Page:A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages-Volume I .pdf/557

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

calcitrant, while they were at the same time cautioned only to speak of executing the laws without sepcifically mentioning the penalty, in order to avoid falling inot "irregularity," though the only punishment recognized by the Church as sufficient for heresy was burning alive. Even if the ruler was excommunicated and incapable of legally performing any other function, he was not relieved from the obligation of this supreme duty, with which nothing was allowed to interfere. Indeed, authorities were found to argue that if an inquisitor were obliged to execute the sentence himself he would not thereby incur irregularity.[1]

We are not to imagine, however, from these reduplicated commands that the secular power, as a rule, showed itself in the slightest degree disinclined to perform the duty. The teachings of the Church had made too profound an impression for any doubt in the premises to exist. As has been seen above, the laws of all the states of Europe prescribed concremation as the appropriate penalty for heresy, and even the free commonwealths of Italy recognized the Inquisition as the judge whose sentences were to be blindly executed. Raymond of Toulouse himself, in the fit of piety which preceded his death in 1249, caused eighty believers in heresy to be burned at Berlaiges, near Agen, after they had confessed in his presence, apparently without giving them the opportunity of recanting. From the contemporary sentences of Bernard de Caux, it is probable that, had these unfortunates been tried before that ardent champion of the faith, not one of them would have been condemned to the stake as impenitent. Quite as significance was the suit brought by the Maréchal de Mirepoix against the Seneschal of Carcassonne, because the latter had invaded his right to burn for himself all his subjects condemned as heretics by the Inquisition. In 1269 the Parlement of Paris decided the case in his favor, after which, on March 18, 1270, the seneschal acceded to his demand that the bones of seven men and three women of his ter-

  1. C. 18 Sexto v. 2.-Concil. Albicns. ann. 1254 c. 32.-Eymeric. Direct. Inq. pp. 372, 562,-Pegne Comment. in Eymeric. p. 564.-Guid. Fulcod. Quast. x.-Alex PP. IV. Bull. Adaudicntiam, 1200 (Eymeric. Append. p. 34).-Bern. Guidon. Practica P. IY. (Doat, XXX.)-Alex. PI. IV. BullL Quesivisti, 126O (Ripoli I. 308).-Wadding. Annal. ann. 1288, No. 20.-Zanchini Tract. de Horet. c. xviii.-Fortalicii Fidei fol. 74-Bernardi Comens. Luccrna Inquisit. s. v. Executio, No. 1,8