The Church, in fact, lent its most impressive ceremonies to enhance the effect on the popular mind of these trials. An Ordo or Ritual, of about the year 1100, informs us that when any one accused of theft or adultery or other crime refused to confess, the priest was to go to the church, put on his sacred vestments, except the chasuble, and then, holding the gospels and chrismatory, the chalice and paten and relics of saints, he from the vestibule summoned the people, while forbidding the accused, if guilty, and any of his accomplices to enter. At the same time he designated the spot in the vestibule where the fire was to be built to heat the caldron or the ploughshares, and sprinkled them all with holy water to prevent diabolical illusions. Then the accused entered. He was first required to forgive all offences as he hoped for pardon; he made confession of his sins and accepted penance, while the penitential psalms were sung customary for penitents on Ash Wednesday; if there was suspicion as to his faith he was made to swear on the altar his reliance on God rather than on the devil to manifest his innocence in the ordeal. Mass was then celebrated and communion was administered to him under the tremendous adjuration, “May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto thee a proof!” After this the priest led the people to the spot where the trial was to take place. Prayers were uttered to God to render judgment, litanies and psalms were sung, the material of the ordeal, whether iron or hot or cold water, was blessed with an adjuration that it would be the means of rendering a just verdict, and the accused was exorcised with an adjuration to abandon the trial if he was conscious of guilt. Then the oath was administered to him, and he took hold of the glowing iron, or plunged his hand into the seething caldron, or was bound and cast into the water. Nothing was omitted that would add to the effectiveness of the prolonged ritual, and throughout it was in the hands of the priest; the secular tribunal effaced itself and abandoned the whole conduct of the affair to the Church.[1317]

Gradually, however, the papacy ranged itself in opposition to the ordeal. After a silence of nearly two centuries, Alexander II., about 1070, denounced it as a popular invention, destitute of canonical authority, and forbade its use for ecclesiastics.[1318] This was a claim which had already in the eighth century been advanced in England by Ecgbehrt, Archbishop of York, who piously declared that their oath on the cross was sufficient for acquittal, and that if guilty their punishment must be left to God.[1319] About the year 1000, St. Abbo of Fleury revived this assertion of exemption,[1320] and a century later St. Ivo of Chartres insisted on it.[1321] As we have seen, these demands for clerical immunity were wholly disregarded, but they serve as a key to the motive of the papal opposition to the ordeal which developed itself so rapidly in the second half of the twelfth century. The Church had long sought, with little practical result, to emancipate the clergy from subjection to the secular law. This was one of the leading objects of the forgers of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals; it had met with promising success at the time;[1322] in the confusion of the tenth and eleventh centuries it had well-nigh been forgotten, but now it was revived and insisted on with a persistent energy which won the victory in the thirteenth century. When this point was gained and ecclesiastics were relieved from ordeals and duels, the next step was inevitably to extend the prohibition to the laity. The papal battle was really fought for the advantage of the clergy, but the clergy was ranged in opposition because the prospective benefit seemed inadequate to compensate for present loss. The local churches found in the administration of the ordeal a source of power and profit which naturally rendered them unwilling to abandon it at the papal mandate. Chartered privileges had accumulated around it, such as we have already seen in the case of the judicial duel, and these privileges were shared or held by prelates and churches and monasteries. Thus in 1148 we find Thibaut the Great of Champagne making over to the church of St. Mary Magdalen the exclusive right of administering the oaths required on such occasions in the town of Chateaudun;[1323] and in 1182 the Vicomte de Béarn conferred on the Abbey de la Seauve the revenue arising from the marble basin used for the trial by boiling water at Gavarret.[1324] In the statutes of King Coloman of Hungary, collected in 1099, there is a provision prohibiting the administration of the ordeal in the smaller churches, and reserving the privilege to the cathedral seats and other important establishments.[1325]

According to a grant from Péregrin de Lavedan to the monastery of Saint-Pé, in Bigorre, the fee for administering the hot-water ordeal was five crowns, of which two were paid to the monastery, two to the cathedral at Tarbes, and one to the priest who blessed the water and stone.[1326] By the laws of St. Ladislas of Hungary, in 1092, the stipend of the officiating priest for the red-hot iron was double that which he received for the water ordeal;[1327] in Bohemia the laws of Otto Premizlas in 1229 give the priest a fee of fourteen deniers for the latter.[1328] How rigidly these rights were enforced is shown in a case related by Peter Cantor in the twelfth century. A man accused of crime was sentenced to undergo the ordeal of cold water. When stripped and bound and seated on the edge of the tank, the prosecutor withdrew the suit, but the official of the court refused to release the accused until he should pay fees amounting to nine livres and a half. A long wrangle ensued, until the defendant declared that he would pay nothing, but would rather undergo the ordeal, and, after establishing his innocence, would give fifty sols to the poor. He was accordingly thrown in and sank satisfactorily, but on being drawn out was met with a fresh claim from the officiating priest, of five sols, for blessing the water.[1329]

