CHAPTER XIX

Of Vulgar Purgation by Fire.
Argument.
oe purgation was formerly of three sorts; that by the pyre, that by burning coals, and that by red hot iron: and a man’s innocence was proved if he escaped unhurt from the ordeal. The ordeal of red hot iron is still used by the Japanese, as we learn from letters written in the year 1595 by Father Luis Frées, a Jesuit, which were afterwards printed at Mainz in the year 1598. In France in olden times it was only legal in secular causes, as we learn from the Epistles of Ivo. I find that this hot iron was called a “judgement,” and that this name was applied to all the instruments of these vulgar proofs, as is noted by Pierre Le Loyer in his De Spectris, II, 7. It is referred to in various laws of the Northern peoples introduced by the Gauls into Italy after the Barbarian invasions. Radevicust in his De Frid- erict Imperatoris Gestis, 1, 26, mentions a military law by which a slave who has not been caught stealing, but is ac- cused of it, was commanded to prove his innocence either by an oath before God or by the ordeal of red hot iron. The laws of the Franks and Lombards provided that a man accused of mur- der must purge himself by walking over nine red hot ploughshares.
+ ‘Ivo.’ S. Ivo of Chartres denied the lia- biltty of ecclesiastics to the Ordeal, but allowed that it could be properly used on laymen, and even pronounces that there is no appeal from the result. “‘Iuon. Carnot. Epist.”” cexxxit, ccxlix, cclit.
t “‘Radevicus.’ A Canon of Freisingen. His “Libri duo... de... Friderici Impera- toris gestis’ were published, folio, 1515. An- other edition is the text given in Tissier’s “‘Bib- liotheca Patrum Cisterciensium,” vol. VIII, folio, 1660. The work is also included in Wursisten’s ‘‘Germaniae Historicorum illus- trium Collectio,”’ folio, 1670.
152
We learn from the Council of Tri- bur* that in Germany this purgation was not employed for nobles (for whom it was enough that twelve of their peers should swear their innocence), but for the base-born. Yet history proves that even nobles often underwent it, using either red hot blades or red hot gaunt- lets or some other such thing. In the year 1215 or thereabouts Conrad of Marburg,t the Apostolic Inquisitor, ordered those who had denied a charge of heresy to undergo the ordeal by red hot iron; and if they were burned he at once committed them to the stake. If this is true, he acted against the Canon Law: for Pope Stephen V had already forbidden that practice.
Ww Examples.
A certain Christiant was living in the land of Omura with the heathen, and was accused of theft. Now thisis a crime most severely punished in Japan, so that if a man be convicted on the very slightest evidence he is con- demned to death without hope of pardon. But they could not truly convict this Christian ; so the heathen, baffled in all other attempts, insisted upon his being forced to swear an oath after their custom in the following
* “ (now Trebur) was held in May 895, and pre- sided over by Archbishop Hatto of Mainz. For the ordinances of this politico-ecclesiastical as- sembly see Concil. Triburens. ann. 895 apud Harduin, “‘Concil.” VI. i. 446.
{ “Conrad of Marburg.’’ The confessor of S. Elizabeth of Thuringia, and papal inquisi- tor. He was assassinated 30 Fuly, 1233. Pope Stephen V reigned 816-17. As recently as 1210 Innocent III prohibited the employment of any ordeal by the ecclesiastical courts (“‘Regest.” xiv, 138). Guazzo has taken this instance from Trithemius (‘“‘Chron. Hirsaug.”? ann. 1215).
t “‘A certain Christian.” This is from the Fapanese letters of Fr. Luis Frées, S.F., which were collected and printed at Mainz, 1598.
COMPENDIUM
BK. II. CH. XIX.
manner: he must write the needful oath upon a paper and, with the paper in his hand, must grip hold of a red hot iron, calling upon his head the vengeance and wrath of Kami if he were guilty; and if his hand were burned they would say that it was a proof that he was guilty, and if his hand and the paper were unharmed it would prove him innocent. Being placed in this dilemma (for either he must take this oath, or else by refusing to do so prove himself guilty and en- danger his life), the Christian relied upon his innocence, but said that it was not lawful for him as a Christian to swear by the false Kami, but only by the true God. The heathen agreed that he should swear by his own God. He then made the sign of the Cross on the paper and, being forced to take the red hot iron in his hand, gripped it with the greatest confidence. And by a notable miracle neither his hand nor the paper was burned. He was therefore freed not only from the punishment with which the heathen threatened him, but also from the accusation which they had falsely brought against him.
