the vital question of expenditures, when Nicholas IV., in 1288, ordered
that all moneys arising from fines and confiscations should be deposited
with men selected jointly by the inquisitor and bishop, to be expended
only with the advice of the latter, to whom accounts were to be rendered
regularly. This was a serious limitation of inquisitorial independence,
and it was not of long duration. The bishops soon made use of their
supervisory power to demand a share of the spoils under pretext of
conducting inquisitions of their own. The quarrel was an unseemly one,
and Benedict XI., in 1304, put an end to it by annulling the regulations
of his predecessor. The bishops were prohibited from requiring accounts,
and these were ordered to be rendered to the papal camera or to special
papal deputies.[297]
* * * * *
If there was this not unnatural vacillation in regulating the delicate
relations of these competing jurisdictions, there was none whatever in
regard to those between the Inquisition and society at large. Even in
its early years of tentative existence and uncertain organization it
developed such abundant promise of usefulness in bringing the secular
laws to bear upon heresy that means were sought to give it a fixed
organization which should render it still more efficient in its
functions both of detection and punishment. The death of Frederic II.,
in 1250, in removing the principal antagonist of the papacy, offered the
opportunity of giving practical enforcement to his edicts, and
accordingly, May 15, 1252, Innocent IV. issued to all the potentates and
rulers of Italy his famous bull, _Ad extirpanda_, a carefully considered
and elaborate law which should establish machinery for systematic
persecution as an integral part of the social edifice in every city and
every state, though the uncertain way in which bishop, inquisitor, and
friar are alternately referred to in it shows how indefinite were still
their respective relations and duties in the matter. All rulers were
ordered in public assembly to put heretics to the ban, as though they
were sorcerers. Any one finding a heretic could seize him, and take
possession of his goods. Each chief magistrate, within three days after
assuming office, was to appoint, on the nomination of his bishop and of
two friars of each of the Mendicant Orders, twelve good Catholics with
two notaries and two or more servitors whose sole business was to arrest
heretics, seize their goods, and deliver them to the bishop or his
vicars. Their wages and expenses were to be defrayed by the State, their
evidence was receivable without oaths, and no testimony was good against
the concurrent statement of any three of them. They held office for six
months, to be reappointed or replaced then, or at any time, on demand of
the bishop and friars; they were entitled to one third of the proceeds
of all fines and confiscations inflicted on heretics; they were exempt
from all public duties and services incompatible with their functions,
and no statutes were to be passed interfering with their actions. The
ruler was bound when required to send his assessor or a knight to aid
them, and every inhabitant when called upon was obliged to assist them,
under a heavy penalty. When the inquisitors visited any portion of the
jurisdiction they were accompanied by a deputy of the ruler elected by
themselves or by the bishop. In each place visited, this official was to
summon under oath three men of good repute, or even the whole vicinage,
to reveal any heretics within their knowledge, or the property of such,
or of any persons holding secret conventicles or differing in life or
manners from the ordinary faithful. The State was bound to arrest all
accused, to hold them in prison, to deliver them to the bishop or
inquisitor under safe escort, and to execute within fifteen days, in
accordance with Frederic's decrees, all judgments pronounced against
them. The ruler was further required, when called upon, to inflict
torture on those who would not confess and betray all the heretics of
their acquaintance. If resistance was made to an arrest, the community
where it occurred was liable to an enormous fine unless it delivered up
to justice within three days all who were implicated. The ruler was
required to have four lists made out of all who were defamed or banned
for heresy; this was to be read in public thrice a year and a copy given
to the bishop, one to the Dominicans and one to the Franciscans; he was
likewise to execute the destruction of houses within ten days of
sentence, and the exaction of fines within three months, throwing in
prison those who could not pay and keeping them until they should pay.
The proceeds of fines, commutations, and confiscations were divisible
into three parts, one enuring to the city, one to those concerned in the
business, and the remainder to the bishop and inquisitors to be expended
in persecuting heresy.
The enforcement of this stupendous measure was provided for with equally
careful elaboration. It was to be inscribed ineffaceably in all the
local statute-books, together with all subsequent laws which the popes
might issue, under penalty of excommunication for recalcitrant
officials, and interdict upon the city. Any attempt to alter these laws
consigned the offender to perpetual infamy and fine, enforced by the
ban. The rulers and their officials were to swear to their observance
under pain of loss of office; and any neglect in their enforcement was
punishable as perjury with perpetual infamy, a fine of two hundred
marks, and suspicion of heresy involving loss of office and disability
for all official position in future. Every ruler, within ten days after
assuming office, was required to appoint, on the nomination of the
bishop or the Mendicants, three good Catholics, who under oath were to
investigate the acts of his predecessor and prosecute him for any
failure of obedience. Moreover each podestà at the beginning and end of
his term was required to have the bull read in all places that might be
designated by the bishop and inquisitors, and to erase from the
statute-books all laws in conflict with them. At the same time Innocent
issued instructions to the inquisitors to enforce by excommunication the
embodiment of this and of the edicts of Frederic in the statutes of all
cities and states, and he soon after conferred on them the dangerous
power of interpreting, in conjunction with the bishops, all doubtful
points in local laws on the subject of heresy.
These provisions are not the wild imaginings of a nightmare, but sober
matter-of-fact legislation shrewdly and carefully devised to accomplish
a settled policy, and it affords us a valuable insight into the public
opinion of the day to find that there was no effective resistance to its
acceptance. Before the death of Innocent IV., in 1254, he made one or
two slight modifications suggested by experience in its working. In
1255, 1256, and 1257 Alexander IV. revised the bull, explaining some
doubts which had arisen, and providing for the enforcement in all cases
of the appointment of examiners of rulers going out of office, and in
1259 he reissued the bull as a whole. In 1265 Clement IV. again went
over it carefully, making some changes, principally in adding the words
"inquisitors" in passages where Innocent had only designated the bishops
and friars, thus showing that the Inquisition had during the interval
established itself as the recognized instrumentality in the persecution
of heresy; and the next year he repeated Innocent's emphatic order to
the inquisitors to enforce the insertion of his legislation and that of
his predecessors upon the statute-books everywhere, with the free use of
excommunication and interdict. This shows that it had not been
universally accepted with alacrity, but the few instances which we find
recorded of refusal show how generally it was submitted to. Thus in 1256
Alexander IV. learned that the authorities of Genoa were recalcitrant,
and he promptly ordered the censure and interdict if they did not comply
within fifteen days; and in 1258 a similar course was observed with
those of Mantua; while the retention of the bull in the statutes of
Florence as late as the recension of 1355, even in the midst of
incongruous legislation, shows how literally the papal mandates had been
obeyed for a century.[298]
In Italy this furnished the Inquisition with a completely organized
_personnel_ paid and sustained by the State, rendering it a substantive
institution armed with all the means and appliances necessary for the
thorough performance of its work. Whether the popes ever endeavored to
render the bulls operative elsewhere does not appear, but if they did so
they failed, for the measure was not recognized as in force beyond the
Alps. Yet this was scarce necessary so long as public law and the
conservative spirit of the ruling class everywhere rendered it the
highest duty of the citizen of every degree to aid in every way the
business of the inquisitor, and pious monarchs hastened to enforce the
obligation of their subjects. By the terms of the Treaty of Paris all
public officials were obliged to aid in the inquisition and capture of
heretics, and all inhabitants, males over fourteen years of age and
females over twelve, were to be sworn to reveal all offenders to the
bishops. The Council of Narbonne in 1229 put these provisions in force;
that of Albi in 1254 included inquisitors among those to whom the
heretic was to be denounced, and it freely threatened with the censures
of the Church all temporal seigneurs who neglected the duty of aiding
the Inquisition and of executing its sentences of death or confiscation.
