CHAPTER XIX.

Papal Election.

31.-IMPERIAL INTERPOSITION.

No authority in sacred things was ever acknowledged by the Church to reside in emperor, king, or other potentate, even when he was a Christian, although they were sometimes implored to sustain, by the civil arm, the rights of lawful prelates against ambitious and disorderly men, who endangered or violated public tranquillity. In this sense, as also in regard to the general support which they owe to religion, the Council of Trent declared that "God wills Catholic princes to be the protectors of our holy faith and of the Church."* The Council of Aquileja besought the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, to use their authority, and prevent Ursicinus from disturbing Damasus, the legitimate occupant of the See of Peter. Eulalius, having ambitiously set himself up in opposition to Boniface, the lawful Pope, the Emperor Honorius, on the report of Symmachus, ordered Boniface to be banished from the city; but on receiving from the Roman clergy a correct statement of the facts, and being informed of the return of Eulalius, contrary to his command, he supported the rights of Boniface. To provide for public tranquillity, he decreed that, in case of a contested election, both candidates should be banished from the city. This law is said to have been enacted in consequence of an application made by Boniface himself, for some measure to prevent tumults.

Odoacer, King of the Heruli, having in 476 established himself King of Italy, on the death of Simplicius in 483, alleged an agreement made with him by the deceased Pontiff that the Prefect, in the name of the king, should be present at the election of his successor; but the claim was resisted by the clergy, and the concession disregarded as a nullity. Symmachus, chosen Pope in 498, forbade all laymen, even of royal dignity, to interfere in the election; yet Theodoric, King of Italy, in 526, forced Felix IV. on the Roman clergy and senate, who reluctantly acquiesced, on con

Sess. xxvi. c. xx., de Ref.

† Conc. Aquil. ep., t. i., conc. Hard., col. 837. Ibid., col. 1237.

dition that the ancient freedom of election should be thenceforward inviolable. The royal assent or confirmation of the election was, however, to be sought, which was to follow as a matter of course, if the proceedings were regular. King Athalaric, successor of Theodoric, required the payment of three thousand crowns of gold on the occasion.

On the extinction of the Gothic power in Italy in 553, the Emperor Justinian exercised the same prerogative of confirming the election, in the person of Pelagius I., chosen in 555. The confirmation was not waited for on the election of Pelagius II. in 578, it being impossible to obtain it, since the city of Rome was actually besieged by the Lombards. It was also neglected in the case of John IV., elected in 640, and of Martin in 649. The tax, which seemed to be the chief object of the imperial court, was remitted by Constantine Pogonatus in 680; who, in 684, completely restored the ancient freedom of election, so as not to require any longer the imperial assent. His successor, Justinian II., renewed the claim in a mitigated form, allowing the exarch of Ravenna to assent in his name, and thus prevent delay. There is no instance of any election having been set aside by the emperor, who regarded the right of confirmation as a mere measure of finance.

The Western emperors soon emulated the prerogatives of those of Constantinople. Louis the Pious, in 818, required the Pope to send him an embassy immediately after his consecration. In 824 he sent his son Lothaire to Rome, to terminate the contest which had arisen on the election of Eugenius II., who was opposed by the anti-pope Zinzinus; whence the young prince took occasion to publish an imperial edict, requiring that the consecration of the Pope should take place in presence of the imperial ambassadors, if the emperor himself were not present. This regulation is stated by Pagi to have originated with Eugenius himself, and to have been confirmed by John IX. in 898, through an anxiety to prevent tumults and irregular promotions. The ambassador of Lothaire came to Rome in 827, to examine the election of Gregory IV., and in 855 the report of the election of Benedict III. was forwarded to the imperial court for examination.

The canonical freedom of election was vindicated from time to time by decrees of the Pontiffs. Constantine, an anti-pope, having obtained possession of the See, by the aid of armed men, Stephen IV., in 769, forbade any layman, of any rank whatever, to interfere in papal elections.* Adrian III., in 884, decreed that the Pontiff elect might be consecrated without the presence of the king or his ambassadors.

It does not appear that the emperors exercised or claimed any right over the election, beyond the mere examination of its regularity, until the middle of the tenth century. After Otho I., in 962, had been

Conc. Rom., act. iii., apud Holstenium, in collect. Rom., par. i. p. 260.

crowned emperor by John XII., he exacted an oath from the clergy and people, that no Pope should thenceforward be consecrated without previously making, in presence of the imperial ambassadors, or of the son of the emperor, or of the public, a promise which is not distinctly specified, but is described as intended "for the satisfaction of all and for their future preservation," such as Leo IV. had spontaneously made. This pledge seems to have been directed to secure the imperial interests in Rome. Otho soon acted as if he could at will create and depose the Pope, having attempted to set aside John, and substitute the anti-pope Leo VIII. In this usurpation he was imitated by two emperors of the

same name.

Henry I. restored the freedom of papal elections, which his successors Conrad and the second Henry also respected; although the latter required that the imperial ambassadors should be present at the consecration. It must be owned that the disorders of popular elections at Rome, and the violent intrusion of several unworthy men, gave an appearance of expediency to this intervention, which might have been salutary, if it did not prepare the way for unjust influence, amounting to control. Alexander II. directed that the imperial authority should be awaited, unless dangerous circumstances forbade delay.

The imperial influence was exercised beneficially in several instances. At the solicitation of the clergy and people of Rome, Henry II. recommended Suidger, Bishop of Bamberg, for promotion; who, accordingly, under the name of Clement II., adorned the Apostolic throne by his virtues. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was recommended by the Council of Worms to the emperor, and by him proposed to the Roman clergy; but the holy bishop entered Rome as a private individual, and refused to exercise any authority until the clergy and people freely elected him. He is known to us as St. Leo IX. Gebhard, Bishop of Aichstat, who was reluctantly yielded by the emperor to the urgent prayers of Hildebrand, filled the See as Victor II.

