IT was stated in the section on the second method how the statements of the witnesses should be written down, and hence it is necessary to know their number and status.

It is asked whether the judge can, on the basis of the testimony of two lawful, individual witnesses, condemn any woman for the Heresy of Sorceresses or whether more than two are necessarily required. (Witnesses are called “individual” when they are divided in their statements but are concordant about the essence or result of the event. Hence, if one said, “She affected my cow with sorcery,” while the other mentioned a child, they would be concordant about the sorcery. Here, then, the question concerns the situation when the witnesses are not individual but altogether in agreement.) The response is that although two witnesses seem to be sufficient|according to the letter of the law, the rule being that every statement in the mouth of two or three stands, nonetheless, on the basis of legal fairness it seems that two are not enough in connection with this charge, for two reasons.

First, there is the enormity of the charge. In criminal charges the proof should be clearer than daylight (Pandect, “Proofs” “Si autem”), and heresy in particular is counted among the greater charges. If it is stated that in this charge lesser proofs are sufficient on the grounds that someone is revealed in a trivial matter (Chapter of the Code “Heretics,” Law 2 : “With a trivial demonstration he makes himself a heretic in deviating from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion” [Code of Justinian 1.5.2.1]), the response is that this is true for a presumption but not for condemnation.

The other reason is the abbreviation of the legal procedure in connection with this charge.