In view of the severe and general condemnation of magical practices found

throughout Holy Writ it is remarkable that the Pentateuchal narrative

does not censure Joseph’s hydromantic arts. Indeed, except in the book

Genesis, it is seldom that any forms of presaging or the use of charms

are noted save with stern reprobation. In Isaias iii. 2, however,

the Kōsēm, magician or diviner, is mentioned with singular respect.

“Ecce enim dominator Dominus exercituum auferet a Jerusalem et a Juda

ualidum et fortem omne robur panis et omne robur aquæ, fortem, et uirum

bellatorem, iudicem, et prophetam, et _hariolum_, et senem.” Here the

Authorized Version deliberately mistranslates and obscures the sense:

“For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem

and from Judah, the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread and the

whole stay of water, the mighty man and the man of war, the judge and

the prophet, and _the prudent_, and the ancient.” “The Prudent” is by no

means a rendering of Kōsēm which “hariolus” perfectly represents.

In the thirteenth chapter of Genesis we have a most detailed and striking

narrative of sympathetic magic. Jacob, who is serving Laban, is to

receive as a portion of his hire all the speckled and spotted cattle,

all the brown among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the

goats. But the crafty old Syrian prevented his son-in-law by removing

to a distance, a journey of three days, all such herds as had been

specified, “and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks. Thereupon Jacob

took rods of green poplar, hazel, and chestnut, and peeled these rods in

alternate stripes of white and bark, and he put them in the gutters in

the watering-troughs when the flocks came to drink.” The animals duly

copulated, and “the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth

cattle, ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.” Moreover, it was only when

the stronger cattle conceived that Jacob set the rods before their eyes,

so that eventually all the best of the herds fell to his share. The

names of the trees are in themselves significant. The poplar in Roman

folklore was sacred to Hercules,[31] and as it grew on the banks of

the river Acheron in Epirus it was connected with Acheron, the waters

of woe in the underworld, a confused tradition which is undoubtedly of

very early origin. So Pausanias has: τὴν λευκην ὁ Ἡρακλῆς πεφυκυῖαν παρὰ

τὸν Ἀχέροντα εὔρετο ἐν Θεσπρωτιᾳ ποταμόν· In seventeenth-century England

poplar-leaves were accounted an important ingredient in hell-broths and

charms. The hazel has been linked with magic from remotest antiquity,

and the very name witch-hazel remains to-day. The chestnut-tree and its

nuts seem to have been associated with some primitive sexual rites. The

connexion is obscure, but beyond doubt traceable. In that most glorious

marriage song, the Epithalamium of Catullus, as the boys sang their

Fescennines of traditional obscenity nuts were scattered among the

crowd.[32] Petronius (Fragmentum XXXIII, ed. Buecheler, Berolini, 1895)

mentions chestnuts as an amatory gift:

aurea mala mihi, dulcis mea Marcia, mittis

mittis et hirsutae munera castaneae.

In Genesis again is recorded a most interesting and instructive example

of the belief in the magic efficacy of plants. “And Reuben went in the

days of wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the field and brought them

to his mother Leah” (xxx. 14 A.V.). Reuben brings his mother mandrakes

(Love Apples), which Rachel desires to have. Whereupon Leah bargains

with Rachel, and the latter for a portion of the fruit consents that

Jacob shall that night return to the bed of his elder wife, who indeed

conceives and in due time she bare Issachar. Leah ate of the mandrake as

a charm to induce pregnancy, and no disapproval of such use is expressed.

A similar theme is treated in Machiavelli’s famous masterpiece of

satirical comedy _La Mandragola_,[33] written between 1513 and 1520,

and performed by request before Leo X in the April of the latter year.

It had already been acted in Florence. In this play Callimaco is bent

upon securing as his mistress Lucrezia, the wife of a gullable doctor of

laws, Messer Nicia, whose one wish in life is to get a son. Callimaco is

introduced as a physician to Nicia, to whom he explains that a potion

of mandragora administered to the lady will remove her sterility, but

that it has fatal consequences to the husband. He must perish unless

some other man be first substituted whose action will absorb the poison,

and leave Lucrezia free to become the mother of a blooming family. This

plot is fully worked out, and by the services of his supple confederates

Callimaco is introduced to Lucrezia’s bedchamber as the necessary victim,

and gains his desire.

Mandrakes and mallows were potent in all forms of enchantment, and about

the mandrake in particular has grown up a whole library of legend, which

it would require much time and space thoroughly to investigate. Western

lore is mainly of somewhat a grim character, but not entirely, and by the

Orientals mandrake is regarded as a powerful aphrodisiac. So in Canticles

VII, 13, we have: Mandragoræ dederunt odorem. (The mandrakes give a

fragrant smell.) In antiquity mandrakes were used as an anæsthetic.

Dioscorides alludes to the employment of this herb before patients have

to be cut or burned; Pliny refers to its odour as causing sleep during

an operation; Lucian speaks of it as used before cautery; and both Galen

and Isidorus have passages which mention its dormitive quality. The

Shakespearean allusions have rendered this aspect familiar to all.

The Arabs and ancient Germans thought that a powerful spirit inhabited

the plant, an idea derived, perhaps, from the fancied resemblance

of the root to the human form. Ducagne has under Mandragore: “Pomi

genus cuius mentio fit, Gen. xxx. 14. nostris etiam notis sub nomine

_Mandragores_, quod pectore asseruatum sibi diuitiis acquirendis idoneum

somniabunt.” And Littré quotes the following from an old chronicle of

the thirteenth century: “Li dui compaignon [un couple d’éléphants] vont

contre Orient près du paradis terreste, tant que la femelle trouve une

herbe que on apele mandragore, si en manjue, et si atize tant son masle

qu’il en manjue avec li, et maintenant eschaufe la volenté de chascun,

et s’entrejoignent à envers et engendrent un filz sanz plus.” In the

_Commentaria ad Historiam Caroli VI et VII_ it is related that several

mandrakes found in the possession of Frère Richard, a Cordelier, were

seized and burned as savouring of witchcraft.

It seems certain that the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her father

(Genesis xxxi, 19, and 31-35), and which when he was in pursuit she

concealed by a subtle trick, were used for purposes of divination. From

the relation of the incident it is obvious that they were regarded of

immense value—he who had conveyed them away was, if found, to die the

death—and invested with a mysterious sanctity. Centuries later, during

the period of drastic reform, King Josias (639-608 B.C.) would no longer

tolerate them: “Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the

wizards, and the images [teraphim], and the idols, and all abominations

that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem did Josiah put

away” (2 Kings xxiii. 24. A.V.). The Vulgate has: “Sed et pythones,

et hariolos, et figuras idolorum, et immunditias, et abominationes,

quæ fuerant in terra Juda et Jerusalem, abstulit Josias.” In Ezechiel

xxi. 21, Esarhaddon is said to have divined by teraphim as well as by

belomancy; and in Zacharias (x. 2) the teraphim are stated on occasion

to have deceived their inquirers, “simulacra locuta sunt inutile,” “the

idols have spoken vanity.” Notwithstanding this it is obvious from Osee

(Hosea) iii. 4, that divination by teraphim was sometimes permitted:

“Dies multos sedebunt filii Israel sine rege, et sine principe, et sine

sacrificio, et sine altari, et sine ephod, et sine teraphim.” “The

children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a

prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an

ephod, and without teraphim.”

The learned Cornelius à Lapide glossing on Genesis xxxi writes: “Idola,

_teraphim_ quod significat statuæ humanæ siue humaneas formas habentes

ut patet, I. Reg. xix.” The allusion is to the deception practised by

Michal on Saul’s messengers, when putting one of the teraphim in bed

and covering it with quilts she pretended it was David who lay sick.

“Secundo,” continues à Lapide, “nomen _theraphim_ non appropriatum est in

eas statuas, quæ opera dæmonorum deposci debent, ut patet Judicum, xviii,

18,” the reference being to the history of Micas. Calvin very absurdly

says: “Theraphim sunt imagines quales habent papistæ.”

Spencer[34] is of opinion that these teraphim were small images or

figures, and the point seems conclusively settled by S. Jerome, who in

his twenty-ninth Epistle, _De Ephod et Teraphim_, quotes 1 Kings xix.

15, and uses “figuras siue figurationes” to translate μορφώματα of

Aquila of Pontus. This writer was the author of a Greek version of the

Old Testament published _circa_ A.D. 128. About eight years before he

seems to have been expelled from the Christian community, by whom he was

regarded as an adept in magic. The work of Aquila, who studied in the

school of Rabbi Akiba, the founder of Rabbinical Judaism, is said by S.

Jerome to have attained such exactitude that it was a good dictionary to

furnish the meaning of the obscurer Hebrew words. The Targum of Jonathan

commenting upon Genesis xxxi. 19, puts forward the singular view that the

teraphim, concealed by Rachel, consisted of a mummified human head.

In the book Tobias we have a detailed and important account of exorcism,

and one, moreover, which throws considerable light upon the demonology of

the time. Tobias, the son of Tobias, is sent under the guidance of the

unknown Angel, S. Raphael, to Gabelus in Rages of Media, to obtain the

ten talents of silver left in bond by his father. Tobias, whilst bathing

in the Tigris is attacked by a monstrous fish, of which he is told by his

Angel protector to reserve the heart, liver, and gall; the first two of

these are to prevent the devil who had slain seven previous husbands of

Sara, the beautiful daughter of Raguel, from attacking him. They arrive

at the house of Raguel, and Tobias seeks the hand of Sara. She, however,

is so beloved by the demon Asmodeus that seven men who had in turn

married her were by him put to death the night of the nuptials, before

consummation. Tobias, however, by exorcism, by the odour of the burning

liver of the fish, and by the help of S. Raphael, routs Asmodeus, “Then

the Angel Raphael took the Devil, and bound him in the desert of upper

Egypt.” The story which must be accepted as fact-narrative was originally

written during the Babylonian exile in the early portion of the seventh

century, B.C. It plainly shows that demons were considered to be capable

of sexual love, such as was the love of the sons of God for the daughters

of men recorded in Genesis (vi. 2). One may compare the stories of the

Jinns in Arabian lore. Asmodeus is perhaps to be identified with the

Persian _Aëshma daêva_, who in the _Avesta_ is next to Angromainyus, the

chief of the evil spirits. The introduction of Tobias’s dog should be

remarked. The dog accompanies his master on the journey and when they

return home “the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before,

and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning

and wagging his tail.” Among the Persians a certain power over evil

spirits was justly assigned to the faithful dog.

The New Testament evidence for the reality of magic and divination

is such that cannot be disregarded by any who accept the Christian

revelation.

In the Gospels we continually meet with possession by devils; the miracle

wrought in the country of the Gerasenes (Gergesenes) (S. Matthew viii.

28-34), the dumb man possessed by a devil (S. Matthew ix. 32-34), the

healing of the lunatic boy who was obsessed (S. Matthew xvii. 14-21), the

exorcism of the unclean spirit (S. Mark i. 23-27), the casting out of

devils whom Christ suffered not to speak (S. Mark i. 32-34), the exorcism

in the name of Jesus (S. Mark ix. 38), the demons who fled our Lord’s

presence crying out “Thou art Christ, the son of God” (S. Luke iv. 41),

the healing of those vexed with unclean spirits (S. Luke vi. 18), and

many instances more.

Very early in the Apostolic ministry appears one of the most famous

figures in the whole history of Witchcraft, Simon, who is as Simon

Magus, sorcerer and heresiarch. At the outbreak of that persecution

(_circa_ A.D. 37) of the Christian community in Jerusalem which began

with the martyrdom of S. Stephen, when Philip the Deacon went down to

Samaria, Simon, a native of Gitta, was living in that city. By his magic

arts and by his mysterious doctrine, in which he announced himself as

“the great power of God,” he had made a name for himself and gained

many adherents. He listened to Philip’s sermons, was greatly impressed

by them, he saw with wonder the miracles of healing and the exorcisms

of unclean spirits, and like many of his countrymen was baptized and

united with the community of believers in Christ. But it is obvious that

he only took this step in order to gain, as he hoped, greater magical

power and thus increase his influence. For when the Apostles S. Peter

and S. John came to Samaria to bestow upon those who had been baptized

by Philip the outpouring of the Holy Ghost which was accompanied by

heavenly manifestations Simon offered them money, saying, “Give me also

this power,” which he obviously regarded as a charm or occult spell. S.

Peter forthwith sharply rebuked the unholy neophyte, who, alarmed at this

denunciation, implored the Apostles to pray for him.

Simon is not mentioned again in the New Testament, but the first

Christian writers have much to say concerning him. S. Justin Martyr,

in his first _Apologia_ (A.D. 153-155) and in his dialogue _Contra

Tryphonem_ (before A.D. 161), describes Simon as a warlock who at the

instigation of demons claimed to be a god. During the reign of the

Emperor Claudius, Simon came to Rome, and by his sorceries won many

followers who paid him divine honours. He was accompanied by a lewd

concubine from Tyre, Helena, whom he claimed was Heavenly Intelligence,

set free from bondage by himself the “great power.”

In the _Pseudo-Clementine Homilies_ (probably second century) Simon

appears as the chief antagonist of S. Peter, by whom his devilish

practices are exposed and his enchantments dissolved. The apocryphal

_Acts of S. Peter_, which are of high antiquity,[35] give in detail the

well-known legend of the death of Simon Magus. By his spells the warlock

had almost won the Emperor Nero to himself, but continually he was being

foiled and thwarted owing to the intercession of the Apostle. At last

when Cæsar demanded one final proof of the truth of his doctrines, some

miracle that might be performed at midday in the face of all Rome, Simon

offered to take his flight into the heavens—a diabolical parody of the

Ascension—so that men might know his power was full as mighty as that of

Him whom the Christians worshipped as God.

A mighty concourse gathered in the Forum: Vestal Virgins, Senators,

Equites, their ladies, and a whole rabble of lesser folk. In the

forefront of a new Imperial box sat the Lord Nero Claudius Cæsar Augustus

Germanicus, on one side his mother, Agrippina, on the other Octavia

his wife. Magic staff in hand the magician advanced into the midst of

the arena: muttering a spell he bade his staff await his return, and

forthwith it stood upright, alone, upon the pavement. Then with a deep

obeisance to the ruler of the known world Simon Magus stretched forth

his arms, and a moment more with rigid limbs and stern set face he rose

from the ground and began to float high in air toward the Capitol. Like

some monstrous bird he rose, and hovered fluttering in space awhile. But

among the throng stood S. Peter, and just as the sorcerer had reached

the topmost pinnacles of the shrine of Juno Moneta, now Santa Maria in

Aracœli, where brown Franciscans sing the praises of God, the first Pope

of Rome kneeled down, lifted his right hand and deliberately made a

mighty Sign of the Cross towards the figure who usurped the privileges

of the Incarnate Son of Mary. Who shall say what hosts of hells fled at

that moment? The wizard dropped swift as heavy lead; the body whirled

and turned in the air; it crashed, broken and breathless, at the foot of

the Emperor’s seat, which was fouled and bespattered with black gouts

of blood. At the same moment with a ringing sound the staff fell prone

on the pavement. The flag upon which S. Peter kneeled may be seen even

until this day in the Church of Santa Francesca Romana. For, in order to

commemorate the defeat of the warlock, Pope S. Paul I (757-767) built

a church upon the site of his discomfiture, and in 850 Pope S. Leo IV

reconstructed it as Santa Maria Nova, which gave place to the present

fane dedicated in 1612.

But the fame of Simon Magus as a wizard has been swallowed up in his

ill repute as a heretic; so early do heresy and magic go hand in hand.

He was the first Gnostic, whose disciples the Simonians, an Antinomian

sect of the second century, indulged the sickest fantasies. Menander,

the successor of Simon, proclaimed himself the Messiah and asserted that

by his baptism immortality was conferred upon his followers. He also was

regarded as a mighty magician, and the sect which was named after him,

the Menandrians, seems to have lasted for no inconsiderable time.

In his missionary journeys S. Paul was continually combating Witchcraft.