The aid demanded was freely given, and every inquisitor was armed with
royal letters empowering him to call upon all officials for
safe-conduct, escort, and assistance in the discharge of his functions.
In a memorial dated about 1317 Bernard Gui says that the inquisitors
make under these letters full use of the baillis, sergeants, and other
officials, both of the king and of the seigneurs, without which they
would accomplish little. This was not confined to France, for Eymerich,
writing in Aragon, informs us that the first act of the inquisitor on
receiving his commission was to exhibit it to the king or ruler, and ask
and exhort him for these letters, explaining to him that he is bound by
the canons to give them if he desires to avoid the numerous penalties
decreed in the bulls _Ad abolendam_ and _Ut inquisionis_. His next step
is to exhibit these letters to the officials and swear them to obey him
in his official duties to the utmost of their power. Thus the whole
force of the State was unreservedly at command of the Holy Office. Not
only this, indeed, but every individual was bound to lend his aid when
called upon, and any slackness of zeal exposed him to excommunication as
a fautor of heresy, leading after twelve months, if neglected, to
conviction as a heretic, with all its tremendous penalties.[299]
The right to abrogate any laws which impeded the freest exercise of the
powers of the Inquisition was likewise arrogated on both sides of the
Alps. When, in 1257, Alexander IV. heard with indignant emotion that
Mantua had adopted certain damnable statutes interfering with the
absolutism of the Inquisition, he straightway ordered the Bishop of
Mantua to investigate the matter, and to annul anything which should
impede or delay its operations, enforcing his action by excommunicating
the authorities and laying an interdict on the city. This was simply in
furtherance of the bull _Ad extirpanda_, but in 1265 Urban IV. repeated
the order and made it universally applicable, and it was carried into
the canon law as the expression of the undoubted rights of the Church.
This rendered the Inquisition virtually supreme in all lands, and it
became an accepted maxim of law that all statutes interfering with the
free action of the Inquisition were void, and those who enacted them
were to be punished; where such laws existed the inquisitor was
instructed to have them submitted to him, and if he found them
objectionable the authorities were obliged to repeal or modify them. It
was not the fault of the Church if a bold monarch like Philippe le Bel
occasionally ventured to incur divine vengeance by protecting his
subjects.[300]
Beyond the Alps there was no legal responsibility admitted, as in Italy,
to defray the expenses of the Inquisition by the State. This is a
subject which will be treated more fully hereafter, and meanwhile I may
briefly state that royal generosity was amply sufficient to keep the
organization in effective condition. Its necessary expenses were
exceedingly small. The Dominican convents furnished buildings in which
to hold its tribunals. The public officials were bound under royal order
and the tremendous penalties involved in suspicion of heresy to render
service whenever called upon. If the bishops had neglected the duty of
establishing and maintaining prisons, the royal zeal had stepped in, had
built them and had kept them up. In 1317 we learn that during the past
eight years the king had spent the large sum of six hundred and thirty
livres tournois on that of Toulouse alone, and he also regularly paid
the jailers. Besides this, the inquisitors, whenever they needed aid and
counsel, were empowered to summon experts to attend them and to enforce
obedience to the summons. There was no exception of dignity or station.
All the learning and wisdom of the land were made subservient to the
supreme duty of suppressing heresy and were placed gratuitously at the
service of the Inquisition; and any prelate who hesitated to render
assistance of any kind when called upon was threatened in no gentle
terms with the full force of the papal vengeance.[301]
That the powers thus conferred on the inquisitors were real and not
merely theoretical we see in 1260 in the case of Capello di Chia, a
powerful noble of the Roman province, who incurred the suspicion of
heresy, was condemned, proscribed, and his lands confiscated. He refused
to submit, when Frà Andrea, the inquisitor, called for assistance on the
citizens of the neighboring town of Viterbo, and they obeyed him by
raising an army with which he marched to besiege Capello in his castle
of Colle-Casale. Capello had craftily conveyed his lands to a Roman
noble named Pietro Giacomo Surdi, and the pious enterprise of the
Viterbians was arrested by a command from the senator of Rome forbidding
violence to the property of a good Catholic Roman citizen. Then
Alexander IV. intervened, ordering Surdi to withdraw from the quarrel,
as his claim to the castle was null and void. He likewise commanded the
senator to abandon his indefensible position, and warmly thanked the
Viterbians for the zeal and alacrity with which they had obeyed the
summons of Frà Andrea. Frà Andrea, in fact, had only exercised the power
which Zanghino declares to be inherent in the office of inquisitor, of
levying open war against heretics and heresy.[302]
* * * * *
In the exercise of this almost limitless authority, inquisitors were
practically relieved from all supervision and responsibility. Even a
papal legate was not to interfere with them or inquire into heresy
within their inquisitorial districts. They were not liable to
excommunication while in discharge of their duties, nor could they be
suspended by any delegate of the Holy See. If such a thing were
attempted, the excommunication or suspension was pronounced void,
unless, indeed, it was issued by special command of the pope. Already,
in 1245, they were empowered to absolve their familiars for any
excesses, and in 1261 they were authorized to absolve each other from
excommunication for any cause; which, as each inquisitor usually had a
subordinate associate ready to perform this office for him, rendered
them virtually invulnerable. Moreover, they were released from all
obedience to their provincials and generals, whom they were even
forbidden to obey in anything relating to the business of their office,
and they were secured from any attempt to undermine them with the curia
by the enormous privilege of being able to go to Rome at any time and to
stay there as long as they might see fit, even in spite of prohibition
by provincial or general chapters. At first their commissions were
thought to expire with the death of the pope who issued them, but in
1267 they were declared to be continuously valid.[303]
The question of the removability of inquisitors was one which bore
directly upon their subordination or independence, and was the subject
of much conflicting legislation. When the power of appointment was first
conferred upon the provincials it carried with it authority to remove
and replace them after consultation with discreet brethren; and in 1244
Innocent IV. declared that the provincials and generals of the Mendicant
Orders had full power to remove, revoke, supersede, and transfer all
members of their orders serving as inquisitors, even when commissioned
by the pope. Some ten years later the vacillating policy of Alexander
IV. indicates an earnest effort on the part of the inquisitors to obtain
independence. In 1256 he asserted the removing power of the provincials;
July 5, 1257, he withdrew their power, and December 9, of the same year,
he reaffirmed it in his bull _Quod super nonnullis_, which was
repeatedly reissued by himself and his successors. Later popes issued
conflicting orders, until at length Boniface VIII. decided in favor of
the removing power; but the inquisitors claimed that it could only be
exercised for cause and after due trial, which practically reduced it to
a nullity. It is true that in the reformatory effort of Clement V. _ipso
facto_ excommunication, removable only by the pope, was provided for
three crimes of inquisitors--falsely prosecuting or neglecting to
prosecute for favor, enmity, or profit, for extorting money, and for
confiscating church property for the offence of a clerk--but these
provisions, although they called forth the earnest protest of Bernard
Gui, only amounted to a declaration of what was desirable, and were of
no practical effect.[304]
The Franciscans endeavored to reduce their inquisitors to subjection by
the expedient of issuing commissions for a limited term. Thus in 1320
the General Michele da Cesena adopted the term of five years, which
seems to have long continued the rule, for in 1375 we see Gregory XI.
