THE INQUISITION FOUNDED.
The gradual organization of the Inquisition was simply a process of
evolution arising from the mutual reaction of the social forces which we
have described. The Albigensian Crusades had put an end to open
resistance, yet the heretics were none the less numerous, and, if less
defiant, were only the more difficult to discover. The triumph of force
had increased the responsibility of the Church, while the imperfection
of its means of discharging that responsibility was self-confessed in
the enormous spread of heresy during the twelfth century. We have seen
the confused and uncertain manner in which the local prelates had sought
to meet the new demands upon them. When the existence of hidden crime is
suspected there are three stages in the process of its suppression--the
discovery of the criminal, the proof of his guilt, and finally his
punishment. Of all others the crime of heresy was the most difficult to
discover and to prove, and when its progress became threatening the
ecclesiastics on whom fell the responsibility of its eradication were
equally at a loss in each of the three steps to be taken for its
extermination.
Immersed, for the most part, in the multiplied troubles connected with
the overgrown temporalities of their sees, the bishops would await
popular rumor to designate some man or group of men as heretical. On
seizing the suspected persons, there was rarely any external evidence to
prove their guilt, for except where numbers rendered repression
impossible, the sectaries were assiduous in outward conformity to
orthodox observance, and the slender theological training of episcopal
officials was generally unequal to the task of extracting confessions
from thoughtful and keen-witted men, or of convicting them out of their
own mouths. The judicial use of torture was as yet happily unknown, and
the current substitute of a barbarous age, the Ordeal, was resorted to
with a frequency which shows how ludicrously helpless were the
ecclesiastics called upon to perform functions so novel. Even St.
Bernard approved of this expedient, and in 1157 the Council of Reims
prescribed it as the rule in all cases of suspected heresy. More
enlightened churchmen viewed its results with well-grounded disbelief,
and Peter Cantor mentions several cases to prove its injustice. A poor
woman accused of Catharism was abandoned to die of hunger, till in
confession to a religious dean she protested her innocence and was
advised by him to offer the hot-iron ordeal in proof, which she did with
the result of being burned first by the iron and then at the stake. A
good Catholic, against whom the only suspicious evidence was his poverty
and his pallor, was ordered by an assembly of bishops to undergo the
same ordeal, which he refused to do unless the prelates would prove to
him that this would not be a mortal sin in tempting God. This tenderness
of conscience was sufficient, so without further parley they unanimously
handed him over to the secular authorities, and he was promptly burned.
With the study of the Roman law, however, this mode of procedure
gradually fell into disfavor with the Church, and the enlightenment of
Innocent III. peremptorily forbade its use in 1212, when it was
extensively employed by Henry of Vehringen, Bishop of Strassburg, to
convict a number of heretics; while in 1215 the Council of Lateran,
following the example of Alexander III. and Lucius III., formally
prohibited all ecclesiastics from taking part in the administration of
ordeals of any kind. How great was the perplexity of ignorant prelates,
debarred from this ready method of seeking the judgment of God, may be
guessed by the expedient which had, in 1170, been adopted by the good
Bishop of Besançon, when the religious repose of his diocese was
troubled by some miracle-working heretics. He is described as a learned
man, and yet to solve his doubts as to whether the strangers were saints
or heretics, he summoned the assistance of an ecclesiastic deeply
skilled in necromancy and ordered him to ascertain the truth by
consulting Satan. The cunning clerk deceived the devil into a
confidential mood and learned that the strangers were his servants; they
were deprived of the satanic amulets which were their protection, and
the populace, which had previously sustained them, cast them pitilessly
into the flames.[269]
When supernatural means were not resorted to, the proceedings were far
too cumbrous and uncertain to be efficient against an evil so widely
spread and against malefactors so numerous. In 1204 Gui, Archbishop of
Reims, summoned Count Robert, cousin of Philip Augustus, the Countess
Yolande, and many other laymen and ecclesiastics to sit in judgment on
some heretics discovered at Brienne, with the result of burning the
unfortunate wretches. In 1201, when the Knight Everard of Châteauneuf
was accused of Catharism by Bishop Hugues of Nevers, the Legate Octavian
summoned for his trial at Paris a council composed of archbishops,
bishops, and masters of the university, who condemned him. All this was
complicated by the supreme universal jurisdiction of Rome, which enabled
those who were skilful and rich to protract indefinitely the proceedings
and perhaps at last to escape. Thus in 1211 a canon of Langres, accused
of heresy, was summoned by his bishop to appear before a council of
theologians assembled to examine him. Though he had sworn to do so and
had given bail, he failed to come forward, and was, after three days'
waiting, condemned in default. His absence was accounted for when he
turned up in Rome and asserted to Innocent that he had been forced to
take the oath and give security after he had appealed to the Holy See.
The pope sent him back to the Archbishop of Sens, to the Bishop of
Nevers, and Master Robert de Corzon, with instructions to examine into
his orthodoxy. Two years later, in 1213, he is again seen in Rome,
explaining that he had feared to come before his judges at the appointed
time, because the popular feeling against heresy was so strong that not
only were all heretics burned, but all who were even suspected,
wherefore he craved papal protection and permission to perform due
purgation at Rome. Innocent again sent him back with orders to the
prelates to give him a safe-conduct and protection until his case should
be decided. Whether he was innocent or guilty, whether absolved or
condemned, is of little moment. The case sufficiently shows the
impossibility of efficient suppression of heresy under the existing
system.[270]
Even after conviction had been obtained there was the same uncertainty
as to penalties. In the case of the Cathari who confessed at Liége in
1144, and were with difficulty rescued from the mob who sought to burn
them, the church authorities applied to Lucius II. for instructions as
to what disposition should be made of them. Those who were captured in
Flanders in 1162 were sent to Alexander III., then in France, for
judgment, and he sent them back to the Archbishop of Reims. William
Abbot of Vezelai possessed full jurisdiction, but when, in 1167, he had
some confessed heretics on his hands, in his embarrassment he asked the
assembled crowd what he should do with them, and the ready sentence was
found in the unanimous shout, "Burn them! burn them!" which was duly
executed, although one who recanted and was yet condemned by the water
ordeal was publicly scourged and banished by the abbot in spite of a
popular demand for concremation. In 1114 the Bishop of Soissons, after
convicting some heretics by the water ordeal, went to the Council of
Beauvais to consult as to their punishment; but during his absence the
people, fearing the lenity of the bishops, broke into the jail and
burned them.[271]
It was not that the Church was absolutely devoid of the machinery for
discharging its admitted function of suppressing heresy. It is true that
in the early days of the Carlovingian revival, Zachary's instructions to
St. Boniface show that the only recognized method at that time of
disposing of heretics was by summoning a council, and sending the
convicted culprits to Rome for final judgment. Charlemagne's civilizing
policy, however, made efficient use of all instrumentalities capable of
maintaining order and security in his empire, and the bishops assumed an
important position in his system. They were ordered, in conjunction with
the secular officials, zealously to prohibit all superstitious
observances and remnants of paganism; to travel assiduously throughout
their dioceses making strict inquiry as to all sins abhorred of God,
and thus a considerable jurisdiction was placed in their hands, although
strictly subordinated to the State. During the troubles which followed
the division of the empire, as the feudal system arose on the ruins of
the monarchy, gradually the bishops threw off not only dependence on the
crown, but acquired extensive rights and powers in the administration of
the canon law, which now no longer depended on the civil or municipal
law, but assumed to be its superior. Thus came to be founded the
spiritual courts which were attached to every episcopate and which
exercised exclusive jurisdiction over a constantly widening field of
jurisprudence. Of course all errors of faith necessarily came within
their purview.[272]
The organization and functions of these courts received a powerful
impetus through the study of the Roman law after the middle of the
twelfth century. Ecclesiastics, in fact, monopolized to such an extent
the educated intelligence of the age that at first there were few
besides themselves to penetrate into the mysteries of the Code and
Digest. Even in the second half of the thirteenth century Roger Bacon
complains that a civil lawyer, even if wholly untrained in canon law and
theology, had a much better chance of high preferment than a theologian,
and he exclaims in bitterness that the Church is governed by lawyers to
the great injury of all Christian folk. Thus long before the feudal and
seignorial courts felt the influence of the imperial jurisprudence, it
had profoundly modified the principles and practice of ecclesiastical
procedure. The old archdeacon gave way, not without vituperation, before
the formal episcopal judge, known as the Official or Ordinary, who was
usually a doctor of both laws--an LL.D. in fact--learned in both civil
and canon law; and the effect of this was soon seen in a systematizing
of ecclesiastical jurisprudence which gave it an immense advantage over
the rude processes of the feudal and customary law. These episcopal
courts, moreover, were soon surrounded by a crowd of clerkly advocates,
whose zeal for their clients often outran their discretion, furnishing
the first mediæval representatives of the legal profession.[273]
Following in the traces of the civil law, there were three forms of
action in criminal cases--_accusatio_, _denunciatio_, and _inquisitio_.