The Emperor Otto III§$ had a wife named Maria, of slippery faith and no conscience. Like another Phaedra this woman tried to entice Amula, Count of Modena, into her embraces, and when she was repulsed conceived a furious hatred against the man whose love she had failed to win; and put her own crime upon him. The Count was aware of her treachery, but was torn between his love for the Emperor and his own honour. His honour gave
§ “Otto II.’’ The date assigned to these incidents is 996. The history is given by several chroniclers: Gotfridi Uiterbiensis Pars xvii, “De Tertio Othone Imperatore’’; Siffridi Epit. Lib. I. ann. 998; Ricobaldi Hist. Impp. sub Ottone III. Muratori originally (‘“Antiqui- tates italicae medit aeui”’; dissert. xxxvtii) ac- cepted the old account, but later (“‘Annali d’Italia’’; anno 996) he argues that it is im- probable.
BK. II. CH. XIX.
way to his love, for he preferred the honour of Caesar to his own life. But to his wife, a most prudent and (which is rare) brave woman, he told all about the attempt of the Empress, his own answer, her calumnies and his own danger; and said that he had deter- mined to die a thousand bitter deaths rather than bring to light so great a disgrace to the Emperor arising from the incontinence and perfidy of the Empress. And he begged her, if he had deserved her love, to witness that he would undergo the sentence of death which threatened him in all constancy as a faithful husband to her : and when he was dead, he begged her to vindicate the name and honour of her husband and free him from ignominy. Not long afterwards the Count was sentenced to death by a too credulous judge. Afterwards a Court was held at Roncevaux, and on the day set for the hearing of widows’ causes, the Count’s wife came forward and in legal form before the Court brought a claim of talion against the Emperor, because he had put her husband to death unjustly. Otto in astonishment said: “‘But how will you prove that your husband was, as you say, innocent?” “By a red hot iron,” she answered. At the Emperor’s com- mand a well heated iron was brought, and the widow in the sight of all took it and held it in her hand without being hurt at all. This miracle so astounded the Emperor that he avowed that he was worthy to be punished, but he pleaded for delay before he underwent punishment. “I demand a threefold bail from three sureties,”’ she answered, “But I only ask the punish- ment of the Queen, whose wicked calumnies robbed me of my husband, you of a loyal soldier, and the State of a useful citizen.’’ All thought her de- mands were just, and the Emperor praised her and offered the security of four sureties in his camp in Etruria. But as for the Empress, who had so evilly burned with the fire of lust, he ordered her to be thrown by the execu-
MALEFICARUM
53
tioner on to the pyre, there to be con- sumed in the flames she justly deserved. In the town of Wittenberg* in Saxony, a man was accused of public incendiarism; but he proved himself on his oath and by ordeal. For he carried a red hot iron for a long way in his hand and put it down on the ground unharmed; but the iron sud- denly vanished from sight. Exactly a year later the man who was really guilty of the incendiarism was at work in the town paving the roads with stones, and turned up that iron where it lay hidden, and badly burned his hand. All were astonished, and recog- nised that iron, and accused the man before the Judge. On being ques- tioned he confessed the truth, and his legs were broken and he was bound to the wheel as guilty. See Kranz, Mistoria Uandalorum, VIII, 30. Caesarius of Heisterbach (X, 35) describes another equally marvellous instance as follows: Abbot Bernard of Lippe used to say that he knew a fisher in the,Diocese of Utrecht who had for a long time fornicated with a woman; and because his sin was too widely known and he was afraid of being accused at a synod which was about to be held, he went straight to a priest and confessed his sin rather, as it appeared later, through fear of punish- ment than for love of justice; and he received the following advice. “If,” said the priest, “you are firmly re- solved never to sin again with her, you will be able to carry the red hot iron safely and resist that sin; and I hope that through the virtue of a good con- fession you will be free.”? And this was done, to the astonishment of all to whom he had told the matter. He was not hurt by the fire; but when he fell back into a wish to repeat his crime, and boasted that he had no more been burned by the iron than by the water of the river which he was then crossing in a boat, and took up
* “Wittenberg.” This is from the ‘“Chroni- con’? (Book iv) of Godfrey of Wittenberg.
