Untitled - Shattering Denial

1 68
THE INQUISITION
with which he ingeniously proves that God was the first
Inquisitor,
and the condemnation of Adam and Eve the
first model of the Inquisitorial process, triumphantly
points out that he judges them in secret, thus setting the
example which the Inquisition is bound to follow, and
avoiding the subtleties which the criminals would have
raised in their defence, especially at the suggestion of the
crafty serpent. That he called no witnesses is explained
by the confession of the accused, and ample legal author
is ity cited to show that these confessions were sufficient
to justify the conviction and punishment."
The subtlety of the casuists had full play when they
came to discuss the torture of the prisoner who absolutely
refused to confess. According
1
to law the torture could
be inflicted but once, but this regulation was easily evaded.
For it was lawful to subject the prisoner to all the various
kinds of torture in succession; and if additional evidence
were discovered, the torture could be repeated. When
they desired, therefore, to repeat the torture, even after
an interval of some days, they evaded the law by call
ing it technically not a "repetition"
but a "continuance
of the first torture": Ad continuandum tormenta, non
ad iterandum, as Eymeric styles it. 2 This quibbling
1 Lea, op. cit., vol. i, p. 406; Louis de Paramo, De origine et progressu
officii sant& Inquisitionis ejusque utilitate et dignitate libri tres, Madrid, 1598,
PP- 32, 33-
2 "Quod si, questionatus decanter, noluerit fateri veritatem, ponanatur