THERE FOLLOWS BASIC DIVISION TWO OF THE PRESENT
以下是本文件的第二基本部分
PART TWO, WHICH CONCERNS THE METHODS OF
第二部分，关于方法
REMOVING AND CURING ACTS OF SORCERY, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY DIFFICULTY
[TT] WHETHER it is LAWFUL to remove acts of sorcery through other acts of sorcery or through other unlawful means.
152B [AG I] It is argued that it is not because |it is not lawful to make use of the help of demons, as was explained above

^{426}

and is determined by the Doctors in common in the Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 2, Dist. 7, on the grounds that this is apostasy from the Faith. Indeed, that an act of sorcery cannot be broken without the help of demons is proven on the grounds that it is broken either by the contrivance of the artifice of man or the Devil or by the power of God. The first is not the case because a lower power cannot infringe upon a higher one, since it can do nothing surpassing its own virtue. It is also not divine power, because this would be a miraculous work and God works miracles at His own discretion and not at the insistence of humans. For instance, when His mother asked Christ to provide wine miraculously, this needed the miracle of transformation, as the Doctors propound, and this is why He replied, “What is it to you and me, woman?” [John 2:4], that is, “What do we have in common in the miraculous work.”

^{427}

[AG 2] It is also evident that the possessed are very seldom freed, however much they beg for the help of God and the assistance of the Saints. Therefore, they can be freed only with the help of devils, though it is not lawful to seek this.
[AG 3] Also, what is commonly tolerated becomes general practice, even if it is unlawful, and it is common practice for those affected by sorcery to rush to superstitious womenfolk, |by whom they are very often freed and not by priests or exorcists. Therefore, practice shows that acts of sorcery are broken with the help of demons. Since it is unlawful to seek a demon’s help, however, what is lawful is not to break acts of sorcery but to endure them with patience.
[AG 4] Also, according to Thomas and Bonaventure in the Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 34 [Sent. 4.34.I.3], which treats the impediment caused by sorcery, an act of sorcery can be so permanent that it can have no human remedy because, if it has one, this is not

^{426}

A similarly vague reference appears in

_{1515}

; perhaps the discussion in mind is the one in 143 A .

^{427}

This is a misunderstanding of the passage (typical of medieval exegesis, which without reference to the context interpreted biblical passages as illustrative of notions irrelevant to the text under discussion). Jesus’ words meant, “What difference does the lack of wine make to you and me?”
known to or lawful for any human. With these words they let it be understood that it is like an incurable and permanently present illness. Then, they add that although God could offer a remedy by compelling the demon and the demon could do so by stopping, and the man would be healed, nonetheless, the healing will not be human. Therefore, unless God ends it by Himself, it is not lawful to seek an end to it in any way at all.
[AG 5] Also, they say in the same distinction and question that it is also unlawful to apply a remedy through another act of sorcery. Hence, they say that even if a remedy could be applied through another act of sorcery, although the sorcery would be removed, it would still be considered permanent, because it is in no way lawful to invoke the help of a demon through sorcery.
[AG 6] Also, the exorcisms of the Church are not always potent in 152 D repressing demons in terms of all bodily harassments (the judgment of God dictates this), but they are always potent against those forms of possession by demons for which they were originally instituted, like people under demonic assault or children needing exorcizing.
[AG 7] Also, it is not necessarily the case that if the Devil is granted power over someone because of a sin, this power ends when the sin ends, because sometimes the penalty remains though the sin ends.

From these words, it seems that the pronouncement of the two Doctors is that what is lawful is not to remove the acts of sorcery but to leave them alone in the same way other incurable illnesses are left alone and to entrust them to the Lord God alone, Who can break them as He pleases.
[SC I] To the contrary, it is the case that just as God and nature are not abundant in redundancies, they are not lacking in necessities,

^{428}

and therefore the faithful have necessarily been given not only preventive remedies against attacks of this sort on the part of demons (these remedies were mentioned in the beginning of the present Part Two)

^{429}

but also healing remedies. Otherwise, God would have made insufficient | provision for the faithful, and the works of the Devil would seem 153A stronger than those of God.
[SC 2] Also, the gloss on the passage “There is no power over the earth …” (Job 4I[:24]) says, “He surpasses all human things, although he is subordinate to the merits of the Saints,” and so they are also subordinate to the merits of the saintly men in this life.

[SC 3] Also, Augustine says, “An angel is not more powerful than our mind when we cling to God. For if power is a virtue, in this world the mind that clings to God is loftier than the whole world” (Customs of the Church [I.II]), and hence the works of the Devil can be ended by such means.
[CO] Response. On this point there are two hallowed views that seemingly contradict each other. There are some theologians and canonists who agree that it is lawful to remove acts of sorcery, even through vain and superstitious works. Adherents of this view are Scotus, Hostiensis and Geoffrey, and all the canonists in common. It is the opinion of other theologians, especially of the ancient ones but also of certain modern ones

^{430}

like Thomas, Bonaventure, Albert, Peter de Palude and many others, that evil things should in no way be done in order for good ones 153B to result,

∣

and that a human should die rather than agree to such things in order to be freed through vain and superstitious works.

It will be possible for their sayings to be brought into agreement with a single distinction, but their opinions should be looked at first. Scotus (Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 34 [Sent. 4.34.I.Co.], “On the impediment caused by sorcery, that is, on frigid

^{431}

people and those affected by sorcery”) considers it to be foolishness to claim that spells of sorcery ought not to be broken through vain and superstitious means, saying, “In this there is no lack of faith, because the one who destroys it does not agree to the works of the Devil but believes that the Devil is able and willing to harass so long as such a symbol lasts, since according to the agreement he lends his assistance to this end only as long as the symbol lasts. Thus, the destruction of this symbol will not put an end to such harassment.”

^{432}

Then, he says that it is meritorious to destroy the works of the Devil.

Since he speaks of symbols, let us give an illustration. There are certain women who mark out sorceresses with such a symbol. For instance, if a cow is deprived of the richness of its milk as the result of sorcery, they hang a pitcher of milk over the fire, and as they make an insistent demand with certain superstitious words, they smash the pitcher with a walking

stick.

^{433}

Although it is the vessel that the woman smashes, | the Devil 153 C delivers all the blows to the back of the sorceress and in this way the Devil is harassed by them, as is the sorceress.

^{434}

While the Devil is not really compelled or harassed, he does these things in order to entice the Catholic woman who smashes the vessel to worse acts,

^{435}

and hence this is dangerous. Otherwise, the view of this great Doctor would seem to pose no difficulty. Other illustrations could be cited.

Hostiensis speaks to the same effect in the Copious Summa (“On frigid people and those affected by sorcery” in the title “Impotence in Copulating” in the gloss on the Chapter “Littere” § “Mulierem autem” [4.15.io]), saying that for this defect recourse should be had to the remedies of physicians, and although certain written remedies against these things seem vain or superstitious, any authority should be trusted in connection with his art. Also, the Church can well enough tolerate the smashing of vanities with vanities.

Umbert makes this distinction in the following words (Bk. 4, same dist. [Sent. 4.34.3]). “Acts of sorcery can be destroyed either through prayers or through the art through which they were made.”

To the same effect, Geoffrey says in the same title in his Summa [4.15], “An act of sorcery cannot always be undone by the one who performed it, because he is dead or because he does not know how to destroy it or because the sorcery

^{436}

is ruined. If, however, this is known, he could undo it lawfully.” |(He is speaking against those who hold that an impediment

_{153} D

could not be set in the way of carnal union through acts of sorcery

because no such act could be permanent, and for this reason it could not dissolve a marriage that had already been contracted.)

Also, those who were induced to state that no act of sorcery is permanent were motivated by the following reasons. They thought that every act of sorcery could be removed through another act of sorcery or through the exorcisms of the Church that are ordained for repressing the violence of demons or through true repentance, since the Devil has power only over sinners. Hence, in the first reason they agree with the view of the others, that such acts could be removed through superstitious means at least. St. Thomas, however, is of the contrary view, saying (Bk. 4, same dist. [Sent. 4.34.3.Ra3]) that if an act of sorcery can be abolished only through unlawful means, for instance through the help of a demon or the like, even if it were known that it could be abolished in this way, it is judged to be permanent since the remedy is not lawful.

Bonaventure, Albert and all the theologians in common speak to the same effect. When they briefly discuss the implicit or express invocation of the help of a demon, their pronouncement seems to be that such acts of sorcery should be removed only through lawful exorcisms or true repentance, as was discussed in the previously cited Chapter “Si per sortiarias.” In this, it seems that they were motivated by the reasons cited in the beginning of the question.

It is a good idea to bring these great Doctors into agreement as far as is possible, and this can be done with a single distinction.

^{437}

It should be noted that an act of sorcery either is broken through both another sorcerer and another act of sorcery or it is broken not through a sorcerer but through the unlawful rites of sorcery. This in turn takes place in two ways, either through rites that are both vain and unlawful or through rites that are vain but not unlawful. The first remedy is altogether unlawful, with respect to both the instigator and the remedy itself. Although it takes place either with or without harm to the person who inflicted the sorcery, in any case it takes place through the unlawful rites of sorcery and thus is subsumed under the second method, that is, the one in which the sorcery is broken not through another sorcerer but through unlawful

rites of sorcery. In this case it is again judged unlawful, though less so than the first.

Hence, we can say in summation that a remedy is rendered unlawful through the following three criteria and by the following three methods. The first is when it is removed through another sorcerer and other acts of sorcery, that is, through the virtue of some demon. |The second is when 154 B it is removed not through a sorcerer but through a respectable person, though by the procedure that through superstitious remedies the act of sorcery is removed from one person and inflicted on another. This again is unlawful. The third is when it is broken without being inflicted on another but the person nonetheless uses an express or implicit invocation of demons. This again is unlawful. With reference to these methods the theologians say that death is preferable to agreeing to such things. To break an act of sorcery by the last two methods, on the other hand, can be either lawful or not vain according to the canonists, who say that these methods can be tolerated when previous attempts at using the remedies of the Church, such as the exorcisms of the Church, begging for the support of the Saints and true repentance, have been of no avail.

^{438}

To make the understanding of the specifics clearer, an event discovered by us should be related. A certain bishop from Germany came to Rome in the time of Pope Nicholas

^{439}

to take care of certain business affairs. (Considerations of charity dictate that his name should be concealed, although he has already paid off the debt of all flesh.) He fell in love with a certain young woman and arranged to send her to his diocese along with two servants and certain things including valuables. | Beguiled by 154C female greed for the valuables, which were of great worth, the young woman began to think up a method by which the Bishop would die through acts of sorcery while she was on the journey. Now that she had the valuables in her trust, all of a sudden the Bishop fell ill the next night. The physicians earnestly investigated whether he might have been poisoned, and in their sorrow the servants were uncertain. The fever in his chest was so great that he could be revived only by constantly gargling with cold water. Then on the third day, when any hopes for his life were now abandoned, a certain old woman demanded to be admitted into the Bishop’s presence and revealed that she had come for the sake of his health. When admitted, she spoke to the Bishop, promising him his health so long as he would agree to her suggestions. When the Bishop

asked what it was the he had to agree to in order to regain his health, which was his greatest desire, the old woman responded, “Well, this illness has happened to you through sorcery, and the only way for you to be freed is through another act of sorcery, so that the sorceress who inflicted it on you will be infected with this very illness of yours.” The Bishop was thunderstruck, and although he sensed that he could not 154 D be freed by any other method,

∣

he did not wish to do anything rashly and decided to consult the Pope by petition. The Pope loved the Bishop very dearly, and when he learned that the Bishop could be freed only through the death of the sorceress, he agreed that the lesser among two evils should be allowed and signed the petition for this. The old woman was then summoned again, and the Bishop explained that both he and the Supreme Pontiff agreed to the death of the sorceress so long as he was restored to his former health. With this, the old woman left, promising that he would be freed the following night. All of a sudden around midnight, he felt that he was healthy and free of any illness, and a messenger was dispatched to find out what had become of the young woman. All of a sudden, the messenger returned to say that around midnight she had suddenly fallen ill while sleeping at her mother’s side.

This event let it be understood that at the same hour and moment the other sorceress (the old woman) caused the illness to leave the Bishop and attack the young sorceress. When the evil spirit ceased to harm the Bishop in this way, he coincidentally seemed to restore him to health. 155A | The spirit did not properly speaking introduce health, though he was able to take control of it with God’s permission because of an agreement he made with the second sorceress, who envied the good fortune of the first. This demon had to infect the young mistress,

^{44^{\circ}}

and it is a good guess that those two acts of sorcery were inflicted not by one demon on two persons but by two demons with the assistance of the two sorceresses. In this the demons were not opposing each other, since they always perform various works for the damnation of souls, which is their highest and joint desire.

When the Bishop decided to visit the young woman for the sake of piety, he was greeted with fearsome curses as he entered the room. She shouted, “Damn you for ever along with your woman, who taught you these things and freed you!” When the Bishop tried to soften her spirit so that she would repent and to show that he had forgiven her every offense, she turned away her face and shouted, "Get out, curse you!

44^{\circ}

I.e., the female version of “master” (rather than “concubine”); presumably, the term is meant to mark her out as the head of a satanic cult (see

97 D - 98 A, I 45 D

In this there is no hope for forgiveness. Instead, I commend my soul to all the demons." She died miserably and the Bishop returned home in joy. (At this point, it should also be noted that a privilege for one person does not make a general law, and hence the Pope’s dispensation in this 155 B case does not prove that this is lawful for everyone.)

Nider gives a report to the same effect in his Ant Hill [5.3], where he says the following. As a method of removing an act of sorcery or of avenging oneself on a sorcerer, the following method is sometimes practiced. Someone harmed either in his own person or in his possessions came to a sorceress, asking to learn the identity of the evil-doer.

^{44 I}

Then the sorceress would sometimes pour molten lead into water until an image could be seen in the lead through the work of a demon. At the sight of this, the sorceress asked the inquirer, “In what part do you want your sorcerer to be harmed, so that you can recognize him by that wound?” When the inquirer selected a place, the sorceress immediately put a nail or a knife wound in the same part of the image that was visible in the lead. She showed the place where he would find the guilty person but in no way revealed the name. As experience testifies, the sorcerer would be found to be injured in every regard just as his leaden image indicated.

These remedies, I say, and similar ones are certainly judged to be unlawful, although human frailty, which suffers greater turmoil about the health of the body than that of the soul, is quite often ensnared in them in the expectation of receiving forgiveness from God.

The second remedy concerns sorceresses who break acts of sorcery under an express agreement entered into with a demon without harming the person.

^{422}

(What should be done with them and how they are recognized will be explained below on the topic of Method Sixteen

^{443}

of passing sentence.) How many of them there are! They can always be found every one or two German miles, and within this radius these sorcerers seem to heal whatever harm is caused by other sorceresses. Some boast that they provide these cures without exception in terms of time, some say that they heal only those affected by acts of sorcery since the

last Ember Day,

^{444}

and yet others can heal only with the consent of the sorceress who inflicted the sorcery. With reference to the express agreement entered into with a demon, these sorceresses are distinguished by the fact they reveal secrets to those who approach them for the sake of recovering their health. They immediately reveal to their visitors the reasons for their misfortune, saying that the woman has been harmed in her person or her possessions because of a squabble or quarrel with a female neighbor or another woman or man. To conceal their crimes, they sometimes enjoin pilgrimages or other acts of piety, and it is all the 155 D more dangerous

∣

to approach them in order to recover one’s health, to the extent that their sin results in more insult to the Faith than does that of those who seem to heal only through an implicit agreement.

^{445}

For while on the one hand such people value bodily health more than God, on the other they shorten their life since God smites them as vengeance for their crime. This is why in His vengeance God acted with savagery against Saul. Although Saul first removed the magicians and soothsayers from the land, he later consulted them, and as a result he was killed in war along with his sons (I Sam. 27 [actually, 31.6]; the guilt is mentioned in I Chron. io[:I3]). This is also why Ahaziah had to die when he was injured (2 Kings I).

^{446}

Those who visit sorceresses in this way are of ill repute, and as a result should not be allowed to lodge an accusation (2, Q. 8, “Quisquis nec”). Such people should also be executed according to the laws, as was discussed in Question One

^{447}

of this work.