154 some of the water in his hands, the cold water acted as if it were red hot iron and burned all theskin off his hand.
In the same chapter he tells of an abominable hypocrite who hid his crimes under the cloak of a pilgrimage. This man, being bribed by another rascal, burned down the house of his host by whom he had been well enter- tained: and after he had twice been received into the house, twice showed his gratitude by again setting fire to it. The master in a panic accused many whom he suspected, but they all proved their innocence by safely undergoing the ordeal by red hot iron. The house was built again for the third time, and the iron was put in a corner of it. After some time the false travel- ler came and was for the third time hospitably received and, seeing the iron, asked what it was for. His host told him, and he replied: “‘Well, I should put it to some other use, and not let it lie there idle.’’ At the same time he took it in his hand: but it immediately grew hot and _ badly burned his hand. He dropped it with a yell; and the host in astonishment formed a just suspicion that this man was guilty of having twice burned his house. Therefore he had him seized and taken before the Judge, who ordered him to be tortured on the rack. He then confessed all and was bound to the wheel. So wonderful are the judgements of God.
I will add another instance taken from the abundant store of Caesarius. Rollo the Norman Duke, who was afterwards called Robert, knew that his subjects were given to robbery, theft and rapine. Therefore he made stringent laws against these crimes which he thought would be a sufficient deterrent, and told the peasants that they might confidently leave their agricultural implements in the fields. One of the farmers, on his return home, was immediately asked by his wife why he had not brought his tools with him, and he excused himself on the
COMPENDIUM
BK. II. CH. XIX.
ground of the Duke’s advice. But she secretly stole the tools from the field and hid them, to teach her husband a lesson in caution. The man went back to the field and, not finding what he had left there, reported it to the magis- trate of the place, who in his turn reported it to the Duke. The Duke summoned the peasant to him and gave him the price of what he had lost, and ordered the Prefect to find the thief by means of the ordeal by fire. The first attempt failed to indicate the thief, although all the peasants sub- mitted to the test. Then the Duke turned to the Bishop and said: “If the God of the Christians knows all secrets, why does He not expose the thief?” Since he was not yet well confirmed in the Faith, the Bishop did not reprove him, but said that it was because the fire had not yet touched the thief. So the Prefect was bidden to search more diligently even among the neighbour- ing villages; but no one was found. The Duke then summoned the peasant and asked him if he had told anyone that he had left the tools in the field; and he answered that he had told no one except his wife. The wife was questioned and confessed the theft. Then the Duke called the peasant and privately asked him: “Did you know that your wife was the thief, or not?” He said: “I knew that she was.” Then said the Duke: “‘ Why then did you not either punish her or expose her?”? Therefore he ordered them both to be hanged, and by this severity established the law.
There comes to my mind the action of a Spanish Catholic who in the time of Leovigild* challenged an Arian Goth to the ordeal by fire. For when he could make no impression upon him by logic or argument, he said: “‘I have on my finger a gold ring which I will throw into the fire. Do you take it out
* “Teovigild.”? The Arian King of the Visigoths, 569-86. He was. the father of S. Hermengild. This incident is from S. Gregory of Tours, ‘‘De Gloria Confessorum,”’ xiv.
BK. II. CH. XIX.
red hot.’? He then threw the ring among the coals and let it become as hot as fire, and turning to the heretic said: “If your contention is true, take it from the fire.” But when he re- fused, he said: “O Almighty Trinity, if I hold any unworthy belief, let it appear; but if my faith is right, let this fierce fire have no strength against me.’ And he took the ring from the fire and kept it for a long time in his hand, and was not hurt. This was no judicial enquiry, but a cogent argu- ment as to the true and sincere faith.
We read in Polydore Vergil’s* His- tory of England (Bk. 8) that Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuaded King Edward the Confessor to compel his mother Emmay to undergo the ordeal of walking over red hot plough- shares becauseshewas suspected of hav- ing committed fornication with Alwyn, Bishop of Winchester. She was un- harmed by the fire, but fled at once from England in terror, and shortly died with a broken heart.
