[1165] Oelsner, op. cit. cap. i. § 10; c. iii. § 8.
[1166] Malleus Maleficarum, Francof. 1580, pp. 21, 32.
[1167] Magicarum Disquisit. Lib. I. cap. iii. Q. 4, ¶ 6.
[1168] Tract. de Officio Sanctiss. Inquisit. P. II. Tit. xii. § 22.—“Sed utcunque sit certum est in judiciis passim fuisse practicatum indicium istud sanguinis emissi sufficere ad torturam si doctoribus nostris credendum est.”
[1169] De Jure Feretri, cap. ii.
[1170] Oelsner, op. cit. c. iv. §§ 2, 3. Cf. Zangeri Tract. de Quæstionibus cap. ii. n. 160.—It is perhaps worthy of remark that the earlier jurists made no allusion to it. Angelus Aretinus, Albertus de Gandavo, and Bonifacius de Vitellinis, in discussing the proofs requisite to justify torture, do not mention it.
[1171] As late as 1678, an anonymous Praxis Criminalis, printed at Altenburg, speaks of it as a recognized process, gives instructions as to the cautions requisite, and says the record must be sent to the magistrate (Ib. c. i. § 11).—In 1714, Nehring (De Indiciis, Jenæ, 1714, pp. 42-3) still quotes authorities in favor of its justifying torture, and feels obliged to argue at some length to demonstrate its inadequacy.
[1172] Martene de antiq. Ecclesiæ Ritibus, Lib. III. c. vii. Ordo 8, 16.
[1173] Hesiodi Theogonia, v. 794-806.
[1174] August. Epist. lxxviii. §§ 2, 3 (Ed. Benedict.).—“Ut quod homines invenire non possunt de quolibet eorum divino judicio propaletur.”