At Paphos he was opposed by the sorcerer Elymas; in Philippi a medium,

“a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination,” “spiritum

pythonem,” followed him along the streets crying out and naming him

as “a servant of the most high God,” until he exorcized the spirit;

at Ephesus, a hotbed of sorcery and superstition, he converted many

diviners and witches, who cleansed their souls by the Sacrament of

Penance, and burned their conjuring books, a library of no mean value.

It amounted indeed to fifty thousand drachmas (£2000), and one may

suppose that in addition to manuscripts there were amulets of silver and

gold, richly wrought and jewelled. In Ephesus, also, had foregathered a

large number of vagabond Jews, exorcists. The chief characteristic of a

Jewish exorcism was the recitation of names believed to be efficacious,

principally names of good angels, which were used either alone, or

in combination with El (God); and, indeed, a blind reliance upon the

sound of mere names had long been a settled practice with these amateur

sorcerers, who considered that the essence of their charms lay in the

use of particular names declaimed in a particular order, which differed

on several occasions. It was this belief, no doubt, that induced the

seven sons of Sceva, who had witnessed S. Paul’s exorcisms in the name

of Jesus, to try upon their own account the formula “I conjure thee by

Jesus whom Paul preacheth,” an experiment disastrous to their credit.

For in one case the patient cried out “Jesus I know, and Paul I know,

but who are ye?” and leaped upon them with infernal strength, beating

and wounding them, so that they fled for safety from the house, their

limbs bruised and their garments torn, to the great scandal of the

neighbourhood.

For the fact of demoniac possession the authority of Christ Himself is

plainly pledged; whilst Witchcraft is explicitly ranked by S. Paul with

murder, sedition, hatred, and heresy (Galatians v. 20-21). S. John,

also, twice mentions sorcerers in a hideous catalogue of sinners. There

can be no doubt whatsoever that the reality of Witchcraft is definitely

maintained by the New Testament writers,[36] and any denial of this

implicitly involves a rejection of the truth of the Christian revelation.

Among the Jews of a later period, and probably even to-day, various

diseases are said to be induced by demons, who, it is instructive to

notice, haunt marshy places, damp and decayed houses, latrines, squalid

alleys, foul atmospheres where sickness is bred and ripened.

Josephus (_ob._ A.D. 100) relates that God taught Solomon how demons were

to be expelled, a “science useful and sanitative to men.” He also gives

an account of Eliezar, a celebrated exorcist of the time, whom, in the

presence of the Emperor Vespasian, the historian actually saw casting

out evil spirits. The operator applied to the nose of the possessed

a ring having attached to it a root which Solomon is said to have

prescribed—“Baaras,” a herb of magical properties, and one dangerous for

the uninitiate to handle. As the devils came forth Eliezar caused them

to pass into a basin filled with water, which was at once poured away.

It may be noticed also that demonology plays an important part in the

Book of Enoch (before 170 B.C.). Even in the Mishna there are undoubted

traces of magic, and in the Gemara demonology and sorcery loom very

largely. Throughout the Middle Ages Jewish legend played no insignificant

part in the history of Witchcraft, and, especially in Spain, until the

nineteenth century at least, there were prosecutions, not so much for

the observance of Hebrew ceremonies as is often suggested and supposed,

but for the practice of the dark and hideous traditions of Hebrew magic.

Closely connected with these ancient sorceries are those ritual murders,

of which a learned Premonstratensian Canon of Wilthin, Adrian Kembter,

writing in 1745, was able to enumerate no less than two-and-fifty,[37]

the latest of these having taken place in 1650, when at Cadan in Bohemia,

Matthias, a lad of four years old, was killed by certain rabbis with

seven wounds. In many cases the evidence is quite conclusive that the

body, and especially the blood of the victim, was used for magical

purposes. Thus with reference to little S. Hugh of Lincoln, after various

very striking details, the chronicler has: “Et cum exspirasset puer,

deposuerunt corpus de cruce, et nescitur qua ratione, euiscerarunt

corpusculum; dicitur autem, quod ad magicas artes exercendas.” In 1261

at Forcheim in Bavaria the blood of a murdered boy was used to sprinkle

certain thresholds and doors. In 1285 at Munich a witch was convicted of

selling Christian children to the Jews, who carefully preserved the blood

in curious vessels for secret rites. In 1494 at Tyrnau twelve vampires

were executed for having opened the veins of a boy whom they had snared,

and having drunk his warm blood thence whilst he was yet alive. A deed

of peculiar horror was discovered at Szydlow in 1597 when the victim was

put to death in exquisite tortures, the blood and several members of the

body being partaken of by the murderers. In almost every case the blood

was carefully collected, there can be no doubt for magical purposes, the

underlying idea being the precept of the Mosaic law: Anima enim omnis

carnis in sanguine est:[38] For the life of all flesh is in the blood

thereof.

NOTES TO CHAPTER V

[1] _Khartummim._ The same word is used to describe the magicians whom

Pharaoh summoned to interpret his dream, _Genesis_ xli. 8, where the

Vulgate has _coniectores_. _Exodus_ viii. 11, the Vulgate reads: “Uocauit

autem Pharao sapientes et maleficos.”

[2] It is perhaps worth mentioning that even the most modernistic

commentators assign the history of Balaam to the oldest document of the

Hexateuch, that they call the Jehovistic.

[3] In his commentary on the ninth chapter of the prophet Osee (Hosea),

S. Jerome says: “Ingressi [sunt] ad Beel-Phegor, idolum Moabitarum

quem nos PRIAPUM possumus appelare.” And Rufinus on the same prophet

has: “Beel-Phegor figuram Priapi dixerunt tenere.” (They entered in

unto Beel-Phegor, the idol of the Moabites, whom we may identify with

PRIAPUS.... Beel-Phegor is said to have had the same shape as Priapus.)

[4] Balaam hariolus a Domino mittitur ut decipiat Balac filium Beor. _In

Ezechielem_, IV. xiv. Migne, _Patres Latini_, XXV. p. 118. (Baalam, a

soothsayer, is sent by God to deceive Balac, son of Beor.)

[5] Balaam fuisse prophetam non Dei, sed diaboli constat.... Fuit ipse

magus, et dæmonis alloquium quærebat, eumque consulere.

[6] The word is usually found with _yidde ’onim_ (from _yada_, “to

know,”) and they are generally considered to be identical in meaning. But

W. R. Smith, _Journ. Phil._, XIV. 127, makes the following distinction:

Yidde ’oni is a familiar spirit, one known to him who calls it up; the

’ôbh is any spirit who may be invoked by a spell and forced to answer

questions.

[7] _Divination, et la science des présages_, Paris, 1875. p. 161 ff.

[8] _History of the People of Israel_, 3 vols., London, 1888-91. I. p.

347.

[9] Cf. Ovid, _Metamorphoseon_, IV, 412-3, of bats:

Conatæque loqui, minimam pro corpore uocem

Emittunt; peraguntque leues stridore querelas.

[10] Josephus says that Samuel told the witch it was Saul.

[11] Migne, _Patres Græci_, LXXX. p. 589.

[12] Plerique putant Saulem signum accepisse de terra et de profundo

inferni quando Samuelem per incantationes et artes magicas uisus est

suscitasse. Migne, _Patres Latini_, XXIV. p. 106.

[13] ... inspirantur diabolico spiritu. Has autem dicunt Hebræi maleficis

artibus eruditas per necromantias et pythicum spiritum qualis fuit illa

quæ uisa est suscitare animam Samuelis. _Idem_, XXV. p. 114.

[14] Migne, _Patres Græci_, XLV. pp. 107-14.

[15] Δαίμονες γαρ ἦσαν οἱ κατασχηματίζουτες ὲαυτοὺς εἰς τὸ τοῦ Σαμουὴλ

πρόσωπον. _Idem_, XXX. p. 497.

[16] Et credo quia [spiritus immundi] mendacio possunt; nec enim

pythonico tunc spiritui minus liciut animam Samuelis effingere. (_De

Anima_, LVII.) Migne, _Patres Latini_, II. p. 749.

[17] Ἀλλὰ γέγραπται, ὁτὶ ἔγνω Σαουλ ὅτι Σαμουὴλ ἔστι.

[18] ἐπεὶ οὐ δύναται ψευδέσθαι ἡ Γραφη. τὰ δε ῥήματα τῆς Γραφῆς ἐστὶν·

Καὶ εἶδεν ἡ γυνὴ τὸν Σαμουήλ. (_In librum Regum._ Homilia II.) Migne,

_Patres Græci_, XII. p. 1013.

[19] καὶ ὅτι μένουσιν αὶ ψυχαὶ, ἀπέδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ καὶ τὴν Σαμουὴλ

ψυχὴν κληθῆναι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγγαστριμμύθου, ὡς ἠξίωσιν ὁ Σαουλ. (_In I.

Regum._ XXVIII.) _Idem_, XII.

[20] Samuel post mortem, secundum Scripturæ Testimonium futura non

tacuit. _I. Regum._ XXVIII. 17 _et seq._ (_In Lucam._ I. 33.) Migne,

_Patres Latini_. XV. p. 1547.

[21] Imago Samuelis mortui Saul regi uera prænuntiauit. _Idem_, XXXIV. p.

52. And _De Cura_, XL. p. 606.

[22] Nam Samuel propheta defunctus uiuo Sauli etiam regi futura prædixit.

[23] Whiston’s translation. Ed. 1825. Vol. I, p. 263.

[24] So _1 Kings_ (_Samuel_) xv. 23: “Because it is like the sin of

witchcraft, to rebel.” Heresy and rebellion are fundamentally the same.

[25] Schrader, _Die Keilenscheiften und das alte Testament_, Giessen, 2nd

ed., 1883.

[26] ... raconta ses rapts d’enfants, ses hideuses tactiques, ses

stimulations infernales, ses meurtres impétueux, ses implacables viols;

obsédé par la vision des ses victimes, il décrivit leurs agonies

ralenties ou hâtées, leurs appels et leurs râles; il avoua s’être vautré

dans les élastiques tiédeurs des intestins; il confessa qu’il avait

arraché des cœurs par des plaies élargies, ouvertes, telles que des

fruits mûrs. _Là-Bas_, J. K. Huysmans, c. xviii.

[27] Healey’s translation, 1610.

[28] _De Magia_, XLVII.

[29] _The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, Sven Nilsson. 3rd

edition. 1868. p. 241.

[30] The original title is κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος. A Refutation of

all Heresies. The first book had long been known; books IV-X, which had

been discovered a short time previously, were first published in 1851

(Oxford) by Miller as the work of Origen, but edited by Duncker and

Schneidewin as by Hippolitus, eight years later, Göttingen, 1859. The

first chapters of the Fourth, and the whole of the Second and Third Books

are still missing.

[31] Theocritus, II. 121. Κρατὶ δ’ ἔχων λεύκαν Ἡρακλέος ἱερὸν ἔρνος.

Vergil. _Eclogue_ VIII, 61: Populus Alcidæ gratissima. _Æneid_, VIII,

276: Herculea bicolor quem populus umbra....

[32] Pliny (_Historia Naturalis_, XV. 86) says walnuts were thrown, and

it appears from an inscription that this custom prevailed on birthdays

as well as at weddings. But originally, at any rate, chestnuts were also

used. In time the meaning became obscured, and as nuts were used in all

kinds of games they merely became synonymous with playthings.

[33] The play is referred to in 1520 as _Messer Nicia_, and the first

edition printed at Florence _circa_ 1524 has the title _The Comedy of

Callimaco and Lucrezia_, but the Prologue definitely gives the name _La

Mandragola_ (_The Mandrake_), and this is used in all later editions. The

story has been imitated by La Fontaine; the play itself (which is still

acted in Italy) has been repeatedly translated, at least six times into

French and five times into German, but as yet no English version has been

published.

[34] _De Legibus Hebræorum ritualibus earumque rationibus_, 2 vols.,

Tubingæ, 1732.

[35] Not later than A.D. 200. They were well known to Commodian, who

wrote about A.D. 250.

[36] This is, of course, the view of the Fathers, and even later

theological writers (e.g. Alfred Edersheim, Delitzsch, Rev. Walter Scott)

accept this literal truth.

[37] In his book _Acta pro Ueritate Martyrii corporis, & cultus publici

B. Andreæ Rinnensis_, Innsbruck, 1745. Blessed Andrew, a child, was

killed at Rinn in the Tyrol, 12 July, 1462. A systematic investigation

would, no doubt, wellnigh double the number of instances recorded by

Kembter, and there are 15 for the eighteenth, 39 for the nineteenth

century. In 1913 Mendil Beiliss was tried upon the charge of ritually

murdering a Russian lad, Yushinsky.

[38] Leviticus xvii. 14.

CHAPTER VI

DIABOLIC POSSESSION AND MODERN SPIRITISM

The phenomenon of diabolic possession, the mere possibility of which

materialists and modernists in recent years have for the most part

stoutly denied, has, nevertheless, been believed by all peoples and at

all periods of the earth’s history. In truth he who accepts the spiritual

world is bound to realize all about him the age-long struggle for empery

of discarnate evil ceaselessly contending with a thousand cunning

sleights and a myriad vizardings against the eternal unconquerable powers

of good. Nature herself bears witness to the contest; disease and death,

cruelty and pain, ugliness and sin, are all evidences of the mighty

warfare, and it would be surprising indeed if some were not wounded in

the fray—for we cannot stand apart, each man, S. Ignatius says, must

fight under one of the two standards—if some even did not fall.

The ancient Egyptians, whose religion of boundless antiquity is

pre-eminent in the old world for its passionate earnestness, its purity,

and lofty idealism certainly held that some diseases were due to the

action of evil spirits or demons, who in exceptional circumstances had

the power of entering human bodies and of vexing them in proportion to

the opportunities consciously or unconsciously given to their malign

natures and influences. Moreover, the Egyptians were regarded as being

supremely gifted in the art of curing the diseases caused by demoniacal

possession, and one noteworthy instance of this was inscribed upon a

stele and set up in the temple of the god Khonsu at Thebes so that all

men might learn his might and his glory.[1] When King Rameses II was in

Mesopotamia the various princes made him many offerings of gold and gems,

and amongst other came the Prince of Bekhten, who brought his daughter,

the fairest maiden of that land. When the king saw he loved her and

bestowed upon her the title of “Royal spouse, chief lady, Rā-neferu”

(the beauties of Ra, the Sun-god), and taking her back to Egypt he

married her with great pomp and hallowed solemnity. In the fifteenth

year of the king’s reign there arrived at his court an ambassador from

the Prince of Bekhten, bearing rich presents and beseeching him “on

behalf of the lady Bent-ent-resht, the younger sister of the royal

spouse Rā-neferu, for, behold, an evil disease hath laid hold upon her

body,” “wherefore,” said the envoy, “I beseech thy Majesty to send a

physician[2] to see her.” Rameses ordered the books of the “double house

of life” to be brought and the wise men to choose from their number one

who might be sent to Bekhten. They selected the sage Tehuti-em-heb, who

in company with the ambassador forthwith departed on their journey,

and when they had arrived the Egyptian priest soon found the lady

Bent-ent-resht was possessed of a demon or spirit over which he was

powerless. Wellnigh in despair the Prince of Bekhten sent again to the

king begging him to dispatch even a god to his help.

When the ambassador arrived a second time Rameses was worshipping in the

temple of Khonsu Nefer-hetep at Thebes, and he at once besought that

deity to allow his counterpart Khonsu to go to Bekhten and to deliver

the daughter of the prince of that country from the demon who possessed

her. Khonsu Nefer-hetep granted the request, and a fourfold measure of

magical power was imparted to the statue of the god which was to go to

Bekhten. The god, seated in his boat, and five other boats with figures

of gods in them, accompanied by a noble attendance of horses and chariots

upon the right and the left, set out for Bekhten, where in due course

they were received with great honour. The god Khonsu was brought to the

place where the princess was, magical ceremonies were performed, and the

demon incontinently departed. Khonsu remained in Bekhten three years,

four months, and five days, being worshipped with the utmost veneration.

One night, however, the Prince had a dream in which he saw a hawk of

gold issue from the sacred shrine and wing its way towards Egypt. In

the morning the Egyptian priests interpreted his dream as meaning that

the god now wished to return, and accordingly he was escorted back in

superb state, and with him were sent grateful gifts and thank offerings

innumerable to be laid in the temple of Khonsu Nefer-hetep at Thebes.