In the Life of S. Johnt the Alms- giver in the month of June, we read that when S. Leontius was sick and felt his death to be at hand, he ordered a thurible full of burning coals to be brought, and in the presence of many
* *Polydore Vergil.”? Born at Urbino, c. 1470; died there probably in 1555. In 1501 Pope Alexander VI sent him to England as sub- collector of Peter’s pence. He settled here, and only returned to his native land owing to the religious changes under Edward VI. The first edition of his ‘‘Historia Anglica’’? was pub- lished at Basle in 1533. In the third edition (1535) the work is continued from 1509 to 1538.
t “Emma.” Giles states (note to William of Malmesbury, anno 1043) that Richard of Devizes is the earliest authority for this story.
t “8. John.” S. Foannes Eleemosynarius, Patriarch of Alexandria (606-16), was born c. 550 at Amathus in Cyprus, where he died in 616. He is said to have devoted the whole revenues of his see to the relief of the poor. He was the original Patron Saint of the Hospital- lers, and was commemorated by the Greeks on 12 November. In the “Roman Martyrology” his name is given under 23 January.
MALEFICARUM
155
took those coals and poured them upon his bosom and said in the hearing of all: ‘‘Blessed be God who of old saved the Bush from burning! Let Him be my faithful witness that, even as the burning power of the fire has not touched my garments, so have I never in all my life touched a woman.”
In France St. Brice,§ who succeeded S. Martin in the See of Tours, invoked a similar judgement. For the people accused him of fornication with a nun, who used to wash the Bishop’s linen, and had given birth to a child by some rascal. S. Brice ordered the child, which was not yet a month old, to be brought among them, and asked it in the presence of the people whether he were its father. The child answered that he was not, but another whom he did not name. This was the work of God, but the people ascribed it to the devil. Then S. Brice filled his biretta with burning coals and wore it all over the city without being hurt; and so he declared himself innocent of the crime of carnal lust, for not even his clothes were touched by the fire.
Peter,|| a priest of Marseilles, during
§ “*S. Brice.” Bishop of Tours from 397 to 444. Among the principal feasts of his diocese, observed with a vigil, Perpetuus, Bishop of Tours (461-491), sets down: WNatalis S. Bricii, 13 November.
\| “‘Peter.”? Peter Bartholomew was a fol- lower of Count Raymond of Toulouse. In 1098 during the First Crusade after the capture of Antioch when the Christians were in turn be- seiged in that city and sorely pressed by famine, sickness and every need, it was revealed to this humble priest by Our Lord and S. Andrew in a vision that the Lance which pierced the side of Christ upon the Cross lay hidden in the Church of S. Peter. The next day with much toil the Sacred Relic was exhumed, and cheered by this signal manifestation of divine favour the Christians rallied shortly to defeat the Infidels with great slaughter. Yet such was the un- happy rivalry of the leaders of the Crusade that certain of the Frankish princes, jealous of the possession of the treasure by Count Raymond, audaciously presumed to dispute the authenticity of the Relic, blasphemously declaring that the
156
the First Crusade, at the time of the seige of Antioch (1098), was suspected of heresy. On Good Friday, therefore, he went with the Holy Lance of the
Lance was unworthy of veneration. Peter in order completely to satisfy the doubts expressed as to his veracity offered to vindicate his truth and the identity of the Relic by the fiery ordeal. After a space of three days allowed for fasting and prayer there was built a pile of dry olive- branches, fourteen feet long and four feet high with a central passage one foot wide. In the sight of forty thousand men all hotly impatient Sor the result, Peter clad only in a tunic and bearing in his hands the Holy Lance boldly passed through the blazing flames. He emerged in perfect safety, but unluckily the frenzied multitude so pressed round him to touch if it were but the hem of his garment that he fell and was trampled in the throng, being injured so severely that he died a few days later main- taining with his last breath the truth of his visions and the authenticity of the Holy Lance. In this account we follow Raimond de Agiles, the chaplain of the Count of Toulouse. He was actually present at the discovery of the Holy Lance and throwing himself into the pit which had been excavated he kissed the point as soon as it was seen in the earth. It was he who officiated at the Ordeal and so delivered the solemn adjuration as Peter entered the pyre. Foulcher de Chartres, chaplain to Baldwin I of Jerusalem, who also has some account of the jinding of the Holy Lance, does not write as warmly as he should, and seems a little jealous that the treasure was not granted to his patron. Raoul de Caen who wrote in r107 and was primed by the party inimical to Count Raymond must not be believed.