But, alas, O Lord God! Since all Your judgments are just, who will free the wretches affected by sorcery who wail in constant pains, as our sins demand? The Foe

^{448}

has greatly prevailed, but where are there those who can break the works of the Devil with lawful exorcisms? The only 156A remedy that seems to remain is | that judges should at least restrain their onslaughts by chastising with various penalties the sorceresses who are the instigators. As a result the ability to visit sorceresses will in fact be cut off from sick people.
444 “Ember Days” are special days of fasting and prayer on the Wednesday, Friday and Saturday following four dates in the calendar: the first Sunday in Lent (usually late February), Whitsun/Pentecost (usually early June), the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. I4), and St. Lucy’s Day (Dec. 13). The placement of these days in the calendar meant that they could be taken to signify the start of the seasons. Presumably, this restriction has something to do with the belief that sorceresses held their “conventicles” on Ember Days (see 22ID).
445 Here another attempt is being made to interpret magic that was practiced in the context of Christianity and made (unorthodox) use of traditional piety as “Satanism.”

^{446}

After suffering an injury, King Ahaziah of Israel wished to consult a local pagan god about his prognosis, and God reacted unfavorably to this.
447 7A-13D.

^{448}

I.e., the Devil.

Unfortunately, no one perceives in his heart that they are all seeking things that belong to them and not the things that belong to Jesus Christ.

^{449}

The sorceress in Reichshofen who was mentioned above

^{450}

was visited by such constant crowds of people affected by sorcery who sought to recover their health that the count of the castle wished to profit from a toll, forcing each person affected by sorcery in his person or his possessions to pay a penny to enter the gate. As a result he claimed to have gotten a large income from this.

Through the testimony of experience we have also learned that there are many such sorceresses throughout the diocese of Constance. Not that it is tainted more than other dioceses, since this kind of lack of faith creeps throughout all dioceses and, unfortunately, seems to have infected the entire world. Rather, more effort has been spent on this diocese, and in it was found a certain man called Hengst, who can be seen being visited every day by quite a large throng of poor wretches affected by sorcery. With our own eyes we have seen such a throng in a certain village called Eningen. | Without a doubt no shrine of the Most Blessed 156B Virgin, either the one in Aachen

^{451}

or The Hermitage,

^{452}

is visited by such throngs as that superstitious man is. During the coldest period of winter, when every royal and public road is blocked with an abundance of snow, from the surrounding territory to a distance of two or three miles people visited him with their great harassments. 453 While some learn of remedies, others by no means do so, and I think that the reason for this is that not all acts of sorcery have an equal capacity to be broken on account of the various obstacles, as was discussed above.

^{454}

Certainly,

these people break acts of sorcery under an express invocation of demons in terms of the second unlawful remedy, but not in the manner of the first.

The third

^{455}

remedy is practiced with certain superstitious ceremonies but is not performed to harm any person or through manifest sorcerers, which experience attests in the following way. In Speyer a merchant of the market place explained that the following event happened to him. “In the region of Swabia,” he said, “I was spending time in a certain 156C castle belonging to noblemen. One | day after breakfast, I joined two young noblemen and went for a walk across a pasture for relaxation. A certain woman came our way, and while she was still walking far off, she was recognized by the two young noblemen. One of them said to me the words, ‘Quick! Protect yourself with the Sign of the Cross!’ and the one on the other side likewise urged me to do this. When I asked the reason for such fear, they answered, ‘Look, the worst sorceress of this whole province is now coming our way! She knows how to affect people with sorcery merely by looking at them.’ I became annoyed and boasted that I had never feared such people, but I scarcely finished the words when all of a sudden I felt myself seriously injured in the left foot, so that I could not pick up my foot or take a step without serious pain. The others quickly sent a messenger to fetch a horse for me from the castle and brought me back to it. The pains increased for three days, and since the locals mentioned before

^{456}

understood that I had been infected with sorcery, they approached a certain peasant a mile away, who they knew broke acts of sorcery through some art, and they explained the
156D situation. |The peasant came quickly and examined the foot. He said, ‘I will test whether this happened to you as a result of sorcery or a natural defect, and if it did happen as a result of sorcery, I will heal you with God’s assistance. Otherwise, it will be necessary to continue with natural remedies.’ I said, ‘If it is possible for me to be healed without superstition and with God’s assistance, I will readily accept this, since I wish to have nothing in common with the demon and do not desire his assistance.’ To this the villager responded that he wished only to apply lawful remedies with God’s assistance and to make a cure in this way, so long as experience showed that this had happened to me as a result of sorcery. I agreed to these two terms. He held molten lead” - as was

discussed above regarding another sorceress

^{457}

- “over the foot in an iron cup and poured it into a bowl full of water. Suddenly, the appearances of various things sprang forth, as if thorns, strands of hair, bones and the like had been thrown in. ‘Now,’ he said, ‘I see that this illness happened to you as a result not of a defect but of sorcery.’ When I |asked how he 157A could know such things from molten lead, he said, ‘Well, there are seven metals from the seven planets, and because Saturn has dominance over lead, it is a property of lead that if it is poured over some act of sorcery, it will show the sorcery through Saturn’s influence. And it’s a good thing,’ he said, 'that a remedy is being applied quickly. Since I have to visit you on as many days as you have been affected by the sorcery, I must ask how many days have passed.” I stated, “Three now.” He then visited me every day over a period of three days, and though he merely examined and touched the foot, muttering all the words to himself, he restored me to full health, putting the sorcery to flight."

While this method certainly does not show the practitioner to be a sorcerer, it does show the method to be superstitious. In that he promised health with the assistance of God and not the work of the Devil, and he explained the influence of Saturn over the lead as being caused by Saturn’s dominance, he was irreproachable. Rather, he was to be commended. The virtue by which he put the act of sorcery to flight and caused the appearances of things in the lead, however, is left as a doubtful point. Since the sorcery could not be removed through any natural virtue, | although it could be lessened by one, as will be explained below

^{45^{8}}_{157} B

regarding the remedies for those under assault, it seems rather that he implemented this through an agreement, at least a implicit one, entered into with a demon. The pact is called “implicit” in this case since the instigator at least agrees implicitly to the Devil’s assistance. This is the method by which countless superstitious works are practiced, though not in the same way with reference to the offense to God, since there is greater offense to God in the one work than in the other. Because of the fact that he was certain of producing health, had to visit the man for as many days as he had been affected by the illness, and without using any natural medicines still restored the sick man to health as he had promised, he is judged to be not so much suspected as at least manifestly caught in an implicit, though not a express, agreement entered into with a demon. He should be considered convicted and should be punished

457 135C.
458 169D-170C.

with at least the penalties stated below in Method Two

^{459}

of passing sentence, including the solemn abjuration, unless he is supported by the
157C laws that seem to have the opposite sense (what the ordinary | ought to do in that situation will be explained later in the solution to the arguments).

^{460}

The fourth remedy to be tolerated is one that the canonists at least conceive of along with certain theologians, calling it merely and precisely a vanity, on the grounds that it is only superstitious and is not worked under some express or implicit agreement in accordance with the intent and undertaking of the practitioner. I say “at least,” because if perchance they would combine the third remedy and this fourth one, it seems better to yield to their claim than to contribute to strife. This certainly is a vain remedy, as is illustrated above

^{46 t}

with the women who strike a pitcher set above the fire to beat a sorceress who has deprived a cow of its abundance of milk. (Perhaps they perform such acts in the name of the Devil, but perhaps they do so without explicit mention of him.

)^{462}

Other deeds of theirs could be cited to this effect. Sometimes, when they wish to send out cows that have been harmed in this way to pasture, they endeavor to track down the sorceress. In this case, after placing a
157D man’s drawers or some other unclean thing over the head or back of the cow (preferably on Feast Days and other more holy times),

^{463}

they drive this cow out with a staff, again perhaps striking it with an express

mention

^{464}

as above. Then the cow hastens on a direct path to the house of the sorceress and dashes its horns against her door, constantly knocking on it with a great wail.

It is clear that the Devil performs these works on the cow until it is calmed through other acts of sorcery. In fact, even if these things are to be tolerated in accordance with the previously mentioned Doctors, they are still not meritorious, as some try to claim. While according to the Apostle we are taught to do everything that we do in word or work in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, there is an express mention of a demon, even if there is no express invocation of his name. Again, even if there is no intention in this instance to perform such acts through some implicit or express agreement, nonetheless since the person will perhaps say, “I wish to do this,” then whether or not the Devil intervenes, the rashness by which the person places less importance on the fear of God offends Him. This is why He permits the Devil the power to do such things. Such people should therefore be urged to do penance and encouraged | instead to give this up and to resort to the remedies that 158A are described below and also those above

^{465}

in this Part (the use of Holy Water, exorcized salt and so on).

A similar judgment should be made about those who, when some domestic animal of theirs is killed by sorcery and they strive to find out the identity of the sorcerer or whether the animal has been killed by natural defect or sorcery, hasten to places where the carcasses of wild animals are skinned. They take guts of a carcass back home, dragging them on the ground. They drag the guts into the kitchen not over but under the threshold of the house, and after making a fire they place the guts over a grill. Then, as we have very often been informed by the report of those who follow such practices, as these guts are warmed and burn, the guts of the sorceress are tormented with heat and pain. Such investigators therefore make sure that the doorway of the house is very well barricaded because her pains will make the sorceress hasten to enter the house, and if she does gain entry, she removes a piece of charcoal from the fire, which puts all the torment to flight. We know that it has quite often been found that when they

^{466}

could not | gain entry, they 158B would then envelop the house inside and out with very thick clouds, with such terrifying uproar and screeching that everyone thought they

would die in this way from the collapse of the house if the door was not opened.

Certain experimenta

^{467}

can also be placed in this category. When certain people wish to discover by experimentum the sorceresses in a large group of women in church, they employ the following experimentum, since the sorceresses cannot leave the church without the investigators’ permission at the end of the Divine Service. On Sunday they grease the soft shoes of the young men with lard (pork fat), as is customarily done for maintenance, and thus, when they enter the church, the sorceress will be unable to leave until the investigators either leave themselves or give the sorceresses permission to leave with an express mention

^{468}

as above. A similar thing is done with certain words that it is not a good idea to add, lest anyone be led astray by the Devil. For neither judges nor magistrates should put unshakable faith in these words or adjust their opinion in conformity with them unless the person in question is otherwise very notorious, since under such a cover the Contriver of a Thousand Deceits could in fact besmirch the reputation of innocent women.

^{469}

Hence, people should rather be deterred from such experimenta and salutary acts of penance should be enjoined, although sometimes these experimenta are tolerated.
158C This discussion makes clear the response | to the arguments

^{470}

that conclude that acts of sorcery should not be broken on the grounds that to do so in the first two ways is altogether unlawful, and that even if the third remedy is tolerated according to the laws, the ecclesiastical judge should pay considerable attention to this. That the laws seem to be tolerant is clear from Chapter of the Code "Sorcerers,"471 Law “Eorum,” [Code of Justinian 9.18.4 (with addition from 3)] where the text says, “Others who do this to prevent the labors of men from being cast down through the crushing of the winds and hail deserve not a penalty but a reward.” (Antoninus [Summa 1.18.4] cites this same provision with regard to laws in which canon and civil law disagree.) From this it seems that for the preservation of agricultural produce and domestic animals against

every eventuality the laws grant that it is possible not only to tolerate certain people who follow such practices but even to reward them. It will therefore be incumbent upon the ecclesiastical judge to note whether it is only in accordance with the law’s intention that the person proceeds against hailstorms and inclemency in the air by the appropriate methods (as will be explained below) or with certain superstitious acts, and in that case the judge will tolerate the procedure, provided no scandal to the Faith results from it. (In fact such a procedure should be categorized not under the third but under the fourth and fifth method; | these will be treated in the discussion (in the following chapters) of the lawful ecclesiastical remedies, with an additional treatment of the superstitious acts pertaining to the fourth method.)
[Note on Sources
Major identified sources for Introduction:
Aq., Sent. 4.34.I. 3
Nider, Ant Hill 5.4]

ECCLESIASTICAL REMEDY AGAINST INCUBUS AND
SUCCUBUS DEMONS

Chapter One

IN the preceding chapters of Question One, which concerned the methods of affecting humans, domestic animals and the fruits of the earth with sorcery, the emphasis was on the practices that the sorceresses follow in terms of their own persons: their enticement of innocent young women in order to increase their breach of the Faith, the method by which they make their avowal and do homage, how they offer their own and other people’s babies to demons, and the method by which they are transported in location. Because, I say, the only possible way for these and similar practices to be remedied is for the judges who are responsible for the sorceresses to get rid of them or at least punish them as an example for all posterity, |these sorts of remedies will be treated, not 159A at the present time but in the last part of the work, where the twenty

^{472}

methods of proceeding and passing sentence against and in connection with the persons of the sorceresses will be discussed. For the present, it is necessary to turn our attention only to the remedies against the effects

472224 D - 258 C

; for the method of reckoning the number of methods as twenty, see Pt. III n. IOI.
brought about by their sorcery: first how humans affected by sorcery are remedied, then how animals and, finally, the fruits of the earth are saved.

There are three kinds of humans affected by sorcery in terms of incubus or succubus demons. The first consists of those women who voluntarily submit to incubus demons. Such are sorceresses. (It has been found that the procedure of succubi operating on men is not so voluntary, since the natural strength of reason by which men surpass women leads men to shrink from such things to a greater degree.) There is the category of those whom sorcerers caused to become involved with incubi or succubi against their will. There is a third kind, consisting particularly of certain virgins who are harassed by incubus demons completely against their will. About these it is also often presumed that they are
159B being affected with sorcery by sorcerers, because

∣

at the insistence of sorceresses the demons must turn themselves into incubi for such persons in the same way that they very often introduce other illnesses. The purpose of this is to win these people over to their breach of the Faith.

Let us give some illustrations. In the city of Koblenz there is a poor man who is so affected by sorcery that in the presence of his wife he repeatedly performs every sexual act by himself in the way that men perform it with women. He cannot be deterred by his wife’s insistence and wailing, and after completing the act one or more times, he repeats, “We want to start over again and again.” Yet, bodily vision can perceive no person lying under him…

^{473}

After prolonged harassments of this kind the poor man is dashed to the ground, completely exhausted. When, after recovering some strength, he is asked how and in what way these things happen to him and whether he had someone lying under him, he answers that he sees nothing but is so enthralled in his mind that he absolutely cannot stop. Indeed, in reference to this act of sorcery a certain woman is very much suspected of having inflicted it on him, since she threatened that poor man with insulting words to the effect that she would pay him back because of some displeasure he had caused
159C her. | Yet, no executors of the laws and of justice are available, or at any rate none who would, in a situation of notoriety and serious suspicion, take action to avenge so great a crime. They think that no one ought to be condemned unless he is convicted by his own confession or by the lawful production of three witnesses, as if the indications of the deed or the evidence consisting of serious or violent suspicions did not merit any

penalties.

^{474}

(There will be an explanation of these methods of passing sentence below, as was mentioned before.

^{475}

惩罚。

^{474}

（如前所述，下面将对这些判决方法进行解释。

^{475}

Regarding the second variety (the one in which girls are harassed by incubus demons), it would be excessively long to give an account even for our own times, since there are certain histories filled with similar events. With what difficulty such acts can be remedied is made clear by what Thomas of Brabant says about a certain woman at the end of his work Bees [2.57.15]. "I saw and heard in confession a certain virgin in religious habit,

^{476}

who first said that she had never agreed to sex, thereby letting it be understood that she had been known. Not believing her, I compelled her at the risk of her soul with arguments and harsh threats. | Finally, she confessed in tears that she had been corrupted in 159D mind before body. She grieved as if on the point of death and confessed every day with tears, but it was not possible for her to be freed from the incubus demon through talent, effort or art or by the Sign of the Cross or Holy Water, things specifically ordained for putting demons to flight, or by the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which is terrifying even for the angels themselves. Eventually, after many years, he was put to flight by the praying and fasting of pious Lutgardis. It is plausible (reserving the possibility of better judgment) that after she confessed about her sin with grief, the sex with the demon was a penalty for her sin rather than being itself the sin. On the Vigil of Pentecost, this woman complained to my informant, a devout nun named Christina in the Monastery of the Duchess of Brabant, that she dared not take Communion because of the importunate harassment of the demon, and Christina said to her in sympathy, ‘Off you go. Sleep in peace, since you will take Communion with the Body of the Lord tomorrow. I will take upon myself your sin.’ The woman departed in joy and slept in peace. She arose for prayer near dawn and in the morning took the Sacraments with full serenity. On the other hand, after Christina, who paid no heed to the sin she had taken upon herself, went to bed in the evening, she heard in her bed | what seemed to be a piglet rustling around and moving with a 160 A certain amount of agitation. Not suspecting a demon, she seized it by the neck to put whatever it was to flight. She lay down again, but she

was harassed and got up in fear. This happened several times, and finally, when the bedding was pretty much turned over, she perceived by sight that she was being harassed by the evil of a demon, so she abandoned her bed, staying awake all night. Wishing to pray, she was tormented by the demon’s onslaught. As I said, she had never suffered such things before. In the morning she said to the other woman, ‘I renounce your penalty, I renounce it. I barely escaped the awful Tempter’s

^{477}

violence without risk to my life."’ From this affair it is possible to realize that it is difficult to remedy such an occurence, whether it happens through sorcery or without it.
她受到骚扰，惊恐地起床。这种情况发生了好几次，最后，当被褥几乎被翻过来时，她通过视觉感知到自己正被恶魔的邪恶所骚扰，于是她放弃了床铺，整夜保持清醒。她想要祈祷，却受到恶魔的猛烈攻击。正如我所说，她以前从未遭受过这样的事情。早上她对另一个女人说：“我放弃你的惩罚，我放弃它。我几乎没有生命危险地逃脱了可怕的诱惑者的暴力。”从这件事中，我们可以意识到，无论是通过巫术还是非巫术发生的这种情况，都很难补救。

There are still other means by which these demons can perhaps be put to flight, and Nider speaks of them in his Ant Hill [5.10]. As he says there, girls and men can be freed with five methods: Sacramental Confession; the holy practice of making the Sign of the Cross or of saying the Hail Mary; third, the use of exorcisms; fourth, a change in a specific location; and

^{478}

cautious excommunication on the part of saintly men.

