A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

CHAP. VI. (Book 6)

Observations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Tenth Century.

THERE were no Controversies in the Tenth Age of the Church, relating to Articles * 1.1 of Faith, or Doctrinal Points of Divinity, by reason that there were no Hereticks, nor other Inquisitive Persons, who refin'd upon Matters of Religion, or undertook to dive into the bottom of its Mysteries. The Sober Party contented themselves only in yield∣ing an implicite Faith to whatever the Church-men thought fit to deliver from the Pulpit; and the profligate Wretches, abandon'd themselves to gross Sensualitles, which gave Satisfaction to their bruitish Appetites, rather than to the Vices of the Mind, to which only ingenious Persons are liable. Therefore in this Age of Darkness and Ignorance, the Church not being disturb'd upon account of its Doctrines, had nothing to do but to put a stop to the Enormities of Discipline and Man∣ners.

There were nevertheless in England some Clergy-men, who positively affirm'd that the Bread and * 1.2 Wine on the Altar retain'd the very same Substance after Consecration, and that they were only the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and not his Real Body and Blood. Odo Archbishop of Canterbury being desirous to oppose this Opinion, pray'd to God one day, as he was Celebrating Mass solemnly, in the presence of a multitude of People, to shew the very Substance of these Mysteries; which happen'd in the breaking of the Consecrated Bread, out of which (as its reported) issued forth several Drops of Blood; which Miracle being seen by his Clergy, and by those who doubted of the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, they abjured their Error.

Thus Osborn, a Writer of those times, relates the Matter in the Life of that Saint. The same Author in the Life of S. Dunstan says, that that Saint returning to the Altar, chang'd the Bread and Wine into our Saviour's Body and Blood, by the Prayer of Consecration; but when he had given the Benediction to the People, he left the Altar a second time to preach, and that being altogether transported with the Divine Spirit, he discour'd after such a pathetical manner concerning the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, of the Future Resurrection, and of Life Eternal, that one would have thought that a glorified Saint was then speaking.

Ratherius Bishop of Verona stifly maintains the same Opinion in one of his Letters; and Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes, in discoursing of the Eucharistical Table, says, That it is the Table on which the Sa∣cred Body of our Lord is consum'd. These Authors express themselves after the same manner as Pas∣chasius Rathertus; nevertheless this did not hinder some others, who liv'd in the end of the same Century, to take part with Retramnus, to make use of his Expressions, and to oppose those of Pas∣chasius. This is apparently done by Alfric Archbishop of Canterbury, and Heriger Abbot of Lobes, altho' they do not impugn the Real Presence, as we have made it appear in the preceding Century. These are all the remarkable Circumstances in the Tenth Century, relating to Points of Doctrine; for the Errour of the Anthropomorphites confuted by Ratherius in one of his Sermons, was peculiar to certain Clergy-men of Italy, and those of the Greeks, mention'd by Pope Formosus in one of his Letters to Fulcus, are ancient, and not modern Heresies. We read in a Chronicle of the Abbey of Castros, that Durandus Abbot of that Monastery, in the year 953. confuted one Walfred, who gave it out, that both the Soul and Body perish'd after death; but it is not known whether this Error con∣tinu'd long, neither is there any part of Durandus's Piece now extant. The Contests that arose about the validity or invalidity of Ordination made by Intruders, were soon silenc'd. Some Persons were of Opinion, that one might Feast on Fridays, but their Infatuation was not of long conti∣nuance. Upon the whole, there was no Council held in this Century that either debated, or made any Decisions with respect to any Point of Doctrine; which shews, that there was no Error in Matters of Faith that prevail'd long, or made any Disturbance in the Church.