The Greeks of the earlier civilization were inclined generally to

attribute all sickness to the gods, who again often by this particular

means took almost immediate revenge upon those who had insulted their

images, profaned their sanctuaries, or derided their worship. Thus

Pentheus who resists the introduction of the mysteries of Dionysus

into Thebes is driven mad by the affronted deity.[3] The madness of

Ajax, and that of the daughters of Proetus,[4] who imagined themselves

changed into cows, shows us that this belief went back to heroic times.

In later days Demaratus and his brother Alopecos were driven lunatic

(παραφρονήσαν) after having found the statue of Artemis Orthosia, and

this was considered to be the power of the goddess.[5] The frenzy which

attacked Quintus Fulvius was regarded as a punishment, a possession by

evil spirits on account of his sacrilege in having stolen the marble roof

of the temple of Juno Lacinia at Locri.[6]

Pythagoras taught that the ailments both of men and of animals are due

to demons who throng the regions of the air, and this doctrine does no

more than state clearly what had been more or less vaguely believed from

the dawn of human history. Wherefore Homer in the _Odyssey_, speaking

of a man who is racked by a sore disease, says that a hateful demon is

tormenting him: στυγερὸς δέ οἱ ἔχραε δαίμων, V, 396. (But a hateful demon

griped him fast.) The word κακοδαιμονία, possession by an evil spirit, in

Aristophanes signifies “raving madness,” and the verb κακοδαιμονάω, to be

tormented by an evil spirit, is used by Xenophon, Demosthenes, Dinarchus,

and Plutarch[7] amongst other authors.

Many philosophers believed that each man has a protecting daimon, who in

some sense personifies his individuality. It followed that lunatics and

the delirious were afflicted with madness by these spirits who guided

them, and accordingly the Greek names for those distraught are highly

significant: ἐνεργούμενοι (in later Greek, persons possessed of an evil

spirit), δαιμονιόληπτοι (influenced by devils), θεόληπτοι, θεόβλαβες

(stricken of God), θεόμανες (maddened by the gods); and so Euripides has

λύσσα θεομανής, and again θεομανης πότμος.[8] The very name μανία given

by the Greeks to madness was derived from the root-word _man, men_,[9]

which occurs in the Latin _Manes_, and indeed the Romans thought that

a madman was tormented by the goddess Mania, the mother of the Lares,

the hallucinations of lunatics being taken to be spectres who pursued

them.[10] And so a madman was _laruarum plenus_, _laruatus_,[11] one whom

phantoms disturbed; as in Plautus, where the doctor says: “What kind of

a disease is this? Explain. Unfold, old sire, I say. Art thou crazed

(_laruatus_) or lunatic? Tell me now.”[12]

The frantic exaltation which thrilled the Galli, and the Corybantes

when they celebrated the Dionysia, seems to have been epidemic, and was

universally attributed to divine possession. There are many allusions to

the connexion between the rites of Cybele and Dionysus. Apollodorus[13]

says Dionysus was purified from madness by Rhea at the Phrygian Cybela,

and was then initiated into her rites and took her dress; thence he

passed into Thrace with a train of Bacchanals and Satyrs. Strabo,[14] on

the other hand, thinks the rites were brought from Thrace by colonists

from that country into Phrygia; he even quotes a fragment from the

_Edoni_ of Æschylus[15] as proving the identity of the cultus of Dionysus

and Cybele. So also we have in Euripides, _Bacchæ_, 58,

Up, and wake the sweet old sound,

The clang that I and mystic Rhea found,

The Timbrel of the Mountains.[16]

It is interesting to remark that Nicander of Claros,[17] who was

a physician, in his _Alexipharmaca_ (Ἀλεξιφάρμακα), speaking of a

particular form of lunacy, compares the shrieks uttered by patients with

those of a priestess of Rhea, when on the ninth day she makes all whom

she encounters in the streets tremble at the hideous howl of the Idæan

Mother; κερνοφόρος ζάκορος βωμίστρια Ῥείης is the exact phrase.[18]

In the _Hippolytus_ (141 _sqq._) the Chorus speaking to Phædra says:

Is this some spirit, O child of man?

Doth Hecat hold thee perchance, or Pan?

Doth She of the Mountains work her ban,

Or the Dread Corybantes bind thee?[19]

And in the _Medea_ (1171-2) we have: “She seemed, I wot, to be one

frenzied, inspired with madness by Pan or some other of the gods.”[20]

Here τινὸς θεῶν, says Paley, alludes to Dionysus or Cybele. Madness was

sometimes thought to be sent by Pan for any neglect of his worship, so in

the _Rhesus_ Hector cries (36-7): “Can it be that you are scared by the

fear-causing stroke of Pan of old Kronos’s line?”[21]

Aretæus, the medical writer, who is especially celebrated for his

accuracy of diagnosis, in his _De signis chronicorum morborum_, VI,

describes Corybantic frenzy as a mental malady and says that patients

may be soothed and even cured by the strains of soft music.[22] We have

here then the same remedy as was applied in the case of Saul, whom, we

are told, “an evil spirit from the Lord troubled,”[23] and to whose court

David, the sweet harper, was summoned. This seems to be the only instance

of demoniac possession in the Old Testament and although the Hebrew word

_rûah_ need not absolutely imply a personal influence, if we may judge

from Josephus[24] the Jews certainly gave the word that meaning in this

very passage.

It may be well here clearly to explain the difference between possession

and obsession, two technical terms sometimes confounded. By obsession

is meant that the demon attacks a man’s body from without;[25] by

possession is meant that he assumes control of it from within. Thus S.

Jerome describes the obsessions which beset S. Hilarion: “Many were

his temptations; day and night did the demons change and renew their

snares.... As he lay down how often did not nude women encircle him?

When he was an hungered how often a plenteous board was spread before

him?”[26] S. Antony the Great, also was similarly attacked: “The devil

did not let to attack him, at night assuming the form of some maiden

and imitating a woman’s gestures to deceive Antony.”[27] These painful

phenomena are not uncommon in the lives of the Saints. Very many

examples might be cited, but one will suffice, that of S. Margaret of

Cortona,[28] the Franciscan penitent,[29] who was long and terribly

tormented: “Following her to and fro up and down her humble cell as

she wept and prayed [the devil] sang the most filthy songs, and lewdly

incited Christ’s dear handmaid, who with tears was commending herself to

the Lord, to join him in trolling forth bawdy catches ... but her prayers

and tears finally routed the foul spirit and drove him far away.”[30]

The theologians, however, warn us to be very cautious in dealing

with so difficult a matter, and the supreme authority of S. Alphonsus

Liguori advises us that by far the greater part of these obsessions are

distressing hallucinations, neurasthenia, imagination, hysteria, in a

word, pathological: “It is advisable always to be very suspicious of

such diabolic attacks, for it cannot be gainsaid that for the most part

they are fancy, or the effect of imagination, or weakness, especially

when women are concerned.”[31] Dom Dominic Schram presses home the same

point with equal emphasis: “Very often what are supposed to be demoniacal

obsessions are nothing else than natural ailments, or morbid imaginings,

or even distractions or actual lunacy. Wherefore it is necessary to deal

with these cases most carefully, until the peculiar symptoms clearly show

that it is actual obsession.”[32]

Demoniac possession is frequently presented to us in the New Testament,

and we have the authority of Christ Himself as to its reality. The

infidel argument is to deny the possibility of possession in any

circumstances, either on the hypothesis that there are no evil spirits

in existence, or that they are powerless to influence the human body

in the manner described. But whatever view Rationalists may adopt—and

they are continually shifting their ground—no reader of the Scriptural

narrative can deny that Christ by word and deed showed His entire belief

in possession by evil spirits. And if Christ were divine how came He to

foster and encourage a delusion? Why did He not correct it? Only two

answers can be supposed. Either He was ignorant of a religious truth, or

He deliberately gave instructions that He knew to be false, frequently

acting in a way which was something more than misleading. To a Christian

either of these explanations is, of course, unthinkable. The theory of

accommodation formulated by Winer[33] may be accepted by Modernists, but

will be instantly condemned by all others. Accommodation is understood

as the toleration of harmless illusions of the day having little or

no connexion with religion. Even if this fine piece of profanity were

allowed, which, of course, must not be the case, the argument could not

be applied here, indeed it seems wholly repugnant even in regard to a

Saint, but entirely impossible in consideration of the divinity of Christ.

The victims of possession were sometimes deprived of speech and sight:

“Then was offered to him one possessed of a devil, blind and dumb: and

he healed him, so that he spoke and saw” (S. Matthew xii. 22). Sometimes

they had lost speech alone: “Behold, they brought him a dumb man,

possessed with a devil, and after the devil was cast out the dumb man

spoke” (S. Matthew ix. 32, 33); also “And he was casting out a devil, and

the same was dumb: and when he had cast out the devil the dumb spoke”

(S. Luke xi. 14). In many cases the mere fact of possession is mentioned

without further details: “they presented to him such as were possessed

by devils, and lunatics ... and he cured them” (S. Matthew iv. 24); “and

when evening was come, they brought to him many that were possessed with

devils, and he cast out the spirits with his word” (S. Matthew viii. 16);

“And, behold a woman of Canaan, who came out of those coasts, crying out,

said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is

grievously troubled by a devil ... Then Jesus answering, said to her:

O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her

daughter was cured from that hour” (S. Matthew xv. 22-28); “And when

it was evening after sunset they brought to him all that were ill and

that were possessed with devils”; “And he cast out many devils, and he

suffered them not to speak, because they knew him”; “And he was preaching

in their synagogues, and in all Galilee, and casting out devils” (S. Mark

i. 32, 34, 39); “And the unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down

before him: and they cried, saying: Thou art the Son of God” (S. Mark

iii. 11, 12); “And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou

art the Son of God” (S. Luke iv. 41); “And they that were troubled with

unclean spirits were cured” (S. Luke vi. 18); “And in that same hour, he

cured many of their diseases, and hurts, and evil spirits” (S. Luke vii.

21). The exorcism of the man “who had a devil now a very long time,” and

who dwelt among the tombs in the country of the Gerasens (Gadarenes) is

related by S. Luke (viii. 27-39). The possessed is tormented by so many

unclean spirits that they proclaim their name as Legion: he is endowed

with supernatural strength so that he breaks asunder bonds and fetters:

the devils recognize Christ as God, and Our Lord converses with them,

asking how they are called. Immediately the devils have been cast out the

man is clothed, peaceable, reasonable, and quiet, “in his right mind.”

At the foot of Mount Tabor a young man is brought by his father to be

healed. The youth is possessed of a dumb spirit, “who, wheresoever he

taketh him dasheth him, and he foameth, and gnasheth with the teeth, and

pineth away.” When Jesus approached, “immediately the spirit troubled

him; and being thrown down upon the ground, he rolled about foaming.”

The patient had been thus afflicted “from his infancy, and oftentimes

hath he cast him into the fire and into waters to destroy him.” Our

Lord threatened the spirit, and forthwith expelled it. (S. Mark ix.

14-28.) It should be noticed that it is the demons who are addressed

on these occasions, not their victims. In the face of this catena of

Biblical evidence and the various circumstances attending these exorcisms

it is impossible to maintain that the possessed suffered merely from

epilepsy, paralysis, acute mania, or any other such disease. In fact the

Evangelists carefully separate natural maladies from diabolic possession:

“He cast out the spirits with his word: and all that were sick he healed”

(S. Matthew viii. 16); “They brought to him all that were ill and that

were possessed with devils ... and he healed many that were troubled with

divers diseases and he cast out many devils” (S. Mark i. 32, 34). In the

original Greek the distinction is still more clearly and unmistakably

shown: πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας καὶ τοὺς δαιμονιζομένους. Saint Matthew,

again, differentiates: “they presented to him all sick people that were

taken with divers diseases [ποικίλαις νόσοις] and torments [βασάνοις]

and such as were possessed by devils [δαιμονιζομένους] and lunatics

[σεληνιαζομένους] and those who had the palsy [παραλυτικούς] and he

cured them,” iv. 24. Moreover, Our Lord expressly distinguishes between

possession and natural disease; “Behold I cast out devils and do cures,”

are the Divine Words; ἰδοὺ ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια καὶ ἰάσεις ἀποτελῶ (S. Luke

xiii. 32).

That the demoniacs were often afflicted with other diseases as well is

highly probable. The demons may have attacked those who were already

sick, whilst the very fact of obsession or possession would of itself

produce disease as a natural consequence.

According to S. Matthew x. 1, Our Lord gave special powers to the

Apostles to exorcize demons: “And having called his twelve disciples

together, he gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out, and

to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.” And S.

Peter, when describing the mission and miracles of Christ, stresses this

very point: “Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost,

and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were

possessed by the devil,” τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου (Acts

x. 38). Our Lord Himself directly appeals to His power over evil spirits

as a proof of His Messiahship: “If I by the finger of God cast out

devils; doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you”; εἰ δὲ ἐν δακτύλῳ

Θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω τά δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ (S.

Luke xi. 20).

Whilst yet on earth Christ empowered the Apostles to cast out demons

in His Name, and in His last solemn charge He promised that the same

delegated power should be perpetuated: “These signs shall follow them

that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils”; σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς

πιστεύσασι ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσι

(S. Mark xvi. 17.) But the efficacy of exorcism was conditional, not

absolute as in the case of Our Lord Himself, for He explained, upon an

occasion when the Apostles seemed to fail, that certain spirits could

only be expelled by prayer and fasting. Moreover, a perfect belief and

complete command are necessary for the exorcizer. τότε προσέλθοντες οἱ

μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἱησοῦ κατ ἰδίαν εἶπον, Διατί ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν ἐκβαλεῖν

αὐτό; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Διὰ τὲν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν· ... τοῦτο δὲ

τὸ γένος οὐκ ἑκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ ... (S. Matthew

xvii. 19-21). S. Paul, and no doubt the other Apostles and Disciples,

regularly made use of this exorcizing power. Thus, at Philippi, where

the girl “having a pythonical spirit ... who brought to her masters

much gain by divining” (παιδίσκην τινὰ ἔχουσαν πεῦνμα πύθωνα ... ἥτις

ἐργασίαν πολλὴν παρεῖχε τοῖς κυρίοις αὐτῆς μαντευπμένη)[34] met S. Paul

and S. Luke and proclaimed them as servants of the most high God, S. Paul

“being grieved, turned, and said to the spirit: I command thee, in the

name of Jesus Christ, to go out from her. And he went out the same hour”

(Acts xvi. 16-18). And at Ephesus, a hot-bed of magic and necromancy,

“God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even

there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons,

and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of

them” (Acts xix. 11, 12). Those who do not imagine that the powers Our

Lord perpetually bestowed upon the Apostles and their followers abruptly

ceased with the thirty-first verse of the twenty-eighth chapter of The

Acts of the Apostles, realize that the charisma of exorcism has continued

through the ages, and in truth the Church has uninterruptedly practised

it until the present day.

The Exorcist is ordained by the Bishop for this office, ordination to

which is the second of the four minor orders of the Western Church. Pope

Cornelius (251-252) mentions in his letter to Fabius that there were then

in the Roman Church forty-two acolytes, and fifty-two exorcists, readers,

and door-keepers, and the institution of these orders together with the

organization of their functions, seems to have been the work of the

predecessor of Cornelius, Pope Saint Fabian the Martyr (236-251).