160 B ∣

It is clear from the foregoing that the first two methods did the nun no good, but they should not for this reason be neglected. It does not follow that just because a remedy helps one person, it helps another, and the converse.

^{479}

The historical record relates that incubi have often been warded off through the Lord’s Prayer or the sprinkling of Holy Water or the Hail Mary. Caesarius reports in his Dialogue [3.13] that after a certain priest hanged himself, his concubine entered a convent and was solicited for debauchery by an incubus. She warded him off through making the Sign of the Cross and sprinkling Holy Water, but he immediately returned. When she said the Hail Mary, however, he disappeared and withdrew far off like an arrow. Sometimes he returned, but he did not come close up to her.
还有其他方法或许可以驱赶这些恶魔，尼德在他的《蚁丘》[5.10]中提到了这些方法。正如他所说，女孩和男人可以通过五种方法获得自由：圣事忏悔；划十字或念《圣母经》的神圣实践；第三，使用驱魔仪式；第四，改变特定地点；以及

^{478}

圣洁之人谨慎地执行开除教籍。

160 B ∣

从上述内容可以明显看出，前两种方法对修女没有帮助，但不应因此忽视它们。不能因为一种疗法对一个人有效，就认为它对另一个人也有效，反之亦然。

^{479}

历史记录表明，通过念《主祷文》或洒圣水或念《圣母经》，常常可以驱赶梦魇。凯撒里乌斯在他的《对话录》[3.13]中报告说，某位牧师上吊自杀后，他的情妇进入修道院，并被梦魇引诱堕落。她通过划十字和洒圣水驱赶了他，但他立即返回。然而，当她念《圣母经》时，他消失了，像箭一样远远退去。有时他会回来，但不会靠近她。

The situation with the third

^{480}

remedy (Sacramental Confession) is also made clear by Caesarius, who says that after this concubine made a genuine confession, she was completely abandoned by the incubus. He also reports that a certain man in Lüttich who suffered from an 160 C incubus was completely freed at the end of Sacramental Confession.

^{48 I} ∣

关于第三种

^{480}

补救措施（圣事忏悔）的情况，Caesarius 也明确表示，在这个情妇进行真正的忏悔后，她完全被梦魇抛弃了。他还报告说，在吕蒂希有一位遭受 160℃梦魇折磨的男子，在圣事忏悔结束时完全得到了解脱。

^{48 I} ∣

In addition, he sets down an illustration concerning an incluse

^{482}

nun. Neither prayer nor confession nor any other spiritual practice could make an incubus leave her, whenever she climbed into her bed, but when she said, “Bless you,” by the instructions of a certain monk, the demon left her immediately.
此外，他记录了一个关于隐居修女

^{482}

的例证。无论是祈祷、忏悔还是其他任何灵修实践，都无法让附在她身上的梦魇离开，每当她上床睡觉时，但只要她按照某位僧侣的指示说“愿上帝保佑你”，恶魔便立刻离开了她。

Regarding the fourth (a change of place), he

^{483}

says [3.8] that when a certain priest’s daughter, who had been violated by an incubus and gone insane with grief, was dispatched across the Rhine, she was abandoned by the demon, but because he had sent his daughter from the place, her father was stricken by the demon, so that he died within three days. A certain woman is also mentioned who was frequently harassed in her own bed by an incubus.

^{884}

The harassed woman asked a devout acquaintance to lie in the bed in place of her. When the acquaintance did this, she felt certain very serious disturbances throughout the night and the other woman was peaceful.
关于第四点（地点的改变），他

^{483}

说[3.8]，当某位被梦魔侵犯并因悲伤而发疯的祭司的女儿被派遣过莱茵河时，她被恶魔抛弃了，但由于他送走了女儿，她的父亲被恶魔打击，以至于他在三天内去世。还提到了一位经常在自己的床上被梦魔骚扰的妇女

^{884}

。这位被骚扰的妇女请求一位虔诚的熟人代替她躺在床上。当这位熟人这样做时，她整夜感到非常严重的干扰，而另一位妇女则安然无恙。

William [Bees 2.3.25] also notes that incubi seem to harass woman and girls with beautiful hair more because such women pay more attention to caring for or grooming their hair or because it is their wish or habit to inflame men with their hair or because they vainly glory in it

∣

or because 160 D the goodness of God permits this so that women will be deterred from inflaming men by the means by which the demons too wish men to be inflamed.
威廉[Bees 2.3.25]还指出，梦魔似乎更频繁地骚扰那些拥有美丽头发的女性和女孩，这可能是因为这些女性更注重头发的护理和修饰，或者是因为她们希望或习惯用头发来挑逗男性，又或者是因为她们为此而虚荣自满

∣

，亦或是 160D 上帝的仁慈允许这种情况发生，以便女性能够通过恶魔同样希望男性被挑逗的手段来阻止男性被挑逗。

The situation regarding the fifth (excommunication, which perhaps is sometimes the same thing as exorcism) is made clear in the Legend

^{485}

of St. Bernard [Caesarius, Dialogue 3.7]. In Aquitaine,

^{486}

a certain woman who had been harassed by a demon for six years with incredibly perverse wantonness heard the incubus threatening her not to approach the saintly man, who was about to arrive. “It will do you no good,” he told her. “To the contrary, when he leaves, I, though until now your lover, will be your most cruel persecutor.” When she summoned St. Bernard, he answered, “Take my staff and affix it to your bed. Then, let the evil one do what he can.” After she did this, the demon dared not enter the woman’s room, but outside he kept threatening most savagely that he would persecute her when Bernard left. When he heard this from the woman, St. Bernard convened the whole populace, ordering them all to
关于第五种情况（绝罚，有时可能与驱魔相同）的说明在圣伯纳德的传说

^{485}

[凯撒里乌斯，《对话录》3.7]中有所阐述。在阿基坦，

^{486}

一位被恶魔骚扰了六年的妇女，经历了极其反常的放荡行为，听到恶魔威胁她不要接近即将到来的圣人。“这对你没有任何好处，”他告诉她。“相反，当他离开时，我，虽然直到现在还是你的情人，将成为你最残酷的迫害者。”当她召唤圣伯纳德时，他回答说：“拿着我的杖，把它固定在你的床上。然后，让那恶者做他所能做的。”在她这样做之后，恶魔不敢进入妇女的房间，但在外面他仍然非常野蛮地威胁说，当伯纳德离开时，他会迫害她。当圣伯纳德从妇女那里听到这个消息时，他召集了全体民众，命令他们所有人

carry lit candles in their hands. Together with the entire crowd that was 16IA present he excommunicated the demon and | forbade him to approach her or any other woman afterwards. In this way she was completely freed.
手中拿着点燃的蜡烛。与在场的整个 16IA 人群一起，他将恶魔驱逐，并禁止他之后接近她或任何其他女性。就这样，她完全得到了解脱。

At this point, it should be noted that, because the Power of the Keys

^{487}

granted to Peter and his successors is described as “over the earth” and “only on behalf of the wayfarers

^{488}

in this life,” the power of this jurisdiction has been granted for the purpose of healing the Church. It seems miraculous that even the powers of the air can be warded off by this jurisdiction,

^{489}

but it can be said that because persons who are being harassed by demons are under the jurisdiction of the Pope and of the Keys, it is not miraculous if such powers are indirectly held at bay by the strength of the Keys, just as the Pope can also indirectly absolve souls of the penalties of purgatory’s fires by the Power of the Keys, despite the fact that that power is described as “over the earth” and the souls are under the earth. It is also not safe to dispute about the Power of the Keys granted to the Head of the Church, that is, to the Vicar of Christ, since it is known that Christ granted as much power to the Church and His Vicar as God could grant to a mere human (the reason

for this is to benefit the Church).

^{490}

It can also be piously surmised that if forms of sickness inflicted by sorceresses through the ability of demons were excommunicated along with the sorceresses responsible and the demons, | they would not act so savagely against the sick, and that the sick would be freed more quickly if the other lawful forms of exorcism for this and other things were applied. In the area of the River Etsch,

^{491}

as well as in other places, there is a popular story that by God’s permission locusts flying in huge numbers were eating the vineyards, foliage and crops and all the plants down to the ground, and they were made to depart and suddenly killed by such an excommunication and curse. If someone wishes to ascribe this to the virtue of a man rendered saintly and not to the virtue of the Keys, be it so in the name of the Lord. The one thing that we consider certain is that neither the virtue of miracles nor the Power of the Keys necessarily presupposes the Grace that makes a person gratifying to God, since both derive from Grace graciously given.

^{492}

Again, it should be noted that when none of the remedies mentioned above helps, recourse should be had to lawful forms of exorcism (there will be an explanation of these below).

^{493}

But if these are not sufficient to put the demon’s evil to flight, then this harassment

on the demon’s part is in fact a penalty in satisfaction

^{494}

of a sin, if, as is necessary, the harassment is endured in charity,

^{495}

just like the other

_{16}

IC evils of this world, which oppress us in such a way

∣

as to force us to go to God.

It should also be noted that sometimes certain women are not in reality harassed by an incubus but only think that they are being harassed in this way (this is particularly the case with woman and not men, because in other respects women are more fearful and susceptible to miraculous forms in the imagination). Hence William (often cited) says [Bees 2.3.24], “It is the case with many people that many of the apparitions of the fantasy happen as a result of a melancholic

^{496}

disease. This happens to women especially, which also appears to be the case with visions and revelations. The reason for this is, as physicians know, the very nature of female souls, because their souls are more susceptible to lighter impression than are men’s.” He adds (same place), “I know that I have seen a woman who believed that she was being known from inside by the Devil and said she felt other unbelievable things. Occasionally women also imagine themselves to be pregnant from incubi, and their bellies swell up greatly. When the birthing time arrives, they deflate through the mere expulsion of a great deal of windiness. For ants’ eggs,
16ID when ingested in drink, | cause unbelievable windiness and upset in human stomachs. Similar results are caused in the stomach by spurge berries

^{497}

and the berries of the tree called the black pine.

^{498}

It is very easy for a demon to cause similar and greater effects in the stomachs of humans.”

This discussion has been added so that no one will very readily place credence in what womenfolk say but only about events to which experimenta have lent credibility, like those about whom they

^{499}

have learned

through experience, in their own beds or as sleep companions in some other way,

^{500}

that such things are true.

^{501}

[Note on Sources
Major identified source for Ch. i:
Nider, Ant Hill 5.Io]

REMEDIES FOR THOSE WHO ARE AFFECTED WITH SORCERY IN THE POWER OF PROCREATION

Chapter Two

WHILE women are sorcerers in greater numbers than men, as was shown in Part One

^{502}

of the work, men are more often affected by sorcery. The reason for this is the following. God gives more permission about the sexual act, through which the first sin is spread, than about the other human acts, in the same way that He also does through snakes, which better serve the purposes of enchantments than do other animals, because the snake is the first tool of the Devil. Furthermore, the sexual act can be affected by sorcery to a greater degree and more easily

∣

in the 162 A case of a man than that of a woman. Hence, the proposition is proven.

Indeed, what was discussed is obvious. Since the demon can act on the power of procreation by five methods and these methods are brought about more quickly in men, the remedies to be applied against each should be described according to their feasibility. A man who has been made faulty in this power should note under which method the sorcery affecting him is listed.

There are five methods according to Peter de Palude in his Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 34 (“On the procedure for this sorcery”). As a result of his being a spirit, the demon has power over a bodily creature with God’s permission, and especially over movement in location as a result of the condition of his nature, so that he blocks or promotes that motion. Hence, through this power he can impede the bodies of a man and woman from approaching each other, either directly or indirectly. He does so directly when he removes one from the other or does not

allow the one to approach the other, and indirectly when he creates some impediment or when he places himself in between them in an assumed body. This happened to a pagan youth, who had betrothed himself to an idol and nonetheless

∣

contracted a marriage with a young woman. Because of this he was unable to know her, as was explained above.

^{503}

The second method is when he inflames a man with yearning for one woman and makes him frigid

^{504}

about another. He could cause this secretly through the application of certain plants and other things that he knows very well to be effective at this. The third method is when he throws a man’s or a woman’s faculty of estimation into confusion, thereby rendering one person hateful to the other, because, as was explained above in Part One

^{505}

of the work, he can make an impression on the imagination. The fourth method is to repress the hardness of the member that is necessarily required for fruitfulness. The fifth method is to impede the sending of spirits to the organs in which the virtue of moving resides, as if cutting off the seed’s paths to prevent it from descending to the vessels of procreation or being extracted or ejected.

^{506}

If someone says, “I don’t know by which method the sorcery inflicted on me is categorized. What I do know is that I lack the power of procreation with respect to my wife,” the following response can be given. If he is potent towards other women but not his wife, then it is categorized under the second method,

∣

since he would be made certain of the first method by a succubus demon, that is, that he was being deceived by incubus and succubus demons.

^{507}

If he does not consider his wife hateful and yet cannot know her while being perfectly capable of knowing other women, then once again it is categorized under the second method. If he considers her hateful and cannot know her, then it is categorized under the second and the third method. If he does not consider her hateful but does not have the strength of the member

^{508}

even though he would like to know her, then it is categorized under the fourth method. If he has the strength of the member but is incapable of emitting seed, then it is categorized under the fifth.

The method of healing will be made clear when it is explained whether these methods of sorcery can affect those in and those out of Charity equally. In fact, with the exception of the fourth method, which can happen very rarely to someone who is in a State of Grace and Charity,

^{509}

they cannot, which is explained as follows. (The reader should make the presumption that we are speaking of the conjugal act between a married couple, because otherwise the implication would be different,

^{so}

since every sexual act outside of marriage is a mortal sin and is practiced only by those who are outside of Charity.) On the basis | 162D of the tradition of all Holy Scripture, it must be asserted that demons are given more permission by God to act savagely against sinners than against the righteous (one reads that Job, a most righteous man, was stricken, but this did not take place exclusively in terms of the power of procreation or even directly on it),

^{II}

and therefore it should be said that when any married couples happen to be affected by such acts of sorcery, it is a sign that either both persons or one of them is outside of Charity.

In fact, the basis for this is derived from the Scriptures both by authority and by reason. For the angel said to Tobias, “The demon receives power over those who devote themselves to lust” [Tobias 6:17], and the effect demonstrated the truth of this, since he had killed the seven husbands of the virgin Sarah [Tobias 3:8].

^{512}

Likewise, Cassian in his Conference with the Fathers [8:19]: “St. Anthony declares that in no way can the demon assault someone’s mind or body unless he first deprives it of all saintly thoughts and renders it empty and bereft of spiritual contemplation.” These words clearly can be applied to bodily sorcery affecting the entire body totally, since Job was not bereft of God’s Grace, though he was stricken with such sorcery, but they can be applied to specific circumstances,

∣

that is, when a specific act of sorcery befalls 163 A the body because of some

\sin

(in fact this can only be the sin of sexual immorality).

^{513}

Reason.

