Title XXXIII: On Privileges and the Offenses of Privileged Persons

Latin source headnote: Episcopal dignity ought not to be bestowed except upon distinguished and populous places.

Pope Leo.

Episcopal governance ought to preside only over larger peoples and more populous cities, lest that which the divinely inspired decrees of the holy Fathers prohibited—the sacerdotal eminence being bestowed upon villages and estates or obscure and solitary municipalities—and an honor to which more excellent places ought to be committed become cheap through its very multiplicity. [But what now, etc. Given on the fourth day before the Ides of August, 446.]

Latin source headnote: Notwithstanding the privilege of forum, a lay malefactor against a church can be punished by the church.

Pope Gregory, to the Subdeacon.

Just as we do not wish to disturb the privileges of laymen in their judgments, so, when they prejudice us, we wish to resist them with moderated authority. Therefore, to coerce violent laymen is not to act contrary to law, but to furnish assistance to law. [Therefore, because God gave, etc.]

Latin source headnote: Even exempt religious ought not to receive churches and tithes from laymen without the consent of the diocesan bishops. It says this as far as § Excommunicated Persons. — § 1. Excommunicated and interdicted persons ought by no means to be admitted to divine things, even by exempt religious. It says this as far as § But in Churches. Abbas Siculus. — § 2. Even exempt religious do not institute or remove persons, without consulting the bishops, in churches that do not belong to them by full right; but they exact an account in temporal matters from those instituted. It says this as far as § But If. — § 3. Hospitallers and Templars celebrate once a year in a church situated in an interdicted place; nevertheless, bodies of the dead are not buried there. It says this as far as § Concerning Confraternity Members. Abbas. — § 4. Confraternity members of exempt persons, or their oblates, who have not transferred themselves entirely, can be judged by the ordinaries of the places. It says this to the end. Abbas Siculus.

Alexander III, in the Lateran Council.

Since we ought both to plant sacred religion and to foster it when planted in every way, nowhere do we accomplish this better than if, by the authority committed to us by God, we take care to nourish those things which are right and to correct those which impede the progress of virtue. But from the vehement complaint of our brothers and fellow bishops we have learned that the brothers of the Temple and Hospital, and also other religious, exceeding the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See, presume many things against episcopal authority which both cause scandal to the people of God and produce grave peril to souls. For they alleged that they receive churches from the hands of laymen; admit excommunicated and interdicted persons to ecclesiastical sacraments and burial in their churches without the bishops' knowledge; institute and remove priests; and, when their brothers go to seek alms, although it was granted to them that at their arrival churches should be opened once a year and divine offices celebrated in them, several of them, coming repeatedly from one or diverse houses to an interdicted place, abuse the indulgence of their privileges in celebrating offices and burying the dead, and then presume to bury the dead at interdicted churches. Also, by occasion of the confraternities which they establish in many places, they enervate the strength of episcopal authority, while under pretext of certain privileges they intend to fortify against the bishops' sentence all who wish to betake themselves to their confraternity. In these matters, however, since the excess arises not so much from the knowledge or counsel of the superiors as from the indiscretion [of certain] inferiors, we have decreed that the things in which they exceed are to be removed and the things which create doubt are to be declared. Therefore, we prohibit both them and also any other religious from receiving churches and tithes from the hand of laymen without the consent of the bishops, relinquishing even whatever they received at any time contrary to this tenor. § 1. We likewise establish that excommunicated persons and those interdicted by name are to be avoided by them and by all others according to the sentence of the bishops. § 2. But in their churches which do not belong to them by full right, they shall present to the bishops the priests who are to be instituted, so that they may answer to the bishops indeed concerning the care of the people, but render to the religious themselves a competent account concerning temporal things. Nor shall they dare to remove those instituted without consulting the bishops. § 3. But if Templars or Hospitallers come to an interdicted church, they are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical office except once in the year, nor then are bodies of the dead to be buried there. § 4. Concerning confraternity members, however, we establish this: that, if they have not wholly given themselves to the aforesaid brothers but have determined to remain in every respect in their own properties, on this account they shall in no way be exempted from the sentence of their bishops; rather, the bishops shall exercise their power over them as over their other parishioners when they are to be corrected for their offenses. What has been said concerning the aforesaid brothers, we command also to be observed by other religious who by their presumption seize the rights of bishops and presume to come against their canonical sentences and the tenor of our privileges. For if they come against this statute, both the churches in which they presumed those things shall lie under interdict, and what they did shall be held invalid and void.

Latin source headnote: One who derogates from the privileges of others is to be deprived of his own privileges.

The same, to the Archbishops and Bishops to whom these letters shall come.

Our beloved sons, the brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem, have shown by a complaint transmitted to us that you are unwilling to do justice for them concerning their malefactors, contemning the reception of their privileges, and that you in no way permit them to seek alms in your parishes or to bury their brothers. Therefore, because those brothers are fortified with many liberties and privileges by the Roman Pontiffs, which we are unwilling to allow to be infringed in our times, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity, by way of precept, that you cause absolutely no molestation to the said brothers in those things which are known to have been granted to them by the Roman Church, nor presume in any way to contradict or deny those things to them. For if henceforth we shall be able to discover such things concerning you in truth, know for certain that we shall curtail the privileges granted to you, since you do not fear to oppose our authentic writings and those of the Roman Church.

Latin source headnote: Even privileged persons cannot admit excommunicated persons to burial; and, if they have admitted them, they ought to cast them out from there; and, if they have not done so, the bishop shall supply their omission.

The same, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

For this purpose, although undeserving, by the Lord's disposition we have been established in the see of the prince of the blessed Apostles: that we ought to plant the things which look to the adornment of the virtues, and take care to pluck up and root out the things which are opposed to reason and impede the advancement of salvation. Indeed, we have learned that the Hospitallers presume, against the prohibitions of the bishops, to consign to ecclesiastical burial persons excommunicated by name, not considering how grave it is to communicate in death with those whom the Church, while they lived, separated from her bosom for their offenses. Whence, because we neither wish nor ought in any way to tolerate presumption and rashness of this kind, brother, by apostolic writings we command you to order the Hospitallers that, if they have buried in the cemeteries of churches any who died in excommunication, they cast them altogether outside those cemeteries. But if they are unwilling to do so, you shall carry out this very thing, by our authority, the obstacle of appeal being removed, concerning those whom it shall be established to you died in excommunication. [Furthermore, concerning these persons, etc. Given at Ferentino, on the tenth day before the Kalends of April, 1175.]

Latin source headnote: Prescription runs against the privilege of a church over a period of thirty years, but today over forty, as below in this same title, Accedentibus.

The same, to the Abbot and Monks of Saint Andrew of the Cistercian Order.

If for thirty years you have paid tithes to the canons of Plautio from the land that you possess in their parish, from now on [and] in full [without any] molestation or occasion, appeal being set aside, you shall pay them those tithes, and you shall restore in full those which you are known to have withheld. For although by benefit of the privileges of the Roman Church it was granted to the brothers of the Cistercian Order that they ought to pay no tithes or first fruits from their labors, nevertheless you wished for so long a time to detract from the privilege granted [by] us to you; and, because everyone is free to renounce his own right, you cannot defend yourselves in this matter in that way. [Indeed, unless we loved you and your order so greatly, etc.]

Latin source headnote: Judgment is not to be made concerning privileges unless their tenor has been inspected, and according to their contents they are to be observed by all subjects.

The same, to the Bishop of Amiens.

Moreover, although the Templars and Hospitallers have been endowed with many prerogatives of liberty, we do not doubt that they possess a different liberty in those places in which they had been inhabitants before the places came to them. You can perceive all this more fully from an inspection of their privileges, and you shall observe according to what you find. For we wish them to observe the tenor of their privileges in such a way that they are in no way seen to transgress their bounds.

Latin source headnote: Exemption from the jurisdiction of bishops is not proved by payment of a census made to the Roman Church.

The same, to I., Legate of the Apostolic See.

We have received the letters which you directed concerning the churches paying a census in the episcopate of our venerable brother the Bishop of Novara, and from their tenor we have perceived how vigilant you are in preserving our rights. Nevertheless, we wish it not to escape your diligence that, just as not all those who exist specially under the right of blessed Peter pay a census annually to the Apostolic See, so not all those paying our census are held immune from subjection to bishops. Therefore, the privileges of the same churches are to be inspected, and their tenor is to be attended to more diligently, so that, if it shall have been discovered that a church which pays a census exists specially under the right of blessed Peter and that an annual census is rendered as a token of the liberty received, it will not undeservedly be able to enjoy a special prerogative. But if the census is paid as a token of the protection received, nothing is seen on this account to have been withdrawn from the right of the diocesan bishop. Therefore, since it is established that the priest of Saint Peter promised obedience to the aforesaid bishop at his ordination, as he confessed and asserted at law, we are unwilling that you protect him or any others, because, just as we wish our rights to be preserved by our brothers and fellow bishops, so it is fitting for us to guard their rights unimpaired.