requesting the Franciscan general to keep in office as inquisitor of
Rome Frà Gabriele da Viterbo on account of his eminent merits. In 1439 a
commission as inquisitor of Florence, issued to Frà Francesco da
Michele, to take effect on the expiration of the term of the incumbent,
Frà Jacopo della Biada, indicates that appointments were still for
specified times, although in 1432 Eugenius IV. had conferred on the
Franciscan general, Guglielmo di Casale, full power of appointment and
removal. The Dominicans do not seem to have adopted this expedient, and
no precautions of any kind were available to enforce subordination and
discipline in view of the constant interference of the Holy See, which
doubtless could always be obtained by those who knew how to approach it.
Commissions were continually issued directly by the pope, and those who
held them seem not to have been removable by any one else. Even when
this was not done, it mattered little that the popes admitted the power
of the provincials to remove, when they interposed to nullify its
exercise. In 1323 John XXII. gave to Frà Piero da Perugia, inquisitor of
Assisi, letters which protected him from suspension and removal. In 1339
we happen to hear of Giovanni di Borgo removed by the Franciscan general
and replaced by Benedict XII. Even more subversive of discipline was the
case of Francisco de Sala, appointed by the provincial of Aragon,
removed by his successor, and reinstated by Martin V. in 1419, with a
provision of inamovability by any superior of his Order. Yet in 1439
Eugenius IV., and in 1474 Sixtus IV. renewed the provisions of Clement
IV. rendering inquisitors removable at will by both generals and
provincials; and in 1479, Sixtus IV., to impress them with some sense of
responsibility, adopted the expedient of requiring all complaints
against them to be brought before the general of the Order to which
they belonged, to whom was confided power of punishment up to
removal.[305]
The natural result of this conflicting legislation was that the
inquisitors held themselves accountable to their superiors only for
their actions as friars and not as inquisitors; in the latter capacity
they acknowledged responsibility only to the pope, and they asserted
that the power of removal could only be exercised in cases of inability
to act through sickness, age, or ignorance. Their vicars and
commissioners they held to be completely beyond any jurisdiction but
their own, and any attempt on the part of a provincial to remove such a
subordinate was to be met with a prosecution for suspicion of heresy, as
an impeding of the Inquisition, to be followed by excommunication, when,
if this was endured for a year, it was to be ended by condemnation for
heresy. Men armed with these tremendous powers, and animated with this
resolute spirit, were not lightly to be meddled with. The warmth with
which Eymerich argues the subject suggests the character of the struggle
continually going on between the provincials and their appointees, and
the conclusions to which he arrives indicate the temper in which the
latter vindicated their independence. The grave abuses and disorders to
which this led obliged John XXIII. to intervene and declare that the
inquisitors should in all things be subject and obedient to their
superiors. The Great Schism, however, had weakened the papal authority,
and this injunction met with scant respect, so that one of the first
utterances of Martin V., in 1418, when the Church was reunited at
Constance, was to repeat the order, and to prescribe implicit obedience
to it. Yet, as in the matter of removals, the insatiable greed of the
curia was a fatal obstacle to the enforcement of subordination, for
those who were commissioned directly by the pope could not be expected
to endure subjection to the officials of their Orders.[306]
From Eymerich's remarks we see that an inquisitor was bound to have
little hesitation in prosecuting his superior. His jurisdiction, in
fact, was almost unlimited, for the dread suspicion of heresy brought,
with few exceptions, all mankind to a common level, and suspicion of
heresy was to be technically inferred from anything which affected the
dignity or crossed the purposes of those who carried on the Inquisition.
Even the jealously-guarded right of asylum in the churches was waived in
its favor, and the immunities of the Mendicant Orders gave them no
exemption from its jurisdiction. Kings, themselves, were subject to this
jurisdiction, though Eymerich discreetly observes that in their case it
is more prudent to inform the pope and await his instructions. Yet one
exception there was. The episcopal office still retained enough of its
earlier dignity to render its possessor exempt unless the inquisitor was
furnished with special papal letters. It was his duty, however, in case
a bishop was suspected of vacillating in the faith, to collect with
diligence all the evidence procurable, and to forward it to Rome for
examination and decision--a duty in the exercise of which he could
render himself abundantly disagreeable, and even dangerous. The choleric
John XXII., in 1327, introduced another exemption when provoked by the
arrogance of the Sicilian inquisitor, Matthieu de Pontigny, who dared to
excommunicate Guillaume de Balet, archdeacon of Fréjus, papal chaplain
and representative of the Avignonese papacy in the Campagna and
Maritima. The angry pope issued a decretal forbidding all judges and
inquisitors to attack in any way the officials and nuncios of the Holy
See without special letters of authority--but the mere audacity of the
attempt shows the height of presumption to which the members of the Holy
Office had attained. That laymen learned to address them as "your
religious majesty" shows the impression made on the popular mind by
their irresponsible supremacy.[307]
If bishops were exempt from judgment by the Inquisition they were not
released from obedience to the inquisitors. In the ordinary papal
commission issued to the latter, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and
other prelates are commanded to obey them in all concerning their
office, under pain of excommunication, suspension, and interdict. That
this was not a mere idle form is manifest by the tone of arrogant
domination in which the inquisitors issued their commands to episcopal
officials. Though the papal superscription to the bishop was "venerable
brother" and to the inquisitor "cherished son," yet the inquisitors held
that they were superior to the bishops, as being direct delegates of the
Holy See, and that if any one were cited simultaneously by a bishop and
an inquisitor he must first attend to the summons of the latter. The
inquisitor was to be obeyed as the pope himself, and this supremacy
included the bishop. This formed part of the papal policy, for the
inquisitor was a convenient instrument to reduce the episcopate to
subjection. Thus in 1296 Boniface VIII., in giving directions to the
bishops to suppress certain irregular and unauthorized hermits and
mendicants, enclosed copies of the bull to the inquisitors with
instructions to stimulate the bishops to their duty and to report to him
all who showed themselves negligent. In spite of the assumed superiority
of the inquisitor, however, the Inquisition was very commonly used as a
stepping-stone to the episcopate. It is not easy to set bounds to the
sources of influence which the office placed within reach of an
ambitious man, and this influence was constantly employed to procure
promotion into the ranks of the hierarchy. Instances of this are too
frequent to be specified, commencing with the earliest inquisitors, Frà
Aldobrandino Cavalcanti of Florence, who became Bishop of Viterbo, while
his successor, Frà Ruggieri Calcagni, in 1245, was rewarded with the
bishopric of Castro in the Maremma. I need only refer to the case of
Florence, in 1343, where the inquisitor, Frà Andrea da Perugia was
advanced to the episcopate and was succeeded by Frà Pietro di Aquila,
who in 1346 was made Bishop of Santangelo dei Lombardi. His successor
was Frà Michele di Lapo, and in 1350 we find the Signiory writing to the
pope with the request that he be placed in the bishopric of Florence,