^{544}

As has been stated, because of the foulness of that act and because the First Sin

^{515}

was spread through it, God gives more permission with reference to this than the other human acts. Accordingly, even in a married couple, when they are bereft of God’s help because of

\sin

, He gives more permission for them to be affected by sorcery in connection with the power of procreation. If someone asks what sort of sins these are, it can be said that since the sins of sexual immorality that exist among married people are various according to a passage of Jerome [Against Jovinianus 1.49] (it is stated in the text, “One who is an overly ardent lover of his own wife is an adulterer”), and since lovers of this kind are more often affected by sorcery in the areas mentioned above, the Church has two sorts of remedies. One procedure is followed in the forum of the law, the other in the forum of the conscience.

The former. If it is claimed in court that impotence had been inflicted through sorcery, then a distinction is to be made on the basis of whether such impotence is temporary or permanent. If temporary, it forms no

_{1} 63 B

impediment, and it is presumed to be temporary in a situation where

∣

a couple, who are living together and making an effort

^{516}

to the best of their abilities, can be healed within the space of three years, either through the Sacraments of the Church or through other remedies. If, on the other hand, they are not healed with any remedy, the impotence is henceforth judged to be permanent.

^{517}

This impediment either precedes the contraction and consummation of the marriage, in which case it impedes the contraction and dissolves the marriage once it is contracted, or it follows the contraction but not the consummation of the marriage, which is a common method of affecting men with sorcery when they reject their girlfriends. In this instance, girlfriends, who have been rejected as partners in marriage and cheated, inflict acts of sorcery on the men so that they cannot couple with other women.

^{518}

In such a case, as some say, the impediment dissolves a marriage already contracted unless the couple wish to live together in sexual abstinence, as did Mary and Joseph.

^{19}

Such people have the Canon on their side.

For it says (33, Q. I [Decretum 2.33.I. Part I §I]) that a marriage is consummated by the duty (that is, “of the flesh”) as the gloss says. A little bit later it says that before consummation the impossibility of performing the duty dissolves the bond of marriage, but if it follows the consummation of the marriage, it does not dissolve the matrimonial bond.

Many other | notes are made by the Doctors. Since these are not 163 C specifically relevant to the present investigation and are noted in various writings of the Doctors where they treat the impediment caused by sorcery, this material should be omitted here. If, however, someone raises the difficulty about the way in which that act can be impeded in respect to one woman and not another, Bonaventure answers [Sent. 4.34.2.2.Ra4], “This is either because the fortune-teller

^{200}

summoned the Devil for this in respect to a specified person or because God does not give His permission for an impediment in respect to just any person. In this case, there is an underlying hidden judgment of God, as in the case of the wife of Tobias.” How the Devil could do this is clear from the foregoing. Bonaventure says at this point, that he impedes the power of procreation not by harming the organ with an internal impediment but by impeding the use of it with an external impediment (such an impediment is caused not by nature but by art, and in this way he can make an impediment in connection with one woman and not the others) or by taking away the excitement of lustful desire towards that woman or another through his own virtue or through a plant or stone or some hidden nature. In this Bonaventure is in reasonable agreement with the words of Peter.

The remedy of the Church in the forum of the conscience is related in 33, |Q. 7 “Si per sortiarias”: “If through the arts of magicians or sorcerers 163D sexual intercourse sometimes does not ensue through the permission of God’s hidden and just judgment and through the preparations of the Devil, those to whom such things happen should be urged to make a genuine confession of all their sins to God and a priest with a contrite heart and a humbled spirit, and to make satisfaction to the Lord with plentiful tears, generous alms-giving, prayers and fastings.” In these words it is noted that such things happen only because of sins and only to those outside of the state of Charity. The text continues, “The ministers of the Church should bring about a cure through the exorcisms and the other sorts of protection offered by the Church’s medicine, to the extent
granted by the Lord, Who healed Abimelech and his house through the prayers of Abraham.”

^{21}

Hence, we can say in summation that there are five remedies that can be lawfully used on people affected by sorcery in this way: pilgrimage to the shrines of Saints; confessing one’s sins there with true contrition; repetition of the Sign of the Cross and of devout prayer; lawful use 164 A of exorcism through sober words (how this is done

∣

will be explained below);

^{522}

and the cautious removal of the device for sorcery (relevant to this is the previous discussion about the count who had been unable to know the virgin he had married for three years).

^{523}

[Note on Sources
Major identified source for Ch. 2:
Nider, Ant Hill 5.5]

REMEDIES FOR PEOPLE AFFECTED BY SORCERY IN TERMS OF IRREGULAR LOVE OR HATRED

Chapter Three

LIKE sorcery in the power of procreation, infatuation and hatred are caused in the will. It is a good idea to trace, first, its cause and, then, the remedies for it, to the extent that this is possible.

Infatuation or irregular love on the part of one sex towards the other can arise from three causes: sometimes merely from incautious looking, sometimes only from a temptation made by demons, and sometimes from the sorcery of nigromantics and sorceresses together with demons.

Regarding the first, it says in James

I [: 14 - 15]

, “Every single person is tempted, being led astray and enticed by his lustful desiring. Then, when his lustful desiring has conceived, it gives birth to sin. When the sin is consummated, it begets death.” In this way, after Sichem saw Dinah as 164 B she was going out to visit the women of the area, | he fell in love with her, seized her and slept with her, his soul becoming glued to her (Gen.

34 [: 4]

). According to the gloss, "This is what happens to a sick soul when it places less importance on its own affairs and looks after another’s. It is

led astray by habit and in single unity an agreement with unlawful acts is made."

The second cause arises from temptation originally made by demons. In this way, Ammon fell in love with his very beautiful sister Tamar and became so completely besotted with her that he grew sick because of his love for her (2 Chron.

13 [: I - 2]

). He could not have been so entirely corrupted in his mind as to rush into the very great crime that is incest if he had not been severely tempted by the Devil. The Book of the Saintly Fathers is also full of stories of this kind of love. It reports that certain Fathers who had removed every temptation towards carnal love from themselves in the wilderness were still sometimes tempted more than can be believed by the love of women. Hence, in 2 Cor.

12 [: 7]

the Apostle says, “I have been given a goad for my flesh, the angel of Satan, who is to thrash me.” Here, the gloss says, “‘Through temptation by lust was the goad given,’ as some say. But temptation to which assent is not given is not a sin but an opportunity

/

for practicing virtue.” This is understood 164 C in terms of temptation from the Devil and not from the flesh, which is a venial sin even if agreement is not given to it. It is possible to read assorted illustrations about these topics in various sources.

As for the third (that love felt for a mistress derives from acts of sorcery on the part of demons and sorceresses), the possibility of this is treated at length above in the questions of Part One (“Whether demons are able to change or incite minds of humans toward love or hatred”).

^{224}

It is also proven through various deeds and events discovered by us. Indeed, among all the varieties of sorcery it is considered very great

^{525}

because of its frequency.

If it is asked, “Peter is infatuated with love for Such-and-Such and so on, but it isn’t known whether this is through the first, second or third method,” the response is that the working of demons can create hatred between spouses along with the crime of adultery, but in situations when someone is so ensnared in and inflamed with the venom of carnal love that no shaming, blows, words or actions can force him to stop, when someone often sends away a beautiful wife and clings to a very ugly woman, and when they cannot even sleep during the night-time | 164D but are so deranged that they have to walk through every trackless area (noblemen, prelates and other rich men are very often tangled up in

such wretched affairs), this is certainly the “womanly time” about which Hildegard foretold, as Vincent reports in the Mirror of History [3ı.1o8], that it would not last as long as it has.

^{526}

For it has subsisted down to the present time, since the world is now full of adultery, especially among the noblemen. And what a task it is to write about remedies for those who shun remedies! Yet, in order to satisfy the pious reader, let us discuss some of them briefly.

As for infatuation without sorcery, Avicenna lays out seven remedies

^{527}

for the situation where it makes a person sick, but this is not especially germane to our investigation except to the extent that these remedies are mystically useful for a faint soul. He says in Bk.

3^{528}

that on the basis of variation in the pulse when the beloved is named, which is where the root of the sickness lies, there should be union in marriage, if the law allows, because they are cured when nature is complied with. Or medicines that he describes and teaches about in that passage should be applied. Or the sick man should use lawful means to turn his attachment from what he loves to loving something that he ought to prefer to it. In this way, he will shun the presence of what he loves, since | his mind is distracted. Or if he is susceptible of correction, he should also be made miserable, it being impressed upon him that the work of love is the height of wretchedness. Or people should be sent to him to vilify the beloved’s body, character and habits as far as the truth and God allow, transforming the beloved’s appearance into something base or ugly. Or, finally, the infatuated should at least be kept busy with difficult tasks or distracting duties.

In truth, while the animal man is healed through remedies of this kind, they reform the inner man (each being interpreted individually in a spiritual sense).

^{529}

Let the law of the mind be obeyed rather than that of nature. Let him turn his affection to eternal pleasures. Let him remember how transient his delights are and how eternal his torments. Let him seek pleasures in that life where they begin without having any

ending. The man who refuses to love that life will lose it and not find it, being consigned to the eternal flames. Here are the three losses that result from the love felt for a mistress!

As for infatuation that results from sorcery, in this instance too it is not inappropriate to apply the remedies discussed in the preceding chapter, especially exorcism through Holy Words, which | the person 165 B affected by sorcery can use on himself in the following way. Every day he should summon the holy angel delegated by God to protect him, and with genuine confession he should make frequent visits to the shrines of the Saints, especially those of the Most Blessed Virgin. Without a doubt he will be freed. How reprehensible it is that men with beards

^{530}

should decline to protect themselves, casting aside the gifts of nature and the weapons of the virtues! For it is very often the case that little girls have used these weapons to repel acts of sorcery of this kind with invincible infirmity. In commendation of these girls, let us bring forward one of many illustrations.

In a certain country village near Lindau in the diocese of Constance, there was a grown-up virgin who had a beautiful face and a refined character. Captivated at the sight of her, a certain man, who was unreliable in character and virtually in name alone a cleric (would that he were not a priest!), was unable to conceal the wound suffered by his mind any further and went to the workplace of this virgin. First presenting himself with respectable words through the demon’s snares, he finally dared an attempt to cajole (only with words) the virgin’s spirit into loving him. Perceiving this at God’s instigation, she kept her mind and body unharmed and answered manfully, “My lord, do not visit my home with such words. | Otherwise, you will meet with rejection when modesty 165 C intervenes.” To this he said, “You may decline to cherish me now when advised to with sweet words, but not long from now you will love me under the compulsion of works, I promise you.” This infamous man was suspected of being an enchanter and of practicing sorcery, but the virgin considered these words to be hot air. At that time she felt within her not even a spark of carnal love for the man, but after the passage of a short time she began to have erotic imaginings about him. Perceiving this, she fled through God’s inspiration to the Mother of Mercy

^{531}

and besought her most devoutly to get help from her Son. Immediately, she sought respectable company and began a pilgrimage to The

Hermitage

^{532}

(such being the name of a church in this diocese that is dedicated in honor of the Miraculous Mother). There she made Sacramental Confession so that the evil spirit would not be able to make any discovery in her, and after she poured forth prayers to the Mother of Piety, every contrivance of the Foe

^{533}

instantly stopped and he never touched her again.

Yet, there still remain bearded men who are importunately proposi-
165D tioned by sorceress womenfolk|about such things, as if these men could in no way restrain themselves from being infatuated with them. But however much they may feel themselves being assailed without provocation through the allurements of the imagination, when they resist like men, the use of the means of protection discussed above allows them to overcome all the Devil’s stratagems.

Here is a true reflection of this battle. There was a very rich young man in the town of Innsbruck, and no one could even describe in writing the extent to which he was assailed by sorceresses. Yet, he always maintained a manly spirit and escaped unharmed through the remedies mentioned above. Hence, it is just to reach the conclusion that the remedies mentioned above are a very sure protection against a disease of this kind, so that whoever uses these weapons will most certainly be freed.

What is understood about irregular love should also be understood about hatred, since the doctrine about opposites is the same,

^{534}

but since there is some difference in the manner of inflicting the sorcery, the person who is hated ought to require a different remedy. If he is an adulterer, the man who feels the hatred and carries it in his heart cannot be readily returned to feeling love for his wife, even through pilgrimages.

It has been discovered through the accounts of sorceresses that the acts 166A of sorcery that cause hatred |are brought about by means of snakes. Since the snake was the first tool of the Devil and as a curse on it received the enmity between it and woman, sorceresses constantly contrive to bring about such enmities with snakes by placing the skin or the head of a snake under the threshold of the doorway to a room or the house. For this reason, with reference to their own dwellings or instances when they live in someone else’s house, all the corners of the house should be thoroughly examined and restored as far as is possible.

^{535}

When it was said that people affected by sorcery are able to exorcize themselves,

^{536}

it is certainly understood that they can carry Holy Words, blessings and chants with them on their necks if they do not in fact know how to read or to bless themselves. How these acts are to be carried out will be explained in the following.

[Note on Sources

Major identified sources for Ch. 3:
Nider, Ant Hill 5.5, 6]

REMEDIES FOR THOSE FROM WHOM THE MALE MEMBER HAS BEEN REMOVED THROUGH THE MAGICAL ART AND FOR THE INSTANCES WHEN HUMANS ARE TRANSFORMED INTO ANIMALS

Chapter Four

AS FOR ThOSE UPON whom an illusion is played by the art of conjuring, so that they think that they lack the male member or have been transformed into animals, | the remedies by which they can be helped 166B can be deduced quite evidently from the foregoing.

^{57}

Since such people are altogether deprived of God’s Grace, this being the initial element that lays the foundation in the case of those affected by sorcery, it is not possible for a healing balm to be applied while the weapon remains in the wound. Hence, it is a good idea that above all a reconciliation with God should be effected through true confession.

Next, as was discussed above in Chapter Seven

^{538}

of Part One

^{539}

of the work, such appendages are never in reality torn or separated from the body but are merely hidden with reference to the senses of touch and sight through art of conjuring, and it was also explained that illusions of this kind are not readily played on those in a state of Grace, either in an active or a passive way,

^{500}

so that the appendages would be taken away from them or they would be deluded in their power of sight as if the members had been taken away from others. Therefore, the remedy is

also stated in that chapter along with the disease itself: as far as possible they should reach a friendly settlement with the sorceress.

^{541}

Finally, regarding those who think that they have been transformed into animals, it should be known that this sort of sorcery is not practiced in the kingdoms of the West in the same way that it is in those of the East.

^{542}

(Understand “in terms of other people,” though in terms of the sorceresses’ own person |it has been seen quite often among us

^{543}

that the sorceresses have showed themselves to the eyes of viewers in the guise of animals, as was concluded above in Chapter Eight,

^{544}

and hence the remedies that will be related in Part Three of the work, which concerns the eradication of the sorceresses through the secular arm, would also be applicable.)

How Easterners remedy such illusions is explained as follows. We have learned many things about these remedies through accurate accounts told by military friars of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Rhodes,

^{545}

and in particular the following event took place in the city of Famagusta in the Kingdom of Cyprus.

^{546}

There is a port there, and when a certain ship that was laden with commercial goods put in, foreigners debarked from the ship so that the individual travelers could supply themselves with provisions.

^{547}

One of these was a hearty young man, who approached the house of a woman that was situated above the shore outside the city and asked the woman if she had eggs for sale. The woman saw that the hearty young man was a merchant from abroad, which meant that his disappearance would cause less suspicion among the locals. She said, "Wait a moment and you will get everything you

desire." | Locked inside the house, she caused a delay, and the young 166D man began to shout from the outside that she should finish his business as soon as possible to avoid making him miss his ship. Some

^{548}

woman then brought some eggs and gave them to the young man, telling him to return to her if he missed the ship. He hurried off at a quick run to the ship, which was on the shore, and before embarking, he undertook to eat the eggs

^{549}

and refresh himself since his fellow passengers had not yet arrived. An hour later he all of a sudden became mute and virtually senseless, as he himself would later relate. Wondering what had happened to him, he could not make a guess. When he then tried to go on board, the people who were waiting there beat him off with walking sticks. They all shouted, “Look, look! What’s up with the donkey? Curse you, beast! You don’t think you’re going on board, too, do you?” He was driven off in this way, and since he understood the words of the people, who stated that he was a donkey, the young man mulled the matter over. He began to think that he had been tainted with sorcery at the hands of the woman, particularly in light of the fact that he could not form a word, though he could understand everyone else. When he again tried to embark upon the ship, | he was pummeled with heavier blows, and with a bitter heart he had to stay behind and watch the ship depart. As he ran this way and that, he was necessarily treated by everyone as an animal, since everyone viewed him in their estimation as a donkey. Under compulsion, therefore, he returned to the house of the woman, and he served at her beck and call for more than three years to maintain his life. Doing no work with his hands apart from carrying the household necessities consisting of wood and wheat, he also carried the things that had to be carted off like a beast of burden. The only consolation left to him was that while everyone else considered him a domestic animal, the sorceresses, whether gathered as a group or individually, recognized him as a true human when he behaved like a human in his walk, bearing and deportment.