Latin source headnote: A privilege granted to one person cannot be extended to another on account of identity of reason. It says this, and it is customarily cited every day.

The same.

Indeed (And below:) It is rash and unworthy for anyone to presume by his own authority for himself that which the Roman Church, after regard was had to a certain reason, willed to grant to someone by singular benefits.

Latin source headnote: Public bells cannot be kept in private oratories, even by religious. It says this; and hold this text in mind, for it is cited every day and is in use.

Celestine III, to the Bishop of Ávila.

You desire to be certified by our open letters whether Templars, Hospitallers, and others having oratories in their houses are permitted to place bells in them and ring them publicly. We respond to the consultation which you make, and we say, that they are not permitted to do this; rather, they are to be restrained by you through ecclesiastical censure, appeal being removed, so that they are content with their own right in such a way that they do not impede the justice of others.

Latin source headnote: Throughout the whole province those Hospitallers who send persons falsely marked with the cross to collect alms are deprived of the office of exhortation; and, if those sent are laymen, they are excommunicated, but, if they are clerics, they are suspended from office and benefice. Those who celebrate in a polluted church before its reconciliation are punished by the same suspension; persons suspended by bishops cannot be absolved by exempt persons; and confraternity members of privileged persons who do not transfer themselves entirely to them are not privileged.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Lyons.

The tenor of your letters has taught us that the brothers of the Hospital of Saint John send lay and illiterate men to collect alms which the people have been accustomed to send from devotion to the aforesaid place for the sustenance of the poor. But because they are not sufficient by themselves to go about all the places, they associate with themselves clerics, priests, and even rude laymen—not religious, but practiced in wickedness—placing the sign of the cross upon their breasts. And since they serve gluttony and drunkenness, showing themselves very dishonorable in other things, they gravely scandalize the clergy and people, since those laymen perform the offices of priories and are set over both clerics and priests, and they not only exist disobedient to the bishops but also rashly presume to claim for themselves certain immunities as though granted to them by the Apostolic See. For when one of them, recently striking the vicar priest in a certain baptismal church conferred upon them by your predecessor, had polluted the church itself by the shedding of blood, you prohibited divine offices from being celebrated there until reconciliation; but nevertheless they celebrated divine offices in it. Moreover, they receive priests coming to them from anywhere, concerning whose manner of life and ordination there is absolutely no certainty, to celebrate divine office for them, the assent of the bishops not having been sought at all. Other priests, suspended from office by their bishops according to the requirement of their deserts, those same men, although they are laymen, restore to the performance of divine offices. Furthermore, they endeavor so to emancipate certain persons who dwell with their wives in their own houses, because they confer something of their own upon them annually, that they are by no means bound to answer anyone according to the law of the land concerning the things objected against them. But because one who abuses the power permitted to him deserves to lose his privilege, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if you find any clerics, or priests, or laymen falsely marked with the cross by the said brothers for collecting alms, then throughout your whole province, supported by our authority, you prohibit those by whom they are established to have been sent from the office of this kind of exhortation. Those sent also, if they were laymen, you shall strike with the sword of excommunication; if they were clerics or priests, you shall suspend them from office and benefice, with no benefit of privilege or remedy of appeal whatever prevailing. Enveloping with the same penalty of suspension those whom you shall know to have celebrated divine things in the aforesaid church, subject to you by diocesan law, after your interdict, you shall not permit divine offices to be celebrated in it until it has been reconciled, as the sacred statutes command. Priests also suspended by their bishops and rashly restored by the aforesaid brothers to their offices you shall, supported by our authority, return to the same sentence of suspension. But those whom they assert not to be bound for the aforesaid cause to answer others according to the law of the land we are unwilling to have excused; rather, you shall compel them to answer, the obstacle of appeal being removed. [Given at the Lateran, on the fifth day before the Ides of December, 1198.]

Latin source headnote: The contents of a lost instrument can be proved through witnesses who read it through, if they depose concerning its tenor and that it was without defect. It says this, and the case is nowhere else so clear.

The same, to the Abbot and Convent of Saint Peter of Gubbio.

When formerly we were established at Perugia and you, son abbot, humbly presented to us the privilege of Pope Lucius of good memory, our predecessor, and petitioned that it be renewed, it was not brought to effect on account of the contradiction of our venerable brother Mark, Bishop of Gubbio, who arrived at that time, asserting that this redounded to his prejudice. [And when each of you complained of the other in our audience, we committed the cause to be heard by our venerable brother the Bishop of Assisi under this form: that he should take care to recall you and the said bishop to concord; otherwise, he should hear the things alleged on both sides and, reducing everything to writing, faithfully disclose to us the course of the matter. When he had inspected the privileges granted to you by the Apostolic See and understood that your monastery pertained specially to the Roman Church, he did not judge, as we have learned, that he should proceed further in the cause. Subsequently, at the petition of the aforesaid Bishop of Gubbio, our letters concerning the mutual questions were directed to our venerable brother the Bishop of Cagli and our beloved son Ar., Abbot of Saint Mary of Vallis Pontis. But because, while the judgment was pending, John the monk carried off the privileges, other charters, and the treasure of your monastery, it was necessary for you, abbot, again to labor to come to our presence, where you obtained letters providing that through a sentence of excommunication those who knew anything concerning the loss of the privilege should be compelled to speak the truth. But because not even thus could you recover the lost privileges, you returned to us anew.] Therefore, when you, with your witnesses, and the proctors of the aforesaid Bishop of Gubbio were established in our presence, we commanded our beloved son B., Cardinal Priest of the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles, to receive diligently concerning the loss and tenor of the privileges the witnesses whom you should deem fit to produce. He, as the diligent executor of our command, with the aforesaid proctors present, faithfully reduced to writing the depositions of ten sworn witnesses. When their depositions had been published, the said proctors sought an adjournment for producing witnesses of the bishop, through whom they might discredit those introduced by the opposing party; which adjournment, a peremptory term having been fixed, we determined should be granted to them under this tenor: that they should prove before the Apostolic See whatever they wished, where the other party had assumed the burden of proof. (And below:) We, however, knowing clearly, both through the depositions of the witnesses and through the assertions of certain of our brothers, that the tenor of the said privilege had been such—namely, that your monastery pertained to the Roman Church with no intermediary; that no bishop was permitted to pronounce excommunication against that monastery and its churches, so that the brothers serving the Lord there, free from the power of all, might enjoy the favor of the liberty of the Roman Church; and that no mention of the diocesan bishop was contained in them—and nevertheless also attending to this: that, as we learned clearly from the statements of certain witnesses, and as many of our brothers who were present at that time recalled, when you, son abbot, in the time of Celestine of good memory, our predecessor, had come to his presence, he, after inspecting the privileges of your church, admitted you to the kiss as one not bound, although you were said to have been excommunicated by the Bishop of Gubbio, which he is presumed not to have done unless he had known that your monastery pertained specially to the Roman Church, on the common counsel of our brothers we decree that it is to be pronounced that the privilege of Pope Lucius of good memory [our predecessor], which appeared without defect of bull, charter, or letter when it was shown to us, had that tenor which it is known through the depositions of witnesses and assertions of our brothers to have possessed. [Therefore, we decree, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the second day before the Kalends of June, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: Renewal of privileges does not bestow a new right, but preserves the ancient one. It says this as regards the title.

The same, to the Bishop-elect of Châlons and the Abbot of Trois-Fontaines.

