Page:A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages-Volume I .pdf/492

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

sary expenses of the Inquisition, possibly because the good bishops found that they themselves were expected to meet these demands as appertaining to the episcopal jurisdiction. In an inquisitorial manual of the period this is specified as the destination of the fines, but the power was speedily abused, and in 1249 Innocent IV. sternly rebuked the inquisitors in general for the heavy exactions which they wrung from their converts, to the disgrace of the Holy See and the scandal of the faithful at large. This apparently had no effect, and in 1251 he prohibited them wholly from levying fines if any other form of penance could be employed. Yet the inquisitors finally triumphed and won the right to inflict pecuniary penances at discretion. These were understood to be for pious uses, in which term were included the expenses of the Inquisition ; and as they were payable to the inquisitors themselves, they doubtless were so expended — it is to be hoped in accordance with the caution of Eymerich, "decently and without scandal to the laity." In the sentences of Fra Antonio Secco on the peasants of the Waldensian valleys in 1387, the penance of crosses is usually accompanied with a fine of five or ten florins of pure gold, payable to the Inquisition, nominally to defray the expenses of the trial. An attempt of the State to secure a share was defeated by a council of experts assembled at Piacenza in 1276 by the Lombard inquisitors, Fra Niccolo da Cremona and Fra Daniele da Giussano. A more decent use of the power to inflict money payments was one which Pierre Cella, the first inquisitor of Toulouse, frequently employed, by adding to the pilgrimages or other penances imposed the obligation of maintaining a priest or a poor man for a term of years or for life.[1]

In the later period of the Inquisition it was argued that fines were inadmissible, because if the accused were a heretic all his property disappeared in confiscation, while if he were not he

  1. Vaissette, III. Pr. 386.— Lami, Antichitst Toscane, p. 560. — Concil. Narbonn. ann. 1244 c. 17. — Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. Quia te, 19 Jan. 1245 (Doat,XXXL 71).— Molinier, op. cit. pp. 23, 390. — Concil. Biterrens. ann. 1246, Append, c. 27. — Practica super Inquisit. (MSS. Bib. Nat., fonds latin, No. 14930, fol. 222).— Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. Gum a quibusdam, 14 Mai. 1249 (Boat, XXXI. 81, 116). — Coll. Boat, XXXIII. 198. — RipoU, 1. 194. — Eymeric. Direct. Inq. pp. 648-9, 653. — Zancbini Tract, de Haeret. c. xix., xx., xli.— Arcbivio Storico Italian©, No. 38, pp. 27, 42. — Campi, Dell' Hist. Eccles. di Piacenza, P. ii. p. 309.— Coll. Doat, XXI. 185 sqq.