In _accusatio_ there was an accuser who formally inscribed himself as
responsible and was subject to the _talio_ in case of failure.
_Denunciatio_ was the official act of the public officer, such as the
_testis synodalis_ or archdeacon, who summoned the court to take action
against offenders coming within his official knowledge. In _inquisitio_
the Ordinary cited the suspected criminal, imprisoning him if necessary;
the indictment, or _capitula inquisitionis_, was communicated to him,
and he was interrogated thereupon, with the proviso that nothing
extraneous to the indictment could be subsequently brought into the case
to aggravate it. If the defendant could not be made to confess, the
Ordinary proceeded to take testimony, and though the examination of
witnesses was not conducted in the defendant's presence, their names and
evidence were communicated to him, he could summon witnesses in
rebuttal, and his advocate had full opportunity to defend him by
argument, exception, and appeal. The Ordinary finally gave the verdict;
if uncertain as to guilt, he prescribed the _purgatio canonica_, or oath
of denial shared by a given number of peers of the accused, more or
less, according to the nature of the charge and degree of suspicion. In
all cases of conviction by the inquisitorial process, the penalty
inflicted was lighter than in accusation or denunciation. The danger was
recognized of a procedure in which the judge was also the accuser; a man
must be popularly reputed as guilty before the Ordinary could commence
inquisition against him, and this not by merely a few men or by his
enemies, or those unworthy of belief. There must be ample ground for
esteeming him guilty before this extraordinary power vested in the judge
could be exercised. It is important to bear in mind the equitable
provisions of all this episcopal jurisdiction when we come to consider
the methods of what we call the Inquisition, erected on these
foundations.[274]
Theoretically there also existed a thorough system of general
inquisition or inquest for the detection of all offences, including
heresy; and as it was only an application of this which gave rise to the
Inquisition, it is worth our brief attention. The idea of a systematic
investigation into infractions of the law was familiar to secular as
well as to ecclesiastical jurisprudence. In the Roman law, although
there was no public prosecutor, it was part of the duty of the ruler or
proconsul to make perquisition after all criminals with a view to their
detection and punishment, and Septimius Severus, in the year 202, had
made the persecution of Christians an especial feature of this official
inquisition. The Missi Dominici of Charlemagne were officials
commissioned to traverse the empire, making diligent inquisition into
all cases of disorder, crime, and injustice, with jurisdiction over
clerk and layman alike. They held their assizes four times a year,
listened to all complaints and accusations, and were empowered to
redress all wrongs and to punish all offenders of whatever rank. The
institution was maintained by the successors of Charlemagne so long as
the royal power could assert itself; and after the Capetian revolution,
as soon as the new dynasty found itself established with a jurisdiction
that could be enforced beyond the narrow bounds set by feudalism, it
adopted a similar expedient of "inquisitors," with a view of keeping the
royal officials under control and insuring a due enforcement of the law.
The same device is seen in the itinerant justiciaries of England, at
least as early as the Assizes of Clarendon in 1166, when, utilizing the
Anglo-Saxon organization, they made an inquest in every hundred and
tithing by the lawful men of the vicinage to try and punish all who were
publicly suspected of crime, giving rise to the time-honored system of
the grand-jury--in itself a prototype of the incipient papal
Inquisition. Similar in character were the "Inquisitors and Manifestors"
whom we find in Verona in 1228, employed by the State for the detection
and punishment of blasphemy; and a still stronger resemblance is seen in
the _Jurados_ of Sardinia in the fourteenth century--inhabitants
selected in each district and sworn to investigate all cases of crime,
to capture the malefactor, and to bring him before court for trial.[275]
The Church naturally fell into the same system. We have just seen that
Charlemagne ordered his bishops to make diligent visitations throughout
their dioceses, investigating all offences; and with the growth of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction this inquisitorial duty was, nominally at
least, perfected and organized. Already at the commencement of the tenth
century we find in use a method (falsely attributed to Pope Eutychianus)
which was subsequently imitated by the Inquisition. As the bishop
reached each parish in his visitation, the whole body of the people was
assembled in a local synod. From among these he selected seven men of
mature age and approved integrity who were then sworn on relics to
reveal without fear or favor whatever they might know or hear, then or
subsequently, of any offence requiring investigation. These _testes
synodales_, or synodal witnesses, became an institution established,
theoretically at least, in the Church, and long lists of interrogatories
were drawn up to guide the bishops in examining them so that no possible
sin or immorality might escape the searching inquisition. Yet how
completely these well-devised measures fell into desuetude, under the
negligence of the bishops, is seen in the surprise awakened when, in
1246, Robert Grosseteste, the reforming Bishop of Lincoln, ordered, at
the suggestion of the Franciscans, such a general inquisition into the
morals of the people throughout his extensive diocese. His archdeacons
and deans summoned both noble and commoner before them and examined them
under oath, as required by the canons; but the proceeding was so unusual
and brought to light so many scandals that Henry III. was induced to
interfere and ordered the sheriffs to put an end to it.[276]
The Church thus possessed an organization well adapted for the discovery
and investigation of heretics. All that it lacked were the men who
should put that organization to its destined use; and the progress of
heresy up to the date of the Albigensian Crusades manifests how utterly
neglectful were the ignorant prelates of the day, immersed in worldly
cares, for the most part, and thinking only of the methods by which
their temporalities could be defended and their revenues increased.
