corruption in every detail of inquisitorial practice. Bernard Gui vainly raised his voice in an earnest and elaborate protest against the publication of the new rules, and after their promulgation he did not hesitate openly to tell his brethren that they required to be modified or rather wholly suspended by the Holy See but his expostulations were totally uncalled for. The closest examination of inquisitorial methods before and after the publication of the Clementines fails to reveal any influence exercised by them for good or for evil. No trace of any practical effort for their enforcement is to be found, and inquisitors went on, as was their wont, in the arbitrary fashion for which their office gave them such ulihmited opportunity.[1]
One case may indeed be cited to show a special relaxation of the procedure against heretics. Philippe's hatred of Boniface VIII. was undying, and could not be quenched even by the miserable end of his enemy. Yet the one thing which he failed to wring from his tool in the papal chair was the condemnation of the memory of Boniface as a heretic. After repeated efforts he compelled Clement to take testimony on the subject, and a cloud of witnesses were produced who swore with minute detail to the unbelief of the late pope in the immortality of the soul, and in all the doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement, and to his worship of demons, to his cynical and unnatural lasciviousness and to the common fame which existed in the community as to his evil beliefs and habits. The witnesses were reputable churchmen for the most part, and their evidence was precise. A tithe of such testimony would have sufficed to burn the bones and disinherit the heirs of a score of ordinary culprits, but for once the recognized rules of procedure were set aside. Philippe was forced
- ↑ Martin Fuldens. Chron. ann. 1313.—C. 1, 2, 3, Clement, v. iii.—Bern Guidon Gravam. (Doat, XXX.).—Bern. Guidon. Practica, P iv. c. 1. It is due to Clement to say that doubtless he devised a much more through reform, and the meagreness of the outcome is probably attributable to the final revision under John XXII. Angelo da Clarino, writing from Avignon in 1313 about the new canons, which were then supposed to be ready for issue says: "Inquisitores etiam heritce pravitatis restringuntur et supponuntur episcopis"—which would argue something much more decisive than the regulations as they finally appeared.—Franz Ehrle, Archiv Für Litteratur- u. Kircheneschichte, 1885. p. 545.
