ought one who does not know how to be subject be placed over others, we, having learned from you that in certain religious houses subject to you by diocesan right some persons who have not professed a religious order have been taken up as abbots, command that—since those ought not to be abbots who have not become monks or canons regular by profession—you proceed, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, to the removal of those whom you find to be such.

Latin source headnote: An election made by less than the greater part of the chapter, with the comparison omitted, is not valid.

The same to the Chapter of Como.

The church of Como being deprived of the consolation of a pastor, and those of the canons of Como who were present having assembled on the day fixed for celebrating the election, together with three abbots [namely, those of Saint Abbondio, Saint Carpophorus, and Saint Julian of Como], who are known to have a voice in the election, the chaplains and clerics of the city, saying that they ought to take part in the election, were admitted under this protest: that the vote of those who ought not to take part by law or custom would not be valid. At length, after a scrutiny had been held in accordance with the form of the general council, seven of the canons, one of the abbots, eleven chaplains, and nine clerics agreed upon the archpriest of the same church, while nine canons, one of the abbots, one chaplain, and eleven clerics directed their votes toward the archdeacon of that church.

[And when the proctors of both of them had come into our presence concerning the election, we appointed our beloved son O., cardinal-deacon of Saint Nicholas in the Tullian Prison, as their auditor; and when he had faithfully reported to us the things that had been alleged before him,] since there were eighteen canons, three abbots, twenty clerics, and fourteen chaplains, we found that neither election had attained the greater part of the whole chapter. Nor had it been proved [by the same proctors] that the clerics ought to have been admitted, or that the chaplains had been admitted by custom or by law. For, although the chaplains had taken part in two elections of bishops and had furnished scrutineers of the votes, nevertheless it is not proved that their own votes had been ascertained or that they had elected anyone. But even if their votes had been ascertained or they themselves had elected anyone, it was nevertheless not established by this that such a right belonged to them by law or by a custom already acquired by prescription. Hence we, with the counsel of our brothers, decreed that those presumed elections—made also contrary to the form of the general council, since the comparison in common, which ought to have taken place after publication of the scrutiny, had been omitted—must be judicially rendered void, [and] we deprive the electors of the power of electing on this occasion. [Given at the Lateran, the twelfth day before the Kalends of April, in the second year—1228.]

Latin source headnote: Through an agreement made with a prelate and chapter, the right of electing cannot belong to a layman, even to a patron, in a collegiate church.

The same to the Abbot of Cluny.

The Holy Roman Church (And below:) Indeed, you proposed in our presence that, concerning the appointment of the prior of the monastery of Saint Pancras, which belongs to the church of Cluny, a certain predecessor of yours, with the assent of his chapter, entered into an agreement with the Count of Varenne, its patron, which was contrary to law and harmful to the church itself: namely, that it should be at the choice of the count himself to take for the priorship of the said monastery—only the priors of Cluny and La Charité being excepted—one of the two best men of the whole Cluniac order whom the abbot should consider fit to nominate. (And below:) Considering, therefore, that the right of electing in a collegiate church does not fall to a layman, and that this would consequently be pernicious as an example and would redound to the detriment of ecclesiastical liberty, we will that, notwithstanding that agreement, you may freely make provision for the said priory just as for the other priories subject to you, notifying the patron of the appointment made so that, if he wishes, his honorable assent may be imparted.

Latin source headnote: If those having the right to elect are commanded by the Pope to elect with the counsel of certain persons, failing which the counselors are to make provision, the electors ought to seek the counsel during the deliberation concerning the election and await a response for a suitable time; otherwise the election does not hold.

The same to the Dean and Chapters of Saint John and Saint Stephen of Besançon.