It was intimated to our ears on behalf of the abbess and sisters of the church of Iotrensis that our venerable brother the Bishop of Meaux, on occasion of a certain commission obtained by letters to delegated judges, in which no mention was made of their privileges—which declare that they and their churches, and the clergy and people of Iotrensis, look to the Apostolic See with no intermediary, privileges of which he was not ignorant—began to molest them gravely by demanding from them and from the clergy and people of Iotrensis, who according to the privileges of the Apostolic See enjoy a similar liberty, obedience and complete subjection to be rendered to himself. [Whence, when they were cited by the same judges, not by joining issue but rather by excepting against them, they said that we were their special lord in judgment and that they owed no obedience to the Bishop of Meaux, because, when our venerable brother O., Bishop of Ostia, then legate of the Apostolic See, had diligently inspected their privileges and learned that their monastery pertained to the right and property of the Apostolic See, in our stead he bestowed the gift of benediction upon the abbess herself, who at that time had newly been elected, and caused her specially to promise obedience to us and the Roman Church, requiring and receiving an oath from her for this.] But when the judges and their assessors burdened them greatly [in that they denied them a delay for exhibiting the privileges of liberty, although their proctors offered them an oath that they did not then have the privileges, nor had it been procured by fraud that they had not carried them to their presence, and they were unwilling to give them brief adjournments,] they fled to the benefit of appeal, [excepting against the same judges: both because they asserted that they were suspect, and especially the Bishop of Paris himself, who had a similar cause against the beloved son the Abbot of Saint Geneviève, and therefore they believed that he was unwilling to give any sentence other than one which he would wish another to give for himself; and because, when he had first wished to pronounce an interlocutory ruling without his fellow judge, and the proctors of the abbess said that they wished his fellow judge to be present, he had answered them that the latter would profit them in nothing, because, when he came, he would do nothing except what the bishop himself wished; and because they afterward denied them reasonable adjournments; and because on occasion of those letters they ought not to proceed in the cause, for the reason that by those letters the Bishop of Meaux demanded that the obedience owed—which the abbess is bound to render to the Roman Pontiff alone—be rendered to him by her and by the clergy and people of Iotrensis, although it was established by the privileges of the Roman Church that they were bound to him in nothing, and no mention of their privileges was made in those letters.] But the same judges, not deferring to the appeal nor having compassion upon the frailty of their sex, pronounced sentences of excommunication against the abbess and of interdict against the clergy and people of Iotrensis. Indeed, when the envoys of the church of Iotrensis had recounted these and many other things in our presence, by which they said that the women and their people had been burdened contrary to the liberty granted to them, they showed us an apostolic privilege through which it was established that the church of Iotrensis pertained specially to the Roman Church. But we, detaining the same envoys longer on account of the aforesaid appeal, because in the end no suitable respondent appeared to defend the opposing party, although afterward a certain simple envoy presented to us concerning this the letters of the aforesaid Bishop of Paris and Abbot of Lagny, determined that the privilege of the Apostolic See granted to the church of Iotrensis was to be renewed, yet in such a way that through its renewal no more right should accrue to that church than it obtained through the privileges of our predecessors, since through this we wish not to grant it a new right but to preserve the ancient one. [Because, however, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Ides of January, in the fifth year, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: A church using a double privilege of exemption, although it fails under one, can nevertheless aid itself by the other and prevail; nor is an exempt person bound to promise obedience to the diocesan bishop. Nevertheless, by force of exemption he cannot construct a church in a non-exempt place without the license of the diocesan bishop; and, if an exempt person in fact constructs a church in a non-exempt place, it yields to the right of the bishop.

The same, to the Bishop of Coimbra.

When formerly you came to the Apostolic See, and, because of the questions which you had against the beloved sons, the prior and canons of the monastery of Santa Cruz, concerning which appeal had been made to our hearing, you made a longer stay, because no suitable respondent appeared for the other party, we determined that a certain term should be fixed for them, at which they should come or send representatives to receive a definitive sentence concerning all the privileges and liberties which they said they possessed from the Roman Pontiffs or from M., formerly Bishop of Coimbra, and concerning the other questions brought against them by the church of Coimbra. But so that the truth might appear more easily, we commanded under the same strictness that the authentic and original instruments with their bulls be exhibited to us by the same term. Meanwhile, either party was permitted before our beloved sons, the Abbots of Alcobacia and Serra, and F. Menende, monk of Alcobacia, to whom the cause had previously been delegated under a certain form, and witnesses produced on both sides, to allege and prove anything else which it should judge ought to be alleged and proved. [We took care, however, to assign the aforesaid term to them as peremptory, so that, if they should perhaps contemn to come or send representatives at it, we would nevertheless take care to proceed in the same matter so far as we could by law. We also commanded the same judges that, if they proceeded by the will of the parties, after receiving other witnesses, if they should judge that any were to be produced concerning the privileges, liberties, and other articles, and bringing the matter as far as definitive sentence, they should send all the acts under their seals to the Apostolic See. And when afterward you had come to the Apostolic See, two canons of Santa Cruz arrived who neither possessed letters of ratification nor had been appointed proctors for this cause. Whence we, regarding the party of Santa Cruz as contumacious, as it was, since it had sent to us not suitable respondents for the cause but envoys of whatever sort, commanded that the attestations received by the delegated judges be opened, so that at last, if the merits of the cause were clear to us, we might pronounce sentence. But you, wishing to render favorable to you the mind of our most dear son in Christ, the illustrious ... King of Portugal, who had been moved against you on this account, agreed with the aforesaid canons under this form: namely, that the same cause, both concerning the principal and the incidental matter, the obstacle of appeal being removed, should be committed for termination to our venerable brother the ... Bishop of Zamora and our beloved sons the ... Dean of Zamora and the Dean of Orense; yet so that the party of Santa Cruz might, within forty days after receipt of our letters, produce instruments and witnesses concerning those articles in which, during its absence, you had produced your witnesses. Otherwise, it would not be permitted to challenge the attestations already received or to object that there had been proceedings in this cause although issue had not been joined. We therefore commanded the said bishop and deans by way of precept that, if the party of Santa Cruz wished to ratify what had been done by the said canons, after receiving its witnesses and instruments concerning the aforesaid heads—if, nevertheless, it should judge that these were to be exhibited within forty days after receipt of our letters—and after your attestations had been published according to the aforesaid form, they should proceed in the cause and terminate it with a due conclusion, appeal being set aside. But if perhaps it were unwilling to ratify what had been done by the aforesaid canons, since its contumacy would be understood not to have been purged but increased, they should proceed against them as contumacious persons and, after diligently inspecting the attestations received, decide the cause itself, appeal being removed, and order the sentence which they should render to be executed. But because this cause was to be tried outside the kingdom of Portugal, they should first take care to assign the parties a suitable term by peremptory edict, lest because of the remoteness of the places and the distance of the persons you should be compelled to labor longer. And if they could not cite the party of Santa Cruz through others, they should take care, after prior admonition, to compel through ecclesiastical censure, appeal being removed, its canons dwelling in the kingdom of León to present to it the letters of citation, notwithstanding any letters prejudicial to truth and justice which might appear to have been obtained from the Apostolic See. But if not all could take part in executing these things, the bishop should nevertheless execute them with one of the others. When the parties had been summoned to a certain term and had assembled at it, the aforesaid Bishop and Dean of Zamora, because the Dean of Orense could not be present, took care to ask the Prior of Santa Cruz whether he ratified what had been done by his canons. It was answered on his behalf that there was no place for the question, since he was prepared immediately to prove that our rescript had been obtained through falsehoods in the petitions. For when the Dean of Coimbra had brought back against the monastery of Santa Cruz eleven letters of commission to the aforesaid Abbot of Seira and the beloved son P. Froildiz, monk of Alcobacia, although the party of the church of Santa Cruz had at first obtained the requested adjournments, nevertheless, because on the second occasion it could not obtain individual adjournments for the individual commissions, it appealed on this account to our hearing, although appeal was prohibited by our letters. Finally, that party and the Dean of Coimbra took care to submit the matter by compromise to the aforesaid King of Portugal, the Priors ... de Costa and ... de Rimaran., and the aforesaid judges, two sureties on either side being obligated in the name of a penalty; and thus the prior renounced the appeal with the assent of his own men, while the dean renounced our letters. Furthermore, twelve canons on either side swore to render testimony to the truth concerning the whole matter. Therefore, after the witnesses had been received and their depositions reduced to writing, the king was unwilling to take part, but committed his functions to the aforesaid Priors ... de Costa and de Rimaranes, and proposed to the parties that they pursue their right through the Roman Church or through others, since a cause of this kind did not pertain to him. But you alleged before the aforesaid Bishop and Dean of Zamora that neither the renunciation of the Dean of Coimbra, who had been appointed proctor not to renounce but rather to act, nor even the compromise had been valid: both because the judges ought not to have been arbitrators; because ecclesiastical matters had been submitted by compromise to a layman; and also because the same man substituted others for himself, although concerning this there had been no treatment at all in the compromise. But the party of Santa Cruz alleged on the other side that the compromise had been valid, because it said that we had pronounced that an action could be brought concerning its penalty, adding that you had ratified the dean's renunciation and had obtained the aforesaid letters by suppressing this, although you could by no means have obtained them if you had more fully disclosed the truth concerning this to us. And although the same party introduced four witnesses who said simply and absolutely that you had ratified what had been done by the dean, nevertheless six witnesses whom you had introduced took care to depose that you expressed a ratification of this kind not simply but conditionally—namely, if the matter were concluded according to the attestations prepared. Moreover, John Caesar, canon of Santa Cruz, had been introduced as a witness, and Michael Petri and others whom you had introduced deposed under oath that we had caused the whole truth of this matter to be investigated through the first delegated judges and all things to be reported to us, and that, after everything had been diligently inspected, we had thus pronounced that your claim was not impeded by the objections. The same John and Michael Petri also, when asked whether you had ratified the dean's renunciation, said that they knew absolutely nothing concerning this; but on the part of Santa Cruz it was objected against them that they had been contrary to themselves, since they had first said that they reported the whole truth of the matter to us and secondly that they had made no mention of the ratification, which was as it were the principal part of this matter. But you said that the witness whom the party of Santa Cruz had introduced was deservedly to be believed against it. The judges, therefore, attending that appeal had been prohibited in our letters, that the condition under which you had said you ratified what had been done by the dean had not occurred, and that, after the truth of the whole matter had been inspected, we had pronounced that your cause ought not to be impeded by the things which the canons of Santa Cruz had objected; and also considering that the party of Santa Cruz had more fully discredited the aforesaid John, whom it itself had produced and who instructed the judges themselves concerning the things done before us, ruled interlocutorily on prudent counsel that proceedings in the matter which had been delegated to them could not by law be impeded on occasion of the alleged falsity. Then, when they wished to proceed in the principal matter, the Prior of Santa Cruz alleged manifold causes of recusation; because the judges, regarding them as frivolous, were unwilling to admit them, the prior, neglecting every defense of his cause, contumaciously absented himself. But we also afterward regarded the aforesaid recusations as invalid for this reason: that the contumacy of the party of Santa Cruz was not diminished but increased.]