which had become vacant. The office also afforded opportunities of
promotion within the Orders which were not neglected. Thus in a list of
Dominican provincials of Saxony in the latter half of the fourteenth
century, three who occupied that post in succession from 1369 to 1382,
Walther Kerlinger, Hermann Helstede, and Heinrich von Albrecht, are all
described as having been previously inquisitors.[308]
* * * * *
It is not to be imagined that this gigantic structure which overshadowed
Christendom was allowed to establish itself wholly without opposition,
despite the favor of popes and kings. When we come to consider the
details of its history we shall find numerous cases of popular
resistance, desperate and isolated struggles, crushed remorselessly
before revolt could so extend as to become dangerous. It required,
indeed, courage to foolhardiness for any one to raise hand or voice
against an inquisitor, no matter how cruel or nefarious were his
actions. Under the canon law, any one, from the meanest to the highest,
who opposed or impeded in any way the functions of an inquisitor, or
gave aid or counsel to those who did so, became at once _ipso facto_
excommunicate. After the lapse of a year in this condition he was
legally a heretic to be handed over without further ceremony to the
secular arm for burning, without trial and without forgiveness. The
awful authority which thus shrouded the inquisitor was rendered yet more
terrible by the elasticity of definition given to the crime of impeding
the Holy Office and the tireless tenacity with which those guilty of it
were pursued. If friendly death came to shield them, the Inquisition
attacked their memories, and visited their offences upon their children
and grandchildren.[309]
All unorganized efforts of insubordination were easily repressed. Had
the bishops united in resistance, they could readily have prevented the
serious encroachment on their jurisdiction and influence, and have saved
their flocks from the horrors in store for them. There was no unity of
action, however, among the prelates. Some of them were honest fanatics
who welcomed the Holy Office and assisted it in every way. Others were
indifferent. Multitudes, engrossed in worldly cares and quarrels, were
rather glad to be relieved of duties which were onerous and for which
they had neither learning nor leisure. If any foresaw the end from the
humble beginning, none dared to raise a voice against what was
everywhere regarded by pious souls as supplying the most urgent need of
the time. Still, that the episcopate at large looked with disfavor on
these new functions and activities of the upstart Mendicants there can
be no doubt, although jealousy could only manifest itself through a
futile pretence to discharge the neglected duties in which the
Mendicants had been summoned to replace them. Accordingly we find a
certain bustling show of activity in ordering perquisition against
heretics by the old device of the synodal witnesses, in the Council of
Tours in 1239, that of Béziers in 1246, that of Albi in 1254; while that
of Lille (Venaissin) in 1251 made a bolder effort to recover lost ground
by not only ordering the bishops to make searching inquisition in their
dioceses, but by demanding from the Inquisition the surrender of all its
records to the Ordinaries; and when this failed the Council of Albi, in
1254, made a fruitless effort to obtain duplicate copies. The spirit in
which the rival tribunals regarded each other is seen in the complaint
of an inquisitor, not long after 1250, that heretics were encouraged and
rendered audacious by the constant attacks and detraction to which the
inquisitors were exposed, as being fools, and negligent and slow, and
incapable of bringing any affair to a termination, as punishing the
innocent and allowing the guilty to escape. These slanders, he says,
proceed from judges, both secular and ecclesiastical, who profess great
zeal for the extermination of heresy, but who are really impelled by
covetousness for bribes, or who are secretly inclined to heresy, or have
friends or relatives who are heretics or suspected of heresy. Evidently
there was little love lost between the old organization and the
new.[310]
If any thought existed of combined opposition, outside of Germany, it
might well be thrown aside as impracticable after the spectacle of the
defeat of the University of Paris on its own ground by the Mendicants.
The jealousy perpetually fed by the constant encroachments of the
inquisitors could only find vent in obscure squabbles wherein the final
decision of the Holy See could always be confidently reckoned upon as
against the episcopate. In 1330 we see the inquisitor, Henri de Chamay,
complaining to John XXII. that the Bishop of Maguelonne was interfering
with the free exercise of his office in Montpellier, on the ground of
certain papal privileges granted him, when the pope at once instructs
him to proceed without hesitation and to disregard the bishop's
pretensions. Such a decision was a foregone conclusion, as the
Archbishop of Narbonne and all his suffragans found in 1441, when they
united in addressing Eugenius IV., complaining of the exorbitant
pretensions of the Inquisition, and asking him to delay action till they
should send him full details. Without waiting to hear their specific
charges, he replied that the inquisitor had already accused them of
impeding him in his office and with vexing him with proceedings and
suits at law. There is no business, he added, of greater importance to
the Church than the destruction of heresy, and no way to win his favor
more efficacious than by aiding the Inquisition. It had been organized
for the purpose of relieving bishops of a portion of their cares, and
any interference with it would be visited with his displeasure. In the
present case, for the sake of concord, the inquisitor would revoke the
grievances complained of, and the pope pronounced all suits against him
quashed and extinguished. Evidently in any contest the odds were too
great against the episcopate, and the danger of systematic opposition
too real, to render any organized antagonism feasible. How completely
the papacy regarded the Inquisition as an instrumentality for furthering
its schemes of aggrandizement is seen when, on the outbreak of the Great
Schism, inquisitors were required to take a formal feudal oath of
fidelity to the pope appointing him and to his successors.[311]
* * * * *
With so little to check and so much to stimulate, the spread of the
Inquisition was rapid throughout most of the lands of Christendom. I
shall have occasion hereafter to trace its vicissitudes in the principal
centres of its activity, and need here only indicate the limits of its
extension.
The northern nations were too far removed from the focus of heresy to be
exposed to aberrations from the faith at the time when papal supremacy
found its most useful instruments in the Mendicant inquisitors.
Consequently the papal Inquisition cannot be said to have had an
existence in the British Islands, Denmark, or Scandinavia. The edicts of
Frederic II. had no currency there; and when, in 1277, Robert Kilwarby,
Archbishop of Canterbury, and the masters of Oxford denounced certain
errors springing from the Averrhoist doctrines; when, in 1286,
Archbishop Peckham condemned the heresy of Friar Richard Crapewell, and
in 1368 Archbishop Langham denounced as heretical thirty articles of
scholastic speculation, even had there been martyrs ready there were no
laws under which to punish them, although lawyers had sought to
introduce the penalty of the stake, and it had once been inflicted by a
council of Oxford, in 1222, on a clerk who had apostatized to Judaism.
We shall see hereafter that in the affair of the Templars the papal
Inquisition was found necessary to procure condemnation, but even then
it was so opposed to the character of English institutions that it
worked defectively and disappeared as soon as the occasion for its
temporary introduction passed away. When Wickliff came and was followed
by Lollardry, the English conceptions of the relations between Church
and State had already become such that there was no thought of applying
to Rome for a special tribunal with which to meet the threatened danger.
