As to Philip, it does not seem lawful to oppose his election. In deciding the legality of elections, account has to be taken of the zeal, the rank, and the number of the electors. It is not easy to determine the zeal, but, in respect to the other considerations, it is clear that Philip was elected by many princes of high rank, and that many others have since given him their support. Therefore his election seems to be legal, and not to be opposed. It would seem also that it is not proper for us to oppose his election, for we would appear thereby to be taking revenge for our injuries, if, because his father [Frederick I] and his brother [Henry VI] persecuted the church, we should persecute him and visit upon him the punishment incurred by the sins of others; whereas our Lord has said: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" [Matt. 5:44]. It would seem also not to be expedient to oppose his election. To oppose a man so strong in wealth and supporters is like battling with the torrent with the bare arms. We would only make an enemy of him and create even greater strife in the church. We ought rather to seek peace and pursue it, which we could do by supporting him. But on the other hand it seems lawful to oppose his election, for he was excommunicated lawfully and in solemn form by our predecessor. Lawfully, because he had seized the lands of St. Peter [Tuscany], and ravaged and burned them, refusing to make satisfaction after being warned to do so once and again by our brothers; in solemn form, for it was done at mass in the church of St. Peter on a great feast-day, and he himself recognized the validity of the excommunication by sending a messenger to us to beseech absolution, and by having himself absolved later after his election, by our legate, although contrary to our commands. So it is evident that he was elected while under sentence of excommunication, and some believe that he is not yet released from it. For in giving him absolution, the former bishop of Sutri did not observe the conditions laid down by us; namely, that Philip should first release the archbishop of Salerno from captivity, and should then be freed from the necessity of coming to Rome for absolution if he would take oath publicly to obey us in respect to the deeds for which he had been excommunicated, and then only should be given absolution. But the bishop of Sutri attempted to absolve him secretly while the said archbishop was still a prisoner, and without requiring any oath at all; for which disobedience he was deprived of his bishopric by us and ended his days in a monastery. Moreover, since we have frequently excommunicated Markwald and all other German and Italian supporters of Philip, Philip himself, the author of their sins, is surely subject to the same sentence. Moreover, it is notorious that he swore fidelity to the youth [Frederick], and yet has seized his kingdom and tried to seize the empire; therefore he is guilty of perjury. It is objected that we have already declared such oath to be illegal, and that he is not guilty of perjury in not keeping it, because we have said it ought not to be kept. But even if the oath was unlawful, he should not have broken it on his own authority, but should first have consulted us, after the example of the children of Israel, in the case of the oath which they swore to Gibeon; for although the oath had been won from them by fraud they did not break it of their own accord, but decided to consult the Lord. Moreover since whatever is done against the conscience leads to hell (according to the words of the apostle: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23]), and since Philip excuses himself in this matter by saying that he would not have taken the kingdom if he had not known that otherwise some other persons would have seized it, it is clear that he believed he ought to have kept the oath, and that in violating it he went against his own conscience. So it seems that we ought to oppose him and resist his attempt to hold the empire, since he is legally under excommunication and is guilty of perjury. It appears also that we may properly oppose his election, for by his succession, brother will be succeeding brother, just as formerly son succeeded father when Frederick handed on the crown to his son [Henry VI] and Henry tried to do the same for his son [Frederick II]; and thus the empire tends to become hereditary, the abuse becoming law by long custom. Also it appears expedient to oppose him, for he is a persecutor, and of a race of persecutors, and if we do not oppose him now we shall be arming our enemy against ourselves.