1804. ] 
the profecutor, and that, if fhe refuled 
to anfwer, they fhould be taken as admit- 
ted and proved. \ 
This order does not explain the affertion 
of many hiftorians, that the Inquifition 
compels each prifoner to ftate and declare 
the matter upon which he fuppofes he was 
apprehended ; and the courfe purfued in 
tois trial proves, indifputably, that Joan 
was never proceeded againft judieially. 
The Judges had, indeed, by innumerable 
interrogatories, informed themfelves of her 
fife and conduét, with as many other facts 
as they could ; but all this was merely 
for the purpole of collecting materials in 
order to decide whether they, could or 
ought to put her upon trial; nor had 
the profecutor at this time directed, acted 
as a public complainant. 
On the.27th of March, the Bifhop and 
the Inquifitor aflembied their affeffors, to 
the number of 48, in the great hall of the 
€aftle, whither Joan was breught. The 
public profecutor, on this wccafion, af- 
fumed the fun&tions of his office, and pre- 
fented the charge againft the prifoner, in 
which, after giving her at leaft thirty 
criminal epithets, he required that fhe 
fhould anfwer the truth to the accufation, 
and if fhe refufed, that the fhould be deem- 
ed contumacious, and the articles taken 
as true. The affeflors feverally gave 
their opinion ; agreeably to» which, the 
Judges ordered that the interrogatories 
wich remained to be put, fhould te read 
and explained in French to the prifoner, 
Manufcripts in the Library of the late King of France. 339 
would not part from. She then took the 
oath required. 
The firft day was entirely taken up in 
reading and feparately explaining the new 
articles, and on the two following days 
fhe gave her anfwers. According to the 
ordinary forms of procedure, it might 
be fuppofed that the trial was now draw. 
ing to a conclufion: but the Inquifition 
has the advifers of its holy office to con- 
fult, who muft give their advice, A {pe- 
cies of admonition mult alfo be given to 
the aceufed, as the principal object of the 
tribunal is to bring back the accufed to 
the path of truth., It is neceffary to exa- 
mine with what attention thofe requifites 
were adhered to. 
The Bithop and other Judges accord- 
ingly met on the fecond of April, 14315 
when, after receiving all that had. been 
done, they refolved on reducing the whole 
procés to twelve charges, forming the re- 
fult of Joan’s confeffions, which fhould 
be fubmitted to men learned in the civil 
and common Jaw. The B:fhop and the 
Inquilitor wrote the neceffary letters, tranf- 
mitting the articles, without the interven. 
tion of the affeflors, which might arife 
from its being neceffary to confult fome of 
them, ‘or perhaps becaufe they feared fo 
great a number of witnefles. Thofe to 
whom the letters were fent, were required 
to give their opinions whether any of the 
articles were contrary to true faith, or in 
contradiction to the Holy Scriptures, to 
the decifions of the Romifh Church, to 
who fhould be bound to anfwer toeach of thofe of the doétors approved by the 
“¢hem, an? that in cafe fhe demanded time, 
it fhould be granted. The profecutor ac- 
cordingly took the old oath de Calumnia, 
a form which is at prefent quite banifhed 
from all regular proceedings. 
The Bithop then addreffed Joan, in- 
forming ber that all the affifttants were 
learned men, who wifhed to treat her 
with mildnefs : that their object was not 
the infliftion of corporeal punifhment, but 
to inftruét and bring her back to the path 
of falvation and truth: that, as the was 
not fofficiently infiru&ted to decide for 
herfelf, in matters fo dificult and ardu- 
ous, he offered her the choice of two of 
his affiftants to advife her ; and that in 
wale the objeéted to them, he would ap- 
point any others fhe withed. He con- 
cluded by requiring her to take an oath 
to {peak the truth. 
Joan thanked him for the advice he 
had given her, and the afliftance he had 
effered, but that fhe was perfectly fatis- - 
fied with her divine countel, which fhe 
Church, to the holy canons, or whether 
they were fcandalous, improper, liable to 
difurb public order, injurious, criminal, 
or contrary to morality, and what judg 
ment fhoul!d be pronounced in the matter. 
Such apparently is the ordinary form of 
the Inquifition, which conceals from thofe 
who are conlulted, whether they are aflef. 
fors on the trial or not, and alfo the per- 
fon concerning whom the opinions afked 5 
—a mode of proceedure evidently moft 
dangerous, when it is confidered in whit 
hands it is found. If it were a queftion 
upon formal propofitions, touching mat- 
ters of faith, advanced by the acculed, 
this inconvenience would not exift in fo 
great degree, provided the ftatement was 
literally as advanced by the acculed ; but 
in an affair of this nature, a liberty to 
admit, or reject facts, at pleafure, mutt ine 
‘variably open a door to inaccuracy and 
fraud; the prifoner, befides, being totally 
ignorant of the matter until the opinens 
are taken, (To be continued.) 
Yoynae To 