Howsoever enormous the Irregularities of the Popes might be at that time, nevertheless a great * 1.3 deal of Respect was shewn to their Authority, and the Christians distinguishing, according to Auxilius's Remark, the Holy See, from the Person of those who possess'd it, had as much veneration for the Dignity of the One, as aversion to the Extravagancies of the others; and upon this account they yielded Obedience to the Equitable Laws, and Just and Lawful Ordinances, proceeding from the Authority of the Holy See, and oppos'd the Enterprizes of the Popes, which intrench'd upon the Liberty of the Churches and the Intention of the Canons. This may be observ'd in the con∣duct of the Bishops of Germany, and in the Letters they wrote concerning the Erections of Bishop∣ricks, which the Pope attempted to make in Moravia, to the prejudice of their Rights; in that of the Bishops of France assembled in a Council at Rheims against Arnulphus; in the Discourse made by the Bishop of Orleance in that Council; and in the Judgment they pass'd with respect to the Le∣gats Attempt, who presum'd to Consecrate a Church without the consent of the Ordinary. Neither were the Bishops of Italy of a different Opinion, as appears from their Deposing of Pope John XII. S. Dunstan shew'd the same Resolution in Refusing to Absolve a Person, altho' the Pope had expresly enjoyn'd him to do it; and the like constancy is observable in Ratherius, who did not think himself oblig'd to obey the Order of a Pope, who was about to deprive him of the Disposal of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of his Diocess. However, Magnificent Titles were given to the Popes, and their Primacy and Jurisdiction was acknowledg'd: They had not as yet assum'd the Right of Or∣daining Bishops or Metropolitans; nay John X. and Stephen VIII. plainly own'd, that it did not belong to them; but they granted the Pall, not only to Archbishops, but also to several Bishops, which Practice Fulques or Fulco Archbishop of Rheims censures as an Abuse, which sullied the Splen∣dor of the Hierarchical Order. They were desirous, that the Archbishops should come in Person to Rome to receive the Pall, which was usually done by the Archbishops of England and Germany, but not by those of France.

The Popes likewise us'd to erect new Archbishopricks and Bishopricks, and there were several Examples in that Century of these sorts of Erections; as Magdeburg, Mersburg, Passaw, Pla∣centia, &c. They also assum'd to themselves a Power to Judge Bishops primarily, according to the Direction of the Decretals, and claim'd a Right to Summon them to Rome: But it does not appear that the Bishops of France ever acknowledg'd that Right; on the contrary, they follow'd the anci∣ent Custom which makes the Bishops subject to the Judgment of the Provincial Councils, and to prevent the bringing any Appeals to Rome, they oblig'd the accused Persons to make choice of their own Judges, as it happen'd in the Affair of Arnulphus.

John IX. own'd that the Popes might be mistaken, and that their Judgments might be revers'd: That they ought to be chosen by the Bishops of Italy, and the Clergy and People of Rome, with the Emperor's consent, and in the presence of his Deputies; as it was ordain'd in the Council of Rome held under the same John IX. Otho and his Successors had the plenary Injoyment of that Right, and the Election of the Popes depended on those Emperors. Octavian was the first of the Popes who chang'd his Name after his Election, in which he was imitated in the same Century by Gregory V. and Sylvester II. Neither were the Popes as yet absolute Sovereigns in the City of Rome: In the beginning of this Century the Romans enjoy'd an appearance of Liberty under the Government of Alberic. Afterwards Otho and his Successors were Sovereign Princes of Rome, in quality of Empe∣rors;

caus'd the Romans to take an Oath of Allegiance to them; and treated as Rebels those who revolted against them: But the Popes had the Demesus of a great number of Towns in Italy, which were granted by King Pepin, and afterwards confirm'd by the Otho's. The Writers of those Times, particularly Ratherius, Abbo, Gerbert, and some others complain'd very much, that under some Popes a shameful Traffick was made at Rome of the most Sacred Things, and that every thing there was to be purchas'd for Money. We also read, that the Popes were us'd to grant Indulgences to those Persons who made a Journey to Rome: and it is related in the Life of S. Ulric, that the Pope sent him back laden with Indulgences.

There were few Councils held in this Century, and in the most part of them the Decrees were * 1.4 concerning Tythes; against the Usurpers of Church Revenues; against Church-men who keep Concubines; and against Marriages among near Relations. To which purpose the Degrees of Con∣sanguinity were extended to the Seventh, in which it was forbidden to contract Marriage, and Spi∣ritual Affinity took place as well in the Eastern as the Western Churches: Such Persons as married with these Impediments were divorc'd without redress, neither were any Dispensations granted to Kings and Princes, as it appears from the Case of King Robert, and that of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas.

Fourth Marriages were absolutely prohibited in the Eastern, but not in the Western parts. The Bishops were chosen by the Clergy and People, but the Princes would not suffer the Election to be made without their consent. The Investitures of the Archbishops, and Bishopricks, were granted to Otho I. by Pope Leo VII. and were given with the Ring and Staff. The Translation of Bishops became very frequent, and Coadjutors began to be joyn'd with them, with Assurance of Succeed∣ing them. Thus Utho Bishop of Strasburg had Archimbaldus for his Coadjutor; but this practice was condemn'd by the Bishops of Germany, with respect to Adalbero, whom S. Ulric his Uncle, who had chosen him for his Coadjutor, and by Gregory V. with respect to the Bishop of Puy in Velay, who in like manner had ordain'd his Nephew.

