University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
collapse section18. 
expand section18.1. 
 18.2. 
expand section18.3. 
 18.4. 
expand section18.5. 
 18.6. 
expand section18.7. 
 18.8. 
 18.9. 
 18.10. 
 18.11. 
 18.12. 
 18.13. 
 18.14. 
collapse section18.15. 
  
  
 18.16. 
expand section18.17. 
 18.18. 
expand section18.19. 
 18.20. 
 18.21. 
expand section18.22. 
 18.23. 
expand section18.24. 
expand section18.25. 
expand section18.26. 
expand section18.27. 
expand section18.28. 
expand section18.29. 
expand section18.30. 
expand section18.31. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

31.13. 13. Of the Election of Bishops and Abbots.

As the church had grown poor, the kings resigned the right of nominating to bishoprics and other ecclesiastic benefices. [111] The princes gave themselves less trouble about the ecclesiastic ministers; and the candidates were less solicitous in applying to their authorities. Thus the church received a kind of compensation for the possessions she had lost.

Hence, if Louis the Debonnaire left the people of Rome in possession of the right of choosing their popes, it was owing to the general spirit that prevailed in his time; [112] he behaved in the same manner to the see of Rome as to other bishoprics.

Footnotes

[111]

See the "Capitulary of Charlemagne" in the year 803, art. 2, Baluzius's edition, p. 379; and the "Edict of Louis the Debonnaire," in the year 834, in Goldast, "Constit. Imprial.," tome i.

[112]

This is mentioned in the famous canon, ego Ludovicus, which is a palpable forgery; it is Baluzius's edition, p. 591, in the year 817.