{"collection":"Paganism & Neopaganism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/pag/mm/mm03_07a.htm","path":"pag/mm/mm03_07a.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm03_07a.htm","text":"In Which Various Doubts are Set Forth with Regard to the Foregoing Questions and Negative Answers. Whether the Accused is to be Imprisoned, and when she is to be considered Manifestly Taken in the Foul Heresy of Witchcraft. This is the Second Action\nIt is asked first what is to be done when, as often happens, the accused\ndenies everything. We answer that the Judge has three points to consider,\nnamely, her bad reputation, the evidence of the fact, and the words of the\nwitnesses; and he must see whether all these agree together. And if, as very\noften is the case, they do not altogether agree together, since witches are\nvariously accused of different deeds committed in some village or town; but\nthe evidences of the fact are visible to the eye, as that a child has been\nharmed by sorcery, or, more often, a beast has been bewitched or deprived\nof its milk; and it a number of witnesses have come forward whose evidence,\neven if it show certain discrepancies (as that one should say she had\nbewitched his child, another his beast, and a third should merely witness\nto her reputation, and so with the others), but nevertheless agree in the\nsubstance of the fact, that is, as to the witchcraft, and that she is\nsuspected of being a witch; although those witnesses are not enough to\nwarrant a conviction without the fact of the general report, or even with\nthat fact, as was shown above at the end of Question III, yet, taken in\nconjunction with the visible and tangible evidence of the fact, the Judge\nmay, in consideration of these three points together, decide that the\naccused is to be reputed, not as strongly or gravely under suspicion (which\nsuspicions will be explained later), but as manifestly taken in the heresy\nof witchcraft; provided, that is, that the witnesses are of a suitable\ncondition and have not given evidence out of enmity, and that a sufficient\nnumber of them, say six or eight or ten, have agreed together under oath. And\nthen, according to the Canon Law, he must subject her to punishment, whether\nshe has confessed her crime or not. And this is proved as follows.\nFor since it is said, that when all three of the above considerations are in\nagreement, then she should be thought to be manifestly taken in heresy, it\nmust not be understood that it is necessary for all three to be in\nagreement, but only that if this is the case the proof is all the stronger.\nFor either one instance by itself of the following two circumstances, namely,\nthe evidence of the fact and the production of legitimate witnesses, is\nsufficient to cause a person to be reputed as manifestly taken in heresy;\nand all the more when both these considerations are in agreement.\nFor when the Jurists ask in how many ways a person may be considered as\nmanifestly taken in heresy, we answer that there are three ways, as S.\nBernard has explained. This matter was treated of above in the First\nQuestion at the beginning of this work, namely, the evidence of the fact,\nwhen a person has publicly preacher heresy. But here we consider the\nevidence of the fact provided by public threats uttered by the accused, as\nwhen she said, \u201cYou shall have no healthy days,\u201d or some such\nthing, and the threatened effect has followed. The other two ways are the\nlegitimate proof of the case by witnesses, and thirdly by her own confession.\nTherefore, if each of these singly is sufficient to cause a person to be\nmanifestly suspected, how much more is this the case when the reputation of\nthe accused, the evidence of the fact, and the depositions of witnesses all\ntogether point to the same conclusion. It is true that S. Bernard speaks of\nan evident fact, and we here speak of the evidence of the fact; but this is\nbecause the devil does not work openly, but secretly. Therefore the injuries\nand the instruments of witchcraft which are found constitute the evidence of\nthe fact. And whereas in other heresies an evident fact is alone sufficient,\nhere we join three proofs together.\nSecondly, it is thus proved that a person so taken is to be punished\naccording to the law, even though she denies the accusation. For a person\ntaken on the evidence of the fact, or on the depositions of witnesses, either\nconfesses the crime or does not. If he confesses and is impenitent, he is to\nbe handed over to the secular courts to suffer the extreme penalty, according\nto the chapter ad abolendam, or he is to be imprisoned for life,\naccording to the chapter excommunicamus. But if he does not confess,\nand stoutly maintains his denial, he is to be delivered as an impenitent to\nthe power of the Civil Court to be punished in a fitting manner, as Henry\nof Segusio shows in his Summa, where he treats of the manner of\nproceeding against heretics.\nIt is therefore concluded that it is most just if the Judge proceeds in that\nmanner with his questions and the depositions of witnesses, since, as has\nbeen said, he can in a case concerning the Faith conduct matters quite\nplainly and in a short and summary manner; and it is meet that he should\nconsign the accused to prison for a time, or for several years, in case\nperhaps, being depressed after a year of the squalor of prison, she may\nconfess her crimes.\nBut, lest it should seem that he arrives at his sentence precipitately, and\nto show that he proceeds with all equity, let us inquire into what should\nnext be done.\nNext: Question VIII Which Follows from the Preceding Question, Whether the Witch is to be Imprisoned, and of the Method of Taking her. This is the Third Action of the Judge","title":"Malleus Maleficarum Part 3 Question VII","type":"page"}