[300] Mag. Bull. Roman. I. 118.--C. 9 s.e.xto v. 1.--Zanchini Tract, de Haeret. c. x.x.xi.--Cf. Eymerici Direct. Inq. p. 561.--Bernardi Comens.

Lucerna Inquisit. s. v. _Statutum_.

[301] Bernard. Guidon. Gravam. (Doat, x.x.x. 107-9).--Alex. PP. IV. Bull.

_Cupientes_, 15 Apr. 1255; Ejusd. Bull. _Exortis in agro_, 15 Mar. 1256.

[302] Pegnae Append. ad Eymeric. pp. 37-8.--Zanchini Tract, de Haeret. c.

x.x.xvii.

[303] Arch. Nat. de France, J. 431, No. 23.--Innoc. PP. IV. Bull.

_Devotionis_, 2 Mai. 1245 (Coll. Doat, x.x.xI. 70).--Berger, Registres d"Innoc. IV. No. 1963.--Ripoll I. 132; II. 594, 610, 644.--Alex. PP. IV.

Bull. _Ut negotium_, 5 Mart. 1261.--Urbani PP. IV. Bull. _Ut negotium_, 4 Aug. 1262.--Mag. Bull. Roman. I. 116, 120, 126, 139, 267, 420.--C. 10 s.e.xto v. 2.--Potthast No. 13057, 18389, 18419, 19559.--Bern. Guidon.

Practica P. IV. (Doat, x.x.x.).--Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. pp. 136, 137.

It is curious that the question whether the commission of an inquisitor did not expire with the death of the appointing pope was still considered in doubt as late as 1290, when it was settled in favor of permanence by Nicholas IV. in the bull _Ne aliqui_ (Potthast No. 23302).

In the earlier period Alexander IV. shortly after his accession, in 1255, considered it necessary to renew the commission of even so distinguished an inquisitor as Rainerio Saccone (Ripoll I. 275).

[304] Coll. Doat, x.x.xI. 73; x.x.xII. 15, 105.--Alex. PP. IV. Bull. _Odore suavi_, 13 Mai. 1256; Ejusd. Bull. _Catholicae fidei_, 15 Jul. 1257; Ejusd. Bull. _Quod super nonnullis_, 9 Dec. 1257; Ejusd. Bull.

_Meminimus_, 13 Apr. 1258.--Clem. PP. IV. Bull. _Licet ex omnibus_, 30 Sept. 1265.--C. 1, 2, Clementin. v. 2.--Bern. Guidon. Gravam. (Doat, x.x.x. 114).

[305] Wadding, ann. 1323, No. 17; ann. 1327, No. 5; ann. 1339, No. 1; ann. 1347, No. 10, 11; ann. 1375, No. 30; ann. 1432, No. 10, 11; ann.

1474, No. 17-19.--Archivio di Firenze, Prov. del Convento di S. Croce 26 Ott. 1439.--Ripoll II. 324, 421, 570-1.--Sixti PP. IV. Bull. _Sacri_, 16 Jul. 1479, -- 11.

[306] Eymeric. pp. 540-9, 553.--Archivio di Firenze, Prov. del. Conv.

di. S. Croce, 16 Apr. 1418.

[307] Eymerici Direct. Inquis. p. 559.--Greg. PP. X. Bull. 20 Apr. 1273 (Martene Thes. V. 1821).--Zanchini de Haeret. c. viii.--Johann. PP. XXII, Bull. _Ex parte vestra_, 3 Jul. 1322 (Wadding. III. 291).--C. 16 s.e.xto V. 2.--C. 3 Extrav. Commun. V. 3.--Arch. de l"Inq. de Carca.s.sonne (Doat, XXVII. 204).

[308] Pegnae App. ad. Eymeric. pp. 66-7.--Arch. de l"Inq. de Carca.s.s.

(Doat, x.x.xII. 143, 147).--Eymeric. Direct. Inq. pp. 537-8.--Albert.

Repert. Inq. Ed. 1494, s.v. _Delegatus_.--Franz Ehrle, Archiv fur Litteratur-u. Kirchengeschichte, 1886, p. 158.--Lami, Antichita Toscane, p. 583.--Archivio di Firenze, Riformagioni, Cla.s.se V. No. 129, fol. 46, 62-70.--Martene Ampl. Collect. VI. 344.