The statute of May 25, 1382, directs the king to issue to his sheriffs
commissions to arrest Wickliff's travelling preachers, and aiders and
abettors of heresy, and to hold them till they justify themselves
"_selonc reson et la ley de seinte esglise_;" and, in the following
July, royal letters ordered the authorities of Oxford to make
inquisition for heresy throughout the university. The weakness of
Richard II. allowed the Lollards to become a powerful political as well
as religious party, but their chances disappeared with the revolution
which placed Henry IV. on the throne. The support of the Church was a
necessity to the new dynasty, which lost no time in earning its
gratitude. After the burning of Sawtré by a royal warrant confirmed by
Parliament, in 1400, the statute "_de hæretico comburendo_" for the
first time inflicted in England the death-penalty as a settled
punishment for heresy. It restricted preaching to the beneficed curates
and those _ex officio_ privileged, it forbade the dissemination of
heretical opinions and books, empowered the bishops to seize all
offenders and hold them in prison until they should purge themselves or
abjure, and ordered the bishops to proceed against them within three
months after arrest. For minor offences the bishops were empowered to
imprison during pleasure and fine at discretion--the fine enuring to the
royal exchequer. For obstinate heresy or relapse, involving under the
canon law abandonment to the secular arm, the bishops and their
commissioners were the sole judges, and, on their delivery of such
convicts, the sheriff of the county or the mayor and bailiffs of the
nearest town were obliged to burn them before the people on an eminence.
Henry V. followed this up, and the statute of 1414 established
throughout the kingdom a sort of mixed secular and ecclesiastical
inquisition for which the English system of grand inquests gave especial
facilities. Under this legislation burning for heresy became a not
unfamiliar sight to English eyes, and Lollardry was readily suppressed.
In 1533 Henry VIII. repealed the statute of 1400, while retaining those
of 1382 and 1414, and also the penalty of burning alive for contumacious
heresy and relapse, and the dangerous admixture of politics and religion
rendered the stake a favorite instrument of statecraft. One of the
earliest measures of the reign of Edward VI. was the repeal of this law,
as well as of those of 1382 and 1414, together with all the atrocious
legislation of the Six Articles. With the reaction under Philip and Mary
came a revival of the sharp laws against heresy. Scarce had the Spanish
marriage been concluded when an obedient Parliament reenacted the
legislation of 1382, 1400, and 1414, which afforded ample machinery for
the numerous burnings which followed. The earliest act of the first
Parliament of Elizabeth was the repeal of the legislation of Philip and
Mary and of the old statutes which it had revived; but the writ _de
hæretico comburendo_ had become an integral part of English law and
survived until the desire of Charles II. for Catholic toleration caused
him, in 1676, to procure its abrogation and the restraint of the
ecclesiastical courts "in cases of atheism, blasphemy, heresy, and
schism and other damnable doctrines and opinions" to the ecclesiastical
remedies of "excommunication, deprivation, degradation, and other
ecclesiastical censures not extending to death." Scotland was more tardy
than England in humanitarian development, but the last execution for
heresy in the British Islands was that of a youth of eighteen, a medical
student named Aikenhead, who was hanged in Edinburgh in 1696.[312]
In Ireland the fiery temper of the Franciscan, Richard Ledred, Bishop of
Ossory, led him into a prolonged struggle with presumed heretics--the
Lady Alice Kyteler, accused of sorcery, and her accomplices. So little
was known in Ireland of the laws concerning heresy that at first the
secular officials refused contemptuously to take the oath prescribed by
the canons to aid inquisitors in their persecuting duties, but Ledred
finally obliged them to do so and had the satisfaction of burning some
of the accused in 1325. He incurred, however, the enmity of the chief
personages of the island, leading to a counter-charge of heresy against
himself. For years he was obliged to live in exile, and it was not till
1354 that he was able to reside quietly in his diocese, though in 1335
we find Benedict XII. writing to Edward III., deploring the absence in
England of so useful an institution as the Inquisition, and urging him
to order the secular officials to lend efficient aid to the pious Bishop
of Ossory in his struggles with the heretics, of whom the most
exaggerated description is given. Even Alexander, Archbishop of Dublin,
in 1347, was declared to have been a fautor of heresy because he
interfered with Ledred's violent proceedings; and, in 1351, his
successor, Archbishop John, was directed to take active measures to
punish those who had escaped from Ossory and had taken refuge in his
see.[313]
It is true that when the Hussite troubles became alarming and there was
danger that the disaffection might spread to the North, Martin V., in
1421, authorized the Bishop of Sleswick to appoint a Franciscan, Friar
Nicholas John, as inquisitor for Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but there
is no trace of his activity in those regions, and the Inquisition may be
considered as non-existent there.[314]
As the mediæval missions for the conversion of schismatics and heathen
were exclusively Dominican and Franciscan, the churches which they built
up, however slender in membership, were nevertheless completely equipped
with apparatus for preserving the orthodoxy of converts, and thus we
read of Inquisitions in Africa and Asia. Friar Raymond Martius is
honored as the founder of the Inquisition in Tunis and Morocco. About
1370 Gregory XI. appointed the Dominican Friar John Gallus as inquisitor
in the East, who in conjunction with Friar Elias Petit planted the
institution, as we are told, in Armenia, Russia, Georgia, and Wallachia,
while Upper Armenia was similarly provided by Friar Bartolomeo Ponco. On
the death of Friar Gallus, Urban VI., about 1378, applied to the
Dominican general to select three brethren to serve as inquisitors, one
in Armenia and Georgia, one in Greece and Tartary, and one in Russia and
the two Wallachias; and in 1389 one of these, Friar Andreas of Caffa,
obtained the privilege of appointing an associate in his extensive
province of Greece and Tartary. In the fourteenth century an inquisitor
seems to have been regarded as a necessary portion of the missionary
outfit. Even in the fabled Ethiopian empire of Prester John we hear of
an Inquisition founded in Abyssinia by the Dominican Friar, St.
Pantaleone, and another in Nubia by Friar Bartolomeo de Tybuli, who was
also honored as a saint in those regions. Grotesque as all this sounds,
one cannot help honoring the unselfish zeal of the men who thus devoted
themselves to the diffusion of the gospel among barbarous Gentiles, and
one can find comfort in the conviction that their Inquisitions were
comparatively harmless so long as they were not backed by the terrible
laws of a Frederic II. or of a St. Louis.[315]
Even the decaying fragments of the Kingdom of Jerusalem could not be
allowed burial without an inquisitor to attend the obsequies. The
misfortunes of war, according to Nicholas IV., the first Franciscan
pope, gave opportunity for the growth of heresy and Judaism. Therefore,
in 1290, he granted full powers to his legate, Nicholas, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, to appoint inquisitors, with the advice of the Mendicant
provincials. This was accordingly done, but the fatherly care of
Nicholas was a trifle tardy. The capture of Acre, May 19, 1291, drove
the Christians finally from the Holy Land, and the career of the Syrian
Inquisition was therefore of the briefest. It was revived, however, in
1375, by Gregory XI., who empowered the Franciscan provincial of the
Holy Land to act as inquisitor in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, to check
the too prevalent apostasy of the Christian pilgrims who continued to
flock to those regions.[316]
* * * * *
It is not to be supposed that the triumph of the Inquisition over the
bishops gave to it a monopoly of persecution. The ordinary episcopal
jurisdiction remained intact. About 1240 we see the Bishop of Toulouse
and his provost conducting, without the aid of an inquisitor, an inquest
for heresy upon the powerful seigneurs de Niort. Bishops who were
zealous were frequently seen co-operating with inquisitors in the
examination of heretics, as well as holding their own inquisitions.