But the judges, believing that the cause had been sufficiently conducted, after diligently inspecting the attestations and arguments of both parties, condemned the monastery of Santa Cruz to pay you the expenses which you swore that you had incurred over four years on occasion of this matter, and which reach the sum of fifty marks of gold, on the counsel of prudent men. By their sentence they invalidated the liberty which the said M., Bishop of Coimbra, had conferred upon the monastery of Santa Cruz to the enormous detriment of the church of Coimbra, the assent of the canons having been extorted through the bishop's herald and the king's porter. Furthermore, because the same M., your predecessor, had been a canon regular and had given to the aforesaid monastery two thousand marabatini which he had acquired after he had already been promoted as bishop, the judges condemned the [monastery] itself to restore them. Moreover, all the tithes as well as the churches which the monastery, without the assent of the Bishop of Coimbra, had received from the hand of the king or of others, whether laymen or clerics, and which it had founded by its own authority in Latren. or other places contained in the attestations—[namely, the chapel of Saint John constructed in the suburb of Coimbra; the churches of Toaveiro de Laurizal, de Mira, de Sorenes, Saint Facundus, the hermitage of Saint Martin de Agoacla, the churches de Mortedi, de Travancha, Saint Marina in Sena, Saint Roman with both rights, Saint Sebastian, and all the churches founded in the castle of Seirene and its boundaries; and also the inheritances contained in the attestations by right of property, namely, the inheritances of Lavaes with its church of Buarchos, de Cassaira, de Eimedi, de Saint Verissimus, and de Cabima]—because the party of Santa Cruz had opposed the proofs made against it neither by prescription nor by another defense, they judged were to be recalled to the right of the church of Coimbra with the fruits of the intervening time, [commanding that the two bodies of dead persons who had died excommunicated be exhumed from the cemetery of the monastery and removed altogether from the monastery. They also decreed that the parts of the parishes of Saint James and Saint Justa which had been divided by royal command without the authority of the Church and added to the chapel of Saint John were to be reduced to the state of their first integrity, and that the chapel of Saint John, so far as pertains to parochial right, was to be subjected to the jurisdiction of the church of Coimbra. They judged that the portion from the goods of the deceased was, according to the custom of the land, to be restored to those churches from which the living had received the ecclesiastical sacraments. They further judged that the vineyard which formerly Dominic Rozocida had held as a prestimony from the church of Coimbra and had conferred upon the monastery of Santa Cruz was to be recalled to the right of the church of Coimbra, and that the church of Coimbra itself was to be restored to the right of possession—to which, as had been proved by witnesses, the canons of Santa Cruz had been accustomed to go every Sunday. They similarly decreed that for the houses of the New Gate, in which the church of Coimbra formerly had parochial right, the monastery of Santa Cruz should compensate it with as much right in another suitable place as the church of Coimbra had lost in the aforesaid houses. But they took care to adjudge to the monastery itself the church de Quiaios, which the aforesaid M., Bishop of Coimbra, had granted to the monastery of Santa Cruz with the assent of his canons. They decreed that the portion of the town de Pavea—although it had been purchased in the name of the church of Coimbra from the money of M., formerly its prior, and afterward left to the same church by testament—was to be restored to the monastery, with the right of ownership of the church of Coimbra preserved, because you nevertheless occupied the monastery while it possessed that portion. But the remaining portion of the town itself, which Pelagius F. had formerly conferred upon the monastery of Santa Cruz, they adjudged to the monastery itself by full right. Furthermore, they judged that three farmsteads in Saint Ioanninus were to be restored to the monastery, with the question of ownership of the church of Coimbra preserved, absolving the monastery from the claim for twelve measures of wheat which you had sought.]

Finally, when you and the other party had come on account of this to the Apostolic See, the proctor of the monastery of Santa Cruz alleged that the sentence was neither valid nor binding. Even if the aforesaid sentence were otherwise binding, nevertheless, because the monastery had been undefended, as the judges themselves protested through their letters, and the privileges of liberty had not been exhibited before them, lest the offense of a person redound to the damage of the church, it ought to be admitted to the exhibition of its privileges; which it petitioned should be granted to it from the accustomed kindness of the Apostolic See. We, therefore, attending that the same privileges not only supported the liberty of the monastery but also expressed our right and defended the justice of the Roman Church, lest the injury of the monastery redound against us, determined that its party was to be admitted by grace to exhibit the privileges. But so that we might understand more fully the truth concerning the judges' proceedings, we commanded that all the acts, just as they had been done, be exhibited to us by both sides before us. [The proctor of the monastery therefore alleged that the aforesaid M., Bishop of Coimbra, had granted to the monastery of Santa Cruz, with its parishes, parishioners, and confraternity members, full liberty from every episcopal right and exaction; that he had reduced his grant to writing; and that he had strengthened it by the subscriptions of the canons of Coimbra, since they had furnished assent to this. Even if a grant of this kind had perhaps been invalid of itself, nevertheless through the confirmation of Pope A. of happy memory, our predecessor—who had confirmed it by his privilege from certain knowledge to such an extent that he not only expressed its tenor but used its words—it had obtained the strength of perpetual firmness, since Celestine afterward imitated him concerning this and confirmed that grant just as he had confirmed it. But on your behalf it was answered to this that the aforesaid grant was not binding: both because the said bishop could not with effect burden his church so enormously; and because the assent of the canons had been surreptitiously obtained through the frauds of him who, in order to draw them more easily to his assent, asserted that the monastery had always existed free, and had been extorted through the power both of him and of the king, since the king's porter threatened the canons with proscription of their property and the bishop's herald with exile. Moreover, the tenor of that grant could not be fully established, nor was credence to be given to the writing which the party of the monastery presented, since, according to what certain witnesses had deposed, the page of that grant which Michael made had been erased in several lines, and each of the canons who had subscribed had subscribed with his own hand; but in the writing which had been exhibited to us, no erasure whatever appeared and all the subscriptions had been written by the same hand. Nor did it harm your argument that the aforesaid Alexander, our predecessor, had confirmed a grant of this kind so as to use its words, because, although he was aware of the words, he was nevertheless ignorant of the facts, since he did not know that the assent of the canons had been extorted and that the page of the same grant had been altered. Moreover, the other party replied that, even if neither the grant of this kind nor its confirmation had been binding, the true and ancient liberty of the monastery could nevertheless be established through the privileges, since Pope Innocent of good memory, our predecessor, had received it into the guardianship and protection of blessed Peter and, when he declares it tributary, adds: “But as a token of this liberty received from the Roman Church, it shall pay two bezants each year to us and our successors.” Lucius, Eugenius, and Adrian of happy memory expressed this in their privileges, although the authentic instruments of Lucius and Eugenius were not presented to us. But against this you, brother bishop, alleged that our said predecessors had granted no liberty whatever to the aforesaid monastery, but had only received it under protection, no mention of liberty having been made except where it is said: “But as a token of this liberty received from the Apostolic See”; and that this could not harm your church if it were subtly weighed. For since the pronoun “this” demonstrates nothing there to the eye, but is known rather to make a demonstration to the understanding, lest the understanding be altogether foreign if it is not formed from the things above, the pronoun itself seems to make, as it were, a relative demonstration and to call the protection and confirmation of which mention is made in the preceding part “liberty,” although a certain liberty is conferred together with confirmation: namely, that, according to the sentence of the aforesaid Alexander, no one may be sued concerning those things which have been confirmed to it by the Apostolic See except by the authority of the Apostolic See; and thus what is read in the privilege can be understood concerning liberty of this kind. That this ought to be the meaning is apparent from the privileges themselves, since Innocent both expresses that the reverence of the diocesan bishop is preserved and Lucius and Eugenius, after the protection had been granted and the confirmation of certain churches expressed, preserve his right for the diocesan bishop. Moreover, the other party alleged on the opposite side that, if the aforesaid Innocent had wished to call “protection” by the foreign word “liberty,” he could have put “protection” where he put “liberty.” Nor does what is alleged concerning the demonstrative pronoun harm its position, since in ancient times the Apostolic See received into special protection and its own guardianship only those churches which it regarded as special and its own. Whence, because both through the first chapter, where the monastery is received into the guardianship and protection of blessed Peter, and through certain other things that follow, liberty is known to have been granted to the monastery itself, the demonstrative pronoun points to the understanding of that liberty, better understood than expressed. For far be it that the Apostolic See should be believed to have wished to circumvent the monastery by receiving a census from it under the name of liberty while granting it either no liberty or a half-full liberty, as was alleged on the other side. Nor does it obstruct, but rather supports, its position that the often-mentioned Innocent willed the reverence of the diocesan bishop to be preserved, since from the fact that he expressly reserved reverence to him, it is understood that he denied the other things. But he wished reverence to be exhibited to him in this: that, as the Roman Pontiffs who succeeded him, wishing to interpret what had been obscurely stated, expressed in their privileges, the canons of Santa Cruz should receive chrism, holy oil, consecrations of altars, and certain other things expressed in the same privileges from the diocesan bishop, if he were catholic, possessed the grace and communion of the Apostolic See, and wished to furnish them gratis and without any depravity. Nor does it similarly harm their position if Lucius and Eugenius, after enumerating certain churches, said that the right of the diocesan bishop was preserved, since they did not understand this concerning the head but concerning the members, just as Adrian also reserved canonical justice to the diocesan bishops. This could not be understood concerning the head, since it is established that none of the churches has several diocesan bishops. But Alexander and his successors, so that they might altogether remove the scruple of doubt concerning this, made mention only of the authority of the Apostolic See. Moreover, if neither so many nor such great things sufficed, prescription alone protected the church of Santa Cruz. We therefore, having heard and understood these and the other things alleged on both sides,] accordingly distinguishing between the liberty granted to the church itself by the aforesaid bishop and the liberty which the Apostolic See granted to it long before the time of that bishop, as is apparent from the aforesaid privileges, because it was evidently established to us that the assent of the canons had been extorted in the bishop's grant, that the page of the grant had erasures in several lines, and that the individual subscriptions had been written by the individual hands of those subscribing, but that the writing which had been exhibited to us neither displayed an erasure nor was varied by diverse hands in the subscriptions, but rather had been written from first to last by the same hand, we decree invalid and void the liberty granted by the bishop himself through extortion, confirming on this point the sentence of the delegated judges. But because we clearly recognized from the privileges that our aforesaid predecessors had granted a privilege of liberty to the church of Santa Cruz, and that it had been in possession of that liberty for so long that, even if other grounds ceased, it would have prescribed, we confirm by apostolic authority the liberty granted to it by our predecessors, imposing silence upon you concerning this. But on this point we derogate in nothing from the sentence of the delegated judges, since they did not take cognizance of this liberty.