This Century is the first, in which it is observ'd that Ambition transported the Bishops so far, as to get the possession of several Bishopricks, and in which Bishops were ordain'd at the Age of eigh∣teen years, as Pope John XI. John XII. and the Bishop of Tody; and elected very young, as Hugh of Vermandois, and Theophylact Patriarch of Constantinople. Many Bishops of Italy and Germany oblig'd their Canons to be Regular, and to live in common: others placed Monks in their Cathe∣drals, and even advanc'd them to Dignities; and others on the contrary, turn'd out irregular Monks, to substitute Secular Clerks in their room; as did Ratherius in one of the Churches of his Dicoess. The Ecclesiastical Revenues were usually divided into four parts, and the Bishops assum'd the sole Administration of them, but in some Churches other Clergy-men, had particular Revenues, which they enjoy'd independently of the Bishop. After the Death of the Bishops the Revenues of the Church, and those they left, were often expos'd to pillage, as it is related by Ratherius, Atto, and several other Writers. To prevent this Rapine, the Prince or neighbouring Bishop engag'd to take care of them. The Lords were wont to settle Priests at their pleasure, in the Country Churches; Benefices were often conferr'd on unworthy Persons; and sometimes Persons were advanc'd to the Episcopal Dignity, without any merit, and only on account of their quality; an abuse much la∣mented by Ratherius and Atto. Lastly, Ignorance was so predominant in those times, that it was absolutely necessary to admit Priests of mean parts to the Sacerdotal Function. However, the Bi∣shops endeavour'd to render them more capable, by Synodal Instructions, by frequent Conferences with them, (the Original of which may probably be referr'd to the Ninth Century) by Schools, which were kept in the Cathedral Churches and Monasteries, and by furnishing them with divers Forms of Sermons and Exhortations ready prepared. The Bishops and other Clergy-men were of∣ten oblig'd to bear Arms, as Ratherius observes, altho' it be prohibited by the Canons; an abuse which was committed both in the Eastern and Western Parts. In the beginning of this Century, the Monks were very irregular, and the Monasteries were ruin'd, and possess'd by Laicks, who assum'd the quality of Abbots; but after Matters were regulated, the Monastical Discipline was re-esta∣blish'd, and Regular Abbots were constituted; nevertheless the Bishops for a long time retain'd some Abbeys as it were in Comendam; the same Abbot, or the same Regular Clerk held several Abbeys, which he caus'd to be govern'd by-Co-Abbots or Pro-Abbots, or Superiours. To which we may refer the Original of Congregations. Divers Monks were advanc'd to the Episcopacy, possess'd Dignities in the Cathedral Churches, and were ordain'd Priests under the Title of their Monastery. Publick Pennance was still in use, but very rarely practis'd, and the Canoni∣cal Discipline was enervated by the Redemption of Pennances which was then introduc'd: The Rigour and Austerity of Fasting, was likewise much abated, and the Obligation to Receive the Sa∣crament was reduc'd to four times a year.

Ratherius forbad in his Diocess the Celebration of Marriages on Sundays, and in the time of Lent, altho' the contrary Custom had prevail'd. We find in this Century the first Example of the Benediction of a Bell; for there is no mention made of them in the Authors of the preceding A∣ges, who have treated at large of Ceremonies. Father Menard cites in his Notes, on S. Gregory's Sacramentary, two ancient Manuscripts which prescribe the Ceremonies of this Benediction, but it is not certain that they are more ancient than the Tenth Century. At that time also they began to recite as a part of Divince Service, the Office of the Virgin Mary: It is related in the Life of S. Ul∣ric, that that Saint was wont to say it every day, and in the continuation of the History of the

Bishops of Verdun, mention is made of a certain Clerk whom Berenger, Bishop of that City, the Kins∣man of Otho the Great, met in the Church, lying prostrate on the Ground, and saying the Office of the Bless'd Virgin. Peter Damien in the following Century, in like manner makes mention of two Clerks who were wont to recite it every day; and Pope Urban II. ordain'd in the Council of Clermont, that the Office of the Virgin Mary should be said on Saturday. We may also observe, that the Councils and Bishops of those Times pronounc'd Eternal Anathema's, that is to say, perpe∣tual Excommunications without hopes of Absolution against the Usurpers of Church Revenues, and against those that offer'd any Injury to Ecclesiastical Persons. The manner of clearing those that were accused of any Crime by Fire or Water Ordeal, or by a Duel between two Champions, was then in use, and even Clergy-men were oblig'd to provide a Champion; but there were cer∣tain Times when all Acts of Hostility ceas'd, which were call'd The Truce of God.