Thus, in a number of cases occurring at Albi in 1299, we find the trials
held in the episcopal palace before the bishop, assisted sometimes by
Nicholas d'Abbeville, inquisitor of Carcassonne, and sometimes by
Bertrand de Clermont, inquisitor of Toulouse, and sometimes by both. At
first, as we have seen, the inquisitor was only the assistant of the
bishop, and the latter was by no means relieved of his duties and
responsibilities in the extermination of heresy. In fact the bishops
themselves sometimes appointed inquisitors of their own in order to
operate more efficiently; and the names of such functionaries acting for
the archbishops of Narbonne appear in documents of 1251 and 1325. There
was nothing, moreover, to prevent a zealous prelate, who thought less
of the dignity of his order than the suppression of heresy, from
accepting a commission as inquisitor from the pope, as was the case with
Guillem Arnaud, Bishop of Carcassonne, who, during his episcopate,
lasting from 1249 to 1255, presided over the tribunal of Carcassonne
with an energy that Dominicans might have envied.[317]
Yet, as the Inquisition achieved its independence of the episcopate, two
concurrent jurisdictions could hardly coexist without jarring, even when
both were animated by the desire of harmony: when jealousy and rivalry
were strong, quarrels were inevitable. It was even hinted that bishops,
desiring to preserve friends from the zeal of the inquisitors, would
prosecute them in their own courts to preserve them from the rigorous
impartiality of the Holy Office. To settle the questions which thus were
constantly arising, Urban IV., in 1262, empowered the inquisitors to
proceed in all cases at their discretion, whether or not these were also
under examination by the bishops; and this was repeated in 1265 and 1266
by Clement IV., with strong injunctions to the inquisitors that they
were not to allow their processes to be impeded by concurrent action of
the bishops. In 1273 Gregory X. laid down the same rule; and it became
the settled practice of the Church, embodied in the canon law, that both
courts could simultaneously try the same case, communicating at
intervals their proceedings to each other. Mutual conference, moreover,
was necessary at the final sentence, and when they could not agree a
full statement had to be submitted to the pope for decision. Even when
proceeding alone and by his ordinary authority, the bishop was obliged
to call in the concurrence of an inquisitor when he rendered
sentence.[318]
During this period, at one time, it became a question whether the
episcopal jurisdiction over heresy was not completely superseded by the
papal commission given to an inquisitor to act in his diocese. Gui
Foucoix, the foremost jurist of his day, in his "_Quæstiones_," which
long remained an authority in the inquisitorial tribunals, answered this
question in the affirmative, and argued that the bishop was debarred
from action by the special delegation of papal powers to the inquisitor.
Yet, when Gui became pope, under the name of Clement IV., his bulls of
1265 and 1266, quoted above, show that he abandoned this position, and
Gregory X. also expressly declared that the diocesan jurisdiction was
not interfered with. Still the question was regarded as doubtful by
canon lawyers, and for a period the episcopal jurisdiction sank almost
into abeyance. There were few more active prelates in his day than
Simon, Archbishop of Bourges, who, from 1284 to 1291, made repeated
visitations of his southern dioceses, such as Albi, Rodez, Cahors, etc.
Yet, in the records of these visitations, there is no allusion to his
taking any cognizance of heresy, unless, indeed, his forcing, in 1285, a
number of usurers of Gourdon to abjure be assumed as such, though usury
was not justiciable by the Inquisition unless it became heresy by the
assertion of its legality. About 1298, however, Boniface VIII.
reasserted the jurisdiction of the episcopate, and we see Bernard de
Castanet, Bishop of Albi, stirring up a revolt among his flock by the
energy with which he scourged the heretics of Albi. Soon afterwards
Clement V. enlarged the functions of the episcopate as a means of
curbing the atrocities of the Inquisition, and the glossators argued
that the appointment of inquisitors in no way relieved the bishop from
the duty of investigating and suppressing heresy in his diocese--indeed,
he was liable to deposition by the pope for negligence in this respect,
though he was shielded by his position from prosecution by the
inquisitor. Yet, even after the Clementines, Bernard Gui asserts it to
be improper for the episcopal ordinary to cite any one who is already
before the Inquisition. Still, if the power of the bishop had been
limited by requiring him to consult with the inquisitor before rendering
sentence, it had been enlarged in another direction by authorizing him
to summon witnesses as well as offenders who had fled to other dioceses.
There was one discrimination, however, against the bishop which
handicapped him heavily. His attempts to get a share of the proceeds of
fines and confiscations to meet the expenses of prosecution were
ineffectual. He was told that he and his officials had revenues for the
functions of the Church, and these must suffice to pay him for the
service. Ingenious dialecticians reasoned this away as far as regards
the bishop when he acted personally, but it held good against his
officials. To the latter it was not encouraging to be urged to work and
pay their own costs, while the inquisitor, at least in Italy, had
control of the confiscations, without accountability to the bishop.[319]
Under the legislation of Boniface VIII. and Clement V. it was natural
that the first quarter of the fourteenth century should witness a
revival of the episcopal Inquisition. Even in Italy the provincial
Council of Milan, held at Bergamo in 1311 under the Archbishop Gastone
Torriani, organized a thorough system of inquisition on the model of the
papal institution. The growing power of the Visconti, hostile to the
papacy, had greatly crippled the Dominicans, and a vigorous effort was
made to replace them. In every town the arch-priest or provost was
instructed to raise an armed guard, whose duty was the ceaseless
perquisition of heresy, and whose privileges and immunities were the
same as those of the familiars of the Dominican inquisitors; and all
citizens, from the noble to the peasant, were summoned to lend
assistance, when called upon, under significant threats. In France some
proceedings, in 1319 and 1320, at Béziers, Pamiers, and Montpellier show
the episcopal courts in full activity, with the occasional appearance of
an inquisitor in a subordinate capacity as assistant, or of an episcopal
inquisitor as a colleague of equal rank with those who acted under papal
authority. In fact we find one such, in 1322, representing the see of
Ausch, contending with the great Bernard Gui himself over a prisoner
whom they both claimed. When, also, in 1319, the great opponent of the
Inquisition, Friar Bernard Délicieux, was to be tried for impeding it,
John XXII. appointed a special commission for the work, consisting of
the Archbishop of Toulouse and the Bishops of Pamiers and St. Papoul,
while one of the most experienced inquisitors of the time, Jean de