[After these things, however, the proctor of the church of Santa Cruz alleged before us that, when the ... Duke of Portugal of illustrious memory had granted to that church all the churches which either had already been founded or were to be founded in the future in the castle of Leiren and its territory, and all ecclesiastical rights, a public instrument having been drawn up concerning this which he said was called a “testament” by the customary word of the land, and both the Archbishop of Braga, metropolitan of the province, and the Bishop of Coimbra had subscribed a grant of this kind, the delegated judges, without inspecting the privileges of Santa Cruz, although the cause had not been specially delegated to them concerning the same churches, pronounced an unjust sentence against the church of Santa Cruz. And although the Bishop of Coimbra, as diocesan, subscribed the aforesaid grant because at that time the Saracens held the city of Lisbon, to whose diocese the churches are known to pertain, nevertheless, when that city had afterward been restored to the Christians through the industry of the duke himself, the Bishop of Lisbon, as true diocesan, confirmed by his own privilege the donation of the ... duke. Pope Adrian, diligently attending to this, determined that all the churches situated both in the castle of Leiren and in its territory, with all things pertaining to them, just as the charter of the duke himself and the confirmation of the aforesaid bishop contained, were to be confirmed to the church of Santa Cruz by his privilege. But on your behalf it was alleged on the other side that the duke's grant was not binding, since a layman did not possess the power to confer ecclesiastical rights, and especially spiritual ones. Nor is it valid that the Archbishop of Braga and Bishop of Coimbra are said to have subscribed in the duke's charter, since neither was the charter itself drawn up by a public hand nor do their seals hang from it, for which reason it altogether forfeits credit. Nor does it harm your position that the aforesaid Pope Adrian confirmed to the church of Santa Cruz the aforesaid churches with their appurtenances according to what is contained in the charter of the duke himself and the confirmation of the Bishop of Lisbon, since he believed that the duke himself granted the right of patronage and the temporal things, and the bishop, as diocesan, the spiritual right. But it is established from the confession of the other party and from the tenor of the privileges of the aforesaid Alexander and Celestine, our predecessors, that the aforesaid churches pertain to the diocese of Coimbra, since, after they and certain others are enumerated in their privileges, it is added that they all lie in the episcopate of Coimbra. Whence, since the other party used those privileges in its own favor and also procured them, it neither ought nor was able to disapprove them in this matter. Therefore, Adrian's privilege had not conferred a new right upon the monastery but had confirmed one possessed; whence the grant of the duke himself, which had previously been invalid, had not received validity from his confirmation. But against these things, the other party replied that the church of Santa Cruz had possessed those churches and the church of Saint John situated in the suburb of the city of Coimbra for so long that it was able to defend itself by legitimate prescription, since even from the time when Adrian had confirmed those churches to it and when they could possess them in good faith, until the time when the suit was joined, forty years and several months had elapsed. Therefore, after everything had been diligently inspected, it was established to us also from the form of the sentence of the aforesaid judges that the monastery of Santa Cruz had obtained possession of the aforesaid churches in the time of the often-mentioned duke, since the judges commanded that all the churches which the monastery had received from the hand of the king be recalled to the right of the church of Coimbra, and receipt is known to pertain to possession. It was also established from the form of your petition, since you petitioned that they be restored to you, that the monastery still possessed those same churches. It was similarly established that it possessed them in the intervening time and that, from the time of the aforesaid Adrian, who had confirmed them to it, a space of forty years had elapsed at the time the suit was moved. And although the other party asserted in judgment before us that G. of good memory, Cardinal Deacon of Saint Angelus and then legate of the Apostolic See, had imposed silence upon you concerning all these matters, and thus it might seem that the suit had been joined before him, nevertheless from the depositions of the witnesses the truth was fully disclosed to us: namely, that neither had the suit been joined nor a sentence promulgated, since, after inspecting the privileges of the Roman Pontiffs, he was unwilling to hear you concerning these things. Therefore, since it is established that long before forty years, and afterward during the intervening time, the monastery of Santa Cruz possessed the aforesaid churches, and now also possesses them, and no interruption is proved on the other side, on the counsel of our brothers we adjudge both the aforesaid churches of Leiren and the church of Saint John of Coimbra to the monastery of Santa Cruz, imposing silence upon you concerning them. In this also we do not derogate from the delegated judges, since Adrian's privilege, by whose authority the canons of Santa Cruz could believe themselves possessors in good faith, was not exhibited before them, nor were the other instruments. But concerning the fact that they condemned the same church to pay you, in the name of expenses, fifty marks of gold and two thousand gold coins which the often-mentioned M., Bishop of Coimbra, had conferred upon the church of Santa Cruz, by the will of the parties we took care so to moderate their sentence that the monastery is bound to pay you twenty of the fifty marks of gold and one thousand of the two thousand gold coins.]

And since we confirm the liberty granted to the monastery by our predecessors, we decree that the monastery is not bound to the right of profession, which is contrary to liberty, not derogating from the delegated judges, to whom the privileges of liberty had not been presented. Moreover, concerning the fact that the same judges decreed that for the houses of the New Gate, in which the church of Coimbra had possessed parochial right, the monastery should compensate it in another suitable place with as much as it had lost in the aforesaid houses, we wholly correct the sentence which they rendered, judging that the monastery is not bound to this. But in other matters we confirm by apostolic authority the sentence rendered by the aforesaid judges both for the church of Coimbra and for the monastery of Santa Cruz. [Therefore, let no one, etc. Given at Ferentino, on the sixth day before the Kalends of July, 1203.]

Latin source headnote: Prescription does not run against the privileges of a church in a period shorter than forty years. It says this according to the true understanding.

The same, to the Bishop and Master G. of Limoges.

