The ceremony was performed with considerable impressiveness. On the table of the audience-chamber there were placed with much solemnity a cross, the gospels, and two lighted candles. The prisoner was brought in, his list of selections was read to him and he was asked if he recognized them, to which he assented and said that he presented them as his compurgators. They were then asked if they wished to serve or not; if they accepted, a solemn oath was taken by the prisoner to tell the truth and not to conceal it for fear of death or of loss of property or of honor or for any other reason. The inquisitors then recited the charges which created vehement suspicion and asked him, under his oath, whether he was guilty of them and, after he had answered, he was led back to his cell. Then, if necessary, the nature of compurgation was explained to the compurgators and they were sworn to answer truly and not to deny the truth for hate, or love, or fear, or affection, or other motive. They were kept apart, without communication with each other, and each was examined separately and in secret whether he understood what had passed and whether, in accordance with what he knew of the accused, he believed that he had told the truth, and after replying he was made to promise secrecy under pain of excommunication. The answers were carefully taken down and were signed by the compurgators.[316]
Conducted after this fashion it is easy to understand why compurgation should be characterized as blind and perilous. The accused had to make his selection blindly, and the qualifications required of conjurators almost insured their unfavorable opinion, at a time when the operations of the Inquisition had caused every man to look upon his neighbor with suspicion, especially when that neighbor was one whom the tribunal required to undergo compurgation. Yet, although the Inquisition thus risked little in subjecting doubtful cases to it, there was ample reason for allowing it to fall into desuetude. Secrecy had become a cardinal principle in all inquisitorial proceedings and it was violated by calling in a dozen laymen to see the prisoner, to hear the charges against him and to participate in the judgement to be passed upon him. Besides, it was an acknowledgement that there were cases in which the assumed omniscience and infallibility of the Holy Office were at fault, and had to be supplemented by the random opinions of a few men selected by the accused. As practised for centuries in the ecclesiastical courts, it had been an easy method for the guilty to escape merited chastisement; as modified by the Inquisition, it became a pitfall for the innocent; it was wholly at variance with the inquisitorial process as developed in Spain and, while its place in the canon law prevented its formal abolition, the tribunals had exclusive discretion as to its employment, and that discretion was used to render it obsolete. Still, it maintained its place as a legal form of procedure. Even as late as 1645, among the interrogatories provided for a visitation, the question was still retained as to whether the forms of the Instructions were observed in canonical compurgation, although a writer of the same period tells us that it is not to be employed because, if the accused overcomes sufficient torture, he is to be discharged.[317]