Vercellensi episcopo, abbati de Tileto et presbitero Alberto Mantuano  Qualiter et quando debeat prelatus procedere ad inquirendum et puniendum subditorum excessus, ex auctoritatibus novi et veteris testamenti colligitur evidenter, ex quibus super hoc postea processerunt canonice sanctiones. Legitur enim in Evangelio, quod villicus ille, qui diffamatus erat apud dominum suum, quasi dissipasset bona ipsius, audivit ab illo : "quid hec audio de te? redde rationem villicationis tue : iam enim non poteris villicare." Et in Genesi Dominus ait: "descendam et videbo, utrum clamorem, qui venit ad me, opere compleverint."  Ex quibus auctoritatibus manifeste probatur, quod non solum, cum subditus, verum etiam, cum prelatus excedit, si per clamorem et famam excessus eius ad aures superioris pervenerit, non quidem a malevolis et maledicis, sed a providis et honestis, nec semel tantum, sed sepe, quod clamor innuit et diffamatio manifestat, debet coram ecclesie senioribus veritatem diligentius perscrutari, ut si rei poposcerit qualitas, canonica districtio culpam ferat delinquentis, non tamen sit idem actor et iudex, sed, quasi deferente fama vel denunciante clamore, officii sui debitum exsequatur. Licet autem hoc sit diligenter observandum in subditis, diligentius tamen est observandum in prelatis, qui quasi signum sunt positi ad sagittam. Et quia non possunt omnibus complacere, cum ex officio teneantur non solum arguere, sed etiam increpare, quin etiam interdum suspendere, nonnunquam vero ligare: frequenter odium multorum incurrunt et insidias patiuntur. Et ideo sancti Patres provide statuerunt, ut accusatio prelatorum non facile admittatur, ne concussis columnis corruat edificium, nisi diligens adhibeatur cautela, per quam non solum false, sed etiam maligne criminationis ianua precludatur. Verum ita voluerunt providere prelatis, ne criminarentur iniuste, ut tamen caverent, ne delinquerent insolenter, contra utrumque morbum iuvenientes congruam medicinam, ut videlicet accusatio criminalis, que ad diminutionem capitis, id est ad degradationem, intenditur, nisi legitima precedat inquisitio, nullatenus admittatur. Sed cum super excessibus suis quisquam fuerit infamatus, ut in tantum iam clamor adscenderit, quod diutius sine scandalo dissimulari non possit, nec sine periculo tolerari: absque dubitationis scrupulo ad inquirendum et puniendum eius excessus non ex odii fomite, sed ex caritatis procedatur affectu, quatenus, si gravis fuerit excessus, et si non degradetur ab ordine, ab administratione tamen amoveatur omnino, quod est secundum  sententiam evangelicam (veritatem evangelicam ?)  a villicatione villicum amoveri, qui non potest villicationis sue dignam reddere rationem. 

"How and in what way a prelate ought to proceed to investigate and punish the offences of his subjects may be clearly ascertained from the authorities of the new and old Testament, from which subsequent sanctions in canon law derive", as we said distinctly some time ago and now confirm with the approval of this holy council. For we read in the Gospel that the steward who was denounced to his lord for wasting his goods heard him say: "What is this that I hear about you?  Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be my steward." [Luke 16:1]And in Genesis the Lord says: "I will go down and see whether they have  done the deeds that I have heard from many sources." [Genesis 18:21] From these authorities it is clearly shown that not only when a subject has committed some excess but also when a prelate has done so, that the matter reaches the ears of the superior through complaints and the judgments of many, not from enemies and slanderers, but from prudent and honest persons, not once only, but often.  Because the complaints suggest and slanders make manifest, the superior ought to search for the truth before the elders of the church.  If the quality of the evidence would demand it, canonical jurisdiction should be exercised over the accused, not as if the prelate were the accuser and the judge but as if the judgments of many denounce the accused and the complaints making him obligated to exercise his duties. While this should be observed in the case of subjects all the more carefully should it be observed in the case of prelates who are set as a mark for the arrow[Lament. 3:12].  Prelates cannot please everyone since they are bound by their office not only to convince but also to rebuke and sometimes even to suspend and to bind.    Thus they frequently incur the hatred of many people and risk ambushes.  Therefore the holy fathers have wisely decreed that accusations against prelates should not be admitted readily without careful provision being taken to prevent false and malicious accusations lest the collapse of columns would destroy that building [Jg 16:30].  They wished to ensure that prelates are not accused unjustly and yet that at the same time they take care not to sin in an arrogant manner, finding a suitable medicine for each disease:  namely a criminal accusation that entails loss of status, that is to say degradation, shall in no wise be allowed unless it is preceded by an admonition. However when someone's offenses are so notorious  that a complaint can longer be ignored without scandal or tolerated without danger, then without the slightest hesitation, let action be taken in inquire into and punish his offenses, not out of hate but rather out of charity.  If the offense is grave, even though not involving his degradation, let him be removed from all administration in accordance with the saying of the gospel that the steward is to be removed from his stewardship if he cannot give a proper account of it [Luke 16:1].  Debet igitur esse presens is contra quem facienda est inquisitio .  .  .
January 29, 1206 = 3 Comp. 5.1.4 = 67% of IV Lateran c.8's text