[309] MSS. Bib. Nat., fonds latin, No. 4270, fol. 146. In the trial of Friar Bernard Delicieux, in 1319, it was held that he was guilty of "impeding" the Inquisition because, among other acts, he had been concerned in enlarging somewhat the powers of the agents appointed by the city of Albi to prosecute their appeal to Pope Clement V. against their bishop and inquisitor (Ib. fol. 165).

[310] Concil. Turonens. ann. 1239 c. 1.--C. Biterrens. ann. 1246 c.

1.--C. Albiens. ann. 1254 c. 1, 21.--C. Insulan. ann. 1251 c. 2.--Tract.

de Paup. de Lugduno (Martene Thesaur. V. 1793).

[311] Arch. de l"Inq. de Carca.s.s. (Doat, x.x.xV. 85, 184).--Ripoll II.

299, 311; III. 135.

[312] D"Argentre, Collect. Judic. I. I. 185, 234.--Harduin. Concil. VII.

1065-8, 1864.--Capgrave"s Chronicle, ann. 1286.--Nic. Trivetti Chron.

ann. 1222 (D"Achery III. 188).--Bracton. Lib. III. t.i.t. ii. cap. 9, -- 2.--Myrror of Justice, cap. I. -- 4, cap. II. -- 22; cap. IV. -- 14.--5 Rich. II. c. 5.--Rymer"s Fdera, VII. 363, 447, 458.--2 Henr. IV. c.

15.--Concil. Oxoniens. ann. 1408 c. 13.--2 Henr. V. c. 7.--25 Henr.

VIII. c. 14.--1 Edw. VI. c. 12, -- 3.--1 Eliz. c. 1, -- 15.--29 Car. II.

c. 9.--London Athenaeum, May 31, 1873; Nov. 29, 1884.

[313] Wright, Proceedings against Dame Alice Kyteler, Camden Soc.

1843.--Wadding. Annal. ann. 1317, No. 56; ann. 1335, No. 5, 6.--Theiner Monument. Hibern. et Scotor. No. 531-2, p. 269; No. 570-1, p. 286; No.

599, p. 299.

[314] Wadding. Annal. ann. 1421, No. 1.

[315] Paramo, pp. 252-3.--Monteiro, Historia da Santo Inquisico, P. I.

Lib. I. c. 59.--Ripoll II. 299, 310; III. 9, 110.

[316] Wadding, ann. 1290, No. 2; ann. 1375, No. 27, 28.

It is worthy of note that in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem heresy seems to have been justiciable by the lay court, and the heretic knight was ent.i.tled to be judged by his peers.--a.s.sises de Jerusalem, Haute Court, c. 318 (Ed. Kausler, Stuttgart, 1838, p. 367-8).

[317] Tresor des Chartes du Roi en Carca.s.sonne (Doat, XXI. 34-49).--Lib.

Confess. Inquis. Albiae (MSS. Bib. Nat., fonds latin, 11847).--Archives Nat. de France, J. 431, No. 22-29.--Vaissette, III. 446.--Coll. Doat, XXVII. 161.--Molinier, L"Inquisition dans le midi de la France, Paris, 1880, pp. 275-6.

[318] Mag. Bull. Roman. I. 122.--Wadding. Annal. ann. 1265, No.

3.--Arch. de l"Inq. de Carca.s.sonne (Coll. Doat, x.x.xII. 32).--Martene Thesaur. V. 1818--C. 17 s.e.xto v. 2.--C. 1 Extrav. Comm. v. 3.--Eymeric.

Direct. Inquis. pp. 539, 580-1.--C. 1, -- 1, Clement, v. 3.

Urban"s bull of 1262 is virtually the same as his "_Prae cunctis_" of 1264, printed by Boutaric, Saint-Louis et Alph. de Toulouse, pp. 443 sqq.

[319] Vaissette, III. 515.--Archidiac. Gloss. sup. c. 17, 20 s.e.xto v.

2.--Harduin. VII. 1017-19.--C. 17, 19 s.e.xto v. 2.--C. 1, Clement, v.

3.--Concil. Melodun. ann. 1300, No. 4.--Bernard. Guidon. Hist. Conv.

Albiens. (Bouquet, XXI. 767).--Albert. Repert. Inquis. s.v.

_Episcopus_.--Guid. Fulcod. Quaest. I.--Ripoll I. 512; VII. 53.--Joann.