If it is asked how the burdens were placed on him as if on a beast of burden, it should be said that our judgment about this occurrence is clearly based on the stories that Augustine relates about the tavern women who turned their customers into beasts of burden (City of God, Bk. 18, Ch. 17) and about the father of Praestantius, who related that he

had been a nag (horse) 550 and had hauled grain with the other animals.

^{551}

Hence, three sorts of illusion were played through the art of conjuring. 167B First, in terms of

∣

the humans seeing the young man not as a human but as a donkey, there was an explanation above in Chapter Eight

^{552}

about how demons can easily cause this. Second, these burdens were not an illusion. Instead, when they surpassed the young man’s strength, the demon would carry them invisibly. Third, when the young man interacted with other people, he seemed to himself to be a domestic animal, but only in his imagination and faculty of estimation, which are attached to bodily organs, and not in his reason, which was not hobbled by God so that he would not understand that he was a human. Instead, the art of conjuring played a trick, so that he was considered to be an animal in his estimation according to the explanation about Nebuchadnezzar in that passage. 53

Three years passed in this manner, then one day in the fourth year, he entered the city before noon while the woman was following far off, and it happened that the young man affected by sorcery in this way passed a church in which Divine Service was being celebrated. Hearing the bell (Divine Service is carried out in that kingdom by the Latin rite and not the Greek),

^{544}

he turned toward the church for the Elevation of the Body of Christ. Not daring to enter for fear of being driven off with blows, on the outside he placed his rear knees and lower legs on the ground,

_{167 C} ∣

and joining together his front feet, that is, his hands, he raised them up, viewing the Sacrament at the point of the Elevation from what was thought to be a donkey’s head. When certain merchants from Genoa saw this wonder in astonishment, they followed the donkey. While they were discussing the miraculous work among themselves, lo and behold the sorceress was driving the donkey along with a staff. Because, as has already been stated, acts of sorcery of this kind are very often practiced in those regions, at the insistence of the merchants the donkey was taken into custody along with the sorceress. After being interrogated and exposed to questioning under torture, she confessed the crime and promised that she would restore the youth to his own form so that he

could return home. Upon release, she returned home and the young man was restored to his original form. Arrested again, the sorceress paid the due punishment for the crimes she had committed, and the youth returned home in joy.

REMEDIES FOR THOSE UNDER SIEGE AS A RESULT OF SORCERY

Chapter Five

THERE was sufficient explanation above (Chapters Nine and Ten)

^{555}

about how demons sometimes inhabit humans in substance, and about the reasons why this happens: not only for one’s own serious crimes | but sometimes for one’s own greater merit or for someone else’s insignificant misdemeanor or for one’s own venial sin or for someone else’s serious sin or for someone else’s own

^{566}

crime. For these reasons different people are possessed in different ways, some to a greater degree, others less, as Nider recounts in his Ant Hill [5.II]. It is no wonder if, through sorcery or at the insistence of a sorceress, a demon, with God’s permission, inhabits a human in substance in the manner explained there (which should be taken to mean “in substance”). The illustrations cited there and the freeing of the priest from Bohemia have demonstrated the remedies by which they can be freed, that is, through the exorcisms of the Church and also by true contrition (confession) in a situation where someone had been assailed for a mortal sin. It is also explained in Nider’s discussion that in addition to these two remedies three others (Holy Communion in the Eucharist, visiting holy places and the prayers of good men, and absolution from excommunication) also are able to lend assistance. It is good idea to cite this discussion too, since not everyone has access to the necessary treatises.

Cassian (First Conference, on the Abbot [7.30]) says the following about Holy Communion. "We have no recollection that Sacrosanct Communion handed over to spirits of evil was forbidden by our elders.

^{557}

168A | Rather, they even thought that if possible, it should be given to them every day since it is necessary to believe that it serves the purpose of cleansing and protecting the body and spirit. When taken by a person, it burns with a certain fire the spirit that is lying in wait in his limbs or trying to lurk in them and puts that spirit to flight. This is how we recently saw Abbot Andronicus healed. The spirit will leap at the person offended, 58 when he sees that that person has been removed from God’s medicine. For the further away he perceives him to be removed from the spiritual remedy, the more harshly and frequently will he attempt to afflict him."

Again, he says of these remedies in the same passage, “Here there should be unshakeable belief in two things. First, no one at all can be tempted by these spirits without God’s permission. Second, everything imposed upon us by God, whether it seems grim or joyous, is inflicted for our benefit as if by a most pious father or a most merciful physician. Therefore as if handed over to school teachers, these people are being humbled so that when they leave this world, they will be either transferred to the other life in a more cleansed state or punished with penal rigor. According to the Apostle, they have been handed over to Satan in the present life | for the death of the flesh, so that their spirits will be saved on the day of Our Lord, Jesus Christ [i Cor. 5:4-5].”

At this point, a doubt arises. When the Apostle says, “Let man test himself and in this way eat of that bread” [I Cor. II:28], how can those under assault take Communion when they do not have use of their reason? St. Thomas gave the answer to this in Third Part, Quest. 80 [Summa 3.80.9], making the following distinction about all those who are out of their minds. "There are two ways in which people are said not to have use of their reason. In one way, they have a feeble use of their reason, and in this way someone who sees poorly is said to be unseeing. Because such people can conceive some devotion for this Sacrament, it should not be denied to them. In the other way, some who are said not to have use of their reason have been in this state continually since birth, and this Sacrament should not be given to such people, because the devotion to this Sacrament has made no progress at all in them. Others have not always lacked the use of reason, and in that case if devotion for this Sacrament was evident in them in the earlier period when they were

in control of their minds, it ought to be given to them at the moment of death, unless there happens to be some fear that they may throw it up or spit it out. Hence, one reads from the Acts of the Council of Carthage (this is contained in 26, Q. 6, [Decretum 2.26.6.8]), ‘If someone seeks repentance during illness, and it happens that while the priest who has been summoned

∣

is coming, the person has been overwhelmed by the illness so that he becomes mute or goes insane, let those who heard him bear witness, and if it is thought that he will promptly die, let him be reconciled through the laying on of hands and let the Eucharist be poured into his mouth.’ The same principle applies to baptized people who are being harassed bodily by unclean spirits and to others who are out of their minds."

He adds in Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 9 [Sent. 4.9.I.5c.Ra2] that Communion should not be denied to those possessed by demons unless it happens to be certain that they are being tormented by the Devil for some crime. To this Petrus de Palude adds [Sent. 4.9.4.2] the following. “In this case, they should be considered as people to be excommunicated, who have been handed over to Satan.”

From these statements it is clear that if some people are possessed by demons, even because of their own crimes, but, during intervals of sanity when they have use of their reason, they are converted from their sins or make due confession, then, since such people have been absolved before God, they should in no way be held back from Communion in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

As for visiting saintly men or their devout prayers, the lives of the Saints are filled with examples of how people under assault are in fact powerfully freed by these means. For the merits of the saintly martyrs, confessors and virgins dictate the conquest of these evil spirits through the prayers and intercession of the Saints in their Heavenly Homeland, | since the Saints conquered them on their spiritual journey on earth.

It is likewise read that the devout prayers of such wayfarers

^{59}

on earth have often obtained the liberation of those under assault. Hence, Cassian (cited above) urges this: “If we hold this pronouncement, or rather faith, as described by me above, that everything is in fact done by the Lord for the benefit of souls and that all things are arranged for this, not only would we not despise these people at all but we would pray for them without stop as if for our own limbs and have sympathy for them with all our hearts and all our feeling.”

As for the last way (absolving someone of excommunication), it should be known that this is neither common nor perhaps lawful except for someone who has authority and a special revelation or a reasonable presumption to the effect that someone is possessed because of the Church’s excommunication, just as the Apostle (I Cor. 5) handed over the Corinthian fornicator, who had been excommunicated by himself and the congregation, to Satan for the death of his flesh, so that his spirit would be saved on the day of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, that is, as the gloss says, until his illumination through the Grace of Contrition or until his judgment. He also handed over to Satan the pseudodoctors (Hymenaeus and Alexander) who had lost the Faith, so that
P says the gloss, “possessed such power and had such Grace that he could hand over to the Devil by word alone those who deviated from the Faith.”

Hence, in Commentary on Pronouncements, Dist. I8 [4.18.2.Ib.Ra3], where St. Thomas relates the three results of excommunication, the Doctor explains them as follows. "By the very fact that someone is deprived of the assistance provided by the Church, he suffers three sorts of harm because of the three things that someone achieves through the assistance provided by the Church. These things can increase Grace for those who have it or to earn it for those who do not. With reference to this, the Master

^{561}

says that Grace is withdrawn through excommunication. These things can also guard virtue, and with reference to this, the Master says that protection is withdrawn not because they are completely excluded from God’s providence, but because they are excluded from the providence that guards the sons of the Church more specifically. It is also able to defend them against the Foe.

^{562}

In reference to this, he says that greater power is granted to the Devil to act with savagery against him, both in body and in spirit. This is why in the time of the primitive Church,

^{563}

when it was necessary to attract people to the Church through signs, the Holy Spirit became manifest through a visible sign. Thus, the excommunicate was marked out by the Devil through bodily

harassment. It is also not inappropriate if the person who is not hopeless is given to the Foe, | because he is not being given for damnation but for 169 B correction, since it is in the power of the Church to save him from the Devil’s hand when it wants to."
骚扰。如果将一个并非无望的人交给敌人，也并非不恰当，| 因为这不是为了让他受诅咒，而是为了 169 B 的纠正，因为教会有能力在愿意时将他从魔鬼的手中拯救出来。

If the exorcist absolves the person under assault conditionally,

^{564}

this does not seem inappropriate, but Nider goes on to say that the exorcist should take strong precautions against readily making presumptions about his powers or mixing a joke or game into the serious work of God or adding something superstitious or suspected of sorcery. Otherwise, he will hardly escape punishment, as is explained by illustrations.
如果驱魔师有条件地赦免被攻击的人，

^{564}

这似乎并不不妥，但尼德继续表示，驱魔师应严格防范轻易对自己的能力做出假设，或将玩笑或游戏混入上帝严肃的工作中，或添加一些迷信或疑似巫术的内容。否则，他将难以逃脱惩罚，正如例证所解释的那样。

Regarding the first, St. Gregory has a story (Dialogues, Bk. i [1.Io.2]) about a certain woman who contrary to her conscience asked for and received from her husband the repayment of the conjugal debt during the vigil of the dedication of the Church of St. Sebastian.

^{565}

Because she joined in the procession of the church contrary to her conscience, she was possessed and went insane in public. At the sight of this, the priest of the church took the cloth from the altar and covered her with it. The Devil at once attacked the priest, and because the priest wished to usurp something beyond his powers, he was forced in his harassment to recognize what he was.

^{566}

As for the second point (that no one should make a joke about the office of being an exorcist, which concerns a Holy Order), |Nider reports 169C that he saw in the convent

^{567}

of Cologne a friar who was fairly jocular in speaking but famous for the Grace of driving out demons. When this brother was constraining a demon in a body under assault within the monastery, the demon asked the brother where he should go. The brother rejoiced at this and as a joke said, “Go into my latrine!” The demon then departed. At night, when the brother wished to empty his bowels, the demon tormented him so savagely by the latrine, that it was only with difficulty that the friar saved his life.
至于第二点（即任何人都不应拿驱魔师这一神圣职务开玩笑），|Nider 在 169C 报告中提到，他在科隆的修道院

^{567}

里见过一位修士，这位修士言谈颇为诙谐，但以驱除恶魔的恩典而闻名。当这位修士在修道院内压制一个被附身的人体内的恶魔时，恶魔问修士它该去哪里。修士对此感到高兴，便开玩笑地说：“去我的厕所吧！”恶魔随即离去。到了晚上，当修士想要排便时，恶魔在厕所里如此凶猛地折磨他，以至于修士差点丧命。

In addition, particular precautions should be taken to ensure that those under assault through sorceresses are not led to seek the protection of sorceresses. Hence, Gregory adds the following about the woman mentioned before.

^{568}

"Her relatives, who loved her in the flesh and in loving her were persecuting her, handed her over to sorceresses to get a remedy to regain her health. She was brought by them

^{569}

to a river, and when she was immersed in the water, she was buffeted with many incantations. Whenever one demon was supposed to be driven out, a legion

^{570}

entered in turn and now began to shout with their separate voices. Then the relatives made confession and in grief at their action brought her before St. Fortunatus the Bishop, who cured her completely with constant prayers and fasts.
169D It has been said | that exorcists ought to take precaution against adding anything superstitious or suspected of sorcery, and the exorcist could be doubtful as to whether he could also use certain plants or rocks that have not been blessed. Response. If the plants are blessed, so much the better. If they are not, for instance a certain plant called “devil’s flight,”

^{57 I}

or if someone uses the natures

^{572}

of stones, this will not be superstitious so long as he believes that these items are not directly compelling the demons by their own nature, since in that case he would fall into the error that the demons can similarly be compelled by other plants or words. Such is the erroneous claim of the nigromantics, who think that they achieve results through the natural or inherent virtues of such items. Hence, St. Thomas in Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 7, last art. [actually, Sent. 2.7.3.2.Ra2] says, “It should not be believed that demons are subject to certain bodily virtues, and accordingly they are not forced by any incantations and acts of sorcery, except to the extent that a treaty is thereby entered into with them according to what is said in Isaiah 18 [actually, 28:55] (‘We have struck a treaty with death and

_{568} 169 B

^{569}

It is interesting that while the source (Nider) uses masculine forms for the relatives, here the author uses the specially feminine form of the pronoun “them.”
有趣的是，虽然来源（Nider）对亲属使用了男性形式，但作者在这里使用了特别女性形式的代词“them”。
570 Reference to the demon who told Jesus that his name was “Legion” (Mark 5:9, Luke 8:30), playing on the name of the Roman military unit.
570 提到那个告诉耶稣他的名字是“Legion”的恶魔（马可福音 5:9，路加福音 8:30），利用了罗马军事单位的名称。

^{571}

The plant Hypericum perforatum is popular in herbal cures, and its calming effects (it affects the central nervous system) have long been associated with driving off demons. Because of the red spots on some leaves and its red sap, the plant came to be associated with John the Baptist and for this reason is also known as St. John’s wort (plants collected on his feast day, June 24, were often kept in houses as apotropaic devices). Institoris mentions this plant in the context of items useful for application on the person of a suspected sorceress at the time of questioning in Nuremberg Handbook (9r), where he notes that the plant is known in German as “devil’s bite” (Teufelsbiß).
572 Merely a synonym for “virtues.”
572 仅仅是“美德”的同义词。
with hell have we made an agreement’), and in Job 40 [:20] (‘Or will you be able to remove Leviathan from the hook?’ and so on).”

^{573}

Finally, he expounds Job as follows [Exposition on Job, 3.41.2]. “If someone rightly

∣

considers all the foregoing statements, they seem relevant to refuting 170A the presumptuous claim of the nigromantics, who strive to enter into an agreement with demons and to subordinate them to themselves or to constrain them in some way. Having therefore demonstrated that man cannot overcome the Devil by his own ability, God concludes by saying, ‘Put your hand over him. [40:27]’ Understand, ‘if you can,’ as if he were saying, ‘You cannot do so by your own virtue in any way.’ Yet, he is overcome by God’s virtue, and so he adds, ‘Remember the war’ [verse 27], that is, ‘the one in which I fight against him.’ It can be said that the present tense is being used in place of the future, i.e., ‘I will fight on the Cross,’ at which time Leviathan will be captured with a hook, that is, with the divinity hidden under the bait of humanity, the Savior being a mere human.

^{574}

Hence, Job later says, ‘There is no power on earth that can be compared to it’ (Job 4I[:24]). By this,” he says, “it is betokened that no bodily virtue can be equated with the power of the demon, which is the power of a purely spiritual nature.”