In this Century we find the first Example of the Solemn Canonization of a Saint by the Pope. This Pope is John XV. who plac'd S. Ulric in the Rank of the Saints in the year 995. at the re∣quest of Liutolphus Bishop of Aug••burg. We shall here subjoyn the Act it self, which was drawn * 1.5 up on that occasion: John Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, to all Archbishops, Bishops and Abbots of France and Germany, Greeting, and the Apostolical Benediction. Having held an Assembly in the Palace of the Lateran, on the last day of January, John the most Holy Pope sitting, with the Bi∣shops, Priests, Deacons and Clergy standing, the most Reverend Liutolphus, Bishop of Augsburg rising up, said, Most Holy Bishop, if it may please you and the rest of the Reverend Bishops and Priests here present, to give leave to read in your presence, the Book which I hold in my hand, concern∣ing the Life and Miracles of S. Ulric, who was sometime Bishop of Augsburg, to the end that you may afterwards ordain what you shall think fit. Then the Life of that Saint being read, they proceeded to the Miracles which were perform'd by him, either in his Life-time, or after his Death, as the re∣storing of Sight to the Blind; the Exorcising of Devils out of possessed Persons; the Curing of others afflicted with the Palsie, and several other Miracles which were not committed to writing These things being thus related, we have resolv'd and ordain'd, with the common consent, that the Me∣mory of S. Ulric ought to be honour'd with a pious Affection and a sincere Devotion, by reason that we are oblig'd to honour and shew respect to the Relicks of the Martyrs and Confessors, in order to Adore him whose Martyrs and Confessors they are: We honour the Servants, to the end that this honour may redound to the Lord—It is our pleasure therefore that the Memory of Ulric be Consecrated to the Honour of the Lord, and that it may serve to celebrate his Praises for ever. Then follows the Anathema a∣gainst those who shall act any thing contrary to this Decree, with the Seals, of the Pope, of five Bishops, of nine Cardinal Priests, and of some Deacons.

This is the first Solemn Bull of Canonization; for the more ancient Examples, which are pro∣duc'd of the Canonization of S. Suitbert by Pope Leo III. and that of S. Abbo Martyr by Adrian I. at the request of Offa King of the Mercians in the end of the Eighth Century, are only grounded on Supposititious Pieces; nay, the very Name of Canonization in that sense, is yet more Modern then the Tenth Century, and is found only in the Bull of Pope Alexander III. For the Canoniza∣tion of S. Edward the Confessor, King of England, in the year 1161. in that of the Canonization of S. Thomas of Canterbury Eight years after, and in the Letter of Ulric Bishop of Constance to Calix∣tus II. in which he sues for the Canonization of Bishop Conrad.

