by a fast of three days; and the accused, who had undergone the same fast, and received the sacrament, took the consecrated iron, of about a pound weight, heated red, in his naked hand, and in that manner carried it nine feet.  This done, the hand was wrapped up and sealed in the presence of the whole assembly.  Three nights being passed, the seals were opened before all the people:  if the hand was found without any sore inflicted by the fire, the party was cleared with universal acclamation; if on the contrary a raw sore appeared, the party, condemned by the judgment of Heaven, had no further plea or appeal.  Sometimes the accused walked over nine hot irons:  sometimes boiling water was used; into this the man dipped his hand to the arm.  The judgment by water was accompanied by the solemnity of the same ceremonies.  The culprit was thrown into a pool of water, in which if he did not sink, he was adjudged guilty, as though the element (they said) to which they had committed the trial of his innocency had rejected him.

Both these species of ordeal, though they equally appealed to God, yet went on different principles.  In the fire ordeal a miracle must be wrought to acquit the party; in the water a miracle was necessary to convict him.  Is there any reason for this extraordinary distinction? or must we resolve it solely into the irregular caprices of the human mind?  The greatest genius which has enlightened this age seems in this affair to have been carried by the sharpness of his wit into a subtilty hardly to be justified by the way of thinking of that unpolished period.  Speaking of the reasons for introducing this method of trial, “Qui ne voit,” says he, “que, chez un peuple exerce a manier des armes, la peau rude et calleuse ne devoit pas recevoir assez l’impression du fer chaud, ... pour qu’il y parut trois jours apres?  Et s’il y paroissoit, c’etoit une marque que celui qui faisoit l’epreuve etoit un effemine.”  And this mark of effeminacy, he observes, in those warlike times, supposed that the man has resisted the principles of his education, that he is insensible to honor, and regardless of the opinion of his country.  But supposing the effect of hot iron to be so slight even on the most callous hands, of which, however, there is reason to doubt, yet we can hardly admit this reasoning, when we consider that women were subjected to this fire ordeal, and that no other women than those of condition could be subjected to it.  Montesquieu answers the objection, which he foresaw would be made, by remarking, that women might have avoided this proof, if they could find a champion to combat in their favor; and he thinks a just presumption might be formed against a woman of rank who was so destitute of friends as to find no protector.  It must be owned that the barbarous people all over Europe were much guided by presumptions in all their judicial proceedings; but how shall we reconcile all this with the custom of the Anglo-Saxons, among whom the ordeal was in constant