WHEN it is asked | by how many and by which methods people are called suspected of heresy or another crime, and whether in a situation involving such a crime they are to be judged and sentenced on the basis of those methods, the response is that this is the case under both the ancient and the modern procedures. The gloss on Chapter “Nos in quemquem” cited in the preceding question says that there are four methods of convicting the accused: by law, for instance, with objects or witnesses; by the evidence of the deed (Extra, “Clerics and Women Living Together,” Chapter “Tua”); by legal interpretation, for instance, because the accused has been summoned several times (3, Q. 9, “Decrevimus”); or by violent suspicion (32, Q. 1, “Dixit”).

The canonists note that there are three kinds of suspicion. The first is “rash,” and about this one the canon says, “You should not pass judgment on anyone on the basis of suspicion” (2, Q. 1, “Primo”). The second is “probable,” and this kind, but not the first, results in purgation, as is stated in 2, Q. 4, “Presbyter.” The third kind is “violent,” which results in condemnation.| Jerome is understood to mean this kind when he says that a wife can be divorced because of fornication or the suspicion of fornication (32, Q. 1, “Dixit”). In addition, note that the second kind, which is probable suspicion, is admitted as a semi-full proof, as is stated in many chapters of Extra, “Presumptions” [2. 23], and so it contributes to the proof if other aids are present. Consequently, it is not admitted only for the imposing of purgation.

Regarding violent suspicion, which is sufficient for condemnation, note that this is of two kinds.