A person under assault at the hands of a demon can be relieved indirectly through the virtue of a tune, as Saul was through David’s harp,

^{575}

or through that of a plant or of some other thing, this virtue being inherent to the item because of a natural property, and therefore such cures can be used. That this can happen is shown by authoritative passages and by reasonings. In

26, ∣

Q. 7, “Demonium sustinenti” it says, “It is lawful

170 B

to have rocks or plants without an enchantment” (these are the words of Jerome). Also, in the [Scholastic] History the Master

^{576}

treats the passage in Tobias

6 [: 8 - 9]

where Rafael says to Tobias, 577 “If you place over the coals a piece of the heart,” that is, of the fish that you caught, “its smoke scares off every sort of demon, from a man or a woman, so that it will no longer approach them.” He says, “Nor should we be amazed at this, since when a certain tree is burned, its smoke has the same force.” The

passage also has a spiritual sense, which concerns the smoke of spiritual prayer. Albert speaks to the same effect on Luke 9 [Commentary on Luke], as does Nicholas of Lyra on I Sam. i6 [Postilla Literalis]. Indeed, Paul of Burgos reaches the following conclusion on I Sam. I6 [Additions]. Not only does it seem that it should be granted that people afflicted by demons can be relieved through certain things perceptible by the senses, but they can also be totally freed through certain things perceptible by the senses (understand “when they are not severely afflicted”). He proves this by reasoning.
"Since demons cannot change bodily material in accordance with their will but by joining appropriate active elements to appropriate passive ones, as Nicholas says, by the same principle something perceptible by 170C the senses can produce in the human body an inclination|that will make him unsuitable for the demon’s action. For instance, mania is especially conducive to the alienation of the mind according to the physicians and consequently to receiving the demon’s affliction. When this demonic suffering is completely healed, then if the active affliction of the demon withdraws, so would the passive affliction in the person possessed.

The same could be said about the liver of the fish

^{578}

and the tune of David. While at first Saul merely was revived and felt better because of the tune [I Sam. 16:23], the demon was completely driven out by it. This is why the text says, ‘The evil spirit withdrew from him.’ It would not be in accordance with the text to say that this happened as a result of David’s merit or through his prayers, because it is not plausible that the Scripture would keep silent about this, since what was said about him was particularly laudatory."
同样的情况也适用于鱼的肝脏

^{578}

和大卫的曲调。起初，扫罗仅仅因为曲调而恢复精神并感觉好转【撒母耳记上 16:23】，但恶魔却完全被它驱赶出去。这就是为什么经文说：“恶灵离开了他。”如果说这是因大卫的功德或通过他的祈祷而发生的，那就不符合经文了，因为如果圣经对此保持沉默，那就不太可能了，因为关于他的描述是特别值得赞扬的。

We wrote above in Question Five of Part One that Saul was freed because the virtue of the Cross was prefigured through the tightening of the veins of the body of Christ,

^{579}

and many statements are set out there that could serve the purpose of the present investigation, so let us simply conclude that the use of things perceptible by the senses in lawful exorcisms should not be rejected. Now it would be useful to say a few words about such exorcisms.
我们在第一部分第五个问题中写道，扫罗之所以获得自由，是因为十字架的美德通过基督身体静脉的紧缩得到了预表，

^{579}

并且那里列出了许多陈述，这些陈述可能有助于当前调查的目的，因此我们简单地得出结论，在合法的驱魔仪式中使用可感知的事物不应被拒绝。现在，关于这些驱魔仪式，说几句话会很有用。
[Note on Sources [资料来源说明
Major identified sources for Ch. 5:
第五章的主要信息来源：
Nider, Ant Hill 5.II, I2]
尼德，《蚁丘》5.II, I2]

^{578}

I.e., the “heart” used by Tobias to protect himself against the demon. 579 39C.

^{578}

即托比亚斯用来保护自己免受恶魔侵害的“心脏”。579 39C。

REMEDIES THROUGH LAWFUL EXORCISMS OF THE
通过合法驱魔的补救措施

Chapter Six 第六章

AS was discussed above,

^{50}

sorceresses can inflict every kind of bodily illness, which makes it necessary to conclude as a general rule that whatever remedy consisting of words or other works can be used for the illnesses noted above are also suitable for any illnesses not expressly mentioned in the foregoing (for instance when epilepsy or leprosy has been inflicted), and since lawful exorcisms are considered to be among the remedies consisting of words, exorcism was mentioned as a general cure. Three basic questions should be taken into consideration with regards to exorcism. The first is whether someone not holding the Order of being an Exorcist,

^{581}

like a layman (secular person), can lawfully exorcize demons or a demon’s acts of sorcery. In this connection three other questions are added. The first is how exorcisms are lawful. The second is a treatment of the seven conditions that are necessary for someone to be able to carry chants and blessings with him.

^{582}

The third is how a disease | is to be exorcized and the demon conjured away. The sec- 17IA ond basic question is what is to be done when the Grace of health is not obtained through exorcisms. The third is a discussion of remedies consisting not of words but of works, together with solutions to certain arguments.

As for the first. The following is the view of Doctor Thomas in Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk. 4, Dist. 23 [actually, Sent. 4.24.2.2.Ra9]. "In connection with the Order of being an Exorcist and of other minor orders, power is received when these orders are conferred, so that on the basis of the office someone can perform this or that function, for instance the performance of exorcisms. These can lawfully be performed by those not holding the order, even though such people do not have this ability on the basis of an office, just as the Mass can be said in a house not consecrated, although the consecration of a church is ordained for the purpose of the Mass being said in it. But this has more to do with Grace

graciously given

^{583}

than the Grace of the Sacrament."

^{584}

On the basis of these words it can be said that while it is good that an exorcist possessing the power to exorcize diseases caused by sorcery should cooperate in the freeing of the person affected by sorcery, nonetheless, at times devout persons can put such diseases to flight, either with or without exorcisms.

There is a story about a poor little virgin who was therefore very

_{171} B

devout. When a friend

∣

had been very greatly injured in the foot through sorcery (this was made clear in the judgment of the physicians by the fact that he could not be healed with any medicines), this virgin happened to visit the sick man. He immediately asked her to use some blessing on his foot. She agreed and in silence merely used the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed, repeatedly making the Sign of the living Cross. Then the sick man immediately felt that he was healed and wanted to know as a remedy for future recurrences what sort of chanting the virgin had used on him. She answered, “O ye

^{88}

of weak faith! You do not cling to the approved divine practices of the Church, but frequently apply prohibited chants and remedies to your illnesses. The reason why you are seldom healed in the body is that you are always being harmed in the soul. But if you put your hopes in the effectiveness of lawful prayers and signs, you would often be healed very easily. All I used on you was the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed, and now you are healed.”
Regarding this illustration, the question is raised whether other blessings and chantings (conjurations) through exorcisms are not effective, since it seems that they are being censured in this story. The response

_{17} IC

is that the virgin rejected only

∣

unlawful chants along with unlawful conjurations and exorcisms.

To facilitate understanding this, it is necessary to consider where such chants derived their origin and how they came to be misused. Their beginning was very holy, but the Divine Names are depraved in the same way that all things are perverted at the urging of the Demon

^{566}

through the mediation of demons and evil humans. For according to the passage “In my name will you cast out demonic powers” (Mark 16[:I7]) the Apostles and Saints visited the sick and uttered prayers over them

through the Holy Words. Then, in the succeeding period of time, devout priests performed similar acts in a ritual manner. This is why there can be found in churches that have become ancient very devout prayers and holy exorcisms that devout men once used without any superstition for all the purposes that humans carry out or have carried out on them, just as even today there are found learned men and Doctors of Sacred Theology who visit the ill and use similar words on the sick (and not just those affected by demons). But, unfortunately, superstitious humans have by themselves invented many vain and unlawful words after the fashion of these lawful ones and use them today on the ill and on domestic animals, and out of laziness the clergy no longer use lawful words when visiting the ill. Hence, | William Durand, the commentator on Raymund, says i7iD that a regular priest

^{587}

or a discreet one

^{588}

or a layman or laywoman of outstanding way of life and proven discretion can perform such acts, uttering lawful prayer over the sick person, not over an apple or belt or the such like but over the sick people according to the passage of the Evangelist, “Upon the sick will they lay on their hands …” [Mark 16:18]. Persons of this kind should not be prohibited from such acts, unless there happens to be some fear that after their example, other people, who are indiscreet and superstitious, might adopt a misuse of chanting, protecting themselves after the example of such people. It is, therefore, such superstitious chanters who are being censured by the virgin mentioned above. She said that those who consulted them had weak, or rather bad, faith.

To facilitate this explanation, a question is raised about the words by which chants and blessings are considered lawful or superstitious, the method by which they ought to be used, and whether the demon should be conjured away and the disease exorcized.

^{589}

As for the first, what is not superstitious is said to be lawful in the practice of the Christian religion, and what is observed contrary to the limits of religion is said to be superstitious, as is noted in the gloss on the passage “Which things have a rationale in superstition” (Coll.

172 A 2 [: 23]

) | (this is why it says there, “that is, religion practiced in evil and defective ways and circumstances”). Therefore whatever usurps the name “religion” through human tradition without the authority of some superior is in fact superstitious (for instance, adding hymns to the Mass for the Dead, interrupting the introduction, shortening the chanting of the Creed in the Mass or singing it in organum-style and not in a choir,

^{500}

not having a respondent in a Mass, and the like).

Back to the question at hand. Now when some work takes place by the virtue of the Christian religion, for instance when someone wishes to help a sick person through some prayer or blessing involving Holy Words (this being the topic that we now have in mind), this person has to consider seven conditions, and if they are fulfilled, it is considered a lawful blessing.

^{591}

If it takes place in the manner of an adjuration by the virtue of the Divine Name and by the virtue of the famous works of Christ relating to His Nativity, Passion, precious Death and so on, through which even the Devil is defeated and cast out, these blessings, chants and exorcisms are called lawful and those who put them into 172B practice can be called exorcists, or lawful enchanters according to Isidore (“Those who carry out some art with words are called enchanters” [Etym. 8.9.15]).

As can be gathered from the teaching of St. Thomas (Second of Second, Q. 93 [presumably, Summa 2/2.96.4]), the first condition to be considered is that the words should contain nothing that relates to the express or implicit invocation of demons. The meaning of “express” and “implicit” is clear. This is considered on the basis of intention and of working. The former encompasses the situation where the worker does not care whether in his work he has what he intends from God or from the Devil, so long as he achieves the desired end. The latter is when the work that he performs does not have any natural property of producing such an effect. About this property it is not only physicians and astrologers but also theologians who are able to judge the method by

which the nigromancers make images, rings and stones that are affected through art and clearly have no natural tendency towards the effects that the nigromancers very often expect; hence, the Devil must be involved in their works.

The second consideration is that the blessings (chants) should not contain any unknown words, because according to Chrysostom [Unfinished Work on Matthew 43] one should fear that some superstition may lurk in them.

The third is that the subject matter of the words should contain no falsehood, because in that case no effect from it could be expected from God, since

∣

He is not a witness to falsehood. Such is the usage of certain 172 C old women in their chants, when they rhyme, “The Blessed Virgin the Jordan crossed and then St. Stephen her path passed and her then asked” (and many other idiocies).

The fourth is that no inscribed vanities or characters should be included there apart from the Sign of the Cross. This is why the handbooks that are carried around by soldiers are censured.

^{592}

The fifth is that no hope should be placed in the way that these things are written or tied on amulets or in any such vanity that has nothing to do with reverence for God, because this would be judged superstitious.

The sixth is that when the divine Words or Holy Scripture are tied

^{on}^{593}

and uttered, the only thing that is respected are the sacred Words themselves and their meaning and the reverence for God or the divine virtue from which the effect is expected or the relics of the Saints from whom these effects are secondarily expected (they are primarily expected from God).

The seventh is that the effect that is expected should be entrusted to the will of God, Who knows whether health or tribulation is of greater or lesser benefit for the invoker or whether it is an obstruction for him. (This condition Thomas sets down

∣

in First of Second in the material on Grace [Summa

1 / 2.109 - 113]

and in Commentary on Pronouncements, Bk., Dist. is [Sent. 4.15.4.4a.Ra2].)

Let us therefore conclude that if none of these conditions taints the work, it will be lawful. Thomas proves this on the passage, “Signs will follow those who will believe. In my name they will cast out demonic powers . . They will get rid of snakes” (Mark 16[:17-18]). From this he infers [Golden Chain 16 on Matt. 16:17-18] that if these conditions are maintained it is lawful to ward off snakes through divine words.

Also, he offers further proof of this.

^{594}

The Words of God are no less effective than the Relics of the Saints, Augustine saying [Sermon 300.2], “The Word of God is not inferior to the body of Christ,”

^{595}

and according to everyone it is permissible for people to carry the Relics of Saints with them reverently. Therefore, in whatever way the name of God is ritually invoked (whether through the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, His Nativity and Passion, the Five Wounds,

^{596}

the Seven Words

^{597}

that He uttered on the Cross, the Triumphal Placard,

^{598}

the Three Nails, or the other weapons of the Church militant of Christ against the Devil and his works),

^{599}

these will be altogether lawful and hope can be placed in them when the effect is entrusted to the will of God (understand 173A this statement about the constraining of snakes | to apply to the other animals), provided that it is only the Holy Words and the virtue of God that are being respected. With regard to these words, however, one should proceed cautiously in enchantments because, as the Doctors say, such enchantments often contain unlawful observances and achieve their effect through demons, especially in the case of snakes, since the snake was the first tool used by the demon for deceiving man.

In the city of Salzburg there was a certain enchanter. One day, he wished to stage a spectacle for other people by enchanting all the snakes within a one-mile radius, as the story holds, into a certain ditch and killing them. When the snakes were gathered from all over and he was standing above the ditch, last of all a huge and fearsome snake balked at entering the ditch and kept nodding as if the man should permit him to leave and slither off freely to wherever he wished, but the man was unwilling to stop his enchantment of the snake, all the others having been killed in the ditch (they would die instantly in it). Thus, the fearsome

snake also had to enter it, but it reared up opposite the man and leapt over the ditch, lunging at the enchanter. |Twisting around the enchanter’s 173 B belly and waist, the snake dragged him into the ditch with him, thereby killing him. From this it can be understood that such practices should be followed through the virtue of God only for a beneficial purpose (putting snakes to flight from human habitations) and only in fear of and reverence for God.

As for the second question (in what way exorcisms or chants of this kind are to be carried or hung from the neck or sewn into clothing),

^{600}

it seems that such practices are unlawful. Augustine says, “Belonging to superstition are the thousand magical arts, including the tying of amulets and remedies condemned by the teaching of physicians, whether this consists of incantations or certain marks that they call ‘characters’ or the hanging or inscribing of certain objects” (The Christian Doctrine, Bk. 2 [2.2]). Likewise, Chrysostom says, “Certain people carry around their necks a written extract from a Gospel. But isn’t the Gospel read every day in church and heard by everyone? When a person is not benefited by the Gospels when they are placed in his ears, how can they heal him when they are hung around his neck? Next, where is the ability of the Gospel, in the shapes of the letters or in the understanding of their meaning? If it is in the shapes, |you do well to hang them around your neck. But if it 173 C is in the understanding, then they are of more use placed in your heart than hung around your neck” (On Matthew [43]).

On this point there is the following response from the Doctors, especially St. Thomas (cited above, Article 4 [Summa 2/2.96.4], where he asks whether it is unlawful to hang divine words from the neck). It seems that with regard to hanging any enchantments and writings, provision should be taken against two things. First, what is it that is being written? Does it manifestly relate to the invocation of demons? In that case, it is judged not only superstitious but also unlawful and apostasy from the Faith. Similarly, provision should also be taken to make sure that it does not contain unknown names and so on (understand the conditions set down above).

^{601}

In that case, it is lawful for people to carry them with them, just as it is lawful to utter such words orally over the ill.

The Doctors mentioned before consider and condemn the situation when someone pays more attention to and has more respect for the shapes and letters that are written than for the understanding of the words.

If it is said that a layman who does not understand the words can have no respect for their meaning, the response is that he should have respect for the virtue of God and entrust it to the will of God that He will carry

_{173} D

out whatever

∣

is the decision of His piety.

^{602}

As for the third question (whether the demon is to be conjured away at the same time that the disease is to be exorcized, or the other way around, or one without the other).

^{603}

Response. In this regard several questions should be considered. The first is whether there is always a demon when the person affected by sorcery is afflicted, the second is what sort of thing can be exorcized or adjured,

^{604}

and the third is the manner of performing the exorcism.

As for the first, since according to John of Damascus the demon is in the place where he is working, it seems that the demon is always present with a person affected by sorcery when he afflicts him. This is also the case in the Legend

^{605}

of St. Bartholomew. In this instance it seems that the demon is healing when he ceases harming.