Successive popes made fruitless efforts to arouse them to a sense of
duty and induce them to use the means at their disposal for a systematic
and vigorous onslaught on the sectaries, who daily grew more alarming.
From the assembly of prelates who attended, in 1184, the meeting at
Verona between Lucius III. and Frederic Barbarossa, the pope issued a
decretal at the instance of the emperor and with the assent of the
bishops, which if strictly and energetically obeyed might have
established an episcopal instead of a papal Inquisition. In addition to
the oath--referred to in a previous chapter--prescribed to every ruler,
to assist the Church in persecuting heresy, all archbishops and bishops
were ordered, either personally or by their archdeacons or other fitting
persons, once or twice a year to visit every parish where there was
suspicion of heresy, and compel two or three men of good character, or
the whole vicinage if necessary, to swear to reveal any reputed heretic,
or any person holding secret conventicles, or in any way differing in
mode of life from the faithful in general. The prelate was to summon to
his presence those designated, who, unless they could purge themselves
at his discretion, or in accordance with local custom, were to be
punished as the bishop might see fit. Similarly, any who refused to
swear, through superstition, were to be condemned and punished as
heretics _ipso facto_. Obstinate heretics, refusing to abjure and return
to the Church with due penance, and those who after abjuration relapsed,
were to be abandoned to the secular arm for fitting punishment. There
was nothing organically new in all this--only a utilizing of existing
institutions and an endeavor to recall the bishops to a sense of their
duties; but a further important step was taken in removing all
exemptions from episcopal jurisdiction in the matter of heresy and
subjecting to their bishops the privileged monastic orders which
depended directly on Rome. Fautors of heresy were, moreover, declared
incapable of acting as advocates or witnesses or of filling any public
office.[277]
We have already seen how utterly this effort failed to arouse the
hierarchy from their sloth. The weapons rusted in the careless hands of
the bishops, and the heretics became ever more numerous and more
enterprising, until their gathering strength showed clearly that if Rome
would retain her domination she must summon the faithful to the
arbitrament of arms. She did not shrink from the alternative, but she
recognized that even the triumph of her crusading hosts would be
comparatively a barren victory in the absence of an organized system of
persecution. Thus while de Montfort and his bands were slaying the
abettors of heresy who dared to resist in the field, a council assembled
in Avignon, in 1209, under the presidency of the papal legate, Hugues,
and enacted a series of regulations which are little more than a
repetition of those so fruitlessly promulgated twenty-five years before
by Lucius III., the principal change being that in every parish a priest
should be adjoined to the laymen who were to act as synodal witnesses or
local inquisitors of heresy. Under this arrangement, repeated by the
Council of Montpellier in 1215, there was considerable persecution and
not a few burnings. In the same spirit, when the Council of Lateran met
in 1215 to consolidate the conquests which then seemed secure to the
Church, it again repeated the orders of Lucius. No other device
suggested itself, no further means seemed either available or requisite,
if only this could be carried out, and its enforcement was sought by
decreeing the deposition of any bishop neglecting this paramount duty,
and his replacement by one willing and able to confound heresy.[278]
This utterance of the supreme council of Christendom was as ineffectual
as its predecessors. An occasional earnest fanatic was found, like
Foulques of Toulouse or Henry of Strassburg, who labored vigorously in
the suppression of heresy, but for the most part the prelates were as
negligent as ever, and there is no trace of any sustained and systematic
endeavor to put in practice the periodical inquisition so strenuously
enjoined. The Council of Narbonne, in 1227, imperatively commanded all
bishops to institute in every parish _testes synodales_ who should
investigate heresy and other offences, and report them to the episcopal
officials, but the good prelates who composed the assembly, satisfied
with this exhibition of vigor, separated and allowed matters to run on
their usual course. We hardly need the assurance of the contemporary
Lucas of Tuy, that bishops for the most part were indifferent as to the
matter of heresy, while some even protected heretics for filthy gain,
saying, when reproached, "How can we condemn those who are neither
convicted nor confessed?" No better success followed the device of the
Council of Béziers in 1234, which earnestly ordered the parish priests
to make out lists of all suspected of heresy and keep a strict watch
upon them.[279]
The popes had endeavored to overcome this episcopal indifference by a
sort of irregular and spasmodic Legatine Inquisition. As the papal
jurisdiction extended itself under the system of Gregory VII. the legate
had become a very useful instrument to bring the papal power to bear
upon the internal affairs of the dioceses. As the direct representatives
and plenipotentiaries of the vicegerent of God the legates carried and
exercised the supreme authority of the Holy See into the remotest
corners of Christendom. That they should be employed in stimulating
languid persecution was inevitable. We have already seen the part they
played in the affairs of the Albigenses, from the time of Henry of
Citeaux to that of Cardinal Romano. In the absence of any systematic
method of procedure they were even used in special cases to supplement
the ignorance of local prelates, as when, in 1224, Honorius III. ordered
Conrad, Bishop of Hildesheim, to bring before the Legate Cinthio,
Cardinal of Porto, for judgment Henry Minneke, Provost of St. Maria of
Goslar, whom he held in prison on suspicion of heresy. It was, however,
in Toulouse, after the treaty of Paris, in 1229, that we find the most
noteworthy case of the concurrence of legatine and episcopal action,
showing how crude as yet were the conceptions of the nascent
Inquisition. After Count Raymond had been reconciled to the Church, he
returned in July to his dominions, followed by the Cardinal-Legate
Romano, to see to the execution of the treaty and to turn back the armed
"pilgrims" who were swarming to fight for the Cross, and who revenged
themselves for their disappointment by wantonly destroying the harvests
and creating a famine in the land. In September a council was assembled
at Toulouse, consisting of all the prelates of Languedoc, and most of
the leading barons. This adopted a canon ordering anew all archbishops,
bishops, and exempted abbots to put in force the device of the synodal
witnesses, who were charged with the duty of making constant inquisition
for heretics and examining all suspected houses, subterranean rooms, and
other hiding-places; but there is no trace of any obedience to this
command or of any results arising from it. Under the impulsion of the
legate and of Foulques of Toulouse, however, the council itself was
turned into an inquisition. A converted "perfected" Catharan, named
Guillem de Solier, was found and was restored to his legal rights in
order to enable him to give evidence against his former brethren, while
Bishop Foulques industriously hunted up other witnesses. Each bishop
present took his share in examining these, sending to Foulques the
evidence reduced to writing, and thus, we are told, a vast amount of
business was accomplished in a short time. It was found that the
heretics had mostly pledged each other to secrecy, and that it was
virtually impossible to extract anything from them, but a few of the
more timid came forward voluntarily and confessed, and of course each
one of these, under the rules in force, was obliged to tell all he knew
about others, as the condition of reconciliation. A vast amount of
evidence was thus collected, which was taken by the legate for the
purpose of deciding the fate of the accused, and with it he left
Toulouse for Montpellier. A few of the more hardy offenders endeavored
to defend themselves judicially, and demanded to see the names of the
witnesses, even following the legate to Montpellier for that purpose;
but he, under the pretext that this demand was for the purpose of
slaying those who had testified against them, adroitly eluded it by
exhibiting a combined list of all the witnesses, so that the culprits
were forced to submit without defence. He then held another council at
Orange, and sent to Foulques the sentences, which were duly communicated
to the accused assembled for the purpose in the church of St. Jacques.