In the Primitive Church the Name of Saint was given to all Christians, in their Life-time, and even after their Death, when they dyed in the Communion of the Church, having preserv'd the Innocence of their Baptism, but a more particular respect was shewn to those, who dyed upon the account of Religion, and were call'd Martyrs of Jesus Christ; so that the Evidence of the Mat∣ter of Fact, and the Testimony of the Faithful, caus'd that Veneration to be paid to their Me∣mory, which their generous Constancy had merited; nevertheless, it belong'd to the Bishops and Clergy to make a Catalogue of those who deserv'd that honour, and to distinguish the false Mar∣tyrs from the true. Therefore S. Cyprian in his Ninty seventh Letter admonishes his Clergy to take care exactly to mark all the days of the Death of those who suffer'd Martyrdom, to the end that their Memory might be celebrated with the other Martyrs. Optatus Milevitanus reproves Lucilius for kissing every day, even before the Communion, the Relick of a certain Person, who was said to be a Martyr, but was not yet acknowledg'd as such. It is reported that Pope Clement I. ap∣pointed seven Deacons, and Fabian as many Sub-Deacons to commit the Acts of the Martyrs to writing; but this Matter of Fact being grounded only on the Authority of the Author of the Pon∣tifical Book, is of no great Consequence, and so much the rather, in regard that we are inform'd by the Popes Gelasius and Gregory, that these Acts were not much valu'd by the Church of Rome, which was content only to have a Catalogue of the Saints and Martyrs who were to be honour'd. The Councils of Laodicea, Carthage, and Elvira, ordain'd, that great care be taken to make a due distinction between the true and false Martyrs, and the Example of S. Martin of Tours, and seve∣ral other Reverend Bishops, who disswaded the People from the Superstitious Worship of false Martyrs, apparently shews that it belongs to all the Bishops to declare what Martyrs ought to be acknowledg'd and publickly honour'd. After the Martyrs in process of time was likewise ho∣nour'd, the Memory of Virgins, Anchorites, Bishops renown'd for their Sanctity: and lastly, of those Persons whose singular Vertues were remarkable in their Life-time. Their Names were in∣serted in the Dypticks, that were recited at the Altar, and they were stiled by the Name of the Saints and Blessed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Every particular Church was us'd to place in that rank, those who had first propagated the Christian Religion, the Bishops, and those who had liv'd in great Reputation for their Sanctity. Afterwards were made Kalendars and Martyrologies, of the Saints of several particular Churches, which were by little and little dispers'd throughout the Eastern and Western Parts. The Church of 'Rome, as others had done, made use of one of these Martyrologies, from which Ado compos'd His, and afterwards took in that of Usuardus; but it does not appear that before the Tenth Cen∣tury, any Solemn Decrees were made at Rome, or elsewhere, for the Canonization of Saints. In∣deed, this Custom was entirely establish'd in the Eleventh Century, when Adelardus, Paschasius Ratbertus, S. Wibroad, Gerard Bishop of Toul, and Wolfang Bishop of Ratisbon were Canoniz'd by several Popes. In the Twelfth Peter d'Agnania was Canoniz'd by Pope Paschal II. Conrad Bi∣shop of Constantz, by Calixtus II. at the request of Ulric Bishop of the same place; Hugh Bishop of Grenoble, S. Sturmius Abbot of Fulda, and the Emperor Henry I. by Eugenius III. But it is ob∣servable, that these two last Papers declare that the Solemnity of Canonization ought to be per∣form'd regularly in a General Council, and yet they do it by the Authority of the Church of Rome, with the Advice of the Archbishops and Bishops, who were present in that City.

During these two Centuries, the Metropolitans and Bishops were not depriv'd of the Right to declare as Saints, such Persons as died in the Reputation of Sanctity, and to cause their Bodies to be expos'd to the Veneration of the Faithful: But Pope Alexander III. first reserv'd to himself the Canonization of Saints, as a Matter of great Consequence, and after him Innocent III. assum'd the same Right; insomuch that we do not read that the Bishops solemnly Canoniz'd any Saints since that time, altho' there were some who were generally reputed such among the People.