^{606}

Response. The fact that the demon is present for a person affected by sorcery and afflicted can be understood in two ways, in terms of either his being or his effect. In the first case, he is present in the beginning when the sorcery is put inside the victim. In the second case, he is not himself present in his effect. Similarly, when the Doctors ask whether the Devil can inhabit a human in substance with any instance of mortal guilt, they say that he does so not by himself but by his effect, just as an owner is said to dwell within a slave in terms of his ownership. (The situation is different with those under demonic assault.)

As for the second question (what kind of things can be exorcized), one should note | the pronouncement of St. Thomas in the Commentary on 174A Pronouncements, Dist. 6, [Sent. 4.6.2.3a.Co.]. There he says that because of man’s sins, the Devil receives power over him and all the things that are useful for man in order to punish him, and since Christ has no agreement with Belial, whatever is to be sanctified for the worship of God should first be exorcized, so that after it has been freed from the power of the Devil by which he can take up that thing to harm man, it may be consecrated to God. (This is clearly the case with the blessing of water, the consecration of a church and all such things.) Hence, since baptism is the first sanctification

^{607}

by which man is consecrated to God, it is also necessary for man to be exorcized before being baptized. A fortiori this is much more the case with man than with other things, since man holds within him the reason why the Devil received power over the other things that exist for the sake of man, that is, original and personally committed sin. This is what is signified by the things said in an exorcism (for instance, the injunction, “Depart from him, Satan,” and the like) and by the things done in an exorcism.

As for the question at hand, it is asked whether the disease is to be exorcized and the demon adjured,

∣

and which of these comes first. The 174 B response is that it is not the disease that is exorcized but the person who is diseased and affected by sorcery. This is like the case of a child, where it is not the tainting caused by the incitement to evil that is exorcized but the child tainted thereby. Similarly, the person affected by sorcery is first exorcized, and he orders the Devil and his creation to depart, just as the child is exorcized first and then the Devil adjured to depart, and it is a very good idea to exorcize and bless everything that can be applied to the use of the person affected by sorcery, like food and drink, just as salt and water are exorcized. The rite of exorcism holds that in the case of baptizing people there should, first, be an exhaling to the west and a renunciation, second, a raising of the hands towards heaven accompanied by the Holy Confession of the Faith and the avowal of the Christian religion, third, a prayer, a blessing and a laying-on of hands, and, fourth, a removal of the clothing and anointing with Holy Oil, and after the Baptism a taking of Communion and the putting-on of white clothing, but it is not necessary for these things to be done in the case of exorcizing someone affected by sorcery. What is necessary is that the person should first have made a genuine confession as is

174 C appropriate, hold a lit candle if he can, and receive Holy Communion, | and in place of white clothing he should remain with a blessed candle the length of Christ’s body or of the trunk of the cross bound to his naked body.

^{608}

The following can be said. “I exorcize you, Peter (or Barbara), who are sick but reborn with the Holy Font of Baptism, through the Living God,” - (Sign of the Cross) - “the True God,” - (again) - “the Holy God,” - (again) - "the God Who redeemed you with His precious blood so that you may become an exorcized person, so that there may flee and depart from you every fantasy and evil of the Devil’s deceit, and every unclean spirit after being adjured through Him Who is to come to judge the quick and the dead and the secular world with fire. Amen.

Let us pray. O God of compassion, God of clemency, You Who in accordance with the great number of Your mercies rebuke those whom You love and piously restrain for their correction those whom You accept, we invoke You, O Lord, to deign to bestow Your Grace upon Your servant, who in body suffers an illness of limbs. Attach whatever has been corrupted by earthly infirmity or violated by the Devil’s trickery to the Unity of the Body of the Church as a member

^{609}

of redemption. Have pity on his groans, O Lord, have pity on his tears, and receive into the Sacrament of Your reconciliation someone who has trust only
174D in Your mercy. |Through Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Therefore, accursed devil, acknowledge the sentence passed on you. Give honor to the True and Living God and to the Lord, Jesus Christ, so that along with your creation you will depart from this servant, whom Our Lord, Jesus Christ, has redeemed with His precious blood."

Next, he exorcizes him with prayers as above a second and a third time. "Let us pray. O God, since You always rule over Your creation with pious affection, turn Your ear to our entreaties. In propitiousness, look upon Your servant who suffers from adverse bodily health, and visit him. With Your Salvation grant to him the medicine of Heavenly Grace. Through Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Therefore, accursed devil," and so on as above.
Prayer for the third exorcism. "O God, the sole protection for human illness, show the power of Your help over our sick person, so that he (or

she) may deserve to be helped by Your mercy and presented unharmed to Your Holy Church. Through Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen."

The exorcist should always sprinkle with Holy Water.
Note that this method is set out not because it should be performed in exactly this way or because other kinds of exorcism are not of greater effectiveness, | but so that a method of exorcizing or adjuring should be set out here. For in ancient histories and in books in churches more devout and effective exorcisms can sometimes be found. Since in all matters reverence for God should be given priority, let each individual act with this as his guide to the extent that it will be helpful.

On the basis of the foregoing let us make some conclusions for the sake of simple people.

^{60}

Let the method of exorcizing someone affected by sorcery be as follows. First, he should make a genuine confession according to the frequently cited Chapter “Si per sortiarias.” Next, there should be a careful search throughout all the corners of the house, in the furniture and bedding, and under the threshold of the doorway, in case the devices of the sorcery can be found in a cautious way. If they are found, they are to be immediately thrown into the fire. It is also a good idea if everything in terms of furniture and clothing is replaced, and if the person changes his dwelling and house.

In the situation where nothing is found, the person to be exorcized will, if he can, enter the church in the morning (the more holy the day, such as Feasts of the Blessed Virgin or Vigils, the better). A priest who has also made confession and who is in a good state will be more useful. The person to be exorcized should then carry a blessed candle in his hand as well as he can, sitting or on bended knees. |Those in attendance should make devout prayers requesting that he may be freed.

{He}^{6 III}

should begin the litany with “Our source of help is in Our Lord.” He should also have a respondent. He should sprinkle the person with Holy Water and put a stole around his neck. He should add the psalm Deus in adiutorium [Ps. 69]

^{612}

and perform the litany as is customary for the sick, saying in invocation of the Saints, “Pray for him and be propitious. Free him, O Lord”, and performing the individual elements down to the end, where prayers are to be said. Then, instead of the prayers, he should begin the exorcism, and he will continue in the manner stated above, or in a better one, as he sees fit. Exorcisms of this kind could be repeated at least three times a week, so that the Grace of health may be obtained when the

number of intercessors is increased. Above all, the person should take Communion with the Sacrament of the Eucharist (certain people think this should be done before the exorcism).

In Confession, the confessor should notice if the person is trapped in some fetter of excommunication

^{613}

or if he was once rashly trapped in

_{175} C

this without receiving absolution from the judge.

^{614}

For in that case, | although the confessor absolves him conditionally,

^{645}

once his well-being is restored the person should seek absolution from the judge who did the binding.

^{616}

It should be noted that when the exorcist does not hold the Order of being an Exorcist, he can proceed through the prayers, and if he knows how to read, he should read Scriptural passages: the first Gospel passages of the four Evangelists, the Gospel passage “An angel was sent” [Luke I:26] and the Passion of the Lord, all of which have a great virtue in casting out the works of the Devil. The passage “In the beginning was the word” from the Gospel of John [i:I] should also be written down and hung from the neck of the sick person. In this way, the Grace of health would be expected from God.

^{617}

If someone raises the question of the difference between the sprinkling of Holy Water and an exorcism, since each is ordained in its effect to combat the harassment of a demon, St. Thomas responds (above citation, Dist. 6 [Sent. 4.6.2.3a.Ra3]) as follows. The devil assails us from without and from within. Holy Water is therefore ordained against the Devil’s assault from without, while exorcism is ordained against the Devil’s assault from within. Hence, those for whom it is given are called “energumeni”

^{618}

from en, which is “within,” and geron

^{619}

or “toil,” as if

_{175 D}

they are toiling within.|Therefore, each procedure is used in exorcizing someone affected by sorcery, since the people are being harassed in each place.

As for the second basic question (what should be done when the Grace of health cannot be obtained through exorcisms),

^{620}

the response is as follows. This can happen for six reasons, and there is a seventh reason

about which we suspend our judgment. The fact that someone is not freed can be caused by the smallness of faith of the bystanders or of those presenting the sick person; or by the sins of those who are suffering from the sorcery; or by the failure to apply suitable remedies; or by some fault in the Faith on the part of the exorcist; or by reverence felt for the virtues in someone else;

^{621}

or for the sake of the purging or merit of those who are suffering from the sorcery. The truth of the Gospels teaches about the first four regarding the presence of the father whose only son was a lunatic and of Christ’s disciples (Matthew

{If}_{7} [: 14 - 20]

, Mark

9 [: 13 -

28]).

^{622}

First the offerer and the crowd lacked faith, and so the father prayed with tears, “I believe, O Lord! Help my lack of belief” [Mark 9:23]. To the crowd Jesus said, “O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long | will I be with you?”

As for the second reason (the one concerning the person who is suffering from the demon), Jesus rebuked him (the son)

^{623}

[Matthew 17:17], because, as St. Jerome says on that passage [Commentary on Matthew], he had been overwhelmed by the demon because of his sins.

As for the third reason (the neglect of appropriate remedies), it is clear that no good and perfect men were present, and hence Chrysostom says

^{624}

on the same passage, “The pillars of the Faith (Peter, James and John) were not present as they had been at the Transfiguration of Christ,

^{625}

nor was there any praying or fasting, and in their absence Christ said, ‘This kind of demon is not cast out’ [Matthew 17:20, Mark 9:28].” Hence, Origen says on that passage [Commentary on Matthew], “If it is sometimes necessary to persist in the healing of those who experience some suffering, we should not be amazed, nor should we ask questions or speak as if to a spirit in this world who is listening. Rather, we should use fasts and prayers to drive out our evil spirits.” The gloss says, “This kind of demon, that is, this flux of carnal pleasures to which that spirit was disposed, can be conquered only if the spirit is confirmed with prayer and the flesh weakened through fasting.”

The fourth (guilt on the part of the exorcist, especially concerning the Faith) is explained in the same passage, with reference to the Disciples of 176B Christ who were present. |When the Disciples later asked in private about the reason for their lack of power, Jesus answered, “Because of your lack of belief. Verily I say unto you, if you have faith, like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move” and so on [Matthew 17:19]. Here Hilary [of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew] says, “The Apostles did believe, but they were not yet perfect in the Faith. For while the Lord tarried on the mountain with the other three and the rest remained with the crowd, a certain lack of fervor had lessened their faith.”

The fifth is explained in Lives of the Fathers [8.28], where we read that sometimes people under demonic assault were not freed by St. Anthony but they were freed by his disciple Paul.

The sixth reason was explained.

^{626}

When someone is freed from an instance of guilt, he is not always freed from the penalty. Instead, the penalty sometimes remains as punishment and satisfaction for the earlier crime.

There is still another remedy that is said to have freed many people affected by sorcery, and this is that they were baptized anew, though only in a specific circumstance. As I have said, we do not dare make a final determination about this, but it is very true that when someone has not been duly exorcized before baptism, the Devil clearly receives greater power over him by God’s permission.
176C From the foregoing it is clear and not at all doubtful that very many forms of negligence are committed either by the priests who are not properly disposed, in which case the fourth impediment mentioned above applies, or by old women who do not follow the appropriate manner of baptizing at the necessary time. Yet I do not wish to claim that the Sacraments cannot be provided by evil people. To the contrary, however evil the priest is, he performs the baptism and completes this Sacrament, so long as he is ordained, intentionally performs the baptism in the appropriate manner with the appropriate formula of words and appropriate physical matter,

^{627}

and intends to complete the Sacrament.

^{688}

Similarly,

this is how he should proceed in ritually performing an exorcism, not being puffed up or violent. Hence, people should not take part in Divine Service of this kind without the intent of act or habit

^{629}

- and certainly without stumbling over the obligatory words or passing them over in silence! In fact, it is necessary to state that just as four essential elements (physical matter, form, intention and ecclesiastical order, in the procedures discussed above) serve the purpose of completing a Sacrament, the same is the case with exorcism in its own procedure: when one is lacking, the officiant will not be able to complete the Sacrament.

^{630}

The objection is not valid that people were baptized without exorcism in the primitive Church or that even in the present time |a person who 176 D has been baptized can receive the character

^{631}

of the baptism without exorcism, because in that case it would have been vain for Gregory to institute exorcisms and the Church would instead be in error in its ceremonies. Hence, I have not dared to censure in any way those who wish to rebaptize in a specific circumstance those affected by sorcery and perchance make good what was neglected.

^{632}

Regarding those who walk across tall buildings at night-time without being harmed,

^{633}

many claim that this is clearly the work of an evil spirit who carries them in this way. It is recognized that when such people are rebaptized, they are better. The amazing thing is that when they are referred to

^{634}

by their own names, they are suddenly dashed to the ground, as if the name may not have been bestowed on them in the appropriate manner at their baptism.

It is a good idea for the reader to pay attention to these six impediments. Although they refer to the “energumini” (the possessed) and not to those affected by sorcery, nonetheless, God’s virtue is needed equally in each case. Indeed, it can be said that it is a matter of greater difficulty to heal someone affected by sorcery than an “energuminus” (a possessed person). Therefore, if these impediments are relevant in the latter case, then they are a fortiori relevant in the case of those affected by sorcery.

This is proven by the following reasoning. | As was explained above 177 A (Chapter Ten),

^{635}

while people are sometimes possessed because of no

crime of their own but because of someone else’s trivial crime (for various reasons), in the case of sorcery affecting adults this mostly happens to them because they are being possessed very severely by a demon from within for the purpose of killing their soul. Hence, in the case of those affected by sorcery two sorts of labor are required for this very severe kind of possession, while only a straightforward labor is needed in the case of those possessed from without. Cassian says (Conference about Abbot Serenus [7.3I]), “Those people are truly miserable and are to be judged worthy of pity of whom it is the case that, when they pollute themselves with every kind of crime and misdeed, not only is no sign of the Devil’s occupation plausibly displayed in them, but not even any temptation commensurate with their works or any scourging of chastisement is inflicted. They do not deserve the swift and expeditious medicine for this emergency. Their obduracy and impenitent heart surpass the penalty of the present life, and they store up for themselves anger and outrage

_{177} B

on the day of anger and the revelation of the just judgment of God. | On that day their worms

^{636}

will not die and their flames will not be put out.” Also, a little bit earlier Cassian [7:25] compares bodily possession to that of the soul through sin, saying, “It is generally agreed that those people are harassed more severely and vigorously who hardly seem to be afflicted by the demons in body but are more destructively possessed in spirit, being entangled in their vices and pleasures. For according to the view of the Apostle [Romans 6:16], a person is made the slave of someone by whom he is overcome. But these people are more hopelessly sick in that because they are the chattel of the demons, they do not recognize either that they are being assailed by them or that they are enduring their tyranny.” From the foregoing it can be concluded a fortiori that when people are affected by sorcery through being possessed by a demon not from without but from within with reference to the killing of their souls, the greater number of impediments makes it more difficult for such people to be healed.

As for the third basic question

^{637}

(remedies consisting not of words but of works), regarding remedies of this kind, it is to be noted that there are two kinds of such remedies, and they are either altogether lawful and not suspect or suspect and not altogether lawful. The first

_{177 C}

kind I was directly treated above at the end of Chapter Five, where a

doubtful point in terms of herbs and rocks was laid out (how it is lawful for them to dispel acts of sorcery).

^{638}

Now it is necessary to treat the second group of remedies, those that seem suspect but not altogether unlawful. It is necessary to note the treatment in the chapters in Basic Division Two

^{639}

of the present Part Two of the work that dealt with the four remedies, of which three are considered unlawful and the fourth not altogether unlawful but vain.

^{640}

Regarding this remedy, the canonists say that it is lawful to smash vanities with vanities, but we inquisitors share with the Holy Doctors the view that in a situation where remedies through Holy Words and lawful exorcisms are not enough (because of the impediments treated above, of which there are six or seven),

^{641}

then those affected by sorcery are to be urged to endure it with equanimity for the purpose of tolerating the evils of the present life as a way to purge their crimes, and not to make any further attempt at all to find superstitious and vain remedies.

^{642}

For this reason, if someone

∣

is not

_{177} D

content with the lawful forms of exorcism mentioned above and wishes to resort to the kind of (at the least) vain remedies that were discussed above, let him know that this is done against our will and without our permission.