All the papers of the inquisition were carried to Rome by the legate for
fear that if they should fall into the hands of the evil-minded they
would be the cause of many murders--and, in fact, a number of the
witnesses were slain on simple suspicion.[280]
All this shows how crude and cumbrous an implement was the episcopal and
legatine Inquisition even in the most energetic hands, and how formless
and tentative was its procedure. A few instances of the use of synodal
witnesses are subsequently to be found, as in the Council of Arles, in
1234, that of Tours, in 1239, that of Béziers, in 1246, of Albi, in
1254, and in a letter of Alphonse of Poitiers in 1257, urging his
bishops to appoint them as required by the Council of Toulouse. An
occasional example of the legatine Inquisition may also be met with. In
1237 the inquisitors of Toulouse were acting under legatine powers, as
sub-delegates to the Legate Jean de Vienne; and in the same year, when
the people of Montpellier asked the pope for assistance to suppress the
growth of heresy, their bishop apparently being supine, he sent Jean de
Vienne there with instructions to act vigorously. The episcopal office
was similarly disregarded in 1239, when Gregory IX. sent orders to the
inquisitors of Toulouse to obey the instructions of his legate. Yet this
legatine function in time passed so completely out of remembrance that
in 1351 the Signiory of Florence asked the papal legate to desist from a
charge of heresy on which he had cited the Camaldulensian abbot, because
the republic had never permitted its citizens to be judged for such an
offence except by the inquisitors; and as early as 1257, when the
inquisitors of Languedoc complained of the zeal of the Legate Zoen,
Bishop of Avignon, in carrying on inquisitorial work, Alexander IV.
promptly decided that he had no such power outside of his own
diocese.[281]
The public opinion of the ruling classes of Europe demanded that heresy
should be exterminated at whatever cost, and yet with the suppression of
open resistance the desired end seemed as far off as ever. Bishop and
legate were alike unequal to the task of discovering those who carefully
shrouded themselves under the cloak of the most orthodox observance; and
when by chance a nest of heretics was brought to light, the learning and
skill of the average Ordinary failed to elicit a confession from those
who professed the most entire accord with the teachings of Rome. In the
absence of overt acts it was difficult to reach the secret thoughts of
the sectary. Trained experts were needed whose sole business it should
be to unearth the offenders and extort a confession of their guilt. As
this necessity became more and more apparent two new factors contributed
to the solution of the long-vexed problem.
The first of these was the organization of the Mendicant Orders, whose
peculiar fitness for the work which had outgrown the capacity of the
episcopal courts might well make their establishment seem a providential
interposition to supply the Church of Christ with what it most sorely
needed. As the necessity grew apparent of special and permanent
tribunals devoted exclusively to the wide-spread sin of heresy, there
was every reason why they should be wholly free from the local
jealousies and enmities which might tend to the prejudice of the
innocent, or the local favoritism which might connive at the escape of
the guilty. If, in addition to this freedom from local partialities, the
examiners and judges were men specially trained to the detection and
conversion of the heretic; if, also, they had by irrevocable vows
renounced the world; if they could acquire no wealth and were dead to
the enticements of pleasure, every guarantee seemed to be afforded that
their momentous duties would be fulfilled with the strictest
justice--that while the purity of the faith would be protected, there
would be no unnecessary oppression or cruelty or persecution dictated by
private interests and personal revenge. Their unlimited popularity was
also a warrant that they would receive far more efficient assistance in
their arduous labors than could be expected by the bishops, whose
position was generally that of antagonism to their flocks and to the
petty seigneurs and powerful barons whose aid was indispensable. That
the Mendicant Orders, to which this duty thus naturally fell, were
peculiarly devoted to the papacy, and that they made the Inquisition a
powerful instrument to extend the influence of Rome and destroy what
little independence was left to the local churches, became subsequently
doubtless an additional reason for their employment, but could scarce
have been a motive in the early tentative efforts. Thus to the public of
the thirteenth century the organization of the Inquisition and its
commitment to the children of St. Dominic and St. Francis appeared a
perfectly natural or rather inevitable development arising from the
admitted necessities of the time and the instrumentalities at hand.
The other factor which promised success to the Church, in an organized
effort to discharge the duty of persecution, was the secular legislation
against heresy which at this period took form and shape. We have seen
the spasmodic edicts of England and Aragon in the twelfth century, which
have interest only as showing the absence of anterior penal laws.
Frederic Barbarossa took no effective steps to give validity to the
regulations which Lucius III. issued from Verona in 1184, though they
purported to be drawn up with the emperor's sanction. The body of
customary law which de Montfort adopted at Pamiers in 1212 of course
disappeared with his short-lived domination. There had been, it is true,
some fragmentary attempts at legislation, as when the Emperor Henry VI.,
in 1194, prescribed confiscation of property, severe personal
punishment, and destruction of houses for heretics, and heavy fines for
persons or communities omitting to arrest them; and this was virtually
repeated in 1210 by Otho IV., showing how soon it had been forgotten.
How little uniformity, indeed, there was in the treatment of heresy is
proved by such stray edicts of the period as chance to have reached us.
Thus in 1217 Nuñez Sancho of Rosellon decreed outlawry for heretics, and
in 1228 Jayme I. of Aragon followed his example, showing that this could
not have previously been customary. On the other hand, the statutes of
Pignerol in 1220 only inflict a fine of ten sols for knowingly giving
shelter to Vaudois. Louis VIII. of France, just before his death, issued
an _ordonnance_ punishing this same crime with confiscation and
deprivation of all legal rights, while the royal officials were ordered
to inflict proper and immediate punishment on all who were convicted of
heresy by the ecclesiastical judges. The statutes in force in Florence
in 1227 required the bishop to act in conjunction with the podestà in
all prosecutions for heresy, which was a serious limitation on the
episcopal courts. In 1228 we hear of new laws adopted in Milan, at the
instance of the papal legate, Goffredo, by which all heretics were
banished from the territory of the republic, their houses torn down, the
contents confiscated, their persons outlawed, with graduated fines for
harboring them. A mixed secular and ecclesiastical inquisition was
established for the discovery of heretics, and the archbishop and
podestà were to co-operate in their examination and sentence; while the
latter was bound to put to death within ten days all convicts. In
Germany, as late as 1231, it required the decision of King Henry VII. to
determine the disposition of property confiscated on heretics, and
allodial lands were allowed to descend to the heirs, in contradiction,
as we shall see, to all subsequent ruling.[282]
To put in action any comprehensive system of persecution, it evidently
was requisite to overcome the centrifugal tendency of mediæval
legislation, which finds its ultimate expression in free Navarre, where
every town of importance had its special _fuero_, and almost every house
its individual custom. Innocent III. endeavored, at the Lateran Council
of 1215, to secure uniformity by a series of severe regulations defining
the attitude of the Church to heretics, and the duties which the secular
power owed to exterminate them under pain of forfeiture, and this became
a recognized part of canon law; but in the absence of active secular
co-operation its provisions for a while remained practically a dead
letter. It was reserved for the arch-enemy of the Church, Frederic II.,
to break down, throughout the greater part of Europe, the particularism
of local statutes, and place the population at the mercy of such
emissaries as the popes might send to represent them. It was requisite
for him to acquire the favor of Honorius III. to secure his coronation
in 1220; and when the inevitable rupture took place, it was still
necessary for him to meet the charge of heresy so freely brought
against him by manifesting special zeal in the persecution of heretics,
though doubtless, if left to himself, philosophic indifference would
have led him to tolerate any form of belief that did not threaten
disobedience to the ruler.[283]
In a series of edicts dating from 1220 to 1239 he thus enacted a
complete and pitiless code of persecution, based upon the Lateran
canons. Those who were merely suspected of heresy were required to purge
themselves at command of the Church, under penalty of being deprived of
civil rights and placed under the imperial ban; while, if they remained
in this condition for a year, they were to be condemned as heretics.