As these fees were paid, sometimes on conviction and sometimes on acquittal, there was danger that, even without direct bribery, self-interest might affect the result. Thus by the acts of the Synod of Lillebonne, in 1080, a conviction by the hot-iron ordeal entailed a fine for the benefit of the bishop;[1330] and it was apparently to prevent such influences that the Swedish code, compiled by Andreas Archbishop of Lunden early in the thirteenth century, made the successful party, whether the prosecutor or defendant, pay the fee to the officiating priest—a regulation sufficiently degrading to the sacerdotal character.[1331] But besides these pecuniary advantages, the ordeal had a natural attraction to the clergy, as it afforded the means of awing the laity, by rendering the priest a special instrument of Divine justice, into whose hands every man felt that he was at any moment liable to fall; while, to the unworthy, its attractions were enhanced by the opportunities which it gave for the worst abuses. From the decretals of Alexander III. we learn authoritatively that the extortion of money from innocent persons by its instrumentality was a notorious fact[1332]—a testimony confirmed by Ekkehardus Junior, who, a century earlier, makes the same accusation, and moreover inveighs bitterly against the priests who were wont to gratify the vilest instincts in stripping women for the purpose of exposing them to the ordeal of cold water.[1333]

With all these influences, moral and material, to give to the local clergy a direct interest in the maintenance of the ordeal, it is no wonder that they battled resolutely for its preservation. In this, however, as in so many other details of ecclesiastical policy, centralization triumphed. When the papal authority reached its culminating point, a vigorous and sustained effort to abolish the whole system was made by the popes who occupied the pontifical throne from 1159 to 1227. Nothing can be more peremptory than the prohibition uttered by Alexander III.,[1334] who sought moreover to enlist on his side the local churches by stigmatizing as an intolerable abuse the liability which in Sweden forced the highest prelates to submit to the red-hot iron ordeal.[1335] About the same time we find the celebrated Peter Cantor earnestly urging that it was a sinful tempting of God and a most uncertain means of administering justice, which he enforces by numerous instances of innocent persons who, within his own knowledge, had been condemned by its means and put to death; and he declares that any priest exorcising the iron or water, or administering the oaths preliminary to the judicial duel, is guilty of mortal sin.[1336] Somewhat earlier than this, Ekkehard Bishop of Munster took the same ground when he refused to his steward Richmar permission to undergo the red-hot iron ordeal in order to convert the Jew, Hermann of Cologne; it would be, he said, a tempting of God.[1337] A different reason was given when Albero, a priest of Mercke near Cologne, offered to pass through fire to prove the orthodoxy of his teaching that the sacraments were vitiated in the hands of sinful priests, and his request was refused on the ground that skilful sorcery might thus lead to the success of a flagrant heresy.[1338] In 1181, Lucius III. pronounced null and void the acquittal of a priest charged with homicide, who had undergone the water ordeal, and ordered him to prove his innocence with compurgators, giving as a reason that all such “peregrina judicia” were prohibited.[1339] Even more severe was the blow administered by Innocent III. early in the thirteenth century. At Albenga, near Genoa, a man suspected of theft offered to prove his innocence by the red-hot iron, and agreed to be hanged if he should fail. The ordeal took place in the presence of the bishop and judge; the man’s hand was burnt and after some consultation the bishop ordered him to be hanged. When Innocent heard of this he promptly had the bishop deprived of his see and a successor elected; his decision in this case was carried into the canon law as a precedent to be followed.[1340] In 1210, moreover, when Bishop Henry of Strassburg was vigorously persecuting heresy and convicting heretics by the ordeal, one of them named Reinhold hurried to Rome and returned with a letter from Innocent forbidding it for the future; ordeals might be adjudged, he said, by the secular tribunals, but they were not admissible in ecclesiastical judgments.[1341] Still more effective was his action when, under his impulsion, the Fourth Council of Lateran, in 1215, formally forbade the employment of any ecclesiastical ceremonies in such trials.[1342] As the moral influence of the ordeal depended entirely upon its religious associations, a strict observance of this canon must speedily have swept the whole system into oblivion. Yet shortly after this we find the inquisitor Conrad of Marburg employing in Germany the red-hot iron as a means of condemning his unfortunate victims by wholesale, and the chronicler relates that, whether innocent or guilty, few escaped the test.[1343] The canon of Lateran, however, was actively followed up by the papal legates, and the system may consequently be considered to have fairly entered on its decline.