When the beloved sons Master Zacharias, proctor of the abbot and convent of Nouaillé on the one side, and Brother Peter, proctor of the Templars of Tocen., on the other, came to our presence, we appointed our beloved son I., our subdeacon and chaplain, as auditor, before whom the proctor of the abbot and monks proposed that, since they had peacefully possessed the tithes of the lands of Sarcole for a long time before those lands came under the power and lordship of the Templars, and also, after the Templars acquired the aforesaid lands, had peacefully possessed the tithes from them for forty years and more, the Templars now do not fear to withhold those tithes from them, inflicting serious injuries upon them in other matters as well, [and that, although they had obtained our letters concerning these things and at one time the matter had been submitted by compromise to arbitrators, through the obstructing malice of the Templars they had been unable thus far to obtain their right. On the other side, however, the proctor of the Templars proposed that, since they were fortified by privileges of the Roman Pontiffs that they should not be bound to pay tithes from lands which they cultivate with their own hands or at their own expense, the aforesaid abbot and monks did not cease unduly to molest them concerning this, while proving exceedingly injurious to them in other matters. And when we had determined that the cause which is disputed between them and the aforesaid monks concerning those tithes was to be committed to our venerable brothers the Archbishop of Bourges and the Bishop of Clermont, while the question was being handled before them, certain monks, having associated with themselves a multitude of armed men and violently entered the Templars' lands, carried away from their crops according to the judgment of their own will, burning the remainder with fire.] Therefore, after these and the other things which were proposed before the aforesaid chaplain had been more fully understood, because full proof concerning them could not be made to us, we command your discretion by apostolic writings that, after the truth has been more fully investigated, if the abbot and monks sufficiently show that they continuously received the tithes from the aforesaid lands from the Templars for forty years without litigation, you compel the Templars, appeal being set aside, to render those tithes. For since during so long a time they paid tithes contrary to the privileges granted to them, they are presumed tacitly to have renounced those privileges. But if they perhaps fail in their proof, absolve the Templars from their claim, imposing upon them, appeal being set aside, perpetual silence concerning this; concerning the other matters, however, hear what they may determine to propose on either side, and establish what shall be just, appeal being set aside, causing what you decree to be firmly observed through ecclesiastical censure. [Given at Ferentino, on the Kalends of July, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: One exempt by reason of a certain thing or a certain place is not judged exempt with respect to a further thing or place. It says this, and it is a notable and highly citable text.

The same, to the Bishop of Langres.

Since the chapel of the noble man, the Duke of Burgundy, is said to enjoy a privilege of this kind, that no archbishop or bishop may dare to promulgate sentences of suspension, excommunication, or even interdict against the persons of the canons of that chapel, the dean of the Christianity and certain other canons of the aforesaid chapel, who hold parish churches from you, on occasion of the aforesaid privilege say that they are so exempt even in those matters whose jurisdiction pertains to you that, however gravely they may sometimes offend, they refuse to be subject to your correction and sentence. Whence you humbly petitioned to be instructed by us as to how you should proceed against rebels of this kind. Therefore, by the authority of the present letters, we command your fraternity that, insofar as they are exempt by reason of that chapel, you reverently defer to the apostolic privileges; but insofar as, by reason of the parish churches or otherwise, they are known to fall within your jurisdiction, freely pursue against them the duty of your office. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: By an exemption granted to a monastery, chapels subject to it are not considered exempt.

The same, to the Abbot and Brothers of the monastery of Evesham.

From the mouth of the one sitting upon the throne proceeds a two-edged sword, because from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff, who presides over the Apostolic See, a most upright sentence ought to go forth, which spares no one contrary to justice but renders to each what is his own. Therefore, when a controversy was being disputed between you and our venerable brother the Bishop of Worcester concerning the subjection and liberty of your monastery, and we had committed it to delegated judges for termination, they referred the same cause, sufficiently instructed, to our presence, fixing for the parties a certain term at which they should present themselves before us with instruments and attestations to receive sentence. Therefore, when the parties had been established in our presence through suitable proctors, we furnished them a free and benign audience. And indeed the proctor of your monastery proposed that the monastery itself had existed free and exempt from its very foundation; to prove this he introduced privileges of our predecessors, one of Constantine and another of Alexander, and also indulgences of Clement and Celestine, the continual use of which from long past times he endeavored to show through the depositions of witnesses. [For in the first privilege of Constantine it was expressly contained that Egwin of holy memory, Bishop of Worcester, coming to the Apostolic See, reverently related to our aforesaid predecessor a certain vision in which blessed Mary manifested herself to him; and at that time the English kings Kenred and Offa, with whom the said bishop visited the thresholds of the Apostles, from their own goods bestowed by royal liberality many benefactions at the place shown in the vision, in the presence of our same predecessor, which he confirmed by apostolic authority, so that in the same place a congregation of monks might be established according to the rule of blessed Benedict—which at that time flourished less in those parts—for the honor of the divine name. Whence the aforesaid Pontiff commanded Brithwald, Primate of Britain, by apostolic writings, that, after a council had been assembled, he should establish the fold divinely shown, fortified by apostolic authority and endowed by royal liberality for himself and his successors, especially enjoining upon him, with the aforesaid Bishop Egwin assisting, the care of the souls of that church, so that by the power delivered to him he should defend it from every assault of invaders and incursion of tyrants; but if anything of the sinister part should be discovered to arise there, it should be reported rather to the ears of that primate than that the holy place should be unjustly corrupted through the secret sentence of anyone. Therefore, since the aforesaid kings endowed that place with liberty, our same predecessor also endowed it by the authority of the Apostolic See, so that no man of whatever order should attempt to corrupt and diminish what he had established. In the second privilege of the same Pope Constantine we perceived it to be contained that by apostolic writings he commanded the aforesaid primate to protect and foster the churches of God established throughout Britain, among which he subjected especially to his dominion that church which had most recently been established by the venerable man Bishop Egwin by apostolic and royal authority, so that he should take care to render it free in perpetuity from every assault of adversaries; establishing that the same place should be free under the monarchy of its own abbot from every tyrannical exaction, and that no man of whatever order should presume to bring any burden upon it. The abbot, moreover, according to canonical authority, shall be elected by the brothers either from the monastery itself or from the parish of the Wiccians, and, being freely and canonically blessed in the same church without any exaction, in reverence for the venerable Egwin—who, after resigning the episcopal see, was made abbot in the same monastery—shall use a ring only in the celebration of masses and shall always obtain the first place after the prelate of the Wiccians. From these chapters of the privileges, therefore, the proctor of your monastery endeavored to show that the monastery itself was entirely exempt from every episcopal jurisdiction from its first foundation: first, because it is said to have been constructed by apostolic and royal authority alone, whence it is understood to pertain only to the Apostolic See in spiritual matters and to the royal crown in temporal matters, since the Supreme Pontiff is not accustomed to command that any monastery be constructed by his authority unless it is to be constructed upon ground donated to him; then, because the place itself, which the kings are said to have donated by royal liberality, he also donated, so that, just as they endowed it with liberty as regards temporal matters, so also he should be understood to have endowed it with liberty as regards spiritual matters, since temporal matters pertained to them and spiritual matters to him; also because he especially enjoined the care of the souls of that church upon the Primate of Britain, to whose dominion it is also said to have been especially subjected, so that, if anything sinister should arise there, it might be corrected through his industry and caution, whence he seems to have committed the correction of that place to him alone, and thus to pertain in no way to another; then, because he decreed that the aforesaid place should remain under the monarchy of its own abbot, whence, since monarchy is interpreted as sole principality, it appears that the abbot of that place alone obtains the principal power in that place. That the words of those privileges ought to be understood in this manner the subsequent privileges seem to declare more manifestly; for in the privilege of Innocent of happy memory it is contained that no bishop may presume to celebrate a synod or chapter, ordinations, or public masses in that abbey or its chapels unless invited by the abbot and brothers of that place, and that, when an abbot has been elected in the same monastery, he shall be blessed without any exaction in that church by whatever bishop he prefers, provided that he is catholic and possesses the favor of the Apostolic See. The same Innocent also, adhering to the footsteps of Constantine, decreed that the pastoral care of the whole house and church and of the other places pertaining to that church should remain only with the abbot of that place, and that their ordering should remain in his power alone, just as has hitherto been observed. In the privilege of Pope Alexander it is perceived to be contained that the brothers of that place shall receive chrism, holy oil, consecrations of altars, and ordinations of clerics who are to be promoted to sacred orders from whatever bishop they prefer who possesses the communion and favor of the Apostolic See, with the provision that the Bishops of Worcester shall not unjustly exact anything from them but shall remain content only with those things which it is established their predecessors reasonably rendered to their predecessors. At the end, however, it is added, “that the authority of the Apostolic See be preserved,” and it is not said “that the canonical justice of the diocesan bishop be preserved,” since, according to the approved custom of the Roman Church, canonical justice is preserved for the diocesan bishop in monasteries which are not exempt. Moreover, in the indulgences of Clement and Celestine of good memory it is plainly intimated that the same monastery pertains to the jurisdiction of blessed Peter with no intermediary, since, after placing this beforehand in the preamble, they infer consequently in this manner: “Induced, therefore, by this reason, we have determined that the use of gloves and ring, dalmatic, tunic, sandals, and mitre is to be granted to you.” Therefore, by the fact that the pastoral care of the whole house and church is decreed to remain with the abbot alone, that which had been established by Constantine—namely, that the same place should exist free under the monarchy of its own abbot—is elucidated by Innocent; whence, since the pastoral care of the whole house and church ought to remain with the abbot alone, it is certainly apparent that the bishop ought not to exercise pastoral care there, since the abbot of that place also ought to be blessed within his own church without any exaction. Whence neither profession nor obedience ought to be required from him. But because the abbot cannot exercise by himself certain things pertaining to pastoral solicitude, so that nothing which pertains to the fullness of liberty may be lacking to him, it is granted to him by Alexander that he may freely receive the ecclesiastical sacraments from whatever bishop he prefers who possesses the communion and favor of the Apostolic See. Moreover, by the fact that the same place is asserted to pertain to the jurisdiction of blessed Peter alone, as is intimated in the indulgences of Clement and Celestine, that which Pope Constantine is said to have done in endowing that place with liberty appears to have been more manifestly declared, when he committed the guardianship of the same to the Primate of Britain as his vicar or legate.] Furthermore, in the privilege of Constantine a certain thing is perceived to be contained through which the same monastery appears to pertain to the jurisdiction of the bishop: namely, that the abbot of that monastery should always obtain the first place after the prelate of Worcester. Whence, since he cannot obtain that place in a general or provincial council, because it would be incongruous for an abbot to sit first after him above the other bishops, it therefore remains that he is understood to possess that place in the episcopal synod; for which reason he is bound to attend the episcopal synod and through this to receive and observe its statutes. In the privilege of Pope Alexander another thing is contained through which the diocesan bishop appears to have retained his jurisdiction in that monastery, even if not in all matters, nevertheless in certain matters: since it is said in it that the Bishops of Worcester should not unjustly exact anything from the brothers of that place but should remain content only with those things which it is established their predecessors reasonably rendered to their predecessors. Whence it is established that the abbots are bound to exhibit certain things from their own goods to the bishops. We, therefore, after these and the other things had been diligently heard and perspicaciously understood, since prescription was proved by neither party through witnesses, on the common counsel of our brothers definitively determine that the monastery of Evesham is free at its head, as wholly exempt from episcopal jurisdiction and subject only to the Roman Pontiff and Roman Church, with its guardianship nevertheless reserved to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In its members, however, namely those which are not proved exempt, we decree that it is subject to the diocesan bishop; for which reason the abbot ought to attend his synod and obtain the first place after the Bishop of Worcester. For those members also, as we have said, which are not exempt, the same abbot is bound to exhibit reverence, service, and honor to the Bishop of Worcester, with which being competently exhibited to him, the Bishop of Worcester ought to remain content. [Because, however, etc. Given on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February, 1206.]

