[244] Letter 82 to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, in _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_ (ed. P. Schaff), 2nd series, vol. vi, pp. 170 _et seq._ See Limborch (Chandler’s ed.), pp. 29-30. It has been averred that St. Jerome was in favour of the death penalty, on the score of _Epist. 109 ad Ripar_. See Lea, vol. i, pp. 214-15, and rejoinder of H. Maillet, _L’Église et la répression sanglante de l’hérésie_ (1909), p. 15. [245] 48th Epistle to Vincentius. [246] 50th Epistle to Boniface. [247] Epistle 185, n. 26. Also Epistle 93, n. 10. [248] See Lea, vol. i, p. 213; Maillet, p. 17, and De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 186-8. [249] See Lea, vol. i, p. 215; Maillet, pp. 17 _et seq._; Vacandard, pp. 27-30. ‘Nor were they [the bishops] content with merely accepting it [the aid of the secular arm]. They declared that the State had not only the right to help the Church in suppressing heresy, but that she was in duty bound to do so.’ See also De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 189 n., and P. Frédéricq, _Les récents historiens catholiques de l’inquisition en France_, in _Revue historique_ (vol. cix, Jan.-April, 1912), p. 314. [250] This suggestion is made by J. Havet in his _L’Hérésie et le Bras séculier au Moyen Age_ in _Œuvres_ (Paris, 1896), vol. ii, p. 131. [251] See _ibid._, p. 138. [252] Vacandard, _op. cit._, p. 33. [253] Havet, pp. 129-34. [254] _I.e._ in the _langue d’oïl_ of France, in Flanders, Germany, Burgundy. [255] De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 235. [256] See Havet, p. 135. [257] See De Cauzons, vol. i, pp. 233-4. [258] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, pp. 6-7, No. 3, gives Wazon’s letter. See also Frédéricq in _Revue historique_, already cited, p. 320; also Maillet, _op. cit._, p. 34. On the strength of this instance he declares: ‘Nous voyons assez souvent les évêques s’opposer aux exécutions’; whereas this episcopal protest is unique. [259] Havet, _op. cit._, p. 133. See Maillet on the whole subject in _op. cit._, chapter ii. He argues that Theoduin had no particular punishment in view and that, therefore, one cannot say he approved the execution of heretics. But as the Bishop must have known very well the sort of punishment customarily inflicted by the State at this time, the argument is not very sound. [260] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 260. [261] J. D. Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio_ (Paris, 1901-13), vol. xxi, p. 718, and Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 31. [262] See De Cauzons, vol. ii, pp. 271-2; Tanon, p. 454. [263] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 34; Maillet, p. 55; Frédéricq, in criticism of Maillet in _Revue historique_, p. 321. [264] Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 39; Mansi, vol. xxi, p. 1177; Havet, pp. 151-2. [265] Mansi, vol. xxii, p. 231; Frédéricq, _Corpus_, vol. i, No. 47. [266] See De Cauzons, vol. i, p. 269. [267] Stubbs, _Select Charters of English Constitutional History_ (Oxford, 1890), pp. 145-6, § 21 of the Assize. [268] See De Cauzons, vol. 1, p. 277.