Heretics of all sects were outlawed; and when condemned as such by the
Church they were to be delivered to the secular arm to be burned. If,
through fear of death, they recanted, they were to be thrust in prison
for life, there to perform penance. If they relapsed into error, thus
showing that their conversion had been fictitious, they were to be put
to death. All the property of the heretic was confiscated and his heirs
disinherited. His children, to the second generation, were declared
ineligible to any positions of emolument or dignity, unless they should
win mercy by betraying their father or some other heretic. All
"credentes," fautors, defenders, receivers, or advocates of heretics
were banished forever, their property confiscated, and their descendants
subjected to the same disabilities as those of heretics. Those who
defended the errors of heretics were to be treated as heretics unless,
on admonition, they mended their ways. The houses of heretics and their
receivers were to be destroyed, never to be rebuilt. Although the
evidence of a heretic was not receivable in court, yet an exception was
made in favor of the faith, and it was to be held good against another
heretic. All rulers and magistrates, present or future, were required to
swear to exterminate with their utmost ability all whom the Church might
designate as heretics, under pain of forfeiture of office. The lands of
any temporal lord who neglected, for a year after summons by the Church,
to clear them of heresy, were exposed to the occupancy of any Catholics
who, after extirpating the heretics, were to possess them in peace
without prejudice to the rights of the suzerain, provided he had
offered no opposition. When the papal Inquisition was commenced,
Frederic hastened, in 1232, to place the whole machinery of the State at
the command of the inquisitors, who were authorized to call upon any
official to capture whomsoever they might designate as a heretic, and
hold him in prison until the Church should condemn him, when he was to
be put to death.[284]
This fiendish legislation was hailed by the Church with acclamation, and
was not allowed to remain, like its predecessors, a dead letter. The
coronation-edict of 1220 was sent by Honorius to the University of
Bologna to be read and taught as a part of practical law. It was
consequently embodied in the authoritative compilation of the feudal
customs, and its most stringent enactments were incorporated in the
Civil Code. The whole series of edicts was subsequently promulgated by
successive popes in repeated bulls, commanding all states and cities to
inscribe these laws irrevocably in their local statute-books. It became
the duty of the inquisitors to see that this was done, to swear all
magistrates and officials to enforce them, and to compel their obedience
by the free use of excommunication. In 1222, when the magistrates of
Rieti adopted laws conflicting with them, Honorius at once ordered the
offenders removed from office; in 1227 the people of Rimini resisted,
but were coerced to submission; in 1253, when some of the Lombard cities
demurred, Innocent IV. promptly ordered the inquisitors to subdue them;
in 1254 Asti peacefully accepted them as part of its local laws; Como
followed the example, September 10, 1255; and in the recension of the
laws of Florence made as late as 1355, they still appear as an integral
part. Finally, they were incorporated in the latest additions to the
Corpus Juris as part of the canon law itself, and, technically speaking,
they may be regarded as in force to the present day.[285]
This virtually provided for a very large portion of Europe, extending
from Sicily to the North Sea. The western regions made haste to follow
the pious example. Coincident with the Treaty of Paris, in 1229, was an
_ordonnance_ issued in the name of the boy-king, Louis IX., giving
efficient assistance by the royal officials to the Church in its efforts
to purge the land of heresy. In the territories which remained to Count
Raymond his vacillating course gave rise to much dissatisfaction, until,
in 1234, he was compelled to enact, with the consent of his prelates and
barons, a statute drawn up by the fanatic Raymond du Fauga of Toulouse,
which embodied all the practical points of Frederic's legislation, and
decreed confiscation against every one who failed, when called upon, to
aid the Church in the capture and detention of heretics. In the
compilations and law books of the latter half of the century we see the
system thoroughly established as the law of the whole land, and in 1315
Louis Hutin formally adopted the edicts of Frederic and made them valid
throughout France.[286]
In Aragon Don Jayme I., in 1226, issued an edict prohibiting all
heretics from entering his dominions, probably on account of the
fugitives driven out of Languedoc by the crusade of Louis VIII. In 1234,
in conjunction with his prelates, he drew up a series of laws
instituting an episcopal Inquisition of the severest character, to be
supported by the royal officials; in this appears for the first time a
secular prohibition of the Bible in the vernacular. All possessing any
books of the Old or New Testament, "in Romancio," are summoned to
deliver them within eight days to their bishops to be burned, under pain
of being held suspect of heresy. Thus, with the exception of farther
Spain and the Northern nations, where heresy had never taken root,
throughout Christendom the State was rendered completely subservient to
the Church in the great task of exterminating heresy. And, when the
Inquisition had been established, the enforcing of this legislation was
the peculiar privilege of the inquisitors, whose ceaseless vigilance and
unlimited powers gave full assurance that it would be relentlessly
carried into effect.[287]
Meanwhile zeal or jealousy led, in the confusion and uncertainty of this
transition period, to the experiment, in several parts of Italy, of a
secular Inquisition. In Rome, in 1231, Gregory IX. drew up a series of
regulations which was issued by the Senator Annibaldo in the name of the
Roman people. Under this the senator was bound to capture all who were
designated to him as heretics, whether by inquisitors appointed by the
Church or other good Catholics, and to punish them within eight days
after condemnation. Of their confiscated property one third went to the
detector, one third to the senator, and one third to repairing the city
walls. Any house in which a heretic was received was to be destroyed,
and converted forever into a receptacle of filth. "Credentes" were
treated as heretics, while fautors, receivers, etc., forfeited one third
of their possessions, applicable to the city walls. A fine of twenty
lire was imposed on any one cognizant of heresy and not denouncing it;
while the senator who neglected to enforce the law was subject to a
mulct of two hundred marks and perpetual disability to office. To
appreciate the magnitude of these fines we must consider the rude
poverty of the Italy of the period as described by a contemporary--the
squalor of daily life and the scarcity of the precious metals, as
indicated by the absence of gold and silver ornaments in the dress of
the period. Not satisfied with the local enforcement of these
regulations, Gregory sent them to the archbishops and princes throughout
Europe, with orders to put them in execution in their respective
territories, and for some time they formed the basis of inquisitorial
proceedings. In Rome the perquisition was successful, and the faithful
were rewarded with the spectacle of a considerable number of burnings;
while Gregory, encouraged by success, proceeded to issue a decretal,
forming the basis of all subsequent inquisitorial legislation, by which