The rite of the Ordination of Exorcists, “De Ordinatione Exorcistarum,”

is as follows: First, the Book of Exorcisms, or in its place the

Pontifical or Missal must be ready at hand; _Pro Exorcistis ordinandis

paretur liber exorcismorum, cuius loco dari potest Pontificale uel

Missale_ (A Book of Exorcisms must be prepared for those who are to

be ordained Exorcists. Howbeit in place thereof the Pontifical or the

Missal may be handed to them) runs the rubric. When the Lectors have been

ordained, the Bishop resuming his mitre takes his place upon his seat or

faldstool at the Epistle side of the altar, and the Missal with the bugia

being brought by his acolytes he proceeds to read the Gradual, or (if it

be within the Octave of Pentecost) the _Alleluia_. Meantime the Gradual

is sung by the choir. When it is finished, he rises, takes off his mitre,

and turning to the altar intones the third collect. He next sits again,

resumes his mitre, and the third Lection is read. Two chaplains assist

him with bugia and book whence he reads the Lection. The Archdeacon now

summons the ordinandi, who approach, holding lighted tapers in their

hands, and kneel before the Bishop, who solemnly admonishes them with the

prayer:

“Dearest children who are about to be ordained to the office of

Exorcists, ye must duly know what ye are about to undertake. For an

Exorcist must cast out devils; and announce to the people that those

that may not be present at the sacrifice should retire; and at the altar

minister water to the priest. Ye receive also the power of placing your

hand upon energumens, and by the imposition of your hands and the grace

of the Holy Spirit and the words of exorcism unclean spirits are driven

out from the bodies of those who are obsessed. Be careful therefore

that as ye drive out devils from the bodies of others, so ye banish all

uncleanness and evil from your own bodies lest ye fall beneath the power

of those spirits who by your ministry are conquered in others. Learn

through your office to govern all imperfections lest the enemy may claim

a share in you and some dominion over you. For truly will ye rightly

control those devils who attack others, when first ye have overcome

their many crafts against yourselves. And this may the Lord vouchsafe to

grant you through His Holy Spirit.”[35] After which the Bishop hands to

each severally the Book of Exorcisms (or Pontifical or Missal), saying:

“Receive this and commit it to thy memory and have power to place thy

hands upon energumens, whether they be baptized, or whether they be

catechumens.”[36] All kneel, and the Bishop, wearing his mitre, stands

and prays:

“Dearest brethren, let us humbly pray God the Father Almighty that He

may vouchsafe to bless these his servants to the office of Exorcists

that they may have the power to command spirits, to cast forth from

the bodies of those who are obsessed demons with every kind of their

wickedness and deceit. Through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ Our

Lord who with Him liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, world without end. _R._ Amen.”[37] Then, his mitre having been

removed, he turns to the altar with “Oremus” to which is given the reply

“Flectamus genua” with “Leuate,” and the last prayer is said over the

kneeling exorcists: “Holy Lord, Almighty Father, Eternal God vouchsafe

to bless these thy servants to the office of Exorcists; that by the

imposition of our hands and the words of our mouth they may have power

and authority to govern and restrain all unclean spirits: that they may

be skilful physicians for Thy Church, that they may heal many and be

themselves strengthened with all Heavenly Grace. Through Our Lord Jesus

Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy

Spirit one God world without end. _R._ Amen.” And then, at a sign from

the Archdeacon, they return to their places.[38]

It should be remarked that the Exorcist is specifically ordained “to cast

out demons,” and he receives “power to place his (your) hands upon the

possessed, so that by the imposition of his (your) hands,[39] the grace

of the Holy Ghost, and the words of exorcism, evil spirits are driven out

from the bodies of the possessed.” The very striking term _spiritualis

imperator_ is strictly applied to him, and God the Father is earnestly

entreated to grant him the grace “to cast out demons from the bodies of

the possessed with all their many sleights of wickedness.” Nothing could

be plainer, nothing could be more solemn, nothing could be more pregnant

with meaning and intention. The Order and delegated power of Exorcists

cannot be minimized; at least, so to do is clean contrary to the mind of

the Church as emphatically expressed in her most authoritative rites. In

actual practice the office of Exorcist has almost wholly been taken over

by clerics in major orders, but this, of course, in no way affects the

status and authority of the second of the four minor orders.

Every priest, more especially perhaps if he be a parish priest, is

liable to be called upon to perform his duty as Exorcist. In doing so

he must carefully bear in mind and adhere to the prescriptions of the

_Rituale Romanum_, and he will do well to have due regard to the laws of

provincial or diocesan synods, which for the most part require that the

Bishop should be consulted and his authorization obtained before exorcism

be essayed.

The chief points of importance in the detailed instructions under

twenty-one heads prefixed to the rite in the _Rituale_ may thus be

briefly summarized: (1) The priest or exorcist should be of mature age,

humble, of blameless life, courageous, of experience, and well-attested

prudence. It is fitting he should prepare himself for his task by

special acts of devotion and mortification, by fervent prayer and by

fasting (S. Matthew xvii. 20). (2) He must be a man of scholarship and

learning, a systematic student and well versed in the latest trends and

developments of psychological science. (3) Possession is not lightly

to be taken for granted. Each case is to be carefully examined and

great caution to be used in distinguishing genuine possession from

certain forms of disease. (4) He should admonish the possessed in so

far as the latter is capable, to dispose himself for the exorcism by

prayer, fasting, by confession, and Holy Communion, and while the rite

is in progress he must excite in his heart a most lively faith in the

goodness of God, and perfect resignation to the divine will. (5) The

exorcism should take place in the Church, or some other sacred place, if

convenient, but no crowd of gazers must be suffered to assemble out of

mere curiosity. There should, however, be a number of witnesses, grave

and devout persons of standing, eminent respectability, and acknowledged

probity, not prone to idle gossip, but discreet and silent. If on account

of sickness or for some legitimate reason the exorcism takes place in a

private house it is well that members of the family should be present;

especially is this enjoined, as a measure of precaution, if the subject

be a woman. (6) If the patient seems to fall asleep, or endeavours to

hinder the exorcist in any way during the rite he is to continue, if

possible with greater insistence, for such actions are probably a ruse

to trick him. (7) The exorcist, although humble and having no reliance

upon himself alone, is to speak with command and authority, and should

the patient be convulsed or tremble, let him be more fervent and more

insistent; the prayers and adjurations are to be recited with great

faith, a full and assured consciousness of power. (8) Let the exorcist

remember that he uses the words of Holy Scripture and Holy Church, not

his own words and phrases. (9) All idle and impertinent questioning of

the demon is to be avoided, nor should the evil spirit be allowed to

speak at length unchecked and unrebuked. (10) The Blessed Sacrament is

not to be brought near the body of the obsessed during exorcism for fear

of possible irreverence; Relics of the Saints may be employed, but in

this case every care must be most scrupulously observed that all due

veneration be paid to them; the Crucifix and Holy Water are to be used.

(11) If expulsion of the evil spirit, who will often prove obstinate, is

not secured at once, the rite should be repeated as often as need be.

It will be seen that the Church has safeguarded exorcism with

extraordinary precautions, and that everything which is humanly possible

to prevent superstition, indecorum, or abuse is provided for and

recommended. Again and again the warning is repeated that so solemn, and

indeed terrible, an office must not lightly be undertaken. The actual

form in present use is as follows:[40]

THE FORM OF EXORCISING THE POSSESSED

[TRANSLATED FROM THE “ROMAN RITUAL.”]

_The Priest, having confessed, or at least hating sin in his

heart, and having said Mass, if it possibly and conveniently

can be done, and humbly implored the Divine help, vested in

surplice and violet stole, the end of which he shall place

round the neck of the one possessed, and having the possessed

person before him, and bound if there be danger of violence,

shall sign himself, the person, and those standing by, with

the sign of the Cross, and sprinkle them with holy water, and

kneeling down, the others making the responses, shall say the

Litany as far as the prayers._

_At the end the Antiphon._ Remember not, Lord, our offences,

nor the offences of our forefathers, neither take Thou

vengeance of our sins.

Our Father. _Secretly._

℣ And lead us not into temptation.

℟ But deliver us from evil.

_Psalm_ liii.

_Deus, in Nomine._

_The whole shall be said with_ Glory be to the Father.

℣. Save Thy servant,

℟. O my God, that putteth his trust in Thee.

℣. Be unto him, O Lord, a strong tower,

℟. From the face of his enemy.

℣. Let the enemy have no advantage of him,

℟. Nor the son of wickedness approach to hurt him.

℣. Send him help, O Lord, from the sanctuary,

℟. And strengthen him out of Sion.

℣. Lord, hear my prayer,

℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.

℣. The Lord be with you,

℟. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

O God, Whose property is ever to have mercy and to forgive:

receive our supplications and prayers, that of Thy mercy

and loving-kindness Thou wilt set free this Thy servant (or

handmaid) who is fast bound by the chain of his sins.

O holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, the Father of our

Lord Jesus Christ: Who hast assigned that tyrant and apostate

to the fires of hell; and hast sent Thine Only Begotten Son

into the world, that He might bruise him as he roars after

his prey: make haste, tarry not, to deliver this man, created

in Thine Own image and likeness, from ruin, and from the

noon-day devil. Send Thy fear, O Lord, upon the wild beast,

which devoureth Thy vine. Grant Thy servants boldness to fight

bravely against that wicked dragon, lest he despise them that

put their trust in Thee, and say, as once he spake in Pharaoh:

I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go. Let Thy

right hand in power compel him to depart from Thy servant N.

(or Thy handmaid N.) ✠, that he dare no longer to hold him

captive, whom Thou hast vouchsafed to make in Thine image, and

hast redeemed in Thy Son; Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in

the Unity of the Holy Spirit, ever One God, world without end.

Amen.

_Then he shall command the spirit in this manner._

I command thee, whosoever thou art, thou unclean spirit, and

all thy companions possessing this servant of God, that by

the Mysteries of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and

Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sending of the Holy

Ghost, and by the Coming of the same our Lord to judgment,

thou tell me thy name, the day, and the hour of thy going out,

by some sign: and, that to me, a minister of God, although

unworthy, thou be wholly obedient in all things: nor hurt this

creature of God, or those that stand by, or their goods in any

way.

_Then shall these Gospels, or one or the other, be read over

the possessed._

The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. John i. 1. _As he

says these words he shall sign himself and the possessed on the

forehead, mouth, and breast._ In the beginning was the Word ...

full of grace and truth.

The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. Mark xvi. 15. At

that time: Jesus spake unto His disciples: Go ye into all the

world ... shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. Luke x. 17. At

that time: The seventy returned again with joy ... because your

names are written in heaven.

The Lesson of the Holy Gospel according to S. Luke xi. 14. At

that time: Jesus was casting out a devil, and it was dumb ...

wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

℣. Lord, hear my prayer,

℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.

℣. The Lord be with you,

℟. And with thy Spirit.

Let us pray.

Almighty Lord, Word of God the Father, Jesus Christ, God and

Lord of every creature: Who didst give to Thy Holy Apostles

power to tread upon serpents and scorpions: Who amongst other

of Thy wonderful commands didst vouchsafe to say—Put the

devils to flight: by Whose power Satan fell from heaven like

lightning: with supplication I beseech Thy Holy Name in fear

and trembling, that to me Thy most unworthy servant, granting

me pardon of all my faults, Thou wilt vouchsafe to give

constancy of faith and power, that shielded by the might of Thy

holy arm, in trust and safety I may approach to attack this

cruel devil, through Thee, O Jesus Christ, the Lord our God,

Who shalt come to judge the quick and the dead, and the world

by fire. Amen.

_Then defending himself and the possessed with the sign of the

Cross, putting part of his stole round the neck, and his right

hand upon the head of the possessed, firmly and with great

faith he shall say what follows._

℣. Behold the Cross of the Lord, flee ye of the contrary part,

℟. The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed.

℣. Lord, hear my prayer,

℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.

℣. The Lord be with you,

℟. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

O God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I call upon Thy

Holy Name, and humbly implore Thy mercy, that Thou wouldest

vouchsafe to grant me help against this, and every unclean

spirit, that vexes this Thy creature. Through the same Lord

Jesus Christ.

THE EXORCISM.

I exorcise thee, most foul spirit, every coming in of the

enemy, every apparition, every legion; in the Name of our

Lord Jesus ✠ Christ be rooted out, and be put to flight from

this creature of God ✠. He commands thee, Who has bid thee be

cast down from the highest heaven into the lower parts of the

earth. He commands thee, Who has commanded the sea, the winds,

and the storms. Hear therefore, and fear, Satan, thou injurer

of the faith, thou enemy of the human race, thou procurer

of death, thou destroyer of life, kindler of vices, seducer

of men, betrayer of the nations, inciter of envy, origin of

avarice, cause of discord, stirrer-up of troubles: why standest

thou, and resistest, when thou knowest that Christ the Lord

destroyest thy ways? Fear Him, Who was sacrificed in Isaac, Who

was sold in Joseph, was slain in the Lamb, was crucified in

man, thence was the triumpher over hell. _The following signs

of the Cross shall be made upon the forehead of the possessed._

Depart therefore in the Name of the Father ✠, and of the Son ✠,

and of the Holy ✠ Ghost: give place to the Holy Ghost, by this

sign of the holy ✠ Cross of Jesus Christ our Lord: Who with

the Father, and the same Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth ever

one God, world without end. Amen.

℣. Lord, hear my prayer.

℟. And let my cry come unto Thee.

℣. The Lord be with you.

℟. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

O God, the Creator and Protector of the human race, Who hast

formed man in Thine own Image: look upon this Thy servant N.

(_or_ this Thy handmaid N.), who is grievously vexed with

the wiles of an unclean spirit, whom the old adversary, the

ancient enemy of the earth, encompasses with a horrible dread,

and blinds the senses of his human understanding with stupor,

confounds him with terror, and harasses him with trembling

and fear. Drive away, O Lord, the power of the devil, take

away his deceitful snares: let the impious tempter fly far

hence: let Thy servant be defended by the sign ✠ (_on his

forehead_) of Thy Name, and be safe both in body, and soul.

(_The three following crosses shall be made on the breast of

the demoniac._) Do Thou guard his inmost ✠ soul, Thou rule his

inward ✠ parts, Thou strengthen his ✠ heart. Let the attempts

of the opposing power in his soul vanish away. Grant, O Lord,

grace to this invocation of Thy most Holy Name, that he who up

to this present was causing terror, may flee away affrighted,

and depart conquered; and that this Thy servant, strengthened

in heart, and sincere in mind, may render Thee his due service.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

THE EXORCISM.

I adjure thee, thou old serpent, by the Judge of the quick

and the dead, by thy Maker, and the Maker of the world: by

Him, Who hath power to put thee into hell, that thou depart

in haste from this servant of God N., who returns to the

bosom of the Church, with thy fear and with the torment of

thy terror. I adjure Thee again ✠ (_on his forehead_), not in

my infirmity, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, that thou

go out of this servant of God N., whom the Almighty God hath

made in His Own Image. Yield, therefore, not to me, but to the

minister of Christ. For His power presses upon thee Who subdued

thee beneath His Cross. Tremble at His arm, which, after the

groanings of hell were subdued, led forth the souls into light.

Let the body ✠ (_on his breast_) of man be a terror to thee,

let the image of God ✠ (_on his forehead_) be an alarm to thee.

Resist not, nor delay to depart from this person, for it has

pleased Christ to dwell in man. And think not that I am to be

despised, since thou knowest that I too am so great a sinner.

God ✠ commands thee. The majesty of Christ ✠ commands thee. God

the Father ✠ commands thee. God the Son ✠ commands thee. God

the Holy ✠ Ghost commands thee. The Sacrament of the Cross ✠

commands thee. The faith of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul,

and of all the other Saints ✠, commands thee. The blood of

the Martyrs ✠ commands thee. The stedfastness (_continentia_)

of the Confessors ✠ commands thee. The devout intercession of

all the Saints ✠ commands thee. The virtue of the Mysteries of

the Christian Faith ✠ commands thee. Go out, therefore, thou

transgressor. Go out, thou seducer, full of all deceit and

wile, thou enemy of virtue, thou persecutor of innocence. Give

place, thou most dire one: give place, thou most impious one:

give place to Christ in Whom thou hast found nothing of thy

works: Who hath overcome thee, Who hath destroyed thy kingdom,

Who hath led thee captive and bound thee, and hath spoiled thy

goods: Who hath cast thee into outer darkness, where for thee

and thy servants everlasting destruction is prepared. But why,

O fierce one, dost thou withstand? why, rashly bold, dost thou

refuse? thou art the accused of Almighty God, whose laws thou

hast broken. Thou art the accused of Jesus Christ our Lord,

whom thou hast dared to tempt, and presumed to crucify. Thou

art the accused of the human race, to whom by thy persuasion

thou hast given to drink thy poison. Therefore, I adjure thee,

most wicked dragon, in the Name of the immaculate ✠ Lamb, Who

treads upon the lion and adder, Who tramples under foot the

young lion and the dragon, that thou depart from this man ✠

(_let the sign be made upon his forehead_), that thou depart

from the Church of God ✠ (_let the sign be made over those

who are standing by_): tremble, and flee away at the calling

upon the Name of that Lord, of Whom hell is afraid; to Whom

the Virtues, the Powers, and the Dominions of the heavens are

subject; Whom Cherubim and Seraphim with unwearied voices

praise, saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth. The

Word ✠ made Flesh commands thee. He Who was born ✠ of the

Virgin commands thee. Jesus ✠ of Nazareth commands thee; Who,

although thou didst despise His disciples, bade thee go bruised

and overthrown out of the man: and in his presence, having

separated thee from him, thou didst not presume to enter into

the herd of swine. Therefore, thus now adjured in His Name ✠,

depart from the man, whom He has formed. It is hard for thee

to wish to resist ✠. It is hard for thee to kick against the

pricks ✠. Because the more slowly goest thou out, does the

greater punishment increase against thee, for thou despisest

not men, but Him, Who is Lord both of the quick and the dead,

Who shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and the World

by fire. ℟. Amen.

