Page:A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages-Volume I .pdf/356

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

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.[1]

The control of the bishops was vastly increased, at least in Italy, over 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.[2]

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

  1. Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1246. — Arch, de Flnq, de Carcass. (Doat, XXVII. 7, 156; XXX. 107-9; XXXI. 149, 180, 216).— Vaissette, III. Pr. 479, 496-7.— Martene Thesaur. I. 1045.— Ripoll I. 194.— Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. Licet ex omnibus^ 30 Mai, 1254. — Concil. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 24.— Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Licet ex omnibus, 20 Jan. 1257 ; Ejusd. Bull. Ad capiendum, ann. 1257. — Clement. PP. IV.*Bull. Licet ex omnibus, 17 Sept. 1265. — Gregor. PP. X. Bull. Prm cunctis mentis, 20 Apr. 1273. — Lib. Sententt. Inq. Tolosan. passim. — C. 17 Sexto v. 2. — Eymeric. Direct. Inq. p. 580. — Albert. Repert. Inq. s. v. Episcopus.—Zanchini Tract, de Haeret. xv. — Isambert, II. 747. — Pegnse Comment, in Eymeric. p. 578.
  2. Wadding. Annal. Minorum ann. 1288, No. 17. — C. 1 Extrav. Commun. v. iii.