Latin source headnote: One received under the protection of the Pope is not on that account considered exempt. It says this.

The same, to the Bishop of Vic.

It was asked of us on your behalf whether clerics and laymen who show letters of protection in which their persons are declared by express name to remain under apostolic protection with all their goods are exempt from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. We, however, respond to you in this manner concerning this: that through letters of this kind, which we sometimes grant personally to certain persons, they are in no way withdrawn from the power of their bishops. [Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the Ides of December, 1204.]

Latin source headnote: Religious to whom it has been granted by the Pope that they may convert churches subject to them to their own uses ought to receive possession of those churches not by their own authority but from the diocesan bishop of the place, unless something else is expressed in the privilege.

The same, to the Bishop of Ely.

The pastoral office (And below: [cf. c. 28, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I. 29.]) You asked further whether religious men to whom it has been granted by the Apostolic See that they may convert their churches to their own uses are permitted, when the persons of those churches die, to enter possession of those churches by their own authority, or whether they should rather be inducted into it by the diocesan bishop. To this we certainly respond that, unless perhaps this is expressly contained in the indulgence of the Supreme Pontiff, they are not permitted to enter possession of them without consulting their bishop, because we do not believe that episcopal right is derogated from by an indulgence of this kind. [Solicitously, etc. (cf. c. 9, On Those Things Which Are Done, III. 13.) Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January, 1204.]

Latin source headnote: If the person because of whose offense an interdict was imposed does not observe it, others are nevertheless bound to observe it; it is otherwise if the person in whose favor it was issued does not observe it.

The same, to the Bishop and Chapter of Tripoli.

You petitioned to be instructed by the Apostolic See whether, when your city is placed under a general interdict because of the Hospitallers or Templars, and those same persons do not observe it, you are bound to observe it. To this we determine that the response is thus: that their offense furnishes you no license to offend. But if the aforesaid Hospitallers or Templars exceed the bounds of their privileges by rashly violating an interdict which had been promulgated for them, lest they appear to laugh at the weeping of others, during as long as they violate the interdict, by our license you may celebrate as a punishment for their presumption. [Given at Segni, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of October, in the fifteenth year of our pontificate, 1212.]

Latin source headnote: A privilege granted to a monastery that its monks cannot be excommunicated is understood concerning monks existing in the monastery or in churches subject to it by both rights. It says this, and it is an everyday case.

The same.

Since, as you intimated to us through your letters, it is established by the confession of the opposing party that the Bishop of Nepi receives episcopal right in the church of Saint Blaise de Flagen., and through this the same church does not pertain to the monastery by full right, we believe that, notwithstanding that chapter of the privilege which was granted to the same monastery—that no bishop may presume to place under interdict churches subject to it by both rights, or to summon to synod or excommunicate a monk or cleric of the same monastery—the aforesaid bishop can place the said church under interdict and excommunicate your monk or cleric appointed to its governance, when either is to be done by law; because that chapter appears to be understood concerning monks or clerics remaining in the monastery itself or sent to churches subject to it by both rights.

Latin source headnote: A bishop who remits episcopal tithes to a certain church indefinitely is seen to have remitted not only past but also future tithes. And it is a notable case.

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

Because concerning (And below: [cf. c. 6, On Bigamists, I. 21.]) Subsequently also you asked whether the monks of All Saints can extend the privilege granted by your predecessor E. of good memory concerning the retention of episcopal tithes to possessions acquired and afterward to be acquired. Concerning this we give your fraternity the following response: that, if the remission of those tithes was made according to the canonical sanctions, since your predecessor, in remitting episcopal tithes to the monastery indefinitely, excepted nothing and could have excepted nothing, and the fullest interpretation is to be applied in benefices, nor ought one and the same substance to be assessed under a diverse right, he is seen to have understood it not only concerning the tithes of possessions of that time but of the future. [Indeed, etc. Moreover, etc. (cf. c. 6, On Consanguinity and Affinity, IV. 14.) Given at Segni, on the fifth day before the Nones of October, in the sixteenth year of our pontificate, 1213.]

Latin source headnote: The council sets forth the order of the four patriarchal sees, up to the word “preserved,” where it sets forth their three privileges. First, that they give the pallium. Second, at the word “Lord's,” that they cause the cross to be carried before them, except in the cases excepted here. Third, at the words “In all,” that appeal is made to them. And concerning this it makes a reservation at the word “preserved.”

The same, in the general council.

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, with the holy universal synod approving, we decree that after the Roman Church—which by the Lord's disposition obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all others, as the mother and teacher of all the faithful of Christ—the church of Constantinople shall obtain the first place, Alexandria the second, Antioch the third, and Jerusalem the fourth, with its own dignity preserved for each, in such a way that, after their prelates have received from the Roman Pontiff the pallium, which is the insignia of the fullness of pontifical office, and have furnished to him an oath of fidelity and obedience, they too may licitly bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them a canonical profession for themselves and a promise of obedience for the Roman Church. They shall, however, cause the standard of the Lord's cross to be carried everywhere before them, except in the city of Rome and wherever the Supreme Pontiff is present, or his legate using the insignia of apostolic dignity. Moreover, in all provinces subject to their jurisdiction, appeal shall be made to them when necessary, with appeals interposed to the Apostolic See preserved, to which deference must humbly be shown by all.

Latin source headnote: A privilege granted to religious that they may bury their confraternity members during an interdict is understood concerning those confraternity members who, although they remain in the world, have nevertheless offered themselves to the order after changing their secular habit, or concerning those who have given their goods to them while retaining the usufruct. This is the first point. A privilege granted to religious by which, when they come to an interdicted place, churches are opened to them once a year so that divine offices may be celebrated in them is understood to mean that only one single church is opened in the place. This is the second point.

The same, in the same council.