The deference shown to the emperors did not amount to an acknowledgment of any strict right on their part to control the elections, as is evident. from the fact that many Popes were consecrated without awaiting the imperial assent. Leo IV., in 847, was consecrated in the absence of the ambassadors; and only five out of nineteen Popes who lived in the ninth century waited for the confirmation of their election. Stephen X. was consecrated within a few days after the death of Victor II., when it was impossible to have received the confirmation. When in the minority of Henry IV. the right was claimed by the Regency, in virtue of an alleged grant of Nicholas II. to the emperor, and complaint was made that Alexander II. had been consecrated without the imperial assent, the representatives of the Holy See strongly denied that even a Pope could give to the emperor a right of peremptory control, since the election of the

Vicar of Christ must necessarily be free. The concession was shown to be a personal privilege granted in critical times, to be exercised without detriment to the liberty of election. St. Gregory VII., by soliciting the emperor to withhold his assent and defeat his election, seemed to acknowledge in him a power of veto; but he grounded it on usage, or on the concession of his predecessors: while otherwise he is known to have zealously maintained the freedom of the Church, as of divine right. From his time the imperial pretensions were either altogether abandoned, or defeated by the constancy of the clergy. Gibbon remarks: "The removal of a foreign influence restored and endeared the Shepherd to his flock. Instead of the arbitrary or venal nomination of a German court, the Vicar of Christ was freely chosen by the College of Cardinals, most of whom were either natives or inhabitants of the city. The applause of the magistrates and people confirmed his election: and the ecclesiastical power that was obeyed in Sweden and Britain, had been ultimately derived from the suffrage of the Romans."*

From a careful consideration of documents and facts, it results that no right of interference in the election of the Head of the Church exists in emperors, or kings, or earthly rulers of any kind, and that an attempt on their part to control it is a violation of the liberty of the Church. The privileges which they once exercised were granted them by the Church herself, as the guardians of public order, in order to secure regularity in the proceedings, and the support of the civil power for the elect. Whenever they were used in an absolute or arbitrary way, or were assumed independently of the concession or assent of the Pontiffs, they were usurpations, which can neither prove nor give any right whatever.

In modern times it has been customary for the electors to treat with respect the remonstrances of the chief Catholic powers, Austria, France, and Spain, so as not to urge the promotion of an individual objected to by any of them, provided the objection be made before the election is completed by the consent of two-thirds of the electors. Each power can exercise this prerogative only in one instance. No strict right of veto, however, is acknowledged by this deference to the esclusiva, or ammonizione pacifica, as this expression of the wishes of the crowned heads is called. Thus the liberty of the Church remains inviolate, while a just regard is had for the representatives of great national interests.

22.-MODE OF ELECTION.

The plenitude of power with which the Pope is clothed, might appear to authorize him to provide a successor, when old age warns him of the approach of death, especially if he has reason to fear that intrigues, dis

* Decline and Fall, ch. lxix., A.D. 1000-1100.

orders, and violence may occur during the vacancy of the See. The language used by Irenæus in regard to Peter, who is said to have committed to Linus the administration of the Church, may be understood of the appointment of a successor; but all antiquity teaches that the bishopric should not be as a legacy, dependent on the mere will of the actual incumbent. The elective principle, which was originally common to all episcopal sees, is still held sacred in regard to the Apostolic See, to which it is utterly forbidden to give the appearance of an inheritance. Hilary, in a Roman Council, declared that no Pope should choose his successor; which important declaration was repeated and confirmed by Pius IV. after the lapse of eleven centuries. Pius added that no Pope could, even with the assent of the cardinals, choose a coadjutor, with the right of succeeding him. Boniface II., in 530, designated Vigilius for his successor, with the view of preventing the intrusion of an unworthy incumbent by the King of the Goths; but on maturer reflection, he committed his decree to the flames, lest his example should give an hereditary appearance to the sacred office. When Gregory XIV. lay at the point of death, he exhorted the cardinals to proceed to the election of his successor; which, however, they respectfully declined. Several Popes, on their death-bed, recommended to the cardinals the person whom they deemed most worthy to succeed, as Clement VII., dying, said, that he would choose Cardinal Farnese, if the office could be bequeathed. His recommendation was adopted, but generally such expressions of desire were neglected. By a decree of Symmachus, in 499, renewed by Paul IV. in 1558, it is forbidden, under pain of excommunication, during the lifetime of the Pope to treat of his successor, It is likewise forbidden, under the same penalty, to make wagers concerning the future Pontiff, when the See is actually vacant, lest any person should use improper measures to obtain a choice favorable to his interests.

It is beyond a doubt that the people, for many ages, had a great share in the election of bishops, although it does not appear that they had at any time a strict right of suffrage. Their favorable testimony had considerable weight, their just wishes were respected, and the clergy willingly aided in the promotion of those who were most likely to secure popular respect and obedience. In those times, however, the chief pastor did not fail to admonish the clergy, that they must not be driven forward by the popular impulse, which they should rather prudently direct and control. "The people," said St. Celestin, in the fifth century, "should be taught, not followed; and we should admonish them, if they be ig norant of what is lawful and what is forbidden, nor should we consent to them."* In the preceding age, the Council of Laodicea had decreed that the "multitude must not be allowed to make the election of those

* Ad ep. Apuliæ.