condemned heretics were to be abandoned to the secular arm for exemplary
punishment, those who returned to the Church were to be perpetually
imprisoned, and every one cognizant of heresy was bound to denounce it
to the ecclesiastical authorities under pain of excommunication.[288]
At the same time Frederic II., who desired to give Rome as little
foothold as possible in his Neapolitan dominions, placed the business of
persecution there in the hands of the royal officials. In his Sicilian
Constitutions, issued in 1231, he ordered his representatives to make
diligent inquisition into the heretics who walk in darkness. All,
however slightly suspected, are to be arrested and subjected to
examination by ecclesiastics, and those who deviate ever so little from
the faith, if obstinate, are to be gratified with the fiery martyrdom to
which they aspire, while any one daring to intercede for them shall feel
the full weight of the imperial displeasure. As the legislation of a
free-thinker, this shows the irresistible weight of public opinion, to
which Frederic dared not run counter. Nor did he allow this to remain a
dead letter. A number of executions under it took place forthwith, and
two years later we find him writing to Gregory deploring that this had
not been sufficient, for heresy was reviving, and that he therefore had
ordered the justiciary of each district, in conjunction with some
prelate, to renew the inquisition with all activity; the bishops were
required to traverse their dioceses thoroughly, in company, when
necessary, of judges delegated for the purpose; in each province the
General Court held two assizes a year, when heresy was punished like any
other crime. Yet, so far from praising this systematized persecution,
Gregory replied that Frederic was using pretended zeal to punish his
personal enemies, and was burning good Catholics rather than
heretics.[289]
* * * * *
In this confused and irregular striving to accomplish the extirpation of
heresy, it was inevitable that the Holy See should intervene, and
through the exercise of its supreme apostolic authority seek to provide
some general system for the efficient performance of the indispensable
duty. The only wonder, indeed, is that this should have been postponed
so long and have been at last commenced so tentatively and
apologetically.
In 1226 an effort was made to check the rapid spread of Catharism in
Florence by the arrest of the heretic bishop Filippo Paternon, whose
diocese extended from Pisa to Arezzo. He was tried, in accordance with
the existing Florentine statutes, by the bishop and podestà conjointly,
when he cut short the proceedings by abjuration, and was released; but
he speedily relapsed, and became more odious than ever to the orthodox.
In 1227 a converted heretic complained of this backsliding to Gregory
IX., and the pontiff, who had just ascended the papal throne, made haste
to remedy the evil by issuing a commission, which may be regarded as the
foundation of the papal Inquisition. Yet it was exceedingly unobtrusive,
though the church of Florence was so directly under papal control.
Bearing date June 20, 1227, it simply authorizes Giovanni di Salerno,
prior of the Dominican house of Santa Maria Novella, with one of his
frati and Canon Bernardo, to proceed judicially against Paternon and his
followers and force them to abjuration; acting, in case of obstinacy,
under the canons of the Lateran Council, and, if necessary, calling upon
the clerks and laymen of the sees of Florence and Fiesole for aid. Thus,
while there was no scruple in invading the jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Florence, there was no legislation other than the Lateran canons to
guide the proceedings. What the commissioners accomplished with regard
to the inferior heretics is not known. They succeeded in capturing
Bishop Paternon and cast him in prison, but he was forcibly rescued by
his friends and disappeared, leaving his episcopate to his successor,
Torsello.[290]
Frà Giovanni retained his commission until his death in 1230, when a
successor was appointed in the person of another Dominican, Aldobrandino
Cavalcanti. Still, their jurisdiction was as yet wholly undetermined,
for in June, 1229, we hear of the Abbot of San Miniato carrying to
Gregory IX., in Perugia, two leading heretics, Andrea and Pietro, who
were forced to a public abjuration in presence of the papal court; and
in several cases in 1234 we find Gregory IX. intervening, taking bail of
the accused and sending special instructions to the inquisitor in
charge. Yet the Inquisition was gradually taking shape, for shortly
afterwards there were numerous heretics discovered, some of whom were
burned, their trials being still preserved in the archives of Santa
Maria Novella. Yet how little thought there could have been of founding
a permanent institution is shown, in 1233, by the persecuting statutes
drawn up by Bishop Ardingho, approved by Gregory, and ordered by him to
be irrevocably inscribed in the statute-book of Florence. In these the
bishop is still the persecuting representative of the Church, and there
is no allusion to inquisitors. The podestà is bound to arrest any one
pointed out to him by the bishop, and to punish him within eight days
after the episcopal condemnation, with other provisions borrowed from
the edicts of Frederic II. Frà Aldobrandino seems to have relied rather
on preaching than on persecution; in fact he nowhere in the documents
signed by him qualifies himself as inquisitor, and neither his efforts
nor those of Bishop Ardingho were able to prevent the rapid growth of
heresy. In 1235, when the project of an organized Inquisition throughout
Europe was taking shape, Gregory appointed the Dominican Provincial of
Rome inquisitor throughout his extensive province, which embraced both
Sicily and Tuscany; but this seems to have proved too large a district,
and about 1240 we find the city of Florence under the charge of Frà
Ruggieri Calcagni. He was of a temper well fitted to extend the
prerogatives of his office and to render it effective; but it was not
until 1243 that he qualified himself as "_Inquisitor Domini Papœ in
Tuscia_," and in a sentence rendered in 1245 he is careful to call
himself inquisitor of Bishop Ardingho as well as of the pope, and
recites the episcopal commission given him as authority to act. In the
proceedings of this period the rudimentary character of the Inquisition
is evident. One confession in 1244 bears only the names of two frati,
the inquisitor not being even present. In 1245 there are sentences
signed by Ruggieri alone, while other proceedings show him to be acting
conjointly with Ardingho. He may be said, indeed, to have given the
Inquisition in Florence form and shape when, about 1243, he opened for
the first time his independent tribunal in Santa Maria Novella, taking
as assessors two or three prominent friars of the convent and employing
public notaries to make record of his proceedings.[291]
This is a fair illustration of the gradual development of the
Inquisition. It was not an institution definitely projected and founded,
but was moulded step by step out of the materials which lay nearest to
hand fitted for the object to be attained. In fact, when Gregory,
recognizing the futility of further dependence on episcopal zeal, sought
to take advantage of the favorable secular legislation against heresy,
the preaching friars were the readiest instruments within reach for the
accomplishment of his object. We shall see hereafter how, as in
Florence, the experiment was tried in Aragon and Languedoc and Germany,
and the success which on the whole attended it and led to an extended
and permanent organization.