℣. Lord, hear my prayer.

℟. And let my cry come unto thee.

℣. The Lord be with you.

℟. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

O God of heaven, God of earth, God of the Angels, God of the

Archangels, God of the Prophets, God of the Apostles, God of

the Martyrs, God of the Virgins, God, Who hast the power to

give life after death, rest after labour; because there is none

other God beside Thee, nor could be true, but Thou, the Creator

of heaven and earth, Who art the true King, and of Whose

kingdom there shall be no end: humbly I beseech Thy glorious

majesty, that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to deliver this Thy

servant from unclean spirits, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE EXORCISM.

I therefore adjure thee, thou most foul spirit, every

appearance, every inroad of Satan, in the Name of Jesus Christ

✠ of Nazareth, Who, after His baptism in Jordan, was led into

the wilderness, and overcame thee in thine own stronghold: that

thou cease to assault him whom He hath formed from the dust

of the earth for His own honour and glory: and that thou in

miserable man tremble not at human weakness, but at the image

of Almighty God. Yield, therefore, to God ✠ Who by His servant

Moses drowned thee and thy malice in Pharaoh and his army in

the depths of the sea. Yield to God ✠ Who put thee to flight

when driven out of King Saul with spiritual song, by his most

faithful servant David. Yield thyself to God ✠ Who condemned

thee in the traitor Judas Iscariot. For He touches thee with

Divine ✠ stripes, when in His sight, trembling and crying out

with thy legions, thou saidst: What have I to do with Thee,

Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Art Thou come hither to

torment us before the time? He presses upon thee with perpetual

flames, Who shall say to the wicked at the end of time—Depart

from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the

devil and his angels. For thee, O impious one, and for thy

angels, is the worm that dieth not; for thee and thy angels

is the fire unquenchable prepared: for thou art the chief of

accursed murder, thou the author of incest, thou the head of

sacrileges, thou the master of the worst actions, thou the

teacher of heretics, thou the instigator of all uncleanness.

Therefore go out ✠ thou wicked one, go out ✠, thou infamous

one, go out with all thy deceits; for God hath willed that man

shall be His temple. But why dost thou delay longer here? Give

honour to God the Father ✠ Almighty, before Whom every knee is

bent. Give place to Jesus Christ ✠ the Lord, Who shed for man

His most precious Blood. Give place to the Holy ✠ Ghost, Who by

His blessed Apostle Peter struck thee to the ground in Simon

Magus; Who condemned thy deceit in Ananias and Sapphira; Who

smote thee in Herod, because he gave not God the glory; Who by

his Apostle Paul smote thee in Elymas the sorcerer with a mist

and darkness, and by the same Apostle by his word of command

bade thee come out of the damsel possessed with the spirit

of divination. Now therefore depart ✠, depart, thou seducer.

The wilderness is thy abode. The serpent is the place of thy

habitation: be humbled, and be overthrown. There is no time now

for delay. For behold the Lord the Ruler approaches closely

upon thee, and His fire shall glow before Him, and shall go

before Him; and shall burn up His enemies on every side. If

thou hast deceived man, at God thou canst not scoff: One

expels thee, from Whose Sight nothing is hidden. He casts thee

out, to Whose power all things are subject. He shuts thee out,

Who hast prepared for thee and for thine angels everlasting

hell; out of Whose mouth the sharp sword shall go out, when He

shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and the World by

fire. Amen.

_All the aforesaid things being said and done, so far as there

shall be need, they shall be repeated, until the possessed

person be entirely set free._

_The following which are noted down will be of great

assistance, said devoutly over the possessed, and also

frequently to repeat the_ Our Father, Hail Mary, _and_ Creed.

_The Canticle._ Magnificat.

_The Canticle._ Benedictus.

_The Creed of S. Athanasius._

_Quicunque uult._

Psalm xc. _Qui habitat._

Psalm lxvii. _Exurgat Deus._

Psalm lxix. _Deus in adiutorium._

Psalm liii. _Deus, In Nomine Tuo._

Psalm cxvii. _Confitemini Domino._

Psalm xxxiv. _Iudica, Domine._

Psalm xxx. _In Te, Domine, speraui._

Psalm xxi. _Deus, Deus meus._

Psalm iii. _Domine, quid multiplicasti?_

Psalm x. _In Domino confido._

Psalm xii. _Usquequo, Domine?_

_Each Psalm shall be said with_ Glory be to the Father, &c.

_Prayer after being set free._

We pray Thee, O Almighty God, that the spirit of wickedness may

have no more power over this Thy servant N. (_or_ Thy handmaid

N.), but that he may flee away, and never come back again: at

Thy bidding, O Lord, let there come into him (_or_ her) the

goodness and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom we have

been redeemed, and let us fear no evil, for the Lord is with

us, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the Unity of the Holy

Ghost, ever one God, world without end. ℟. Amen.

A shorter form of exorcism, which, being general, differs in aim and use,

was published by order of Pope Leo XIII and may be found in the later

editions of the _Rituale Romanum_, “Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos

apostalicos.”[41] After the customary invocation _In nomine_ ... the rite

begins with a prayer to S. Michael, the solemn adjuration of some length

follows with versicles and responses, a second prayer is next recited,

and the whole concludes by three aspirations from the Litany: “From the

deceits and crafts of the Devil; O Lord, deliver us. That it may please

Thee to rule Thy Church so it shall alway serve Thee in lasting peace and

true liberty; We beseech Thee, hear us. That Thou wouldst vouchsafe to

beat down and subdue all the enemies of Thy Holy Church; We beseech Thee,

hear us.” _And the place is sprinkled with Holy Water_,[42] is the final

rubric.

The Baptismal Exorcism and exorcisms such as those of water, salt,[43]

and oil, it were perhaps impertinent to treat of here. It may, however,

be noticed that in the ceremony of the Blessing of the Waters[44]

(approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 December, 1890),

performed on the Vigil of the Epiphany, there occurs a solemn “Exorcismus

contra Satanam et Angelos apostalicos,” followed by “Exorcismus salis”

and “Exorcismus aquæ.”

There are recorded throughout history innumerable examples of obsession

and demoniacal possession, as also of potent and successful exorcism. It

is, of course, quite possible, and indeed probable, that many of these

cases were due to natural causes, epilepsy, acute hysteria, incipient

lunacy, and the like. But, none the less, when every allowance has been

made for incorrect diagnosis, for ill-informed ascriptions of rare and

obscure forms of both physical and mental maladies, for credulity, honest

mistakes, and exaggerations of every kind, there will yet remain a very

considerable quota which it seems impossible to account for and explain

save on the score of possession by some evil and hostile intelligence.

But nobody is asked to accept all the instances of diabolic possession

recorded in the history of the Church, nor even to form any definite

opinion upon the historical evidence in favour of any particular

case. That is primarily a matter for historical and medical science.

And, perhaps, even at the present day and among civilized races this

phenomenon is not so rare as is popularly supposed.

The annals of Bedlam, of many a private madhouse, and many an asylum

could tell strange and hideous histories. And if we may judge from the

accounts furnished by the pioneers of the Faith in missionary countries

the evidences of diabolical agency there are as clearly defined and

unmistakable as they were in Galilee in the time of Christ.[45]

Demoniacal possession is frequently described and alluded to by the early

fathers and apologists in matter-of-fact terms which leave no shadow of

doubt as to their belief in this regard. Indeed the success of Christian

exorcism is often brought forward as an argument for the acceptance of

the Divinity of the founder of Christianity. It would be an easy, but

a very lengthy process, to make a catena of such passages from Greek

and Latin authors alike.[46] S. Justin Martyr (_ob._ _circa_ A.D. 165)

speaks of demons flying from “the touch and breathing of Christians”

(_Apologia_, II, 6), “as from a flame that burns them,” adds S. Cyril

of Jerusalem (_ob._ 385-6: _Catechesis_, XX, 3). Origen (_ob._ 253-4)

mentions the laying on of hands to cast out devils, whilst S. Ambrose[47]

(_ob._ 397), S. Ephrem Syrus[48] (_ob._ 373), and others used this

ceremony when exorcizing. The holy sign of the Cross also is extolled by

many Fathers for its efficacy against all kinds of diabolic molestation;

thus Lactantius writes: “Nunc satis est, huius signi [Crucis] potentiam,

quantum ualeat exponere. Quanto terrori sit dæmonibus hoc signum,

sciet, qui uiderit, quatenus adiurati per Christum, de corporibus, quæ

obsederint, fugiant,”[49] _Diuinarum Institutionum_, IV, xxvii.[50] S.

Athanasius (_ob._ 373), _De Incarnatione Uerbi_, XLVII; S. Basil (_ob._

379), _In Esaiam_, XI, 249; S. Cyril of Jerusalem, _Catechesis_, XIII;

S. Gregory of Nazianzus (_ob._ _circa_ 389), _Carmen aduersus Iram_, 415

_sqq._, all have passages of no little weight to the same effect. S.

Cyril, _Procatechesis_, IX; and S. Athanasius, _Ad Marcellum_, XXIII,

recommend that the prayers of exorcism and the adjuration should as far

as possible repeat the exact words of Holy Scripture.

In the annals of hagiography we find from the earliest days until our

own time very many instances of possession, very many cases where a poor

afflicted wretch has been released and relieved by the power and prayer

of some Saint or holy servant of God.[51]

Thus in the life of S. Benedict, that noble, calm, dignified, prudent,

great-souled, and high-minded hero, there are recorded several

occasions upon which he was confronted by extraordinary manifestations

of evil spirits who resisted the building of his monastery upon the

crest of Monte Cassino, where Satanism had been previously practised.

It is not said that there were any visible appearances, save to S.

Benedict alone,[52] but a succession of untoward accidents, of abnormal

occurrences and constant alarms, plainly showed that the Saint was

contending against superhuman difficulties. More than once he found it

necessary to exorcize certain of his monks,[53] and so marked was his

triumph over these malignant and destructive influences that he has

always been venerated in the Church as a most potent “effugator dæmonum,”

and is confidently invoked in the hour of spiritual peril and deadly

attack. Great faith also is placed in the Medal of Saint Benedict. This

medal, originally a cross, is dedicated to the devotion in honour of the

Patriarch. One side bears the figure of the Saint holding a cross in his

right hand, and the Holy Rule in his left. Upon the other is a cross

together with the following letters arranged on and around it: C.S.P.B.,

Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti (The Cross of the holy Father Benedict).

C.S.S.M.L., Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux (May the holy Cross be my Light).

N.D.S.M.D., Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux (Let not the Devil be my guide).

U.R.S.: N.S.M.U.: S.M.Q.L.: I.U.B.: Uade Retro Satana: Nunquam Suade

Mihi Uana: Sunt Mala Quæ Libas: Ipse Uenena Bibas. (Begone, Satan, never

suggest things to me, what thou offerest is evil, drink thou thyself thy

poison).[54] The “Centenary” form of the medal (struck at Monte Cassino

in 1880 to commemorate the 13th centenary of the birth of S. Benedict in

480) has under the figure the words: _Ex S.M. Cassino MDCCCLXXX_. Upon

the same side round the edge runs the inscription: Eius in obitu n̅r̅o

præsentia muniamur (May we be protected by his presence at the hour of

our death), and the word PAX appears above the cross.

It is doubtful when the Medal of S. Benedict originated, but during

a trial for Witchcraft at Natternberg, near the abbey of Metten, in

Bavaria, during the year 1647, the accused women testified that they had

no power over Metten which was under the particular protection of the

cross. Upon investigation a number of painted crosses surrounded by the

letters which are now engraved upon Benedictine medals were found on the

walls of the abbey, but their signification had been wholly forgotten. At

length, in an old manuscript, written in 1415, was discovered a picture

representing S. Benedict holding in one hand a staff which ended in a

cross, and in the other a scroll. On the staff and scroll were written

in full the formulas of which the mysterious letters were the initials.

Medals with the figure of S. Benedict, a cross, and these letters began

now to be struck and rapidly spread over Europe. The medals were first

authoritatively approved by Benedict XIV in his briefs of 23 December,

1741, and 12 March, 1742.

In the case of the possessed boys of Illfurt (Alsace) they exhibited the

utmost horror and dread of a Medal of S. Benedict.

These medals are hallowed with a proper rite[55] in which the adjuration

commences: “Exorcizo uos, numismata, per Deum Patrem ✠ omnipotentem....”

“I exorcize ye, medals, through God the Father ✠ Almighty.... May the

power of the adversary, all the host of the Devil, all evil attack,

every spirit and glamour of Satan, be utterly put to flight and driven

far away by the virtue of these medals....”[56] The prayer runs: “O Lord

Jesus Christ ... by Thy most Holy Passion I humbly pray and beseech Thee,

that Thou wouldest grant that whosoever devoutly invoketh Thy Holy Name

in this prayer and petition which Thou Thyself hast taught us, may be

delivered from every deceit of the Devil and from all his wiles, and that

Thou wouldest vouchsafe to bring Thy servant to the harbour of salvation.

Who livest and reignest....”[57]

S. Maurus also, the beloved disciple of S. Benedict, was famous for the

cures he wrought in cases of possession.[58] Visiting France in 543 he

became founder and superior of the abbey of Glanfeuil, Anjou, later

known by his name, St. Maur-sur-Loise.[59] The relics of S. Maurus after

various translations were finally enshrined at St. Germain-des-Prez.

In the eleventh century an arm of the Saint had been with great

devotion transferred to Monte Cassino, where by its touch a demoniac

was delivered. This is related by Desiderius,[60] who was abbot at that

time, and afterwards became Pope, Blessed Victor III (_ob._ 16 September,

1087). Throughout the Middle Ages the tomb of S. Maur at St. Germain was

a celebrated place of pilgrimage, and the possessed were brought here in

large numbers to be healed.[61]

The Holy Winding Sheet of Besançon, again, was greatly resorted to for

the relief and cure of possession. This venerable relic, being one of

the linen cloths used at the burial of Christ, was brought to Besançon

in 1206 by Otto de la Roche, and the feast of its arrival (_Susceptio_)

was ordered to be kept on 11 July. At present it is a double of the first

class in the cathedral, St. Jean, and of the second class throughout the

diocese.

Novenas made in the church at Bonnet, near Nantes, were popularly

supposed to be of especial efficacy in healing possession.

It is, of course, impossible even briefly to catalogue the most important

and striking of the numberless cases of possession recorded throughout

the centuries in every country and at every era. Of these a great number

are, no doubt, to be attributed to disease; very many to a commixture of

hysteria and semi-conscious, or more frequently unconscious, fraud; some

few to mere chousing; and, if human evidence is worth anything at all,

many actually to diabolic influence.

