Page:A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages-Volume I .pdf/327

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
397
UNCERTAINTY OF PROCEDURE.

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 Chateauneuf 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 Pome 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 IS^evers, and Master Pobert 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 Pome. 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 Httle moment. The case sufficiently shows the im-


    Remens. ann. 1137 c. 1. — Caesar. Heisterb. Dial. Mirac. iii. 16, 17; v. 18.— Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita sua Lib. iii, c. 18. — Pet. Cantor, Verb, abbrev. c. 78. — Innoc. PP. III. Regest. xiv. 138.— Alex. PP. III. Epist. 74.— C. 8 Extra v. xxxiv — C. Lateran. IV. c. 18.