The Institution of the seven Electors of the Empire is also referr'd to this Century, according to * 1.6 the general Opinion of the German Historians, who wrote after the Reign of Frederick II. and who affirm that Pope Gregory V. and the Emperor Otho III. declar'd, with the consent of the Princes of Germany, that the Election of the Emperor should belong, for the future, only to those seven, without allowing any Vote to the others: But the Original of this Epocha is very much disputed; and is not grounded on any Authentick Record, or the Testimony of any Contemporary Writer. Indeed some, particularly Jordanes have given it out, that the Right of choosing the Emperor has been peculiar to the seven Electors ever since Charlemagn's time; and this Opinion seems to be confirm'd by the Authority of Pope Innocent III who acknowledges the power of Electing the King and Emperor to be inherent in the Princes of the Empire, to whom the Right justly belongs, more especially in re∣gard that this Right and Power is deriv'd to them from the Apostolical See, in the person of Char∣lemagn, who transferr'd the Empire from the Grecians to the Romans. Theodoric Anihem refers this Institution to the time that follow'd the Death of the Emperor Henry II. and makes the Princes of Germany the Authors of it. Onuphrius maintains, that this number of Electors was not fix'd till after the Death of Frederick II. that before that time all the Princes of Germany were wont to give their Suffrages for the Election of the Emperors; that their number was not restrain'd to seven; that the name of Electors was then unknown; that altho' the precise time of the Institution can∣not be determin'd, yet it ought to be fix'd between the years 1250. and 1280. and according to all appearance, under the Pontificate of Gregory X. which perhaps gave occasion to the generality of Authors to refer it to that of Gregory V. Jordanes's Opinion concerning the Antiquity of the seven Electors, is at present generally disclaim'd; it being evident that Charlemagn's Posterity obtain'd the Empire by the Right of Succession, and by the Election of the German, French and Italian Prin∣ces and Noble men. After the Death of Lewis IV. the Son of Arnulphus, the last of Charlemagn's Race, Italy became (as we have already declar'd) a Prey to the Berengers, to Guy, Lambers, Lewis, Boso, Hugh, Lo••haire, Raoul, &c. of whom some affected the Title of Emperor, and even caus'd themselves to be crown'd. In Germany, Conrad, Henry the Fowler, and Otho were chosen Kings by the Saxons and French, as it is related by Luitprand and Witichindus, Writers, who flourish'd at that time. The last was also acknowledg'd and crown'd Emperor when he had subdu'd Italy: His Son and Grandson obtain'd the Imperial Diadem by the Right of Succession, and by the Election of the Princes, as well Saxons as French and Italians. Therefore till that time, it cannot be said, that the Election of the Emperor was reserv'd to the seven Electors. Now to know whether this was effected by Pope Gregory V. under Otho III. we need only enquire after what manner Histori∣ans relate the Election of his Successors to have been carried on, that is to say, whether it were per∣form'd by the seven Electors, or indifferently by all the German Princes. Otho Frisingensis assures us, that after the Decease of Otho III. Henry Duke of Bavaria was chosen Emperor by all the No∣bility or Lords of the Kingdom: Ab omnibus regni primoribus; and this Author speaks after the same manner concerning the Election of Conrad, who succeeded Henry: But nothing more plainly shews to whom the Right of choosing the Emperor belong'd, then that which happen'd in the time of the Emperor Henry the Fourth, when Pope Gregory the Seventh design'd to Depose him, and caus'd Rodolphus to be substituted in his room; for he made application to all the Dukes, Earls and Bishops of the German Empire, and Rodolphus was chosen by a Party of the Princes different from the Electors, among whom are nam'd the Bishops of Wurtsburg and Me••s, and the Duke of Carinthia.

Afterward when Henry the Fifth dispossessed his Father of the Imperial Throne, and ca••••'d himself to be plac'd on it in his stead, this was done by all the Princes of Germany indifferently; as it is related by Otho Frisingensis, and by the Abbot of Ursperge. Lotharius the Second was in like manner elected Emperor by the Princes of the Empire, at the sollicitation of the Archbishop of M••••tz. When Conrad the Third was at first only chosen by a small number of Princes, and Henry of Bavaria with some Saxon Princes revers'd his Election, because they were not present, it was requisite to call a general Assembly of all the Princes, in which the Saxons assisted, and gave con∣sent to his Election. After the death of Conrad, Frederick Barbarossa was proclaim'd Emperor in an Assembly of all the Princes of Germany, in which the Barons of Italy were also present. Lastly, In the time of Pope Innocent the Third, the German Princes being divided, after the Death of Hen∣ry the Sixth some of them elected his Brother Otho, and others Philip of Schwaben; on which oc∣casion Letters were written on both sides to the Pope: The Electors of Otho were, the Archbishop of Cologn, the Bishop of Paderborn, two other Bishops, and two Abbots, the Duke of Lorrain and Brabant, the Marquess of the Sacred Empire, and the Count of Kuk, who declare in the Body of the Letter, that they elected Otho, and confirm their Proceedings by their respective Seats. Those of the contrary Party were the Archbishops of Madgeburg, Trier, and Resancon; the Bishops of Rat••bon, Frisingen, Augsburg, Constantz, Eichstadt, Worms, Spire, Hildersheim, and Brixen; the Chancellour of the Emperial Court, four Abbots, the King of Bohemia, the Dukes of Saxony, Ba∣varia, Austria and Moravia; the Marquess of Raversperg, and other Potent Noble-men of Germany, who all declare that they had chosen Philip Emperor, and that many other German Princes had con∣sented to his Election by Letters.