Since in the old law (And below:) Indeed, some time ago we commanded you that, within forty days after receipt of our letters, with the counsel of the abbots of Saint-Bénigne and Morimond and of Brother G. of the Order of Preachers, you were canonically to elect a suitable person as pastor; otherwise, the said counselors were to provide you with an archbishop. But on the day fixed for electing, six of you conferred the power of electing, which was to last until the consumption of a certain candle that was then lit there. At length, when electors of this kind had agreed upon the aforesaid Abbot of Saint-Bénigne and had sought the counsel of his associates concerning this, one of them proposed that they should answer after deliberate counsel. While they delayed giving them a prompt response, the aforesaid electors, because the candle was failing, did not await their counsel but elected the said abbot as Archbishop of Besançon. (And below:) Therefore, when the business had been reported to the Apostolic See, we enjoined the Archbishop of Vienne and the Abbot of La Ferté that, if it were established that the same electors had held a deliberation concerning the election and that the counsel of the aforesaid persons had been sought during the deliberation concerning the election, they should confirm the election of the abbot himself if his person was suitable. But if their counsel had not been sought during the deliberation concerning the election, although it had afterward been sought at an unsuitable time and their response had not even been awaited, or if that abbot were not suitable, they were to render void, as invalid, what had been done concerning him. (And below:) Since, however, it was not found that counsel concerning the person of the aforesaid abbot had been sought at a suitable time, and, when it was sought, their response was awaited only for a short time, and since it ought not to be imputed to others that those men had so greatly narrowed the time for themselves, we have decreed that the election of the abbot himself is to be rendered void, not because of a defect in the person, but because of a defect in the election.

Latin source headnote: If the greater part of a chapter knowingly elects an unworthy person, the election of a worthy person by the lesser part is valid, even if made from the same scrutiny. This it says according to the truer and intrinsic understanding.

The same to the Bishop of Senlis.

When the chapter of Nevers had assembled for the election of a future pastor, thirteen agreed upon the dean and eighteen upon the cantor of that church, the vote of the proctor of a certain absentee being counted. Since more persons had directed their desires toward him and fewer toward the other, the cantor was elected by his own faction as pastor of the church of Nevers. Afterward, the faction of the dean, believing that the others had gravely offended by electing a person devoid of literary learning, by reason of which, according to the statutes of the Lateran Council, those others were deprived by the law itself of the power of electing and the power of electing had devolved upon them, elected as their bishop the dean himself, toward whom they had directed their votes, and appealed to the Apostolic See. (And below:) The others petitioned that we deign to render void the election of the dean, as one attempted by the fewer and after another election had not been quashed, and to confirm the other as one canonically celebrated by the greater number concerning a suitable person. We therefore command that, if the said cantor does not suffer from a defect in literary learning and is otherwise suitable for pastoral governance, you take care by our authority to confirm his election, after invalidating the other. Otherwise, after pronouncing the election of the cantor himself void, by the same authority you shall place the aforesaid dean over the said church, provided that nothing in the canonical statutes obstructs him.

Textual note: The source’s veriorom in the headnote is the evident typographical error veriorem, “truer.”

Latin source headnote: One who has several dignities or several benefices with cure of souls is ineligible without a dispensation from the Pope. This it says as regards the title.

The same to the Bishop of Senlis, John of Montmirail the Archdeacon, and the Succentor of Paris.

Some time ago, when the church of Rouen was deprived of the consolation of a pastor, A. the archdeacon and certain other canons of that church approached the Apostolic See against an election that had been celebrated in the same church. When the said archdeacon, on behalf of himself and his faction, and G. the archdeacon, proctor of those who had celebrated the election, had appeared in our presence, among the other things that had been objected against the elect, the aforesaid archdeacon alleged that, after the general council, the same elect obtained the archdeaconry of Amiens and presumed to retain it together with several parish churches that he had obtained before that council; and, after relinquishing the archdeaconry, he retained the aforesaid churches.

§ 1. Hence, since it was established in the same council that whoever receives any benefice having the cure of souls annexed to it, if he previously held such a benefice, is deprived of the latter by the law itself, and, if perchance he contends to retain it, shall be despoiled of the other also, the aforesaid elect, by acting contrary to statutes of this kind, incurred from the plurality of benefices the mark of transgression as well as the vice of cupidity, which he ought to have reproved in others. And by retaining benefices that did not belong to him—since after the receipt of the other benefice the former benefices had become vacant by the law itself—he consequently handled the property of another, and thus in a certain manner committed theft or rapine. To the detriment of his own salvation and of many souls he also retained the aforesaid parish churches, although their cure, of which he had already been deprived by the law itself, in no way belonged to him; and thus those souls were damnably deceived through him.