The Inquisition has sometimes been said to have been founded April 20,
1233, the day on which Gregory issued two bulls making the persecution
of heresy the special function of the Dominicans; but the apologetic
tone in which he addresses the prelates shows how uncertain he felt as
to their enduring this invasion of their jurisdiction, while the
character of his instructions proves that he had no conception of what
the innovation was to lead to. In fact, his immediate object seems
rather the punishment of priests and other ecclesiastics, concerning
whom there was a standing complaint that they favored heretics by
instructing them how to evade examination by concealing their beliefs
and feigning orthodoxy. After reciting the necessity of subduing heresy
and the raising up by God of the preaching friars, who devote themselves
in voluntary poverty to spreading the Word and extirpating misbelief,
Gregory proceeds to tell the bishops: "We, seeing you engrossed in the
whirlwind of cares and scarce able to breathe in the pressure of
overwhelming anxieties, think it well to divide your burdens that they
may be more easily borne. We have therefore determined to send preaching
friars against the heretics of France and the adjoining provinces, and
we beg, warn, and exhort you, ordering you as you reverence the Holy
See, to receive them kindly and treat them well, giving them in this, as
in all else, favor, counsel, and aid, that they may fulfil their
office." The other bull is addressed "to the Priors and Friars of the
Order of Preachers, Inquisitors," and after alluding to the sons of
perdition who defend heresy, it proceeds: "Therefore you, or any of you,
wherever you may happen to preach, are empowered, unless they desist
from such defence (of heretics) on monition, to deprive clerks of their
benefices forever, and to proceed against them and all others, without
appeal, calling in the aid of the secular arm, if necessary, and
coercing opposition, if requisite, with the censures of the Church,
without appeal."[292]
This experiment of investing all the Dominican preachers with legatine
authority to condemn without appeal was inconsiderate. It could only
lead to exasperation, as we shall see hereafter in Germany, and Gregory
soon adopted a more practical expedient. Shortly after the issue of the
above bulls we find him ordering the Provincial Prior of Toulouse to
select some learned friars who should be commissioned to preach the
cross in the diocese, and to proceed against heretics in accordance with
the recent statutes. Though here there is still some incongruous
mingling of duties, yet Gregory had finally hit upon the device which
remained the permanent basis of the Inquisition--the selection by the
provincial of certain fitting brethren, who exercised within their
province the delegated authority of the Holy See in searching out and
examining heretics with a view to the ascertainment of their guilt.
Under this bull the provincial appointed Friars Pierre Cella and Guillem
Arnaud, whose labors will be detailed in a subsequent chapter. Thus the
Inquisition, as an organized system, may be considered as fairly
commenced, though it is noteworthy that these early inquisitors in their
official papers qualify themselves as acting under legatine and not
under papal authority. How little idea there was as yet of creating a
general and permanent institution is seen when the Archbishop of Sens
complained of the intrusion of inquisitors in his province, and Gregory,
by a brief of February 4, 1234, apologetically revoked all commissions
issued for it, adding a suggestion that the archbishop should call in
the assistance of the Dominicans if he thought that their superior skill
in confuting heretics was likely to prove useful.[293]
As yet there was no idea of superseding the episcopal functions. About
this time we find Gregory writing to the bishops of the province of
Narbonne, threatening them if they shall not inflict due chastisement on
heretics, and making no allusion to the new expedient; and as late as
October 1, 1234, Pierre Amiel, Archbishop of Narbonne, exacted an oath
from his people to denounce all heretics to him or to his officials,
apparently in ignorance of the existence of special inquisitors. Even
where the latter were commissioned, their duties and functions, their
powers and responsibilities, were wholly undefined and remained to be
determined. As they were regarded simply in the light of assistants to
the bishops in the exercise of the immemorial episcopal jurisdiction
over heresy, it was naturally to the bishops that were referred the
questions which immediately arose. Many points as to the treatment of
heretics had been settled, not only by Gregory's Roman statutes of
1231, but by the Council of Toulouse in 1229, and those of Béziers and
Arles in 1234, which were solely occupied with stimulating and
organizing the episcopal Inquisition, yet matters of detail constantly
suggested themselves in practice, and a new code of some kind was
evidently required to render persecution effective. The suspension of
the Inquisition for some years at the request of Count Raymond postponed
this, but when the Holy Office resumed its functions in 1241 the
necessity became pressing, and the bishops were looked to as the
authority from which such a code should emanate. Sentences rendered in
1241 by Guillem Arnaud recite not only that Bishop Raymond of Toulouse
acted as assessor, but that the special advice of the Archbishop of
Narbonne had been asked. It was evident that general principles for the
guidance of the Inquisition must be laid down, and accordingly a great
council of the three provinces of Narbonne, Arles, and Aix was assembled
at Narbonne in 1243 or 1244, where an elaborate series of canons were
framed, which remained the basis of inquisitorial action. These were
addressed to "Our cherished and faithful children in Christ the
Preaching Friars Inquisitors;" and though the bishops discreetly say,
"We write this to you, not that we wish to bind you down by our
counsels, as it would not be fitting to limit the liberty accorded to
your discretion by other forms and rules than those of the Holy See, to
the prejudice of the business; but we wish to help your devotion as we
are commanded to do by the Holy See, since you, who bear our burdens,
ought to be, through mutual charity, assisted with help and advice in
our own business," yet the tone of the whole is that of absolute
command, both in the definition of jurisdiction and the instructions as
to dealing with heretics. It is highly significant that, in surrendering
control over the bodies of their flocks, these good shepherds strictly
reserved to themselves the profits to be expected from persecution, for
they straitly enjoined upon the new officials, "You are to abstain from
these pecuniary penances and exactions, both for the sake of the honor
of your Order, and because you will have fully enough other work to
attend to." While thus carefully preserving their financial interests,
they abandoned what was vastly more important, the right of passing
judgment and imposing sentence. Sentences of this period are rendered in
the name of the inquisitors, though if the bishop or other notable
person took part, as was frequently the case, he is mentioned as an
assessor.[294]
The transfer of the old episcopal jurisdiction over heresy to the
Inquisition naturally rendered the connection between bishop and
inquisitor a matter of exceeding delicacy, and the new institution could
not establish itself without considerable friction, revealed in the
varying and contradictory policy adopted at successive periods in
adjusting their mutual relations. This renders itself especially
noticeable in the development of the Inquisition in the different lands
of Europe. In Italy the independence of the episcopate had long since
been broken down, and it could offer no efficient opposition to the
encroachment on its jurisdiction. In Germany, on the other hand, the
lordly prince-bishops looked with jealous eyes on the intruder, and, as
we shall see hereafter, never allowed it to obtain a permanent foothold.