This evidently proves that the Election of the Emperors was not reserv'd to the seven Electors, but that it belong'd to all the Princes of the Empire. Innocent the Third replying to those Letters, That his Legat was not capable of assisting at the Election of an Emperor, either in quality of an Elector, or in that of a Judge; not as an Elector, because it does not belong to him; but to the Princes, on whom the Power of choosing the Emperor is devolv'd according to ancient custom; more especially in regard that they receiv'd it from the Holy See, which transferr'd the Roman Empire, in the Person of Charlemagn, from the Grecians to the Romans. These are the words of that Pope, which are manifestly misap∣plyed, when alledg'd in behalf of the seven Electors: it being apparent, that in this place, he makes mention of all the Princes of the Empire, who had an inherent Right to elect the Emperors ever since the time of Charlemagn; affirming that neither had his Legat acted as a Judge, in regard that he had not proceeded against Philip in a Judiciary Form, nor pass'd any Judgment upon the Validity or Nullity of the Election: That therefore he had only perform'd the Function of a Denouncer, by declaring to them, that the Duke was Incapacitated from being elected, whereas Otho was not. That many of those persons, who had a right to choose the Em∣peror, had approv'd Otho's Election: And that they who had chosen Philip, had for∣feited their Right, by carrying on the Election, in the absence, and to the contempt of the others. That besides, Philip was not crown'd Emperor, either in the place where i•• ought to have been done, or by a person, whose office it was to perform the Ceremony: whereas Otho was crown'd at Aix-la-Chapelle, which was the proper place for his Coronation, and by the Archbishop of Cologn, whose Right it was to officiate at the Solemnity: That therefore he nominated and declar'd Otho Emperor, being incited thereto by a principle of Justice, as also upon account that he had a Right to favour whom he thought fit, when the Suffrages of the Electors were divided: That be∣sides, there were several lawful Impediments against Philip Duke of Schwaben, as his being Excommunicated, Attainted of Perjury, and descended of the Race of the Persecutors of the Church.

Thus this Answer supposes that these persons, who had a right to choose the Emperor, and who are mention'd by this Pope, are not only the seven Electors, but also all the Princes and Noble-men of the Empire, of whom a party had elected Otho, and the greater number Philip of Schwa∣ben: But after the death of the latter, all the Suffrages were re-united in favour of Otho A. D. 1209. and in the following year, Otho being Excommunicated, the Princes of Germany, viz. the King of Bohemia, the Dukes of Austria and Bavaria, the Landgrave of Thuringen, and many others being assembled, elected Frederick King of Sicily Emperor. Hitherto we find no mention of the seven Electors; and indeed the first Writer that makes any, is the Cardinal of Ostia, who liv'd in the time of Pope Innocent the Fourth, and speaks of them in his Commentary on the Decretal of Inno∣cent the Third, where he affirms that the Electors mention'd in that place, are the Archbishops of Mentz, Cologn, and Trier, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquess of Brandenburg, and the Duke of Bohemia. Matthew Paris writing the History of the Council of Lyons, at the same time reports, that after the Deposing of Frederick, Pope Innocent the Fourth or∣dain'd that the seven Electors should pass into an Island of the River Rhine, there to choose an Em∣peror; but those seven Electors, whom he names, are the Archbishops of Cologn, Mentz, and Saltz∣burg, and the Dukes of Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, and Brabant. However, Martinus Potonus a con∣temporary Writer, names the seven Electors after this manner, that is to say, the three high Chan∣cellors of the Empire, viz. the Archbishop of Mentz, the Chancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Trier Chancellor of Gaul, the Archbishop of Cologn Chancellor of Italy, the Marquess of Bran∣denburg High Chamberlain, the Palatine of the Rhine High Steward, the Duke of Saxony Gentle∣man of the Horse, and the King of Bohemia High Cupbearer. This Author says thus much in speak∣ing

of Otho the Thi••d, which has induc'd some to believe, that they were instituted underthat Emperor, altho' he observes that it did not happen till afterward. Thus this Relation makes it appear that the Institution of the seven Electors attributed to Pope Gregory V. without any just grounds, is nothing near so ancient, and that 'tis very probable that the Electors of the Emperor were not reduced to the number of seven, till the Pontificate of Innocent the Fourth, and that before, all the Princes and Noble-men of the Empire indifferently, might have a share in his Election, notwithstanding the Assertions of the Canonists and the Modern Historiographers of Germany to the contrary.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Controver∣sies about Doctrinal Points.
• * 1.2

  Of the Eu∣charist.
• * 1.3

  Of the Popes Au∣thority.
• * 1.4

  Several Points of Discipline.
• * 1.5

  The Cano∣nization of Saints.
• * 1.6

  The Insti∣tution of the seven Electors of the Empire.