The Holy Lance subsequently fell into the hands of the Turks, and there can be no doubt, as all authorities are agreed, that the Sacred Relic discovered by revelation in rog8 was that sent in 1492 by Sultan Bajazet to Innocent VIII to conciliate the Pope’s favour towards the Sulian’s brother, Diem, who was then a pri- soner in the Vatican.
The Holy Lance, preserved at S. Peter’s, is one of the Three Great Relics of the Passion which are shown after Matins on Wednesday in Holy Week; several times in the course of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday; and again after Mass on Easter Day. They are ex-
hibited from the balcony over the staiue of S. Veronica.
COMPENDIUM
BK. II. CH. XIX.
Lord Christ in his hand naked through a pile of burning wood, and escaped unhurt from the fire.
Poppo,* a Danish priest, acted as follows in proof of the Christian faith. He soaked all his clothes in wax and, putting them on, entered a fire in the presence of all the people, and (as he solemnly declared) stood there with- out feeling any pain while the whole of the clothes upon his body were burned to ashes without the fire having touched his skin. Moved by this miracle, the Danes abolished the or- deal by combat and substituted the ordeal by fire.
From Theodorusf Lector we get the following story. In the time of Mar- ciant two Bishops, one Catholic and the other Arian, began a dispute about the controversies and dogmas of the faith; and at last the Catholic Bishop proposed as a condition of their dis- pute that they should lay aside all vain arguments and go together into the fire and so prove by the evidence of God which of them had the true faith. The Arian hesitated, but the Catholic went straight into the fire
* “Poppo.”? This is related by Widukind of Corvey, III, 65: Sigebert. Gemblac. Anno 966: Dithmart Chron. II, viii: Saxo Gramma- ticus Hist. Danic. X. The history is said to be that of Bishop Poppo of Slesvick, the date 962, and the King of the Danes Harold Blaatand. But the chroniclers of Tréves claim the merit of this conversion for S. Poppo, who was Arch- bishop of Tréves from 1016 to 1047. “‘Gest. Treuin. Archiep.” xvi (Marténe, ‘“Ampliss. Collect.”’ iv. 161). Guazzo has taken as his authority the ‘‘Historia Francorum’’ (iv) of Paulus Emilius.
t “Theodorus.” A Lector attached to the Church of Santa Sophia in Constantinople dur- ing the earlier part of the sixth century. He compiled a “‘“Historia Tripartita,’? which is mainly an epitome of the historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Fragments of the “Historia”? were published by Valesius, who used the book in his editions of the original historians. These fragments may also be found in Migne, ‘‘Patres Graeci,’? LXXXVI.
t “Marcian.”? Marcian was Emperor 450- 457. Anastasius I was crowned in 491.
BK. II. CH. XIX.
and spoke to many from its very midst, and came out not in the least burned. This is a true story, but some writers say that it happened in the time, not of the Emperor Marcian but of Anastasius I, and indeed they seem to prove their contention from Cedrenus and Nicephorus.
Pietro di Pavia,* Archbishop of Florence, was accused of simony by procuring his dignity with the help of money, and he named a day for his public purgation by fire. In a public place there were built two heaps of wood, ten feet long, five feet wide and four and a half feet high; and between them was a path an arm’s length wide strewed with burning coals. When the holy day came, he called upon the help of God to prove his innocence and walked between the masses of flame which rose on high, treading upon the burning coals on the path between the blazing heaps of wood: and when he was about to re- turn by the same way, and there was no sign of burning upon his body or his clothes, he was restrained by the people and went away unharmed. And so the people learned the truth of the matter. See how wonderful is God in his saints. “he
* “Pietro di Pavia.” This account 1s slightly confused. Pietro di Pavia, Bishop of Florence, was accused of simony and heresy. Although acquitied by the Council of Rome in 1063, his enemies still continued to denounce him, and when he rejected the ordeal of fire, the monks of Vallombrosa (whose house of San Salvio he had destroyed, butchering many of the religious) determined to decide the question of the bishop’s guilt by a public trial, and with the sanction of his abbot S. Giovanni Gualberto, a holy monk Pietro Aldobrandini offered to make the trial. The blazing pyre was lit and before a vast concourse of many thousands he passed slowly through the flames, unscathed, un- touched by the fierceness of the fire. It is said that the Bishop now confessed his simony. Pietro Aldobrandini has been canonized, and his feast is kept by the Vallombrosians as S. Peter Igneus, a Double of the Second Class, on 8 February.