There were some curious episodes in England during Queen Elizabeth’s

reign, when a third-rate Puritan minister, John Darrel, made a

considerable stir owing to his attempts at exorcism. This idea seems

to have been suggested to him by the exorcisms of the famous Jesuit

missionary priest, William Weston, who after having been educated at

Oxford, Paris, and Douai, entered the Society on 5 November, 1575, at

Rome. He then worked and taught in Spain, until he was called to his

native mission, actually arriving in England, 20 September, 1584. In

the course of his labours, which at that dangerous time were carried

on in circumstances of extremest peril, he was required to perform the

rite of exorcism upon several distressed persons, who were for the most

part brought to him at the houses of two zealous Catholics, Sir George

Peckham of Denham, near Uxbridge, and Lord Vaux of Hackney, both of

which gentlemen had suffered in many ways for their faith. With regard

to the patients we can only say that we lack evidence to enable us to

decide whether the cases were genuine, or whether they were merely sick

and ailing folk; but we can confidently affirm that there is no suspicion

of any fraud or cozenage. Father Weston is acknowledged to have been

a man of the most candid sincerity, intensely spiritual, and of no

ordinary powers. Although the rites, in which several priests joined,

were performed with the utmost secrecy and every precaution was taken to

prevent any report being spread abroad, somebody gossiped, and in about a

year various exaggerated accounts were being circulated, until the matter

came before the Privy Council. A violent recrudescence of persecution at

once followed, many of the exorcists were seized and butchered for their

priesthood, the rest, including Weston, were flung into jail, August,

1586. A long period of imprisonment ensued, and in 1599 Weston was

committed to the Tower, where he suffered such hardships that he wellnigh

lost his sight. Eventually in 1603 he was banished, and spent the rest of

his days at Seville and Valladolid. He was rector of the latter college

at the time of his death, 9 June, 1615.[62]

It was in 1586, just when the exorcisms of the Jesuit fathers had

unfortunately attracted so widespread attention and foolish comment,

that John Darrel, although a Protestant and lacking both appropriate

ordination and training, rashly resolved to emulate their achievements.

He was young, not much more than twenty, he was foolhardy and he was

ignorant, three qualities which even in our own time often win cheap

notoriety. It seems that he was first called in to cure a young girl of

seventeen, Katherine Wright, who lived at Mansfield, Nottingham. Darrel

forthwith pronounced that she was afflicted by an evil spirit, and he

prayed over her from four o’clock in the morning till noon, but entirely

without result. He then declared that the wench had been bewitched and

that the demon, moreover, was sent by one Margaret Roper, with whom the

patient had recently quarrelled. The girl backed his story, and the

accused woman was at once taken into custody by the constable. When,

however, she appeared before Mr. Fouliamb, a justice of the peace, not

only was she incontinently discharged, but Darrel received a smart rebuff

and found himself in no small danger of arrest.

This mischance sufficiently scared the would-be exorcist, and for some

ten years he disappeared from view, only to come before the public again

at Burton-upon-Trent, where he was prominent in the sensation and the

scandal that centred round Thomas Darling, a young Derbyshire boy. This

imaginative juvenal was subject to fits—real or feigned—during which he

had visions of green angels and a green cat. Betimes his conversation

became larded with true Puritan cant, and he loved to discourse with

godly ministers. A credulous physician suggested that the lad was

bewitched, and very soon afterwards it was noticed that the reading

aloud of the Bible, especially certain verses in the first chapter of S.

John’s Gospel, threw him into frantic convulsions. He also began a long

prattling tale about “a little old woman” who wore “a broad thrimmed

hat,” which proved amply sufficient to cause two women, Elizabeth

Wright, and her daughter, Alse Gooderidge, long vehemently suspected of

sorcery, to be examined before two magistrates, who committed Alse to

jail. Next those concerned summoned a cunning man, who used various rough

methods to induce the prisoner to confess. After having been harried and

even tortured the wretched creature made some rambling and incoherent

acknowledgements of guilt, which were twisted into a connected story. By

now Darling had been ill for three months, and so far from improving, was

getting worse.

At this juncture, exactly the dramatic moment, John Darrel, full of

bluff and bounce, appeared upon the scene, and forthwith took charge

of affairs. According to his own account his efforts were singularly

blessed; that is to say the boy got better and the sly Puritan claimed

all the credit. Alse Gooderidge was tried at the assizes, convicted by

the jury, and sentenced to death by Lord Chief Justice Anderson; “She

should have been executed but that her spirit killed her in prison,” says

John Denison the pamphleteer! The whole affair greatly increased Darrel’s

reputation.

Not long after a much-bruited case of alleged possession in Lancashire

gave him further opportunity to pose in the limelight. Ann Starchie, aged

nine, and John, her brother, aged ten, were seized with a mysterious

disorder; “a certaine fearefull starting and pulling together of her

body” affected the girl, whilst the boy was “compelled to shout” on his

way to school. Both grew steadily worse until their father, Nicholas

Starchie, consulted Edmund Hartley, a notorious conjurer of no very fair

repute. Hartley seems to have quieted the children by means of various

charms, and the father paid him something like a retaining fee of forty

shillings a year. This, however, he insisted should be increased, and

when any addition was denied, there were quarrels, and presently the

boy and girl again fell ill. The famous Dr. Dee was summoned, but he

was obviously nonplussed, and whilst he “sharply reproved and straitly

examined” Hartley, in his quandary could do or say little more save

advise the help of “godlie preachers.” The situation in that accursed

house now began to grow more serious. Besides the children three young

wards of Mr. Starchie, a servant, and a visitor, were all seized with the

strange disease. “All or most of them joined together in a strange and

supernatural loud whupping that the house and grounde did sounde therwith

again.” Hartley fell under suspicion, and was haled before a justice

of the peace, who promptly committed him to the assizes. Evidence was

given that he was continually kissing the Starchie children, in fact,

he kept embracing all the possessed, and it was argued that he had thus

communicated an evil spirit to them. He was accused of having drawn magic

circles upon the ground, and although he stoutly denied the charge, he

was convicted of felony and hanged at Lancaster. John Darrel and his

assistant, George More, minister of a church in Derbyshire, undertook

to exorcize the afflicted, and in a day or two, after long prayers and

great endeavours, they managed to expel the devils. Here we have folly,

imposture, and hysteria all blended together to make a horrible tale.

At this time Darrel was officiating as a minister at Nottingham, where

there happened to be living a young apprenticed musician, a clever and

likely lad, William Somers, who some years before had met Darrel at

Ashby-de-la-Zouch, where both had been resident. It appears that the boy

had once met a strange woman, whom he offended in some way, and suddenly

he “did use such strang and idle kinde of gestures in laughing, dancing,

and such like lighte behaviour, that he was suspected to be madd.” The

famous exorcist was sent for on the 5th of November, 1597, and forthwith

recognized the signs of possession. The lad was suffering for the sins of

Nottingham. Accordingly sermons were delivered and prayers were read in

true ranting fashion, and when Darrel named one after the other fourteen

signs of possession the patient, who had been most carefully coached,

illustrated each in turn.

It is possible that Darrel had to some extent mesmeric control over

Somers, whose performance was of a very remarkable nature at least, for

“he tore; he foamed; he wallowed; his face was drawn awry; his eyes would

stare and his tongue hang out”; together with a thousand other such apish

antics which greatly impressed the bystanders. Finally the boy lay as if

dead for a quarter of an hour, and then rose up declaring he was well and

whole.

However, obsession followed possession. The demon still assailed him, and

it was not long before Master Somers accused thirteen women of having

contrived his maladies by their sorcery. Darrel, the witch-finder, had

by this time attained a position of no small importance in the town,

being chosen preacher at S. Mary’s, and he was prepared to back his

pupil to the uttermost. Yet even his influence for some reason did not

serve, and all but two of the women concerned were released from prison.

Next certain unbelieving citizens had the bad taste to interfere, and to

carry off the chief actor to the house of correction, where he pretty

soon confessed his impostures, in which, as he acknowledged, he had been

carefully instructed by Darrel. The matter now became a public scandal,

and upon the report of the Archdeacon of Derby the Archbishop of York

appointed a commission to inquire into the facts. Brought before these

ministers, not one of whom could possibly have had any means of forming a

correct judgement, Somers retracted his words, asserted that he had been

induced to slander Darrel, and thereat fell into such fits, foamings, and

contortions that the ignoramuses were convinced of the reality of his

demoniac possession.

At the Nottingham assizes, however, things went differently. Summoned to

court and encouraged by the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Edmund Anderson,[63]

to tell the truth the wretched young man made a clean breast of all his

tricks. The case against Alice Freeman, the accused, was dismissed, and

Sir Edmund, shocked at the frauds, wrote a weighty letter to Whitgift,

the Archbishop of Canterbury. Darrel and More were cited to the Court of

High Commission, where Bancroft, Bishop of London, two of the Lord Chief

Justices, the Master of Requests, and other high officials heard the

case. It is obvious that Bancroft really controlled the examination from

first to last, and that he combined the rôles of prosecutor and judge.

Somers now told the Court how he had been in constant communication with

Darrel, how they had met secretly when Darrel taught him “to doe all

those trickes which Katherine Wright did” and later sent him to see and

learn of the boy of Burton. In fact Darrel made him go through a whole

series of antics again and again in his presence, and it was after all

these preliminaries and practice that the lad posed as a possessed person

at Nottingham and was prayed over and exhibited. The vulpine Puritan

was fairly caught. No doubt the Bishop of London may have been a trifle

arbitrary, but after all he was dealing with a rank impostor. Darrel and

More were deposed from the ministry, and committed to close prison.

The whole of this case is reported by Samuel Harsnett, chaplain to

Bancroft, in a book of three hundred and twenty-four pages, _A Discovery

of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel, Bacheler of Artes_....

London, 1599, and a perfect rain of pamphlets followed. Both Darrel and

More answered Harsnett, drawing meantime a number of other persons into

the paper fray. We have such works as _An Apologie, or defence of the

possession of William Sommers, a young man of the towne of Nottingham....

By John Darrell, Minister of Christ Jesus_ ... a black letter brochure

which is undated but may be safely assigned to 1599; _The Triall of

Maist. Dorrel, or A Collection of Defences against Allegations_ ...

1599;[64] and Darrel’s abusive _A Detection of that sinnful, shamful,

lying, and ridiculous discours of Samuel Harshnet_, 1600. There are

several allusions in contemporary dramatists to the scandal, and Jonson

in _The Divell is an Asse_, acted in 1616, V, 3, has:

It is the easiest thing, Sir, to be done.

As plaine as fizzling: roule but wi’ your eyes,

And foame at th’ mouth. A little castle-soape

Will do’t, to rub your lips: And then a nutshell,

With toe and touchwood in it to spit fire,

Did you ner’e read, Sir, little _Darrel’s_ tricks,

With the boy o’ _Burton_, and the 7 in _Lancashire_,

Sommers at _Nottingham_? All these do teach it.

And wee’l give out, Sir, that your wife ha’s bewitch’d you.

It is probable that in his books Harsnett is to a large extent the

mouthpiece of the ideas of Bancroft,[65] whose opinions must have

carried no small weight seeing that in 1604 he became Archbishop of

Canterbury. But Harsnett himself was also a man who could well stand

alone, a divine marked out for the highest preferments. As Master of

Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, Vice-chancellor of that University, Bishop

of Chichester, Bishop of Norwich, and finally in 1628 Archbishop of

York,[66] he was certainly one of the most prominent men of the day. His

views, therefore, are not only of interest, but may be regarded as an

expression of recognized Anglican authority. Bancroft, who was a bitter

persecutor of Catholics, seems to have turned over a quantity of material

he had collected to Harsnett, who in 1603 published a verjuiced attack

upon the priesthood in particular and upon the supernatural in general

under the title of _A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_.[67]

This violent and foolish polemic with its heavy periods of coarse

ill-humour and scornful profanity jars upon the reader like the harsh

screeching of some cankered scold. True, it has a certain force due to

the very vehemence and elaborate gusto of the wrathful ecclesiastic,

the force of Billingsgate and deafening vituperation bawled by leathern

lungs and raucous tongue. As a sober argument, a reasoned contribution

to controversy and debate, the thing is negligible and has been wholly

forgotten. Nevertheless, historically Harsnett and Bancroft are

important, for it was the latter who drew up, or at least inspired,

carried through Convocation, and at once enforced the Canons generally

known as those of 1604, of which number 72 lays down: “No minister or

ministers shall ... without the license or direction (_mandatum_) of the

Bishop ... attempt upon any pretence whatsoever either of possession or

obsession, by fasting or prayer, to cast out any devil or devils, under

pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage, and deposition from the

ministry.”

This article seems definitely intended to fix the position of the

Church of England.[68] The whole question of exorcism had, in common

with every other point of Christian doctrine, caused the most acrid

disagreement. The Lutherans retained exorcism in the baptismal rite and

were both instant and persevering in their exorcisms of the possessed.

Martin Luther himself had a most vivid realization of and the firmest

belief in the material antagonism of evil. The black stain in the castle

of Wartburg still marks the room where he flung his ink-horn at the

Devil. The silly body, the blind, the dumb, the idiot, were, as often

as not, afflicted by demons; the raving maniac was assuredly possessed.

Physicians might explain these evils as natural infirmity, but such

physicians were ignorant men; they did not know the craft and power of

Satan. Many a poor wretch who was generally supposed to have committed

suicide had in truth been seized by the Fiend and strangled by him.

The Devil could beget children; had not Luther himself come in contact

with one of them?[69] At the close of the sixteenth century, however,

an interminable and desperate struggle took place between the believers

in exorcism and the Swiss and Silesian sectaries who entirely discarded

exorcism,[70] either declaring it to have belonged only to the earliest

years of Christianity or else trying to explain away the Biblical

instances on purely rationalistic grounds. In England baptismal exorcism

was retained in the First Prayer Book of 1549, but by 1552, owing to

the authority of Martin Bucer, we find it entirely eliminated. Under

Elizabeth the ever-increasing influence of Zurich and Geneva, to which

completest deference was paid, thoroughly discredited exorcisms of any

kind, and this misbelieving attitude is repeatedly and amply made clear

in the sundry “Apologies” and “Defences” of Jewel and his followers.

A letter of Archbishop Parker in 1574[71] with reference to the proven

frauds of two idle wenches, Agnes Bridges and Rachel Pinder,[72] shows

that he was thoroughly sceptical as to the possibility of possession, and

his successor, the stout old Calvinist Whitgift, was certainly of the

same mind.

In 1603 five clergymen attempted exorcism in the case of Mary Glover, the

daughter of a merchant in Thames Street, who was said to be possessed

owing to the sorceries of a certain Elizabeth Jackson. John Swan, “a

famous Minister of the Gospel,” took the lead in this business, which

made considerable noise at the time. The Puritans were not unnaturally

anxious to vindicate their powers over the Devil and they seem avidly

to have grasped at any such opportunity that offered. Swan did not fail

to advertise his supposed triumph in _A True and Breife Report of Mary

Glover’s Vexation and of her deliverance by the meanes of fastinge and

prayer_, 1603; moreover, after her deliverance he took her home to be

his servant “least Satan should assault her again.” Old Mother Jackson

was indicted, committed by Sir John Crook, the Recorder of London, and

actually sentenced by Sir Edmund Anderson, the Lord Chief Justice, to

be pilloried four times and be kept a year in prison. Unfortunately for

the would-be exorcists and their pretensions King James, whose shrewd

suspicions were aroused, sent to examine the girl, a physician, Dr.

Edward Jorden, who detected her imposture, in which, I doubt not, she had

been well coached by the Puritans. Dr. Jorden recounted the circumstance

in his pamphlet _A briefe discourse of a disease called the Suffocation

of the Mother, Written uppon occasion which hath beene of late taken

thereby to suspect possession of an evill spirit_ (London, 1603). The

ministers were extremely chagrined, and one Stephen Bradwell even took up

the cudgels in a tart rejoinder to Jorden, which was singularly futile

as his lucubrations remain unpublished.[73] It is not improbable that

this performance had its share of influence on Bancroft when he drew up

article 72 of the 1604 Canons.

Francis Hutchinson in his _Historical Essay on Witchcraft_ (1718)[74]

doubts whether any Bishop of the Church of England ever granted a licence

for exorcism to any one of his clergy, and indeed the case which is given

by Dr. F. G. Lee,[75] who relates how Bishop Seth Ward of Exeter assigned

a form under his own signature and seal in January, 1665, to the Rev.