§ 2. But the proctor of those who had elected him, although before us in judicial proceedings he admitted a plurality of benefices of this kind, nevertheless strove in many ways to excuse that elect through a grant of the Archbishop of Rouen exhibited to us. We, therefore, admitting that excuse in no way, as being frivolous, commanded you that, if it were established that, after receiving the aforesaid archdeaconry having the cure of souls, he retained the aforesaid parish churches at the time of the election and did not show that the Apostolic See had dispensed with him concerning this, you should quash his election by apostolic authority. (And below:) When the parties had therefore appeared in your presence because of this, an oath to tell the truth had also been taken, and formal allegations and responses had been made on both sides, at length, when the same dean appealed to our hearing on the pretext of certain grievances, you rendered an election of this kind void and provided the same church with the Bishop of Le Mans. (And below:)

§ 3. Although formal allegations and responses were made before you upon several articles, nevertheless, because we did not find that the issue had been joined—since joinder of issue takes place not through formal allegations and responses made to them, but through a petition proposed in law and a response made—we decreed, with the counsel of our brothers, that those proceedings were to be pronounced void.

§ 4. At length the archdeacon petitioned that the election be rendered void for the aforesaid reason, while the aforesaid elect answered that his election was not to be rendered void. But when the issue had lawfully been joined before us and an oath to tell the truth had been taken by the parties, the same elect, although he admitted that he had held the said benefices at the time of the election, nevertheless strove to excuse himself concerning this, namely because he did not believe that the said archdeaconry had the cure of souls. But since in judicial proceedings he admitted that the Archdeacon of Amiens customarily suspends, excommunicates, and absolves priests and priors, places parish churches under interdict, and also visits, inquires into those matters that he sees ought to be investigated, and receives procurations by reason of visitation, it plainly appears that the archdeaconry has the cure of souls annexed to it. Even if it did not have that cure, he cannot deny that it is a personate, since the same judgment is to be made concerning personates as concerning benefices having the cure of souls.

§ 5. Moreover, we judged invalid the indulgence that he asserts he has concerning this, since in obtaining it he suggested a falsehood and suppressed the truth, although, had the former been concealed or the latter expressed, he would in no way have obtained it. For he suggested that he had canonically obtained the aforesaid parish churches before he was assumed as archdeacon, although no one could hold several parish churches unless one depended upon the other, or unless he had one by title and the other in commendam. Hence, since he had both of those churches by title, he could not have held them canonically. Likewise, by suggesting that the revenues of his personate were slight and meager, he suppressed the fact that he was known to hold other revenues in several churches. He also suppressed the fact that he held several parish churches together with several other benefices in different churches, although it was not our intention to dispense with him in so many benefices, especially those having the cure of souls; nor was it our intention to grant anything new, but only that through the indulgence he might lawfully retain what he already had. (And below:)

§ 6. At length, when nothing remained except that sentence be rendered, of his own free will he relinquished both the right, if any seemed to belong to him, and the suit; we decreed that his relinquishment was to be admitted.

Latin source headnote: An election is void if it was not preceded by a comparison, or if it was not made by the greater part of the chapter, or if it was not common.

The same.

In Genesis it is read (And below:) Since provision is made in the council that, after a comparison has been held, he is to be elected upon whom all or the greater and sounder part of the chapter agrees; and since the greater part of the whole chapter did not agree upon G., although he had the greater faction in comparison with the smaller factions; and since there was no full comparison of number with number, because whether G. and H., concerning whom the adversaries raise a question, had a voice in the election was neither deliberated nor determined; and since no comparison was made of zeal with zeal or merit with merit; and since the election was not even celebrated in common—for, although the individuals had each individually agreed upon the same G., nevertheless an individual election ought not to have followed, but a common one, lest either the same thing seem to be repeated or from this there follow the absurdity that there should be as many elections in number as there were electors; nor from individual or particular assents would a universal or common election appear, although each individual assent expresses the truth of its own part, just as a universal proposition does not appear from individual propositions, although true, unless perhaps it is expressed through a universal sign; and since the aforesaid two canons could not be excluded in this way, because the first was in possession or quasi-possession of a canonry, having a stall in the choir and a place in the chapter, reading and chanting as a canon, and had been summoned as a canon to deliberations and elections of dignities and personates that arose to be made from time to time, although on this occasion he was admitted under protest, while the second was in such a place that he ought to have been summoned from it to the election, since by the custom of the Gallican Church absentees are summoned from the whole kingdom of France—we, having understood these matters more fully, with the counsel of our brothers decree the aforesaid election void and empty, as one attempted contrary to the form of the council.

