After this ordeal was passed the advocate was called in and furnished with the publication and the answers of the accused. The two conferred together, under the eye of the inquisitor and pen of the secretary; if the accused rejected the renewed advice of the advocate to confess and discharge his conscience, the plan of defence was concerted. What this was, as a rule, made little difference. When, in 1499, the inquisitors-general felt it necessary to instruct inquisitors that they must pay attention to the defences and exceptions alleged by the accused, it indicates how they were recognized as prosecutors rather than judges. Yet it was freely admitted that, in view of the limitations of the defence, they should be most zealous in considering whatever it presented.[154] The defence was so perfunctory a routine that the systematic writers mostly dismiss it with the curt observation that its witnesses must be zealous Christians and in no way connected with the defendant. Simancas, however, treats it at greater length, and his enumeration of its possibilities shows how restricted they were. He admits at the start the legal maxim that it is impossible to prove a negative, which was virtually, in most cases, the task imposed on the accused. Then he proceeds to define what the defendant can do. He can call on witnesses to prove his religious character or to disable for enmity the opposing witnesses, or to show that at a certain time or place he did not say what was attributed to him. Then there are general pleas in abatement, extreme youth, second childishness, insanity, drunkenness, thoughtless speech, ignorance, jocularity, the pressure of fear under threats, or intense grief. Or he may recuse the judge, which should be referred to the Suprema and not to arbiters, who cause much delay.[155] [Sidenote: _THE DEFENCE--RECUSATION_]