So far as the Church was concerned its condemnation was irrevocable. By this time the papacy had become the supreme and unquestioned legislator. The compilation of papal decrees known as the Decretals of Gregory IX., issued in 1234, was everywhere accepted as the “new law” of binding force, and in it the compiler, St. Ramon de Peñafort, had sedulously inserted the prohibitions so repeatedly issued during the preceding three-quarters of a century. These prohibitions were no longer construed as limited to ecclesiastics; the whole system was condemned. St. Ramon himself in his Summa, which had immense and lasting authority, had no hesitation in denouncing all ordeals as an accursed invention of the devil.[1344] His contemporary, Alexander Hales, whose reputation as a theologian stood unrivalled, after presenting the arguments on both sides, concludes that they are wholly to be rejected.[1345] Soon afterwards Cardinal Henry of Susa, the leading canonist of his day, gave a severer blow by proving that as ordeals are illegal all sentences rendered by their means are null and void.[1346] Still the practice was hard to suppress, for at the end of the century we find John of Freiburg denouncing it as forbidden and accursed; bishops and abbots permitting ordeals in their courts are guilty of mortal sin, and preachers should denounce them from their pulpits with all due modesty.[1347] This shows that the spiritual lords were still deaf to the voice of the papacy, but the principle was settled and in 1317 Astesanus, whose authority was of the highest, treats the whole system of duels and ordeals as mere appeals to chance, having no warrant in divine law and forbidden by the Church.[1348] This attitude was consistently preserved, and Gregory XI. in 1374, when condemning the Sachsenspiegel, enumerated, among other objectionable features, its provisions of this nature as contrary to the canon law and a tempting of God.[1349]

[CHAPTER XVIII.]
REPRESSIVE SECULAR LEGISLATION.

Enlightened legislators were not slow in seconding the efforts of the papacy. Perhaps the earliest instance of secular legislation directed against the ordeal, except some charters granted to communes, is an edict of Philip Augustus in 1200, bestowing certain privileges on the scholars of the University of Paris, by which he ordered that a citizen accused of assaulting a student shall not be allowed to defend himself either by the duel or the water ordeal.[1350] In England, a rescript of Henry III., dated January 27, 1219, directs the judges then starting on their circuits to employ other modes of proof—“seeing that the judgment of fire and water is forbidden by the Church of Rome.”[1351] A few charters and confirmations, dated some years subsequently, allude to the privilege of administering it; but Matthew of Westminster, when enumerating, under date of 1250, the remarkable events of the half century, specifies its abrogation as one of the occurrences to be noted,[1352] and we may conclude that thenceforth it was practically abandoned throughout the kingdom. This is confirmed by the fact that Bracton, whose treatise was written a few years later, refers only to the wager of battle as a legal procedure, and, when alluding to other forms, speaks of them as things of the past. About the same time, Alexander II. of Scotland forbade its use in cases of theft.[1353] Nearly contemporary was the Neapolitan Code, promulgated in 1231, by authority of the Emperor Frederic II., in which he not only prohibits the use of the ordeal in all cases, but ridicules, in a very curious passage, the folly of those who could place confidence in it.[1354] We may conclude, however, that this was not effectual in eradicating it, for, fifty years later, Charles of Anjou found it necessary to repeat the injunction.[1355] About the same time, Waldemar II. of Denmark, Hako Hakonsen of Iceland and Norway; and soon afterwards Birger Jarl of Sweden, followed the example.[1356] In Frisia we learn that the inhabitants still refused to obey the papal mandates, and insisted on retaining the red-hot iron, a contumacy which Emo, the contemporary Abbot of Wittewerum, cites as one of the causes of the terrible inundation of 1219;[1357] though a century later the Laws of Upstallesboom show that ordeals of all kinds had fallen into desuetude.[1358] In France, we find no formal abrogation promulgated; but the contempt into which the system had fallen is abundantly proved by the fact that in the ordinances and books of practice issued during the latter half of the century, such as the Établissements of St. Louis, the Conseil of Pierre de Fontaines, the Coutumes du Beauvoisis of Beaumanoir, and the Livres de Jostice et de Plet, its existence is not recognized even by a prohibitory allusion, the judicial duel thenceforward monopolizing the province of irregular evidence. Indeed, a Latin version of the Coutumier of Normandy, dating about the middle of the thirteenth century, or a little earlier, speaks of it as a mode of proof formerly employed in cases where one of the parties was a woman who could find no champion to undergo the wager of battle, adding that it had been forbidden by the Church, and that such cases were then determined by inquests.[1359]

Germany was more tardy in yielding to the mandates of the Church. The Teutonic knights who wielded their proselyting swords in the Marches of Prussia introduced the ordeal among other Christian observances, and in 1222 Honorius III., at the prayer of the Livonian converts, promulgated a decree by which he strictly interdicted its use for the future.[1360] Even in 1279 we find the Council of Buda, and in 1298 that of Wurzburg, obliged to repeat the prohibition uttered by that of Lateran.[1361] These commands enjoyed little respect, and the independent spirit of the Empire still refused obedience to the commands of the Church. It may probably be to Germany that Roger Bacon refers, about this time, when he speaks of the ordeals of red-hot iron and cold water being still in use by authority of the Church, and admits that the exorcisms employed in them by the priests may have virtue in the detection of guilt and acquittal of innocence.[1362] Even in the fourteenth century the ancestral customs were preserved in full vigor as regular modes of procedure in a manual of legal practice still extant. An accusation of homicide could be disproved only by the judicial combat, while in other felonies a man of bad repute had no other means of escape than by undergoing the trial by hot water or iron.[1363]