In France, and more especially in Languedoc, although the prelates were
far more independent than those of Italy, the prevalence of heresy
required for its suppression a vigilance and an activity far beyond
their ability, and they found themselves obliged to sacrifice a portion
of their prerogatives in order to escape the more painful sacrifice of
performing their long-neglected duties. Yet they did not submit to this
without a struggle which may be dimly traced in the successive efforts
to establish a _modus vivendi_ between the respective tribunals.
We have just seen that at an early period the inquisitors assumed to
render sentences in their own names, without reference to the bishops.
This invasion of the latter's jurisdiction was evidently too great an
innovation to be permanent; indeed, almost immediately we find the
Cardinal Legate of Albano instructing the Archbishop of Narbonne to
order the inquisitors not to condemn heretics or impose penances without
the concurrence of the bishops. This order had to be repeated and
rendered more absolute; and the question was settled in this sense by
the Council of Béziers in 1246, where the bishops, on the other hand,
surrendered the fines to be used for the expenses of the Inquisition,
and drew up another elaborate series of instructions for the
inquisitors, "willingly yielding to your devout requests which you have
humbly made to us." For a while the popes continued to treat the bishops
as responsible for the suppression of heresy in their respective
dioceses, and consequently as the real source of jurisdiction. In 1245
Innocent IV., in permitting inquisitors to modify or commute previous
sentences, specified that this must be done with the advice of the
bishop. In 1246 he orders the Bishop of Agen to make diligent
inquisition against heresy under the rules prescribed by the Cardinal
Legate of Albano, and with the same power as the inquisitor to grant
indulgences. In 1247 he treats the bishops as the real judges of heresy
in instructing them to labor sedulously for the conversion of the
convict, before passing sentence involving death, perpetual
imprisonment, or pilgrimages beyond seas; even with obstinate heretics
they are to consult diligently with the inquisitor or other discreet
persons whether to pass sentence or to postpone it, as may best subserve
the salvation of the sinner and the interest of the faith. Still, in
spite of all this, the sentences of Bernard de Caux, from 1246 to 1248,
bear no trace of episcopal concurrence. There evidently was jealousy and
antagonism. In 1248 the Council of Valence was obliged to coerce the
bishops into publishing and observing the sentences of the inquisitors,
by interdicting the entry into their own churches to those who refused
to do so, showing that the bishops were not consulted as to the
sentences and were indisposed to enforce them. In 1249 we find the
Archbishop of Narbonne complaining to the pope that the inquisitor
Pierre Durant and his colleagues had, without his knowledge, absolved
the Chevalier Pierre de Cugunham, who had been convicted of heresy,
whereupon Innocent forthwith annulled their proceedings. In fact the
pardoning power seems to have been considered as specially vested in the
Holy See, and about this period we find several instances in which it is
conferred by Innocent on bishops, sometimes with and sometimes without
injunctions to confer with the inquisitors. Finally this question of
practice was settled by adopting the habit of reserving in every
sentence the right to modify, increase, diminish, or abrogate it.[295]
Inasmuch as the inquisitors in 1246 still expected the bishops to defray
their expenses, they recognized themselves, at least in theory, as
merely an adjunct to the episcopal tribunals. The bishops, moreover,
were expected to build the prisons for the confinement of converts, and
though they eluded this and the king was obliged to do it, the Council
of Albi, held in 1254 by the papal legate, Zoen of Avignon, assumes that
the prisons are under episcopal control. The same council drew up an
elaborate series of instructions for the treatment of heretics, which
marks the termination of episcopal control of such matters, for all
subsequent regulations were issued by the Holy See. Even so experienced
a persecutor as Bernard de Caux, notwithstanding his neglect of
episcopal jurisdiction in his sentences, admitted in 1248 his
subordination to the episcopate by applying for advice to Guillem of
Narbonne, and the archbishop replied, not only with directions as to
special cases, but with general instructions. Indeed, in 1250 and 1251
the archbishop was actively employed in making an inquisition of his own
and in punishing heretics without the intervention of papal inquisitors;
and a brief of Innocent IV. in 1251 alludes to a previous intention,
subsequently abandoned, of restoring the whole business to the bishops.
In spite of these indications of reaction the intruders continued to win
their way, with struggles, bitter enough, no doubt, in many places, and
intensified by the hostility between the secular clergy and the
Mendicants, but only to be conjectured from the scattered indications
visible in the fragmentary remains of the period. There is an effort to
retain vanishing authority in the offer made in 1252 by the bishops of
Toulouse, Albi, Agen, and Carpentras to give full authority as
inquisitors to any Dominicans who might be selected by the commissioners
of Alphonse of Poitiers, only stipulating that their assent must be
asked to all sentences, and promising to observe in all cases the rules
established by the Inquisition. This question of episcopal concurrence
in condemnations evidently excited strong feeling and was long contested
with varying success. If previous orders requiring it had not been
treated with contempt, Innocent IV. would not have been obliged, in
1254, to reiterate the instructions that no condemnations to death or
life-imprisonment should be uttered without consulting the bishops; and
in 1255 he conjoined bishop and inquisitor to interpret in consultation
any obscurities in the laws against heresy and to administer the lighter
penalties of deprivation of office and preferment. This recognition of
episcopal jurisdiction was annulled by Alexander IV., who, after some
vacillation, in 1257 rendered the Inquisition independent by releasing
it from the necessity of consulting with the bishops even in cases of
obstinate and confessed heretics, and this he repeated in 1260. Then
there was a reaction. In 1262 Urban IV., in an elaborate code of
instructions, formally revived the consultation in all cases involving
the death-penalty or perpetual imprisonment; and this was repeated by
Clement IV. in 1265. Either these instructions, however, were revoked in
some subsequent enactment or they soon fell into desuetude, for in 1273
Gregory X., after alluding to the action of Alexander IV. in annulling
consultation, proceeds to direct that inquisitors in deciding upon
sentences shall proceed in accordance with the counsel of the bishops or
their delegates, so that the episcopal authority may share in decisions
of such moment. Up to this period the Inquisition seems to have been
regarded as merely a temporary expedient to meet a special exigency, and
every pope on his accession had issued a series of bulls renewing its
provisions. Heresy, however, was apparently ineradicable; the
populations had accepted the new institution, and its usefulness had
been proved in many ways besides that of preserving the purity of the
faith. Henceforth it was considered a permanent part of the machinery of
the Church, and its rules were definitely settled. Gregory's decision in
favor of concurrent episcopal and inquisitorial action in all cases of
condemnation consequently remained unaltered, and we shall see hereafter
that when Clement V. endeavored to check the more scandalous abuses of
inquisitorial power, he sought the remedy, insufficient enough, in some
slight increase of episcopal supervision and responsibility, following
in this an effort in the same direction which had been essayed by
Philippe le Bel. Yet when bishop and inquisitor chanced to be on good
terms, the slender safeguard thus afforded for the accused was eluded by
one of them giving to the other power to act for him, and cases are on
record in which the bishop acts as the inquisitor's deputy, or the
inquisitor as the bishop's. The question as to whether either of them
could render without the other a valid sentence of absolution was one
which greatly vexed the canonists, and names of high repute are ranged
on either side, with the weight of authority inclining to the
affirmative.[296]