So that the privileges which the Roman Church has granted to certain religious [persons] may remain unshaken, we have determined that certain things in them are to be declared, lest, being understood less soundly, they be drawn toward abuse, on account of which they could deservedly be revoked, because one who abuses the power permitted to him deserves to lose his privilege. Indeed, the Apostolic See has granted to certain regulars that ecclesiastical burial shall not be denied to those who have assumed their confraternity, if perhaps the churches to which they pertain have been interdicted from divine offices and it should happen that they die, unless they have been excommunicated or interdicted by name; and that they may carry to their own churches for burial their confraternity members whom the prelates of churches have not permitted to be buried at their churches, unless they have been excommunicated or interdicted by name. We understand this, however, concerning those confraternity members who, while still remaining in the world, have either been offered to their order after changing their secular habit, or who have given their goods to them among the living, retaining for themselves the usufruct for as long as they live in this world; yet let these be buried at non-interdicted churches of those regulars or of others in which they have chosen burial, lest, if it were understood concerning any persons whatever assuming their confraternity, ecclesiastical discipline should alike be dissolved and cheapened for two or three denarii contributed to them annually; nevertheless let them obtain also the certain remission granted to them by the Apostolic See. We also will that the other thing which has been granted to regulars of this kind—namely, that if any of their brothers who have been sent by them to receive confraternities or collections should come to any city, castle, or village, and if perhaps that place has been interdicted from divine offices, in their joyful arrival the churches shall be opened once a year so that, with excommunicated persons excluded, divine offices may be celebrated there—be understood thus: that in the same city, castle, or village only one church is opened to the brothers of that order once in the year, as has been said; because, although it is stated in the plural that churches shall be opened at their joyful arrival, it is nevertheless to be referred by a sound understanding not separately to the churches of the same place but conjointly to the aforesaid places, lest, if they visited the individual churches of the same place in this manner, the sentence of interdict should happen to be excessively cheapened. But those who presume to usurp anything for themselves contrary to the aforesaid declarations shall be subject to grave vengeance.

Latin source headnote: During a general interdict bishops who were not prohibited and who were not culpable for the interdict can celebrate secretly; and today this is not a privilege of bishops but the common law, as in the final chapter On the Sentence of Excommunication in the Sixth Book, and there it is fully set forth whether, when, and in what manner celebration can occur during an interdict.

The same, in the same council.

Extending to bishops, in favor of the pontifical office, that which has been granted to certain religious, we concede that, when a land has been placed under a common interdict, with excommunicated and interdicted persons excluded, they may sometimes celebrate divine offices behind closed doors, and in a suppressed voice and without bells being rung, unless this very thing has been expressly interdicted to them also. But we grant this to those who have furnished no cause for the interdict and have introduced nothing of deceit or fraud, drawing such a benefit toward an unjust detriment.

Latin source headnote: Privileges are not to be violated even indirectly. It says this generally.

Honorius III, to the Archbishops and Bishops in whose dioceses monasteries and priories subject to the monastery of Cluny are situated.

The more greatly (And below:) Indeed, the beloved sons, the Abbot and Convent of Cluny, have offered us a grave complaint that certain of you and your officials, since they cannot pronounce sentences of excommunication and interdict against them and the monks of their order because they are fortified in this matter by privileges of the Apostolic See, pronounce the aforesaid sentences against those who grind in their mills or bake in their ovens, or communicate with them in any way by selling or buying or otherwise; and thus, observing not the force and power but the words alone of the apostolic privileges, they in a certain manner excommunicate the monks of the said order when they do not permit others to communicate with them. From this there also results the incongruity that the monks themselves, as regards this, are judged by the judgment of the Jews, and those who communicate with them in the aforesaid matters incur a greater excommunication than they would have incurred even by communicating with excommunicated persons. Therefore, being unwilling to pass over any longer under dissimulation these things already brought to us by frequent cries, we command all and each of you that henceforth you do not issue sentences of this kind in fraud of our privileges, because, if a cry concerning this should again ascend to us, we shall not be able to pass it by with conniving eyes without chastising the promulgators of such sentences with due severity.

Latin source headnote: Those who conduct themselves as laymen in habit, tonsure, and other respects do not defend themselves as clerics when caught in offenses. It is commonly summarized thus.

The same, to V., formerly the illustrious Queen of the English.

It was proposed on your behalf before us that certain literate men, whom neither habit nor tonsure declares to be clerics, dwelling in a land subject to your jurisdiction, when they are caught in certain offenses, in order to elude your jurisdiction and evade the due vengeance for their offenses, assume or even reassume an abandoned tonsure or clerical habit, although before they were regarded as laymen by all, and thus their offenses remain unpunished. Therefore, lest malice be fostered by a tonsure or habit thus reassumed, if you exercise your jurisdiction against offenders of this kind who were caught in an offense without tonsure and habit, we have determined that it is to be tolerated with equanimity, since indulgence ought not to be shown to the malice of men, but it should rather be opposed.

Latin source headnote: Civil law ought not to be taught at Paris and in neighboring places.

The same.

Upon the watchtower (And below: [cf. c. 5, On Masters, V. 5.]) Indeed, although holy Church does not reject the service of secular laws, which imitate sufficient traces of equity and justice, nevertheless, because in France and certain provinces laymen do not use the laws of the Roman emperors, and ecclesiastical causes of such a kind that cannot be resolved by canonical statutes rarely occur, so that the sacred page may be attended to more fully, and the disciples of Elisha may sit more freely beside the fullest streams like doves, when they have not found ladders in the doors upon which they may spread their feet apart, we firmly interdict and more strictly prohibit anyone from presuming to teach or hear civil law at Paris or in neighboring cities or other places. And one who acts contrary to this shall not only be excluded in the meantime from the advocacy of causes, but shall also be bound by the bishop of the place with the bond of excommunication, appeal being set aside. [But you, brothers and sons, shall observe the aforesaid things more diligently and cause them to be observed more studiously by others, so that you may deservedly be proved true friends of the bridegroom, etc. Given at Viterbo, on the seventh day before the Kalends of December, in the fourth year of our pontificate, 1219.]

Latin source headnote: Renewal of a privilege does not introduce a new right but preserves the old one.

The same, to the Bishop of Bayeux.

Because it was not our intention that, through the renewal which we made of a certain writing of the monastery of Saint Stephen of Caen, which we found contained in the register of Pope Alexander of good memory, our predecessor, the right of the church of Bayeux should be derogated from, since renewal neither confers a new right nor even takes away an old one, we will that you be in that state in which you are known to have existed at the time the renewal was obtained. Moreover, through this we intend to generate no prejudice to any right otherwise belonging to the same monastery.

Latin source headnote: Privileged persons who may celebrate everywhere with a portable altar can do this without the license of prelates.

The same.

In those things which are known to pertain to divine worship, not a malign but rather a benign interpretation ought to be made. Whence we are compelled to wonder that, although we determined that it was to be granted to the Friars Preachers and Minors that, wherever they should be, they might celebrate with a portable altar without prejudice to parochial right, certain persons, as was recently proposed before us, interpreting our indulgence too strictly, endeavor to assert that through it the aforesaid brothers cannot do this without the assent of bishops, abbots, and other prelates; on account of which they do not permit them to celebrate according to the apostolic indulgence. But since, if the matter stood thus, the aforesaid indulgence would confer nothing upon them, because without it, with bishops and other prelates assenting, this would be permitted to them, we command your fraternity that, after rejecting an interpretation of this kind, provided nevertheless that they wholly abstain themselves from the other things which arise by parochial right, you do not defer to publish by our authority the license to celebrate thus given to them, so that the said brothers may appear to have obtained some favor in this matter from our indulgence. [Given at Rieti, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September, in the twentieth year, 1225.]

Latin source headnote: A privilege concerning the nonpayment of tithes of noval lands does not comprehend tithes possessed at the time the privilege was obtained and by others, unless mention is made in the privilege of another's possession.

Gregory IX, to the Dean of the greater church and the Archdeacon of the Christianity of Lincoln.

Formerly, when litigation concerning tithes had arisen between the prior and convent of Butele on the one side and the prioress and nuns of Campesse on the other (And below:), on the counsel of our brothers we decree that prejudice ought not to be generated for the right of the aforesaid prior and convent concerning tithes of noval lands of which they were in possession at the time when apostolic indulgences concerning the nonpayment of tithes of noval lands were obtained by the other party, through those indulgences, which make no mention of this.

Latin source headnote: Confraternity members of privileged persons, unless they have transferred themselves to them entirely, are bound to episcopal rights.

The same.

Certain persons, as you assert, received into the confraternity of privileged persons are unwilling to answer you concerning episcopal rights. But for as long as brothers of this kind make their stay in their own houses, you will be able to compel them to pay the said rights to you in full.

Latin source headnote: As regards the privilege of retaining the tithe, land once noval is always noval.

The same, to the Chapter of Arles.

We respond briefly to your consultation that land concerning which no memory exists that it was ever cultivated, newly reduced to cultivation by religious, ought perpetually to be assessed by law, as regards immunity from paying tithes of noval lands, because otherwise it might sometimes happen that the indulgence concerning noval lands would bring them more detriment than benefit.