John Ruddle, vicar of Altarnon, is probably unique. And even so, this

was not strictly speaking an instance of exorcism, at least there was no

deliverance of a person possessed. Mr. Ruddle records in his MS. Diary

that in a lonely field belonging to the parish of Little Petherick[76]

an apparition was seen by a lad aged about sixteen, the son of a certain

Mr. Bligh. The ghost, which was that of one Dorothy Durant, who had died

eight years before, appeared so frequently to the boy at this same spot

which he was obliged to pass daily as he went to and from school, that

he fell ill and at last confessed his fears to his family, who treated

the matter with ridicule and scolded him roundly when they saw that jest

and mockery were of no avail. Eventually Mr. Ruddle was sent for to argue

him out of his foolishness. The vicar, however, was not slow to perceive

that young Bligh was speaking the truth, and he forthwith accompanied his

pupil to the field, where they both unmistakably saw the phantom just as

had been described. After a little while Mr. Ruddle visited Exeter to

interview his diocesan and obtain the necessary licence for the exorcism.

The Bishop, however, asked: “On what authority do you allege that I am

entrusted with faculty so to do? Our Church, as is well known, hath

abjured certain branches of her ancient power, on grounds of perversion

and abuse.” Mr. Ruddle quoted the Canons of 1604, and this appears to

have satisfied the prelate, who called in his secretary and assigned a

form “insomuch that the matter was incontinently done.” But the worthy

vicar was not permitted to depart without a thoroughly characteristic

caution: “Let it be secret, Mr. Ruddle,—weak brethren! weak brethren!”

The MS. Diary gives some details of the manner in which the ghost was

laid, and it is significant to read that the operator described a circle

and a pentacle upon the ground further making use of a rowan “crutch”

or wand. He mentions “a parchment scroll,” he spoke in Syriac and

proceeded to demand as the books advise; he “went through the proper

forms of dismissal and fulfilled all, as it was set down and written in

my memoranda,” and then “with certain fixed rites I did dismiss that

troubled ghost.” It would be interesting to know what form and ceremonies

the Bishop prescribed. It does not sound like the details of a Catholic

exorcism, but rather some superstitious and magical ritual. From what is

related the form can hardly have been arranged for the nonce.

Although exorcism was not recognized by Protestants there are instances

upon record where an appeal has been made by English country-folk for

the ministrations of a Catholic priest. In April, 1815, Father Edward

Peach of the Midland District, was implored to visit a young married

woman named White, of King’s Norton, Worcestershire. She had for two

months been afflicted with an extraordinary kind of illness which doctors

could neither name nor cure. Her sister declared that a young man of bad

repute, whose hand had been rejected, had sworn revenge and had employed

the assistance of a reputed wizard at Dudley to work some mischief.

However that might be, the unhappy girl seemed to lie at death’s door;

she raved of being beset day and night by spirits who mocked and moped

at her, threatening to carry her away body and soul, and suggesting

self-destruction as the only means to escape them. The clergyman of the

parish visited and prayed with her, but no good resulted from all his

endeavours. It so happened that a nurse who was called in was a Catholic,

and horrified at the hideous ravings of the patient she procured a bottle

of holy water, with which she sprinkled the room and bed. A few drops

fell upon the sufferer, who uttered the most piercing cries, and screamed

out, “You have scalded me! You have scalded me!” The paroxysm, however,

passed, and she fell for the first time during many weeks into a sound

slumber. After some slight improvement for eight and forty hours she was

attacked by violent convulsions, and her relatives, in great alarm, on

Tuesday in Rogation Week, 2 May, 1815, sent a special messenger to beg

Father Peach to come over immediately.

When the priest appeared the girl was being held down in bed by two women

who were forced to put forth all their strength, and as soon as she saw

him—he was a complete stranger to her nor could his sacred profession

be recognized by his attire—so terrible were her struggles that her

husband was bound to lend his aid also to master her writhing limbs.

Presently she fell into a state of complete exhaustion, and Father Peach,

dismissing the rest of the company, was able to talk to her long and

seriously. He seems to have been quite satisfied that it was a genuine

case of diabolic possession, and his evidence, carefully expressed and

marshalled with great moderation, leave no reasonable doubt that this

strange sickness owned no natural origin. In the course of conversation

it appeared that she had never been baptized. A simple instruction was

given and finding her in excellent dispositions Father Peach at once

baptized her. During the administration of this sacrament she trembled

like a leaf, and as the water fell upon her she winced pitifully, a spasm

of agony distorting her countenance. She afterwards averred that it gave

her as much pain as if boiling water had been poured upon her bare flesh.

Immediately afterwards there followed a truly remarkable change in her

health and spirits; her husband and sister were overjoyed and thought

it no less than a miracle. The next day Father Peach visited her again

and noticed a rapid improvement. Save for a slight weakness she seemed

perfectly restored, and, says the good father, writing a twelvemonth

later than the event from notes he had taken at the time, there was no

return, nor the least lingering symptom of her terrible and distressing

malady.

In its issue of 11 October, 1925, _The Sunday Express_, under the heading

“Evil Spirit Haunts A Girl,” devoted a prominent column to the record of

some extraordinary happenings. The account commences:

“Haunted for twelve months and more by a mischievous spirit—called a

Poltergeist—driven almost to a state of distraction, threatened with a

lunatic asylum, and then cured by the help of a band of spirit Indians,

is the extraordinary experience of the nineteen-year-old Gwynneth Morley,

who lives with her widowed mother at Keighley, and who was employed in

the spinning mills of Messrs. Hay and Wright.”

These phenomena were communicated to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who

informed Mr. Hewet McKenzie, with the result that the girl was brought

to London for psychic treatment, Mr. McKenzie being “honorary principal

of the British College of Psychic Science,” an institution which is

advertised as the “Best equipped Centre for the study of Psychic

Science in Britain,” and announces “Lectures on Practical Healing,”

“Public Clairvoyance,” “A Small Exhibition of notable water colours ...

representing Soul development, or experience of the Soul in ethereal

conditions.” “The College” is, I am given to understand, a well-known

centre for spiritistic séances.

Gwynneth Morley worked in Mr. McKenzie’s family for three months “as a

housemaid, under close observation, and receiving psychic treatment.

“Day by day the amazing manifestations of her tormenting spirit were

noted down. In between the new and full moon the disturbances were worse.

Everything in the room in which Gwynneth happened to be would be thrown

about and smashed. Tables were lifted and overturned, chairs smashed to

pieces, bookcases upset, and heavy settees thrown over.

“In the kitchen of Holland Park the preparation of meals, when Gwynneth

was about, was a disconcerting affair. Bowls of water would be spilt and

pats of butter thrown on the floor.

“On another occasion when Gwynneth was in the kitchen the housekeeper,

who was preparing some grape fruit for breakfast, found that one half

had disappeared and could be found neither in the kitchen nor in the

scullery. She got two bananas to take its place, and laid them on the

table beside her; immediately the missing grape fruit whizzed past her

ear and fell before her and the bananas vanished. Some ten minutes later

they were found on the scullery table.

“All this time Gwynneth was being treated by psychic experts. Every week

the girl sat with Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie and others. It was found that she

was easily hypnotised, and that tables moved towards her in the circle.

“At other times during the cure the Poltergeist seemed to accept

challenges. One night after a particularly exciting day, Mrs. Barkel

magnetised her head and quietened her, and Mrs. McKenzie suggested that

she should go to bed, saying ‘Nothing happens when you get into bed.’

Going up the stairs a small table and a metal vase crashed over, and a

little later a great noise of banging and tearing was heard in Gwynneth’s

room. When Mrs. McKenzie went into the room it looked as if a tornado had

swept over it.

“After an active spell from June 21 to June 25 the spirit behaved itself

until July 1, when the girl had a kind of fit. Suddenly she fell off her

chair with her hands clenched. They laid her on a bed, and she fell into

another fit. She gripped her own throat powerfully.

“Since that evening she has had no further attacks, nor have there been

any disturbances.”

The main cause of this apparent cure is said to be the mediumship of Mrs.

Barkel.

“On many occasions Mrs. Barkel gave Gwynneth excellent clairvoyance,

describing deceased relatives, friends, and incidents in her past life

which the girl acknowledged and corroborated.

“One near relative, says Mr. McKenzie, whose life had been misspent,

and who had been a heavy drinker, was clearly seen. The girl feared and

hated this personality, in life and beyond death, and had herself often

seen him clairvoyantly before the disturbances began at all. Through

Mrs. Barkel’s spirit guide, Mr. McKenzie got into touch with him, and

he promised to carry out any instructions that might be given for the

benefit of the girl.

“The request was made that he should withdraw altogether from any contact

with her and not return except by request. ‘Professor J.,’ a worker on

the other side, became interested. Mr. McKenzie asked that a band of

Indians, who sometimes profess to be able to help, should take Gwynneth

in hand and protect her from the assaults of disturbing influences.

“The following day Mrs. Barkel described an Indian who had come to

help, and improvements were noted from about this date. The ‘professor’

encouraged the treatment by suggestion, and told Mr. McKenzie that in a

few weeks, with the help of the Indian workers, he would place the medium

in an entirely new psychic condition. Mr. McKenzie says that the promise

was kept.”

I have quoted this case at some length owing to the prominence

afforded it in a popular and widely read newspaper. That the facts are

substantially true I see no reason at all to doubt. It is an ordinary

instance of obsession, and will be easily recognized as such by those

priests whose duty has required them to study these distressing

phenomena. That the interpretation put upon some of the occurrences is

utterly false I am very certain. The clairvoyance is merely playing with

fire—I might say, with hell-fire—by those who cannot understand what they

are about, what forces they are thus blindly evoking. “Professor J.” and

“the band of Indians,” indeed all these “workers on the other side” are

nothing else than evil, or at the least gravely suspect intelligences,

masquerading as spirits of light and goodness. If, indeed, the girl is

relieved from obsession one cannot but suppose some ulterior motive lurks

in the background; it is but part of a scheme organized for purposes

of their own by dark and secret powers ever alert to trick and trap

credulous man. The girl, Gwynneth Morley, should have been exorcized by

a trained and accredited exorcist. These amateurs neither know nor even

faintly realize the harm they may do, the dangers they encounter. A bold

mind, such as that of Guazzo, might specify their attempts—well-meaning

as they are, no doubt—in terms I do not care to use.

At Illfurt, five miles south of Mulhausen in Alsace, is a monument

consisting of a stone column thirty feet high surmounted with a statue

of the Immaculate Conception, and upon the plinth of the pillar may

be read the following remarkable inscription: _In memoriam perpetuam

liberationis duorum possessorum Theobaldi et Josephi Burner, obtentæ per

intercessionem Beatæ Mariæ Uirginis Immaculatæ, Anno Domini 1869_.

Joseph Burner[77] and Anna Maria, his wife, were poor but intelligent

persons, who were not merely respected but even looked up to for their

probity and industry by their fellow-villagers of Illfurt. The family

consisted of five children, the eldest son, Thiébaut, being born on

21 August, 1855, and the second, Joseph, on 29 April, 1857. They were

quiet lads of average ability, who, when eight years old, were sent

in the usual course to the local elementary school. In the autumn of

1864 both were seized with a mysterious illness which would not yield

to the ordinary remedies. Dr. Levy, of Altkirch, who was called in to

examine the case acknowledged himself completely baffled, and a number

of other doctors who were afterwards consulted declared themselves

unable to diagnose such extraordinary symptoms. From 25 September,

1865, the two boys displayed most abnormal phenomena. Whilst lying

on their backs they spun suddenly round like whirling tops with the

utmost rapidity. Convulsions seized them, twisting and distorting every

limb with unparalleled mobility, or again their bodies would for hours

together become absolutely rigid and motionless so that no joint could

be bent, whilst they lay motionless as stocks or stones. Fearful fits

of vomiting often concluded these attacks. Sometimes they were dumb

for days and could only gibber and mow with blazing eyes and slabbering

lips, sometimes they were deaf so that even a pistol fired close to their

ears had not the slightest effect.[78] Often they became fantastically

excited, gesticulating wildly and shouting incessantly. Their voices

were, however, not their normal tones nor even those of children at all,

but the strong, harsh, hoarse articulation of rough and savage men. For

hours together they would blaspheme in the foulest terms, cursing and

swearing, and bawling out such hideous obscenities that the neighbours

took to flight in sheer terror at the horrible scenes, whilst the

distracted parents knew not whence to turn for help or comfort. Not only

did the sufferers use the filthy vocabulary of the lowest slums, but

they likewise spoke with perfect correctness and answered fluently in

different languages, in French, Latin, English, and even in most varied

dialects of Spanish and Italian, which could by no possible means have

been known to them in their normal state. Nor could they at any time have

heard conversation in these languages and subconsciously assimilated

it. A famous case is on record where a servant girl of mean education

fell ill and during a delirium began to mutter and babble in a language

which was recognized as Syriac. This was considered to be accounted

for when it was discovered that formerly she had been in service in a

house where there was lodging a theological student, who upon the eve

of his examinations used to walk up and down stairs and pace his room

saying aloud to himself Syriac roots and vocables, which she thus often

overheard and which in this way registered themselves in her brain. But

there could not be any such explanation in the case of Thiébaut and

Joseph Burner, since they did not merely reel out disconnected words and

phrases in any one or two tongues, but conversed easily and sensibly

in a large variety of languages and even in dialects. This has always

been considered one of the genuine signs of diabolic possession, as is

stated in the third article of _De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Dæmonio_: “3.

In primis, ne facile credat, aliquem a dæmonio obsessum esse, sed nota

habeat ea signa, quibus obsessus dignoscitur ab iis, qui uel atra bile,

uel morbo aliquo laborant. Signa autem obsidentis dæmonis sunt: ignota

lingua loqui pluribus uerbis, uel loquentem intelligere; distantia et

occulta patefacere; uires super ætatis seu conditionis naturam ostendere;

et id genus alia, quæ cum plurima concurrunt, maiora sunt indicia.”

Moreover, both Thiébaut and Joseph Burner repeatedly and in exactest

detail described events which were happening at a distance, and upon

investigation their accounts were afterwards found to be precisely true

in every particular. Their strength was also abnormal, and often in

their paroxysms and convulsions it needed the utmost exertions of three

powerful men severally to hold these lads who were but nine and seven

years old.

It was noticed at the very beginning of these maladies that the patients

were thrown into the most violent fits and every symptom of disease and

disorder exacerbated by the presence of any sacramental such as holy

water, or medals, rosaries, and other objects which had been blessed

according to the ritual. They seemed particularly enraged by the blessed

Medal of S. Benedict and pictures of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour. On

one occasion Monsieur Ignace Spies, the _Maire_ of Selestat, a man of

exceptional devotion and piety, held before their eyes a Relic of S.

Gerard Majella,[79] the Redemptorist thaumaturge, when their shrieks

and yells were truly terrific, finally dying away in inhuman whines

and groans of despair. It so happened that a Corpus Christi procession

passed the house, opposite which an Altar of Repose had been erected. The

children, who were in bed, knew nothing of this and seemed to lie in a

deep stupor. However, as the Blessed Sacrament approached their behaviour

is said to have been indescribable. They poured forth torrents of filth

and profanity, distorting their limbs into a thousand unnatural postures,

their eyes almost starting from their heads, a crisis which was succeeded

by a sudden horrible composure, whilst they crept away into the furthest

corners of the room moaning, panting, and retching as if in mortal agony.

Above all, pictures and Medals of Our Lady and the invocation of Her Most

Holy Name filled the possessed with terror and rage. At any mention of

“the Great Lady,” as they termed Her, they would curse and howl in so

monstrous a way that all who had heard them shook and sweated with fear.

The abbé Charles Brey, parish priest of Illfurt, quickly made up his

mind as to the diabolic nature of the phenomena. It was an undoubted

case of possession, since in no other way could what was taking place

be explained. Accordingly he sent to his diocesan, Monsignor Andreas

Räss (1842-87) a full account of such extraordinary and fearful events.