Latin source headnote: The election of a bishop made by laymen and canons is not valid, even if custom supports this. This it says, and it is customarily cited every day.

The same to the Chapter of Massa.

When the church of Massa was vacant of a pastor (And below:) By a perpetual edict we prohibit an election of a bishop from being presumed by laymen together with canons. If perchance such an election has been presumed, it shall obtain no firmness, notwithstanding a contrary custom, which ought rather to be called a corruption.

Latin source headnote: It is not sufficient for the confirmation of an election that it was made by the greater part of the chapter unless that part is also the sounder.

The same to the Chapter of Châlons.

When your church was deprived of a pastor, you assembled together and, in the absence of G., who was then unwilling to take part, established a date for celebrating the election. But when the date arrived, and the said G., since he was absent, had not been summoned, after a scrutiny had been held according to the form of the general council, fourteen elected Master G., cardinal-priest and your fellow canon, and seventeen elected R., a canon of Reims; afterward, the aforesaid G. furnished his assent to the election of the same R.

At length, when the proctors of both factions had appeared in our presence, it was alleged on behalf of the election of the said R. that, because it exceeded the other by four when the aforesaid G. was counted, it had the greater part of the chapter, and through this his faction ought to be regarded as the sounder, since where there is a greater number, better zeal is presumed. But the other faction attacked that election in many ways, alleging that the aforesaid R. suffered from a defect of age and did not possess sufficient learning for the aforesaid church, whereas the aforesaid cardinal was of mature age and eminent learning; and, since the cardinal’s electors excelled the others in merits and authority, especially when regard was had to the person elected, it was established that they had better zeal. It was said besides that the assent of the said G.—whom the faction of the same R. admitted to have been contemned, while the other faction asserted that the chapter had rather been contemned by him—could add nothing, since it was not furnished in the scrutiny but acceded after the election. (And below:)

Finally, the statute of the general council that decrees an election invalid when an offense is committed in an election against the form of that council ought not to be referred to contempt and to other matters that do not belong to the form. Hence, what is said there—that an election celebrated otherwise is not valid—regards only those things that are attempted against the form of the aforesaid council, and not other things that are set down there, such as the requirement that the procedure in an election be held with all those present who ought, wish, and are conveniently able to take part; otherwise, the other things known to have been established elsewhere concerning this would seem to be overthrown by one word. For it is not to be believed that the Roman Pontiff, who protects laws, wished by one word to overturn what had elsewhere been devised through many vigils and discovered.

We, therefore, having more fully understood the things alleged on both sides, since by the Lateran Council the greater and sounder part of the chapter is required in the ordering of churches, and the statute of the general council contains, among other things, that he is to be elected upon whom all or the greater and sounder part agrees, have decreed, with the counsel of our brothers, that the election of the said R. is to be judicially rendered void—not because of a defect in the person, but rather because of a defect in the election—since the greater and sounder part did not agree upon him.

Latin source headnote: Once the scrutiny has been published, the electors cannot change their votes, but they ought to be compelled to proceed to the comparison and election.

The same.

Once the scrutiny has been published, the electors cannot change their votes, since the comparison is to be made and the election celebrated. If it is necessary, they are to be compelled to this by the superior.

Latin source headnote: When an election has been quashed because of simony, even without fault of the elect, the bishop does not dispense with the person quashed on that occasion; it is otherwise if the elect freely resigned. This it says according to the understanding of gloss 2 at the end.

The same.

If it happens that someone’s election is rejected because of simony committed without his knowledge and not ratified by him, the bishop cannot dispense with him on that occasion concerning the prelacy to which he had been elected in such a manner, although, with regard to one who unknowingly receives a simple benefice through simoniacal depravity, a dispensation by the bishop after a free resignation is tolerated.

Latin source headnote: Time runs against impeded electors if they are able to remove the impediment.

The same.

For those who are forbidden to presume to elect without the license of a superior, the time established by the canon runs from the point at which they are in delay in seeking such a license.