Andreae Gloss, sup. c. 13 -- 8 Extra, v. vii.--Eymeric. Direct. Inquis.

pp. 626, 637, 650.--C. 1 Extrav. commun. v. 3.--Bernard. Guidon.

Practica P. IV. (Doat, x.x.x.).--Bernardi Comens. Lucerna Inquis. s.v.

_Bona haereticorum_.

As early as 1257 we find that the Inquisition had already extended its jurisdiction over usury as heresy (Alex. PP. IV. Bull. _Quod super nonnullis_ [Arch. de l"Inq. de Carca.s.s. Doat, x.x.xI. 244]--a bull which was repeatedly reissued. See Raynald. Annal. ann. 1258, No. 23; Potthast Regesta 17745, 18396; Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. Ed. Pegnae, p. 133. Cf. c.

8 -- 5 s.e.xto v. 2). The Council of Lyons, in 1274 (can. 26, 27), in treating of usury, alludes only to its punishment by the Ordinaries. The Council of Vienne, in 1311, directed inquisitors to prosecute those who maintained that usury is not sinful (c. 1 -- 2 Clementin. v. 5); but Eymerich (Direct. Inquis. p. 106) deprecates attention to such matters as an interference with the real business of the Inquisition. Zanghino lays down the rule that a man may be a public usurer, or blasphemer, or fornicator without being a heretic, but if he, in addition, manifests contempt for religion by not frequenting divine service, receiving the sacrament, observing the fasts and other ordinances of the Church, he becomes suspect of heresy, and can be prosecuted by the inquisitors (Zanchini Tract. de Haeres. c. x.x.xV.).

We shall see that usury became a very profitable subject of exploitation by the Inquisition when the diminution of heresy deprived it of its legitimate field of action. As the offence was one cognizant by the secular courts (see Vaissette, IV. 164), there was really no excuse for the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction over it.

[320] Coll. Doat, XXVII. 7; x.x.xIV. 87.--Concil. Bergamens. ann. 1311, Rubr. 1.--MSS. Bib. Nat. Coll. Moreau. 1274, fol. 72.--Lib. Sententt.

Inq. Tolosan, pp. 268, 282, 351-2.

[321] W. Preger, Meister Eckart und die Inquisition, Munchen, 1869.--Denifle, Archiv fur Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte, 1886, pp.

616, 640.--Raynald. ann. 1329, No. 70-2.--Gustav Schmidt, Pabstliche Urkunden und Regesten, Halle, 1886, p. 223.--Cf. Eymeric. Direct.

Inquis. pp. 453 sqq.

The power of the Inquisition over the specially exempted orders of the Mendicants varied at times. Jurisdiction was conferred by Innocent IV., in 1254, by the bull _Ne comissum vobis_ (Ripoll I. 252). About two hundred years later, Pius II. placed the Franciscans under the jurisdiction of their own minister-general. In 1479 Sixtus IV., by the golden bull _Sacri praedicatorum_, -- 12, forbade all inquisitors from prosecuting members of the other Order (Mag. Bull. Roman. I. 420). Soon afterwards Innocent VIII. prohibited all inquisitors from trying Franciscan friars; but, with the rise of Lutheranism, this became inexpedient, and in 1530 Clement VII., in the bull _c.u.m sicut_, -- 2, removed all exemptions, and again made all justiciable by the Inquisition (Mag. Bull. Rom. I. 681), which was repeated by Pius IV. in the bull _Pastoris aeterni_, in 1562 (Eymeric. Direct. Inq. Append. p.

127; Pegnae Comment. p. 557).

Whether a bishop could proceed against an inquisitor for heresy was a debatable question, and one probably never practically tested. Eymerich holds that he could not, but must refer the matter to the pope; but Pegna, in his commentaries, quotes good authorities to the contrary (Eymeric. op. cit. pp. 558-9).

[322] Concil. Parisiens, ann. 1350 c. 3, 4.--Arch, de l"Inq. de Carca.s.sonne (Doat, x.x.xV. 132).--Archives de l"eveche d"Albi (Doat, x.x.xV.

187).--Eymerici Direct. Inquis. p. 529.--Sprengeri Mall. Maleficar. P.

III. Q. 1.--Ripoll II. 311, 324, 351.--Cornel. Agrippae de Vanitate Scientiarum, cap. XCVI. Yet a bull of Nicholas V. to the inquisitor of France in 1451 seems to render him independent of episcopal co-operation (Ripoll III. 301).