MALEFICARUM
157
Caesarius} of Heisterbach tells the following :—In the Cathedral City of Cambrai less than five years ago [about 1215] several heretics were taken, all of whom for fear of death denied their perfidy. The Bishop sent a Cleric to examine them with the ordeal of the red hot iron, and if they were burned they were to be sentenced as heretics. They were all examined and all were burned. As they were being led to their punishment, the Cleric kept alive one who was of noble blood in the hope that he might by some means bring him to penitence, and said to him: “You are of noble birth, and I pity you and feel com- passion for your soul. I beg and im- plore you to think better even now of such great perfidy and return from your error to the truth, lest through temporal death you come to death eternal.”’ To this he answered: “I have proved by experience that I was in error. If a belated repentance may avail me at all, I shall not refuse to confess.’ And he said to him that true penitence was never too late; there- fore a priest was called and the man confessed his error with all his heart, promising satisfaction to God if his life were spared. Now as the holy man taught him the power of confession, the man soon began to confess his sins as a penitent; and at the same time the burn upon his hand began gradu- ally and visibly to disappear in pro- portion as his confession proceeded. When the confession was half made, half the burn was healed; and when he had completed his confession his hand was entirely restored to its former health, all pain and discoloration hav- ing vanished. The Judge summoned the man to the fire, but the Cleric asked: ‘‘Why do you call this man?” ‘‘That he may burn,”’ said the Judge, ‘since he was burned at the examina- tion.”? Then the Cleric showed them his hand perfectly whole and freed
t “‘Caesarius.” “*Dialogus Miraculorum,” LI, xvt and xvit.
158 him from punishment; but the rest were consumed in the fire.
Master Conrad Abati tells the fol- lowing example, which is said to have happened a few years ago at Stras- burg. Ten heretics were apprehended in that city, and when they denied the charge they were convicted by the red hot iron and were sentenced to be burned. As they were being taken to the fire on the appointed day one of their escort said to one of them: “Unhappy man, you are damned! But come, and confess your sins now with true penitence, so that after the death of your body, which lasts but a moment, the fire of Gehenna may not eternally burn your soul.” He an- swered him: “I know, indeed, that I have erred; but I fear that God would not accept a repentance conceived under such stress.” The other said to him: “‘Only confess from your heart. God is merciful and will accept your repentance.” And lo, a wonder! For as soon as the man had confessed his perfidy his hand was fully healed. He was lingering over his confession, and the Judge summoned him to come to his punishment; but his confessor an- swered the Judge: “‘It is not just that an innocent man should be unjustly condemned.” And when no trace of a burn was found on his hand, he was discharged. ‘This man had a wife not far from the city, who had heard nothing of what we have just told. When he came to her rejoicing, and saying: “Blessed be God, who has to- day delivered me from the death of my body and my soul!” and told her how it had been, she answered : ‘‘What have you done, most unhappy one, what have you done? Have you re- canted your true and holy faith be- cause of a moment’s pain? It would have been better for you if your body could have been burned a hundred times, than that you should once draw back from the true faith.” Alas ! who is not seduced by the voice of the serpent? Forgetting the great good- ness of God to him, forgetting that
COMPENDIUM
BK. II. CH. XIX.
undoubted miracle, he listened to his wife’s advice and again embraced his former heresy. But God did not forget to avenge Himself for so great in- gratitude, and wounded the hand of each of them. The burn re-appeared upon the heretic’s hand, and since his wife was the cause of his returning to_ his error she was made a partaker in the backslider’s pain. The burn was so severe that it penetrated to the bones of their hands: and because they dared not in the town give vent to the cries which the pain wrung from them, they fled to a neighbouring wood where they howled like wolves. What need I say more? They were taken and led back to the city and together cast upon the fire which was not yet quite extinguished, and were burned to ashes. What, I ask, is the truth of the matter? Does the flame follow heresy, even as a shadow follows the body?