Beaune of Carcassonne, acted as prosecutor, and not as judge.[320]
In Germany, about the same time, there was a sudden development of
episcopal activity in the prosecutions of the Beghards by the Bishop of
Strassburg and the Archbishop of Cologne, leading to a fair trial of
strength between the hierarchy and the Dominicans in the case of Master
Eckhart, the teacher of Suso and Tauler and the founder of the German
mystics. He was looked upon with pride by the whole Order as one of its
most prominent members. He had taught theology with applause in the
great University of Paris; in 1303, when Germany was divided into two
provinces, he had been made the first provincial Prior of Saxony; in
1307 the general had appointed him Vicar of Bohemia. In 1326 we find
him, as teacher of theology in the Dominican school of Cologne, falling
under suspicion of complicity with the heresy of the Beghards, against
whom a sharp persecution was raging. His lofty mysticism trenched
dangerously on their pantheism, and possibly they may have sought to
shelter themselves behind his great name. At the general chapter of 1325
complaints had been made that in Germany members of the Order preached
to the people in the vulgar tongue doctrines that might lead to error,
and Gervaise, Prior of Angers, was ordered to investigate them; while,
about the same time, John XXII., in concurrence with the wishes of the
Order, appointed Nicholas of Strassburg, lector or teacher of the
Cologne Dominicans, as his inquisitor for the province of Germany, to
inquire into the faith and life of the brethren. Thus far everything had
been kept within the precincts of the Order, but the archbishop was
growing hot in his pursuit of the Beghards. He evidently was
dissatisfied with what was on foot, and he appointed two episcopal
commissioners or inquisitors to look after Master Eckhart. Nicholas of
Strassburg was himself inclined to mysticism; every motive conspired to
lead him to deal tenderly with the accused, and Eckhart was accordingly
acquitted, in July, 1326. The episcopal inquisitors were not content
with this (one of them was a Franciscan), and proceeded to take evidence
against Eckhart. After six months, on January 14, 1327, they summoned
Nicholas, as was their right, to communicate to them his proceedings. He
came, accompanied by ten friars, not to obey the command, but to enter a
solemn protest against the whole business, demanding his "Apostoli," or
letters of appeal to the pope, on the ground that Dominicans were not
subject to the episcopal Inquisition, and that he in especial was an
inquisitor appointed by the pope with full jurisdiction. As early as
1184 Lucius III. had abolished all immunities of monastic orders in
cases of heresy, but the Dominicans were of later origin, they had been
strengthened with special privileges, and they claimed this exemption
although they could not prove it. The episcopal inquisitors promptly
answered this by commencing the same day an action against Nicholas
himself, who on the morrow interjected an appeal to the Holy See. They
further summoned Master Eckhart to appear before them on January 31, but
on the 24th he came with numerous supporters and filed an indignant
protest, in which he complained bitterly of their protracting the
proceedings for the purpose of ruining his reputation, in place of
pushing them to an end, as they could readily have done six months
before; besides, they were using for the same purpose certain vile
Dominicans who were notorious for their crimes. He demanded his
"Apostoli," and named May 4 as the term for prosecuting the appeal in
the Roman court. To this the archiepiscopal inquisitors had by law
thirty days to reply, and during the interval, on February 13, he took
an extra-judicial step, which seems to show how greatly his reputation
had suffered by these proceedings, and which has given rise to the
assertion that he recanted his errors. After preaching in the Dominican
church he caused a paper to be read in which he exculpated himself to
the people from the erroneous doctrines attributed to him--denying that
he had said that his little finger had created all things, or that there
was in the soul something uncreated and uncreatable. At the expiration
of the thirty days, on February 22, the archiepiscopal inquisitors
rejected Eckhart's appeal as frivolous. Worn out with the controversy,
he died soon after, but his Order had sufficient influence with John
XXII. to obtain an evocation of the case to Avignon. There the
regularity of the archbishop's action was recognized, and on March 27,
1329, judgment was rendered, defining in Eckhart's teachings seventeen
heretical articles and eleven suspect of heresy. Although his assumed
recantation saved his bones from exhumation and incremation, the result
was none the less a full justification of the archbishop's proceedings.
For once the old order had triumphed over the new. The episcopal
jurisdiction was confirmed, for Eckhart's heresy was declared to have
been proved both by the inquisition held by the archbishop under his
ordinary authority, and by the investigation subsequently made in
Avignon by papal command, and the decision was the more emphatic, since
John XXII. had at the moment every motive to soothe the Dominicans,
involved as he was in mortal struggle at once with Louis of Bavaria and
with the whole puritanic section of the Franciscans.[321]
The episcopal Inquisition was thus fairly re-established as part of the
recognized organization of the Church. The Council of Paris in 1350
treats of the persecution of heresy as part of the recognized duties of
the bishop, and instructs the Ordinaries as to their powers of arrest
and authority to call upon the secular officials for assistance in
precisely the same terms as the Inquisition might do. A brief of Urban
V. in 1363 refers to a knight and five gentlemen suspected of heresy,
then in the custody of the Bishop of Carcassonne, and orders their trial
by the bishop or inquisitor, or by both conjointly, the result to be
referred to the papal court. When a bishop had spirit to resist the
invasion of his rights by an inquisitor, he was able to make them
respected. In 1423 the Inquisitor of Carcassonne had gone to Albi, where
he swore in two notaries and some other officials to act for him; he had
then taken certain evidence relating to a case before him, and had sworn
the witnesses to secrecy in order that the accused might not receive
warning. Of all this the Bishop of Albi complained as an invasion of his
jurisdiction. The swearing in of the officials he claimed should only
have been done in presence of his ordinary or of a deputy; the secrecy
imposed on the witnesses was an impediment to his own inquisitorial
procedure, as depriving him of evidence in the event of his prosecuting
the case. The points were somewhat nice, and illustrate the friction and
jealousy inseparable from the concurrent and competing jurisdictions;
but in the present case, to avoid unseemly strife, the Bishop of
Carcassonne was chosen as arbitrator, the inquisitor acknowledged
himself in the wrong and annulled his acts, and a public instrument was
drawn up in attestation of the settlement. Yet in spite of these
inevitable quarrels a _modus vivendi_ was practically established.
