gations; especially as, at a comparatively early date, the practice was adopted of allowing a number of culprits to accumulate whose fate was determined and announced in a solemn "Sermo" or auto de fé. Still, the form was kept up, and in 1247 a sentence rendered by Bernard de Caux and Jean de St. Pierre on seven relapsed heretics is specified as being " with the counsel of many prelates and other good men." In the final shape which the assembly of counsellors assumed, we find it summoned to meet on Fridays, the "Sermo" always taking place on Sundays. When the number of criminals was large there was thus not much time for deliberation on special cases. The assessors were always to be jurists and Mendicant friars, selected by the inquisitor in such numbers as he saw fit. They were severally sworn on the Gospels to secrecy, and to give good and wise counsel, each one according to his conscience and the knowledge vouchsafed him by God. The inquisitor then read over to them his summary of each case, sometimes withholding the name of the accused, and they voted the sentence — "Penance at the discretion of the inquisitor" — "That person is to be imprisoned, or abandoned to the secular arm," while the Gospels lay on the table in their midst," so that our judgment may come from the face of God and our eyes may see justice."[1]
As a rule it is safe to assume that these proceedings were scarcely more than formal. Not only was the inquisitor at liberty to present each case in such aspect as he saw fit, but it became the custom to call in such numbers of experts that in the press of business deliberation was scarce possible. Thus the Inquisitor of Carcassonne, Henri de Chamay, assembled at Narbonne, December 10, 1328, besides himself and the episcopal Ordinary, forty-two counsellors, consisting of canons, jurisconsults, and lay experts. In the two days allotted to them this unwieldly assemblage despatched thirty-four cases, which would show that little consideration could have been given to each. In only two cases, indeed, was there any dif-
- ↑ Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Cupientes, 15 Apr. 1255.— Ejusd. Bull. Prw cunctis, 9 Nov. 1256.— Urbani PP. IV. Bull. Lic^t ex omnihus, § 10, 1262 (Mag. Bull. Rom. I. 122). — Bern. Guidon. Practica P. iv. (Doat, XXX.). — Zanchini de Haeret. c. xv. — Bernard! Comens. Lucerna Inquisitor, s. v. Advocatus. — Coll. Doat, XXI. 143; XXVII. 156-62, 232; XXXI. 139. — Doctrina de modo proccdendi (Martenc Thesaur. V. 1795).— Tractatus de Inquis. (Doat, XXXVI.).— MSS. Bib. Nat., fonda latin, No. 14930, fol. 205.
