There is a certain proof by weights and a scale. For in the same Germany they hang witches on a scale, and they say that they cannot press it down beyond a certain weight, namely fourteen or fifteen pounds, however tall or obese they may be. Reckius too condemns this in his book On the Proof by Cold Water, from number 41. I think the same must be said about it as about the other vulgar purgations: namely, that unless it rests on a demonic pact, it is superstitious and joined with tempting God. It is not expressly prohibited by the canons because it is plainly a very recent invention.
[margin: The weight-scale proof cites Reckius, De proba aquae frigidae, from no. 41]
Secondly, there is a certain kind of lot, or of purgation, by the cross. Mention of it is made in the Constitutions of Charlemagne, where litigants are ordered to contend by cross, or by shield and staff; and in the Capitularies, where you have the words, “let them contend in the field or by the cross.” From these places some want the cross to have been a kind of weapon. I do not agree. Rather, I think it was a kind of purgation by lots, by which someone purged himself by applying his hands to some cross or embracing it. Certainly, in those places, to the cross there is opposed the field, that is, a duel; and in the testament of Charlemagne, according to Nauclerus: “if the accuser wishes to contend concerning the perjury itself, let them stand at the cross.” Therefore to contend by the cross is nothing other than to stand at the cross. What it is to stand at the cross, however, I do not know, except what I have said.
The Frisians also practiced the judgment of the cross superstitiously, as their law 14 teaches: “The forestalis must be this: two such pieces, which they call teni, are cut from a rod. One of them is marked with the sign of the cross; the other is left plain; and, wrapped in clean wool, they are placed on the altar or on the relics. And a priest, if one is present, or, if a priest is lacking, any boy, must take one of those lots from the altar. Meanwhile God must be entreated, if those seven men who have sworn concerning the committed homicide have sworn truly, to show it by an evident sign. If he lifts up the one that has been marked with the cross, then each one of those seven must make his own lot, that is, a tenus from a rod, and mark it with his own sign, so that both he and the others who stand around may be able to recognize it. And they must be wrapped in clean wool and placed on the altar or on the relics. And the priest, if he is present, but if not, as above, an innocent boy, must take each one of them separately from the altar and give it back to the man who recognizes it as his own lot. The one whose lot happens to be the last must pay the composition for the homicide; the others, whose lots have been lifted earlier, are absolved.” If this rite was also common among the Franks, then to contend by the cross would be nothing other than to contend by this judgment of the cross; and to stand at the cross would be to agree with the adversary that both stand by the judgment of the cross, which perhaps is truer.
[margin: The cross-purgation discussion cites the Constitutions of Charlemagne, with the source margin adding book 3, folio 62; the Capitularies, at the phrase “let them contend in the field or by the cross”; the testament of Charlemagne according to Nauclerus; and the law of the Frisians, law 14, on the judgment of the cross]
Thirdly, to this belongs that sortition of the four candidates for the empire of Constantinople, after Alexius Murzuphlus had been overcome. Boniface, count of Montferrat, Baldwin, count of Flanders, Eric of Saint Paul, and Dandolo, duke of the Venetians, made an agreement that, in the church of the Apostles, according to the number of the candidates, four chalices would be set out in order. Only one of them would contain the sacred host, the others being empty; and they would hand them to the same number of priests, so that at the name of each prince one chalice would be taken up and given back to them. The empire would be granted to the man to whom the chalice containing the body and blood of Christ the Lord had fallen. But afterward that pact rightly displeased them, and by common votes they conferred on Dandolo the right of designating whomever he wished. Nicetas narrates this at the end of his Annals.
[margin: The Constantinople sortition cites Nicetas Choniates at the end of the Annals, after naming Alexius Murzuphlus, Boniface of Montferrat, Baldwin of Flanders, Eric of Saint Paul, and Dandolo, duke of the Venetians]
Fourthly, to this belong certain people of old who threw away certain things, so that from their recovery they might know whether their sins had been dismissed by God. For this is to tempt God, and it is not lawful unless a revelation has been received for doing this. This must be believed concerning Saint Attilanus of Zamora, about whom Marineus Siculus writes in book 5 of Spanish Affairs, and concerning Saint Arnulph, once a prince of Lotharingia, then a hermit and bishop of Metz, about whom Fulgosius writes in book 6, chapter 9.
[margin: The final example cites Marineus Siculus, Spanish Affairs, book 5, on Saint Attilanus of Zamora; and Fulgosius, book 6, chapter 9, on Saint Arnulph, formerly a prince of Lotharingia, hermit, and bishop of Metz]
These things have been said about all the kinds of magic, and let them be the end of the Second Tome.