Eymerich, writing about 1375, almost always represents the bishop and
inquisitor as co-operating together, not only in the final sentence, but
in the preliminary proceedings; he evidently seeks to represent the two
powers as working harmoniously for a common end, and that the
Inquisition in no way superseded the episcopal jurisdiction or relieved
the bishop from the responsibility inherent in his office. A century
later Sprenger, in discussing the jurisdiction of the Inquisition from
the standpoint of an inquisitor, takes virtually the same position; and
the commissions issued to inquisitors usually contained a clause to the
effect that no prejudice was intended to the inquisitorial jurisdiction
of the Ordinaries. In the habitual negligence of the episcopal
officials, however, the inquisitors found little difficulty in
trespassing upon their functions, and complaints of this interference
continued until the eve of the Reformation.[322]
Technically there was no difference between the episcopal and papal
Inquisitions. The equitable system of procedure borrowed from the Roman
law by the courts of the Ordinaries was cast aside, and the bishops were
permitted and even instructed to follow the inquisitorial system, which
was a standing mockery of justice--perhaps the most iniquitous that the
arbitrary cruelty of man has ever devised. In tracing the history of the
institution, therefore, there is no distinction to be drawn between its
two branches, and the exploits of both are to be recorded as springing
from the same impulses, using the same methods, and leading to the same
ends.[323]
Yet the papal Inquisition was an instrument of infinitely greater
efficiency for the work in hand. However zealous an episcopal official
might be, his efforts were necessarily isolated, temporary, and
spasmodic. The papal Inquisition, on the other hand, constituted a
chain of tribunals throughout Continental Europe perpetually manned by
those who had no other work to attend to. Not only, therefore, did
persecution in their hands assume the aspect of part of the endless and
inevitable operations of nature, which was necessary to accomplish its
end, and which rendered the heretic hopeless that time would bring
relief, but by constant interchange of documents and mutual co-operation
they covered Christendom with a network rendering escape almost
hopeless. This, combined with the most careful preservation and indexing
of records, produced a system of police singularly perfect for a period
when international communication was so imperfect. The Inquisition had a
long arm, a sleepless memory, and we can well understand the mysterious
terror inspired by the secrecy of its operations and its almost
supernatural vigilance. If public proclamation was desired, it summoned
all the faithful, with promises of eternal life and reasonable temporal
reward, to seize some designated heresiarch, and every parish priest
where he was suspected to be in hiding was bound to spread the call
before the whole population. If secret information was required, there
were spies and familiars trained to the work. The record of every
heretical family for generations could be traced out from the papers of
one tribunal or another. A single lucky capture and extorted confession
would put the sleuth-hounds on the track of hundreds who deemed
themselves secure, and each new victim added his circle of
denunciations. The heretic lived over a volcano which might burst forth
at any moment. During the fierce persecution of the Spiritual
Franciscans in 1317 and 1318 a number of pitying souls had assisted
fugitives, had stood by the pyres of their martyrs and had comforted
them in various ways. Some had been suspected, had fled and changed
their names: others had remained in favoring obscurity; all might well
have fancied that the affair was forgotten. Suddenly, in 1325, some
chance--probably the confession of a prisoner--placed the Inquisition on
their track. Twenty or more were traced out and seized. Kept in prison
for a year or two, their resolution broke down one by one; they
successively confessed their half-forgotten guilt and were duly
penanced. Even more significant was the case of Guillelma Maza of
Castres, who lost her husband in 1302. In the first grief of her
widowhood she was induced to listen to the teachings of two Waldensian
missionaries whose exhortations brought her comfort. They visited her
but twice, in the darkness of the night; she never saw their faces nor
those of others. After twenty-five years of orthodox observance, in
1327, she is brought before the Inquisition of Carcassonne, confesses
this single aberration from the faith, and repents. Unforgiving and
unforgetting, no trifle was beneath the minute vigilance of the Holy
Office. Thus in the case of Manenta Rosa, who, in 1325, was called
before it at Carcassonne on the mortal charge of relapse, the
prosecution was because, after having abjured the heresy of the
Spirituals, she had been seen talking with a man who was under suspicion
and had sent by him two sols to a sick woman likewise suspect.[324]
Flight was of little avail. Descriptions of heretics who disappeared
were sent throughout Europe, to every spot where they could be supposed
to seek refuge, putting the authorities on the alert to search for every
stranger who wore the air of one differing in life and conversation from
the ordinary run of the faithful. News of captures was transmitted from
one tribunal to another, evidence of guilt was furnished, or the hapless
victim was returned to the spot where his extorted evidence would be
most effective in implicating others. In 1287 an arrest of heretics at
Treviso included some from France. Immediately the French inquisitors
request that they be sent to them, especially one who ranked as bishop
among the Cathari, for they may be induced to reveal the names of many
others; and Nicholas IV. forthwith sends instructions to Friar Philip of
Treviso to deliver them, after extracting all he can from them, to the
messenger of the French Inquisition. Well might the orthodox imagine
that only the hand of God, the heretic that only the inspiration of
Satan, could produce such results as would follow the return of these
poor wretches. To human apprehension the papal Inquisition was well-nigh
ubiquitous, omniscient, and omnipotent.[325]
Occasionally, it is true, the efficiency of the organization was marred
with quarrels. Antagonisms could not always be avoided, and the jealousy
and mutual dislike of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders would
sometimes interfere with the harmony essential to mutual co-operation. I
have already alluded to the troubles arising from this cause at
Marseilles in 1266 and at Verona in 1291. A further symptom of lack of
unity is seen in 1327, when Pierre Trencavel, a noted Spiritual, who had
escaped from the prison of Carcassonne, was captured in Provence with
his daughter Andrée, likewise a fugitive. There could be no question as
to their belonging to those from whom they had fled, yet Friar Michel,
the Franciscan inquisitor of Provence, refused to surrender them, and
the Carcassonne tribunal was obliged to appeal to John XXII., who
intervened with a peremptory command to Friar Michel to lay aside all
opposition and surrender the prisoners at once. Yet, considering the
imperfections of human nature, these quarrels seem to have been
few.[326]
Properly to govern and direct an engine of such infinite power, dealing
with the life and happiness of countless thousands, would require more
than human wisdom and virtue; and it may be worth a moment's attention
to see what was the ideal of those to whom the practical working of the
Holy Office was confided. Bernard Gui, the most experienced inquisitor
of his day, concludes his elaborate instructions as to procedure with
some general directions as to conduct and character. The inquisitor, he
tells us, should be diligent and fervent in his zeal for the truth of
religion, for the salvation of souls, and for the extirpation of heresy.
Amid troubles and opposing accidents he should grow earnest, without
allowing himself to be inflamed with the fury of wrath and indignation.
He must not be sluggish of body, for sloth destroys the vigor of action.
He must be intrepid, persisting through danger to death, laboring for
religious truth, neither precipitating peril by audacity nor shrinking
from it through timidity. He must be unmoved by the prayers and
blandishments of those who seek to influence him, yet not be, through
hardness of heart, so obstinate that he will yield nothing to entreaty,
whether in granting delays or in mitigating punishment, according to
place and circumstance, for this implies stubbornness; nor must he be
weak and yielding through too great a desire to please, for this will
destroy the vigor and value of his work--he who is weak in his work is
brother to him who destroys his work. In doubtful matters he must be
circumspect and not readily yield credence to what seems probable, for
such is not always true; nor should he obstinately reject the opposite,
for that which seems improbable often turns out to be fact. He must
listen, discuss, and examine with all zeal, that the truth may be
reached at the end. Like a just judge let him so bear himself in passing
sentence of corporal punishment that his face may show compassion, while
his inward purpose remains unshaken, and thus will he avoid the
appearance of indignation and wrath leading to the charge of cruelty. In
imposing pecuniary penalties, let his face preserve the severity of
justice as though he were compelled by necessity and not allured by
cupidity. Let truth and mercy, which should never leave the heart of a
judge, shine forth from his countenance, that his decisions may be free
from all suspicion of covetousness or cruelty.[327]
* * * * *
To appreciate rightly the career and influence of the Inquisition will
require a somewhat minute examination into its methods and procedure. In
no other way can we fully understand its action; and the lessons to be
drawn from such an investigation are perhaps the most important that it
has to teach.