Interrogatio 10

In the fourth chapter we ask you to inform us as follows. If this issue, for which we heard (and some of us witnessed) the ordeal was performed, is called back to judgement, how should the judgment be canonically arranged? And should the woman be judged by the secret confession which, it is said, she committed to the bishops, or by the booklet proffered forth in the judgment? And, if it happened that she proffered the booklet under coercion or signed it unwillingly, can she legally be removed from the marital bed in this fashion?

Interrogatio 8: was Teutberga cheating?

[163] This also is said, that some people say that the woman was concentrating not on her brother but on someone with the same name, when she sent her champion to the ordeal on her behalf. And that this was why her champion was not burned in that ordeal.

Interrogatio 6 Concerning oaths and ordeals

(p.146) In the third chapter, we request that we be advised what to do about the above-mentioned woman, accused of casual sex and abortion, for which she has now undergone an ordeal: what do you think about this judgment? For some say that ordeals of boiling or cold water, or of red-hot iron, are of no authority or credence, but that they are inventions of human ingenuity, in which, through evildoers, very often falsehood takes the place of truth, and so they ought not to be trusted. And we ask to be informed what you thnk about the oath to clear oneself, what authority this has; and whether it might be true that, as some people say, because of the secret confession the woman made, as he [Archbishop Gunther] is a witness who heard it, her champion who went to the ordeal escaped uncooked. And they also say that the woman was thinking of someone else with the same name as her brother when she sent her champion to the ordeal, so he was not cooked in that ordeal. And also, if any cheating can be found in an ordeal or an oath after one has cleared oneself, whether that matter resolved by ordeal or oath might be brought back to legal judgment.

Interrogatio 4 In which the issue of marriage and sin is first addressed

We ask in the second chapter, if actions committed after marriage has been entered into are to be considered, to be briefed about how a marriage should be entered into, and what the law of marriage is, and how, and for what issues, it is able to be broken up. And whether, after a rupture, the husband or wife are able to hope for another physical relationship, or whether either of them sinning in marriage should be be judged according to a like judgment.

Interrogatio 3 In which Hincmar is said to have given his agreement

An explanation must be given for what is written,

Moreover we were informed concerning the venerable Archbishop of Reims that he agreed to this deed, and that he verbally confirmed this through deputies, that is Wenilo Archbishop of Rouen and Hildegar Bishop of Meaux, and that he sent letters of agreement to the king’s meeting and to the bishops’ convention via [Bishop] Adventius, who had spoken with him at Reims about it, and that he had sent via the same Adventius letters of approval to the Apostolic See.

For if the shepherd of the Church and the first of the Apostles, performing exceptional signs and miracles, did not disdain to give an explanation for why he had gone to the Gentiles, why he had eaten with them, and why he had received them in baptism, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, how much more so must not we, sinners that we are, give humble account of ourselves to our accusers when we are accused of something?

Interrogatio 2: In which Hincmar is reminded of an old enemy

About it being written to us, that some say that following the example of the secret confession of the former bishop Ebo, the argument of this case ought to be judged from the secret confession of the aforesaid woman.

Preface Section V

[p 112] Whence reading these things which we reply from holy scripture and the traditions of the fathers to their propositions, let them not be angered with us [?] about the disordered order of responses; and if we, dragged by their questions, should turn off to such matters which perhaps do not pertain to this reason, let them not shun us for superfluity nor let anyone turn back the response of our sincerity to his injury. Since we remember the Lord’s words: ‘Do not accept a person’ in judgement and again the holy apostles (in whose places, although unworthy we act, imitating as our model) saying: ‘For we cannot not speak about what we have heard and seen’, about what we are asked. We teach not our sayings but those but those either of divine scripture or of those through whom the Lord spoke and from whom we have learned those things. We have taken care to respond with solutions to the proposed questions (or rather to the propositions of those inquiring, including at the start what they asked) as much as the brief time allows and as occurs to the memory, without flattery. [p 113] And therefore we have written generally to all, since we know this case pertains to persons of every order and we are prevented by the aforesaid adjuration from betraying those who transmitted the proposals to us. But may the Lord give a direct and well-sounding word in our mouth, so that we may be able to offer conveniently about the things we are asked about the collected words of those to whom the Lord said: ‘It is not you who speak but the spirit of your Father who speaks in you’. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ who wants all men to be saved and wants no-one to perish grant that the excerpted words of the saints through the service of our humility may be pleasing in the sight of those hearing them, to whom God says generally: ‘He who is of God hears the word of God’, and who said to his disciples: ‘Who hears you hears me’. May he who ordered the stone removed from the tomb of Lazarus remove hardness from the internal hearing obeying [?] of the heart of all those hearing. May he who formerly promised through the prophets: ‘I will take away from you a heart of stone and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will place your spirit in your midst and make you to walk in my way and keep my judgement and work’, bear away the senselessness of the disobedient, lest (may it not happen) he may say what is very terrible to those despising the counsels of his saints (to whom he said: ‘He who spurns you, spurns me’), ‘Therefore you do not hear’ (that is do not obey), ‘since you are not of God’.

And let no-one curse us as immodest conversing about immodesty of this kind, which modest ears shun by blushing, since Paul disputed about such matters, among other things, from the fear of God, which he truthfully said had spoken in him. We will dare in no way to be silent about those things which we will be able to perceive from the questions, since he [Jesus] frightens us and says: ‘He who blushes about me and my words, the Son of Man will blush about, when he should come in his majesty and that of the Father and that of the holy angels’. For no-one ought to be exasperated hearing the wickedness of the infirm, which the poisoned cunning of diabolical malignity inflicts on human fragility, knowing himself according to the Apostle to be surrounded by infirmity and considering his own self, lest perhaps he might be tempted. Nor ought he to fear, as blessed Gregory in the Pastoral Rule says: ‘so that, when he knows another’s temptations through condescension, he also is struck by the same temptations, since the water in a basin through which the multitude of the people is cleansed, as the Lord ordered done through Moses, is without doubt contaminated by the same. For when it receives the dirt of those washing, it is as if it loses serenity of cleanliness. But the pastor is in no way to fear these things, since with God subtly considering all things, the more mercifully he is wearied by others’ temptations, the more mercifully he is rescued from his own.’ And as much as he ought both to hear the impurities of others’ sicknesses and to come to the assistance of the sick with medicinal counsel in all ways, just as it seems useful to each ones, so much he cannot not know that God, just as he himself said through the prophet works by sustaining in our iniquities and sees our hidden disgraces and the uncleanliness of thoughts themselves and mercifully bears them with divine expectation. Whence St Augustine says in the fourth book against Julian: ‘Certainly, if we allow those who our power is on (?) to perpetrate crimes before our eyes, we will be guilty with them. But how does He permit innumerable things to happen before our eyes, which He would in no way especially permit, if He did not want? And yet it is just and good that not wanting anyone to perish, after patience he gives a place for penitence.’ [p 114] Why this may happen, St Gregory demonstrates, explaining the witness of Scripture: ‘For the Highest is a patient repayer, since he both suffers our evils and repays. For he tolerates those for a long time, so they may be converted, he does not harshly condemn the converted. '

[End of Preface]