The Bishop, however, was far from satisfied that these things could not

be accounted for naturally. In fact it was only after three or four

years’ delay that at the instance of the Dean of Altkirch he decided to

order a special ecclesiastical investigation. He finally appointed for

this task three acute theologians, Monsignor Stumpf,[80] Superior of

his Grand Seminary at Strasburg; Monsignor Freyburger, Vicar-General of

the diocese; and Monsieur Sester, rector of Mulhausen. These priests,

then, presented themselves unexpectedly at the Burner’s house on Tuesday

morning, 13 April, 1869, at 10 o’clock. It was found that Joseph Burner

had already concealed himself, and it was only after a prolonged search

he could with difficulty be dragged from under his bed where he had taken

refuge. Thiébaut feigned to be unconscious of the presence of strangers.

The inquiry lasted for more than two hours, and it was not until past

noon that the investigators left the house. Meanwhile they had witnessed

the most hideous scenes, and their minds were quite made up as to the

reality of the possession. They shortly presented their report to the

Bishop, who then, and not until then, allowed himself to be convinced of

the facts.

Even so, the prudent prelate ordered fresh precautions to be taken. At

the beginning of September, 1869, Thiébaut was conveyed in the company

of his unhappy mother, to the orphanage of S. Charles at Schiltigheim,

where he was to be lodged whilst the case was investigated _de nouo_

by Monsignor Rapp, Monsignor Stumpf, and Father Eicher, S.J., Superior

of the Jesuit house at Strasburg. At the same time Father Hausser, the

chaplain of S. Charles, and Father Schrantzer, a well-known scholar and

psychologist, were to keep the boy systematically but secretly under the

closest observation.

It was decided to proceed to exorcism, and a priest of great reverence

and experience, Father Souquat, was commissioned by the Bishop to

perform the solemn rite. At two o’clock on Sunday, 3 October, Thiébaut

was forcibly brought into the chapel of S. Charles, which hitherto he

had always sedulously avoided, and when compelled to enter he uttered

without intermission such hoarse yells that it was necessary to remove

him for fear of scandal and alarming the other inmates. The lad,

however, was now held fast by the abbés Schrantzer and Hausser, assisted

by Charles André, the gardener of the establishment, a stalwart and

muscular Hercules. The sufferer stood upon a carpet spread just before

the communion rails, his face turned towards the tabernacle. He struggled

and writhed in the grasp of those who were restraining him; his face

was scarlet; his eyes closed; whilst from his swollen and champing lips

there flowed down a stream of thick yellowish froth which fell in great

viscous gouts to the floor. The Litanies began, and at the words “Sancta

Maria, ora pro nobis” a hideous yell burst from his throat. The exorcizer

unmoved continued the prayers and gospels of the Ritual. Meanwhile the

possessed blasphemed and defied their utmost efforts. It was resolved to

recommence upon the following day. Thiébaut, accordingly, was confined

in a strait jacket and strapped down in a red arm-chair, around which

stood the three guards as before. The evil spirit roared and howled in

a deep bass voice, raising a terrific din; the boy’s limbs strained

and contorted but the bonds held tight; his face was livid; his mouth

flecked with the foam of slobbering saliva. In a firm voice the priest

adjured the demon; he held the crucifix before his eyes, and finally a

statue of Our Lady with the words: “Unclean spirit, disappear before

the face of the Immaculate Conception! She commands! Thou must obey!

Thou must depart!” The assistants upon their knees fervently recited the

_Memorare_, when the air was rent by a yell of hideous agony, the boy’s

limbs were convulsed in one sharp convulsion, and suddenly he lay still

wrapped in a deep slumber. At the end of about an hour he awoke gently

and gazed about him with wondering eyes. “Where am I?” he asked. “Do you

not know me?” questioned the abbé Schrantzer. “No, father, I do not,” was

the reply. In a few days Thiébaut was able to return home, worn and weak

but bright and happy. Of all that happened during those fateful years

he had not the smallest recollection. He returned to school, and was in

every respect a normal healthy boy.

Joseph, who had grown steadily worse, was meantime secluded from his

brother, pending the preparations for his exorcism. On 27 October he was

taken very early in the morning to the cemetery chapel near Illfurt.

Only the parents, Mons. Ignace Spies, Professor Lachemann, and some half

a dozen more witnesses were present, as the affair was conducted in the

utmost privacy. At six o’clock the abbé Charles Brey said Mass, after

which he exorcized the unhappy victim. During three successive hours

they renewed prayers and adjurations, until at last some present began

to feel discouraged. But the glowing faith of the priest sustained them,

and at length with a loud groan that sounded like a deep roar the boy,

who had been struggling and screeching in paroxysms of frantic fury all

the while, fell back into a deep swoon and lay motionless. After no long

pause he sat up, opened his eyes as awaking from sleep, and was overcome

with amazement to find himself in a church with strange people around him.

Neither Thiébaut nor Joseph ever experienced any recurrence of this

strange malady. The former died when he was only sixteen years old on 3

April, 1871. The latter, who obtained a situation at Zillisheim, died

there in 1882 at the age of twenty-five.

An even more recent case of possession, which has been authoritatively

studied in minutest detail and at first hand, presents many of the same

features.[81] Hélène-Joséphine Poirier, the daughter of an artisan

family—her father was a mason—was born on 5 November, 1834, at Coullons,

a small village some ten miles from Gien in the district of the Loire.

Whilst still young she was apprenticed to Mlle Justine Beston, a working

dressmaker, and soon became skilful with her needle and a remarkable

embroideress. Already she had attracted attention by her sincere and

modest piety, and was thought highly of by the parish priest, M.

Preslier, a man of unusual discernment and the soundest common sense.

On the night of 25 March, 1850, she was suddenly awakened by a series

of sharp raps, which soon became violent blows, as if struck upon the

walls of the small attic where she slept. In terror she rushed into her

parents’ room next door, and they returned with her to search. Nothing

at all could be discovered, and she was persuaded to go back to bed.

Although they could actually see no cause for alarm her parents had heard

the extraordinary noises. “From this date,” says M. Preslier, “the life

of Hélène in the midst of such terrible physical and moral suffering that

she might well have given utterance to the complaints of holy Job.”[82]

These manifestations to Hélène Poirier may not unfittingly be compared

with the famous “Rochester knockings,” the phenomenon of the rappings

at Hydesville in 1848 at the house of the Fox family, which by many

writers is considered to be the beginning of that world-wide movement

known as Spiritism or Spiritualism in its modern manifestations and

recrudescence.[83]

Some months after this event Hélène suddenly fell rigid to the ground as

if she had been thrown down by some strong hands. She was able to get

up immediately but only to fall again. It was thought she was epileptic

or at any rate seized with some unusual attack, some fit or convulsion.

But after a careful observation of her case Dr. Azéma, the local

practitioner, shrewdly remarked: “Nobody here but the Priest can cure

you.” From this time disorders of spirit and physical maladies increased

with unprecedented rapidity and violence. “Her physical and mental

sufferings, which began on 25 March, 1850, continued until her death on

8 January, 1914, that is to say during a period of sixty-four years.

But those of diabolic origin ceased towards the end of 1897. So the

diabolic attacks actually lasted for some seven-and-forty years, and for

six years of this time she was possessed.”[84] It was in January, 1863,

it first became undeniably evident that her sufferings, her spasms, and

painful trances had a supernatural origin. The abbé Bougaud, Archdeacon

of Orleans, having interviewed her, advised that she should be brought

to the Bishop, Monsignor Dupanloup, and made arrangements for her to

stay at a Visitation convent in the suburbs, promising that a commission

of theologians and doctors should examine her case. On Thursday, 28

October, 1865, Hélène accordingly commenced a retreat at the convent,

where she was kindly received. M. Bougaud saw her for about two minutes,

and she was handed an official order which would allow her access to the

Bishop without waiting for a summons from his lordship or any other

undue delay. But there was some misunderstanding, for on the Friday a

doctor of high repute called at the convent, as he had been requested,

interrogated and examined her for some three-quarters of an hour and then

roundly informed the Mother Superior that she was mad, stark mad, and

had better be sent home at once. He seems to have impressed the Bishop

with his report, for Monsignor Dupanloup sent a messenger to direct the

nuns to dismiss her forthwith, and accordingly she was perforce taken

back to Coullons after a fruitless journey of bitter disappointments and

discouragement. Many persons now began to regard her with suspicion, but

in the following year, 1866, the Bishop, whilst visiting Coullons for

an April confirmation, granted her an interview which caused him very

considerably to modify his first opinion, and M. Bougaud, who saw her in

September, declared himself convinced of the supernatural origin of the

symptoms she displayed.

The most terrible obsessions now attacked her, and more than once she

was driven to the verge of suicide and despair. “From 25 March, 1850,

until March, 1868, Hélène was _only obsessed_. This obsession _lasted 18

years_. At the end of this time she was _both obsessed and possessed_ for

13 months. From this double agony of obsession and possession she was

completely delivered by the exorcisms, which the Bishop had sanctioned,

at Orleans, on 19 April, 1869. Four months’ peace followed, until with

heroic generosity she voluntarily submitted to new inflictions.

“At the end of August, 1869, she accepted from the hands of Our Lord

the agony of a new obsession and possession in order to obtain the

conversion of the famous general Ducrot. When he was converted, she was

delivered from her torments at Lourdes on 3 September, 1875, the cure

being effected by the prayers of 15,000 pilgrims who had assembled there.

_The obsession and possession in their new form_ had lasted five years.

During the forty years which passed before her death, she was never again

subject to possession, but she was continually obsessed, the attacks now

being of short duration, now long and severe. The sufferings of every

kind which she endured as well she offered with the intention of the

triumph and good estate of God’s priests. Why she was originally thus

persecuted by the Devil for nineteen years, and with what intention she

offered those torments from which she was delivered by the exorcisms

directed by the Bishop, must always remain a secret.”[85] On Tuesday,

13 August, 1867, a supernormal impulse came over her to write a paper

full of the most hideous blasphemies against Our Lord and His Blessed

Mother, and, what is indeed significant, to draw blood from her arm and

to sign therewith a deed giving herself over body and soul to Satan.

This she happily resisted after a terrible struggle. Upon the following

28 August reliable witnesses saw her levitated from the ground on two

distinct occasions. With this phenomenon we may compare the levitation

of mediums at spiritistic séances. Sir William Crookes in _The Quarterly

Journal of Science_, January, 1874, states that “There are at least a

hundred recorded instances of Mr. Home’s rising from the ground.” Of the

same medium he writes: “On three separate occasions have seen him raised

completely from the floor of the room.”

In March, 1868, it became evident that the poor sufferer was actually

possessed. Fierce convulsive fits seized her; she suddenly fell with

a maniacal fury and a deep hoarse voice uttered the most astounding

blasphemies; if the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary were spoken in her

presence she gnashed her teeth and literally foamed at the mouth; she was

unable to hear the words _Et caro Uerbum factum est_ without an access

of insane rage which spent itself in wild gestures and an incoherent

howling. She was interrogated in Latin, and answered the questions

volubly and easily in the same tongue. The case attracted considerable

attention, and was reported by the Comte de Maumigny to Padre Picivillo,

the editor of the _Civiltá Cattolica_, who gave an account thereof to the

Holy Father. The saintly Pius IX[86] showed himself full of sympathy, and

even sent through the Comte de Maumigny a message of most salutary advice

recommending great caution and the avoidance of all kinds of curiosity or

advertisement.

In February, 1869, when interrogated by several priests Hélène gave most

extraordinary details concerning bands of Satanists. “In order to gain

admission it is necessary to bring one or more consecrated Hosts, and to

deliver these to the Devil, who in a materialized form visibly presides

over the assembly. The neophyte is obliged to profane the Sacred Species

in a most horrible manner, to worship the Devil with humblest adoration,

and to perform with him and the other persons present the most bestial

acts of unbridled obscenity, the foulest copulations. Three towns, Paris,

Rome, and Tours, are the headquarters of the Satanic bands.”[87] She also

spoke of a gang of devil-worshippers at Toulouse. It is obvious that a

mere peasant woman could have no natural knowledge of these abominations,

the details concerning which were unhappily only too true.

In the following April Hélène was taken to Orleans to be examined and

solemnly exorcized. The interrogatories were conducted by Monsieur

Desbrosses, a consultor in theology for the diocese, Monsieur Bougaud,

and Monsieur Mallet, Superior of the Grand Seminary. They witnessed the

most terrible crisis; the sufferer was tortured by fierce cramps and

spasms; she howled like a wild beast; but they persisted patiently.

Mons. Mallet questioned her on difficult and obscure points in theology

and philosophy using now Latin, now Greek. She replied fluently in

both tongues, answering his queries concisely, clearly, and to the

point, incontestable proof that she was influenced by some supernormal

power. Two or three days later the Bishop was present at a similar

examination, and forthwith commissioned his own director, Monsieur Roy,

a professor at the Seminary, to undertake the exorcisms. With him were

associated Monsieur Mallet, the parish priest of Coullons, and Monsieur

Gaduel, Vicar-General of the diocese. Two nuns and Mlle Preslier held

the patient. It was found necessary to repeat the rite five times upon

successive days. On the last occasion the cries of the unhappy Hélène

were fearful to hear. She writhed and foamed in paroxysms of rage; she

blasphemed and cursed God, calling loudly upon the fiends of hell;

she broke free from all restraint, hurling chairs and furniture in

every direction with the strength of five men; it was with the utmost

difficulty she could be seized and restrained before some serious

mischief was done; at last with an unearthly yell, twice repeated, her

limbs relaxed, and after a short period of insensibility she seemed to

awake, calm and composed, as if from a restful slumber. The possession

had lasted thirteen months from March, 1868, to April, 1869.

Into the details of her second possession from 23 August, 1869, until 3

September, 1874, it is hardly necessary to enter at any length. Monsieur

Preslier noted: “The second crisis of possession was infinitely more

terrible than the first; 1st, owing to the length; the first lasted

thirteen months, the second five years. 2nd, the first was relieved with

a number of heavenly consolations, but very little solace was obtained

during the second. 3rd, there was much bodily suffering in the first, in

the second there were far keener mental sufferings and more exquisite

pain.”[88] She was finally and completely delivered at Lourdes on

Thursday, 3 September, 1874. It is not to be supposed that she passed the

remaining forty years of her life without occasional manifestations of

extraordinary phenomena. After much sickness, cheerfully and smilingly

borne, she made a good end in her eightieth year, on 8 January, 1914, and

is buried in the little village cemetery of her native place.

We have here the case of a woman who was mediumistic and clairvoyant

to an almost unexampled degree, and it is very certain that if these

would-be fortune-tellers and mages who so freely advertise their powers

in many spiritistic journals to-day truly realized to what terrible

dangers and very real psychic perils the use and even the mere possession

of such faculties expose them, they would, so far from trafficking in

the presumption of abnormal gifts, regard them with caution and indeed

shrink from any occult practice at all, lest haply they become the prey

of controls and influences so cunning, so potent for evil, as to merge

them body and soul in untold miseries and shadows darker even than the

bitterness of death.

The modern Spiritistic movement, so strongly supported by recent

scientific utterances, is increasingly affecting all classes and

conditions of society, and is beginning in every direction to undermine

and actually to usurp the religious belief and convictions of thousands

of earnest and seriously inclined but not very accurately informed or

well-instructed persons. The basis of the movement is the claim that the

spirits of the dead are continually seeking to communicate and, indeed,

communicating with us through the agency of sensitives, so that it is

possible to get into touch and to converse with our dear ones who have

passed from this life. It is hardly necessary to emphasize the almost

infinite consolation and comfort such a doctrine holds for the bereaved,

how eagerly and with what yearning mourners will embrace such teaching,

and how perseveringly and with what tender agonies of an hungered love

they will devote themselves to the practices they imagine will place

them in closest connexion and communion with those whom they have lost

awhile, but whose voices they ever long to hear, whose faces they long

to see once again. It is a matter of common knowledge that during and

since the Great War Spiritism has increased tenfold; many who were wont

to laugh at it, who refused to listen to its claims and scorned it as

futile nonsense, are now among its most enthusiastic devotees. In truth

there must be few of us who cannot appreciate the irresistible influence

such beliefs will have upon the mind. Spiritism is seemingly full of joy,

and hope, and promise, and happiness. It will wipe all tears of sorrow

from poor human eyes; it is balm to the wounded heart; divine solace and

sympathy; the barriers of death are broken down; mortality is robbed of

its terrors.