In another altogether marvellous happening God manifested the truth, using a demoniac as the executioner of a heretic. Two writers have wit- nessed to the truth of it: Bernard* of Luxemburg, O.P., in his Catalogus haereticorum omnium, under the letter E; and that more ancient authority, Thomas of Brabant, whose words in the Bonum Uniuersale, Bk. II, I shall here quote: Near Cambrai there was a very astute heretic who, fearing lest he should be questioned and burned by the Friars Preachers, who at that time were burning many in that city, pretended that he was possessed by a demon; and therefore his friends bound him and took him to Dour to the shrine of S. Aichard who had power to cast out devils, since they thought that his affliction was mad- ness, and not heresy. When a certain cleric, who was possessed by a devil and was bound, heard that Eloi Bou-
* “Bernard.” Dominican theologian and Inquisitor of the Archdioceses of Cologne, Mainz and Tréves. He died at Cologne, 5 October, 1535.
BK. II. CH. XIX.
gris (for that was the man’s name) was in the place, he was by God’s will freed from his bonds on the following night, and went and heaped rush mats, straw, and benches from the church upon the bound heretic. Eloi pretended to treat this as a mad joke, until the cleric took a light from a lamp and began to burn the heretic; but upon this he cried out and aroused the gaolers, who ran up and tried to put the fire out. But the cleric seized a sword which he happened to find by the bed, and fiercely drove them all off, and so burned the heretic in the fire. Immediately afterwards, having executed the just judgement of God, the cleric was delivered from his demon and was entirely healed.
S. Gregory of Tours (De Gloria Mar- éyrum I, 81) tells how a Catholic deacon disputed with an Arian priest and invited him to prove by his deeds which was the true faith, in the fol- lowing manner. A fire was lit under a cauldron and each of them was to throw his ring into the boiling water ; and he who should take his ring out of the boiling water should be held to have proved his argument. The here- tic accepted these conditions; but meanwhile the deacon began to lose confidence, and smeared some un-
uent upon his hand and arm. The Acie also began to shrink from the danger; but when he saw the Catho- lic’s arm anointed with an unguent, he protested that his adversary was relying upon magic arts and protec- tions, not upon his faith ; and a dispute arose. As they were thus quarrelling, there came another deacon from the town of Ravenna named Tacintus, who, when he knew the cause of their quarrel, at once put forth his arm from his robe and plunged it into the boiling cauldron. Now the ring which had been thrown in was very light and small, and was tossed about by the boiling water like a straw in the wind: but he kept searching and groping for it, and within an hour’s time found it. Meanwhile the fire under the caul-
MALEFICARUM
159
dron was burning fiercely and became so hot that it was not easy for his hand to take hold of the ring when he had found it: but at last the deacon drew it out, feeling no pain in his flesh but rather protesting that the cauldron was cold at the bottom and only moderately hot at the top. Seeing this the heretic was quite confounded and rashly thrust his hand into the caul- dron saying: “Let this be the proof of my faith.’’ And at once all his flesh was melted and came away from his hand, right down to the joints of his bones. Thus was the dispute ended. S. Gengulphus* the Martyr tested the violated honour of his adulterous wife in the following manner: He and his wife came to a certain spring, and he addressed her in these words: “‘O wife, on all sides I hear shameful things of you, unworthy of your birth, but hitherto I am not certain whether they are true or false.’ She then un- blushingly swore that the rumours about her were false, and that she had never defiled herself in another’s bed ; but S. Gengulphus said: ‘“‘Divine pro- vidence, from which nothing escapes, will clearly show how the matter stands. See, here is a spring, neither very cold nor immoderately hot. Put your hand in, then, and pick up a stone from the bottom; and if you are free from guilt you will suffer no harm, but if you are corrupt God will not allow your crime to be hidden.” She ascribed these words of the Saint, as she did all his utterances, to madness, and unhesitatingly plunged her hand into the spring. But as soon as she tried to take hold of the stone, she became stiff in nearly all her limbs, and wherever the water touched her fingers and arm the skin was stripped
* “9. Gengulphus.’? Originally a warrior and a favourite of King Pepin. He retired from the world and led a life of strictest prety. He 1s especially venerated in the diocese of Langres. See Pet. Cantor. Uerb. Abbreu. Not. in cap. pail (Migne, “‘Patres Latini,” CCV, p. 471).
160
off leaving the bare flesh exposed, and the wretched woman expected nothing but instant death. He put his wife away from him when she was thus convicted of adultery; and not long afterwards, at the instance of his wife, he was murdered by her adulterer.
w