When these remedies were set out and explained in that passage, it was brought about that the sayings of Scotus, Hostiensis and the others on the one hand and those of the other theologians on the other were brought into agreement in every way,

^{643}

and our declaration therefore agrees with that of St. Augustine in a sermon against fortune-tellers and diviners (it is entitled Sermon on Auguries), in which he says the following [Fragmentary Sermon 278.I]. "Brothers, you know that I have quite often pleaded with you not to follow the customs of the pagans and sorcerers in any way, but this has had little effect on some of you. Because I am going to give an accounting on the Day of Judgment if I do not speak to you on my own behalf and on yours, and it will be necessary for me to suffer eternal punishments along with you, I am absolving myself before God when I again and again give warning and attest that none of you should seek the advice of diviners or fortune-tellers or | 178A consult them about any matter or situation or illness, because whoever does this evil act will immediately lose the Sacrament of Baptism and

be rendered a sacrilegious pagan. Unless repentance comes to his aid, he will immediately be lost for eternity." Later he adds the following. “No one makes

^{644}

an observation of the days for departure and return. For God has made all things very good, establishing one day and the next. But whenever there is a pressing need to do something or to go out, sign yourselves in the name of Christ, and while faithfully reciting the Apostles’ Creed or the Lord’s Prayer act with confidence through the assistance of God.”

Not content with these procedures and wishing to pile errors upon errors, certain superstitious sons of the secular world attempt to defend themselves with the following arguments, going beyond the meaning and intention of Scotus and the canonists. Because, they say, natural objects have certain hidden virtues for which an explanation cannot be given by man, for instance the fact that steel attracts iron and many others listed by Augustine (City of God, Bk. 21 [21.5.7]), it will not be unlawful, though it seems vain, to make an investigation of such objects 178B in order to gain health when exorcisms and natural medicines fail.|This would be the case when someone wishes to produce health in himself or someone else, through images that are not nigromantic but astrological or through rings and the like.

Likewise, they argue as follows. Since natural bodies are subject to the heavenly bodies, certain bodies created by art, for instance images, acquire hidden virtues by receiving this character from an impression caused by the heavenly bodies. Therefore, bodies created by art, for instance images, acquire from the heavenly bodies a certain hidden ability to cause certain effects, and therefore it is not unlawful to use them and other things of this kind.
同样，他们这样论证。既然自然物体受天体支配，某些由艺术创造的物体，例如雕像，通过从天体造成的印象中接收这种特性而获得隐藏的德性。因此，由艺术创造的物体，例如雕像，从天体获得某种隐藏的能力，以产生某些效果，因此使用它们和其他类似物品并非不合法。

Also, demons can change bodies in many ways, as Augustine says in The Trinity, Bk. 3 [3.8.9], and this is clearly the case with those affected by sorcery. Therefore, it is also lawful to use their virtue in order to endure such acts of sorcery.
此外，正如奥古斯丁在《三位一体》第三卷[3.8.9]中所说，恶魔能以多种方式改变身体，这在那些受巫术影响的人身上表现得尤为明显。因此，利用他们的力量来忍受此类巫术行为也是合法的。

But in fact the sayings of all the Holy Doctors state the opposite, as was sufficiently explained in various passages. Hence, as for the first it is said that if natural objects are applied straightforwardly to produce certain effects for which they are thought to have a natural virtue, this is not unlawful. If, however, words are added or

∣

certain characters or some names or any other unknown or vain observances, of which it is obvious that they have no natural effectiveness for this, it will be superstitious
但事实上，所有圣师的说法都与此相反，这在多处已有充分解释。因此，关于第一点，据说如果自然物体被直接应用以产生某些效果，而这些效果被认为是它们所具有的自然德性所致，这并不违法。然而，如果添加了某些言辞、字符、名称或其他未知或无效的仪式，而这些显然对此没有自然效力，那么这将是迷信的。

and unlawful. Hence, St. Thomas says in treating this topic (Second of Second, Q. 96, Article 2 at the end) that with reference to things done to bring about certain bodily effects, for instance health or something of the kind, one must consider whether they seem to be able to cause such effects naturally. Because it is lawful to apply natural causes for their effects, it is not unlawful. If, on the other hand, they do not seem to be able to cause such effects naturally, it follows that they are not being applied for these effects as causes but merely as signs, and in this case they pertain to agreements entered into with demons regarding the making of signs. Hence, Augustine says the following in City of God, Bk. 2I [2I.6]. “Creatures made not by demons but by God entice demons with different delights according to the differences among the demons. The demons are not enticed in the way that animals are by food but in the way that spirits are by signs, through various kinds of stones, plants, wood, animals, chants and rituals.”

As for the second argument, this Doctor says the following.|The nat- 178D ural virtues of natural bodies receive the bodies’ essential forms, which they acquire from the impression made by the heavenly bodies, and, therefore, they acquire certain active virtues from the impression made by these bodies. The forms of bodies created by art, on the other hand, derive from the conception of the artisan, and since they are nothing other than composition, ordering and shaping, as is stated in [Aristotle] Physics, Bk. I [1.5], they cannot have a natural virtue for action.

^{645}

This is why as creations of art they acquire no natural virtue from the impression caused by the heavenly bodies, but do so merely in terms of their natural material. Therefore, as Augustine says (City of God, Bk. Io [Io.II]), that Porphyry is incorrect when he thinks that with plants, and with stones, and with certain animate creatures and sounds, and with certain words and configurations and formations and with certain motions of the stars observed in the turning of the sky, the powers of the stars suitable for producing various effects were fabricated by humans on earth, as if the results of the magical arts came from the virtue of the heavenly bodies. But as Augustine adds in that passage, all of this belongs to the demons, who play tricks on souls which are subordinate to them.

Hence, the images that they call “astrological” | have their effect from 179A the working of demons. A sign of this is the fact that it is necessary for
因此，他们所谓的“占星术”图像 | 其效果来自于恶魔的运作。一个迹象是，必须为

certain characters that have no natural working to be inscribed on them, since a figure is not the origin of a natural action. Rather, the astrological images differ from the nigromantic ones in that while express invocations are made in the nigromantic ones, and hence they also pertain to agreements entered into with demons, the astrological ones pertain to implicit agreements because of the signs that consist of figures and characters.

As for the third argument, no power over demons has been entrusted to man, so that he could use them for whatever purpose he wishes. Rather, war has been declared for him against the demons. Hence, in no way is it lawful for man to use the help of demons through agreements implicit or express.

This is what Thomas says.
这是托马斯说的。
As for the question at hand. When he says “in no way,” he means “with no vanities,” that is, the vanities by which a demon can become involved in any way at all.

^{646}

If, however, these things are so vain that human frailty does in fact undertake them to regain health, let the person grieve over his past acts, take precaution for his future ones, and pray that his debt may be forgiven and that he may not be led any more 179B into temptation, as Augustine says at the end | of the Rule [Rule for the Servants of God

I 2 =

Letter 21I].
[Note on Sources [资料来源说明
Major identified sources for Ch. 6:
Aq., Sent. 4.6.I.2a; 4.6.2.3
Summa 2/2.96.2, 4
Augustine, Fragmentary Sermon 278
Nider, Ant Hill 5.2, 4, 5, 6, I2
Praec. i.II.23, 26, 27]

REMEDIES AGAINST HAILSTORMS AND FOR DOMESTIC ANIMALS AFFECTED BY SORCERY

Chapter Seven

HOW domestic animals affected by sorcery can be healed with remedies, and also storms in the air. First, note is to be made of certain unlawful remedies practiced by certain people. Some do this

^{646}

This is clearly not what Aquinas meant by “vanities.”
with superstitious words or acts, like those who use unlawful words and chants to heal worms in the fingers or limbs. (How to recognize whether these chants are lawful or not is treated in the preceding chapter.) There are others who do not sprinkle Holy Water over the domestic animals affected by sorcery, but pour it into their mouths.

To show that the first remedy, which consists of words, is unlawful, there is, in addition to the foregoing, the following demonstration by William of Auvergne (often cited) [Laws 27]. If there were some virtue inherent to the words (and let us speak of words as such), then it would be so in one of five ways,

^{647}

that is, with reference to the material (the air), or the form (the sound), or a method of making the sign, or all of these at once. It is not the first, because | air taints only if it is poi- 179 C sonous. It is also not the second, because an aim exceeding the capacity vitiates the potential.

^{648}

Nor the third, because in that case the terms “devil,” “death,” and “hell” would always be harmful, and “health” and “goodness” would always be beneficial. It is also not all of them at once, because when the whole is composed of insufficient elements, it too is insufficient.

It is not valid to object that God bestowed the force upon the words as He did upon plants and stones, because if there were any virtues inherent in certain words or Sacramentals or other blessings and lawful chants, they would possess such virtues within themselves, not as words but as a result of divine arrangement and ordination and as a result of the agreement of God, as if the Lord said, “Whoever does this, I will perform this grace for him.” This is how the words in the Sacraments achieve what they betoken. (According to others they also have an inherent virtue, but the first view is embraced because it serves present purposes.

)^{649}

Regarding the other words and chants it is clear from the foregoing that as words that are put together in groups or uttered or symbolized, words achieve nothing, but the invocation of the name of God and the obsecration, which is a very sacred public declaration of entrusting the result | to the will of God, are beneficial.

Remedies consisting of works that seem unlawful, as was mentioned above. In the region of Swabia it is a very common practice that before sunrise on the first day of May village women go out and fetch from the woods or trees willow branches or other boughs. They then weave these into a circle and hang them at the entrance of the barn, claiming that for the entire year all domestic animals will remain unharmed by sorceresses and be preserved. According to the opinion of those who say that it is possible to smash vanities with vanities,

^{650}

this would not be unlawful, and such would also be the case with those who drive off diseases through unknown words. But let us go on without wishing to cause offense and say that if on the first or second day a woman, or whoever it is that goes out, collects plants, boughs or branches without paying any attention to the rising or setting of the sun but with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or the Creed of the Faith and then hangs these items above the doorway to the barn, in good faith entrusting the effect of the protection to God’s will, she will not be subject to censure, as was explained in the preceding chapter

^{651}

on the basis of the words of Jerome (they are quoted 180A in 26, | last question [actually, Decretum 2.26.7.18]): “It is also lawful for someone suffering a demonic power to have plants and rocks without enchanting.”

Similarly, there are those who on Palm Sunday keep and raise up among the grapevines and standing crops the Sign

^{652}

of the Cross or boughs or flowers that have been blessed, claiming that while the crops on all sides were harmed by hailstorms, the crops in their fields remained unharmed. It seems that a distinction should be made about these people on the basis of the distinction already mentioned.

Similarly, there are those who as a protection for their milk, that is, to prevent the cows from being deprived of it through sorcery, in the name of God distribute among the poor for free all the liquid of the milk they collect on Saturday, claiming that through alms of this kind the cows are saved from sorceresses and also have their supply of milk increased. In this work nothing is judged to be superstitious, provided that, for the sake of the piety that they offer to the poor, they undertake to implore the piety of God to protect the domestic animals, leaving the effect of the protection to God’s providence according to His resolve.

Also, Nider says in his Praeceptorium (Precept I, Chapter if) that it is also lawful to bless domestic animals like sick people with written chants

and sacred words, |and even with things that seem to have the appearance

180 B

of an enchantment, so long as the seven conditions mentioned before

^{653}

are maintained. He also says that he had learned through the experience of devout persons and virgins that when the Sign of the Cross along with the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary is used three times or so on a cow, the work of the demon stops if sorcery is the cause.

He says the following in his Ant Hill [5.4]. “It is generally agreed that sorcerers confess that their acts of sorcery are impeded by the rituals venerated and maintained by the Church, like the sprinkling of Holy Water, the eating of Holy Salt, the lawful use of candles consecrated on the Day of Purification

^{654}

and of fronds consecrated on Palm Sunday and the like, because the Church exorcizes these things so that they will reduce the powers of the demon.”

Also, when sorceresses wish to deprive a domestic animal of the liquid of milk, from the house in which the domestic animal stays they ask for a little milk or butter hardened from that animal, so that this will then allow them to affect the animal with sorcery through their art. Therefore, the women of whom suspected sorceresses make requests of this kind should be careful | not to make them a loan or gift of the least thing.

Also, there are certain women who feel that they are making no progress in hardening the butter while toiling in the normal way over oblong vats suitable for this job, and then if they are able to get a bit of butter quickly from the house of the suspected sorceress, they make pats (mouthfuls) of this butter and with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), they cast the pats into a vessel, thereby putting the whole sorcery to flight. Here again it is a case of a vanity being smashed with vanities only in that the woman has to borrow butter from the suspected sorceress. But if without the borrowing she did this with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and with the addition of the Lord’s Prayer, then even if she puts in three pieces of her own butter (or someone else’s if she has none of her own), she would remain unworthy of censure because she entrusts the effect to God’s will. She would not, however, be commendable, because of her putting in three pieces of butter. She would be commendable if she put the sorcery to flight in the manner described above by sprinkling Holy Water and putting in exorcized salt while praying.

Also, it is often the case that all the domestic animals are killed by 180 D sorcery, and those to whom such things happen should see to it that

_{633}_{171 D}

-172C.

^{6} 44

See n. 20.
the earth is taken away from under the threshold of the doorway to the barn or in many instances from the place where they are watered, and that other earth is put in those places with the sprinkling of Holy Water. Sorceresses have often confessed to having hidden devices for sorcery in such places, confessing that at the insistence of the demons all they had to do was make a ditch and the demon put the sorcery there. The device for sorcery was some very insignificant object, like a stone, a piece of wood, or a mouse or snake. It is generally agreed that in such affairs the Devil works acts of sorcery by himself without needing consent, or that he also seeks her damnation and for this reason forces her to work with him in some way.

Against hailstorms and rainstorms the following remedy is practiced in addition to the raising of the Sign of the Cross discussed above.

^{655}

Hailstones are cast into the fire with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity. The Lord’s Prayer is added two or three times along with the Hail 18ıA Mary. |The passage “In the beginning was the Word” from the Gospel of John with the making of the Sign of the Cross is added against a storm all over: in front, in back and in every direction of the earth. In this case, when he repeats, “The Word was made flesh,” three times at the end and then says three times, “May this storm be put to flight by the words of the Gospel,” the storm will suddenly stop if it was in fact caused as a result of sorcery. These very true experimenta are judged to be not even suspect. The mere casting of the hailstones into the fire would be considered superstitious, if this is done without the invocation of the Divine Name.

If it is asked whether the storms could not have been calmed without these hailstones, the response is that they certainly could have been through other Holy Words. In trying to destroy the Devil’s creation through the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity, however, it is the intention of the one who casts them to vex the Devil, and so he casts them into fire rather than water, since the more quickly they are dissolved, the more quickly his creation is destroyed. He entrusts the effect of protection to the will of God, however.

In addition, when a certain sorceress was asked by a judge whether storms stirred up by sorceresses could in some way be calmed, she replied, 18iB "Yes, through the following phrase.|'I adjure you, hailstorms and winds, by the Five Wounds of Christ

^{696}

and by the Three Nails that pierced His hands and feet and by the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke

and John, to dissolve into water and come down."’ Many women also confess, some voluntarily, others with difficulty under torture, that there are five situations through which they are greatly impeded, sometimes in whole, sometimes in part, sometimes with the result of preventing such things being done to a particular person, sometimes to his friends. These situations are when people maintain the Faith and the Commandments of God intact, when they protect themselves with the Sign of the Cross and with prayer, when they cultivate the rituals and ceremonies of the Church, when they properly carry out public justice, and when they think over the Passion of Christ in speech or mind. Hence, Nider also says (cited above [Praeceptorium I.II.34]), “For this reason it is a universal or general practice in the Church to ring bells against the wind. There are two purposes for this. The first is that the demons should withdraw from their acts of sorcery as if on account of trumpets consecrated to God, and the second is that the congregation should be roused to invoke God against the storms. For the same reason

∣

it is the most ancient tradition 18IC of the Churches of France and Germany in common that the procedure used to settle the wind involves the Sacrament of the Altar

^{657}

and Holy Words.”

Because this method involving the carrying of the Sacrament to calm the wind seems to be something superstitious to many people, since they do not understand the rules by which it is decided whether something is superstitious or not, it should be noted that five rules (considerations) are laid down by which anyone can recognize whether a work offered to God is superstitious, that is, an observance going beyond the limit of the Christian religion, or it is intended for the purpose of offering to God due worship and honor and derives from the true virtue of religion in acts both of heart and of body. These considerations are based on the gloss on the passage of the Apostle, “Which things have a rationale of wisdom in superstition” (Colossians

2 [: 23]

), which says, “Superstition is religion maintained beyond the limit,” as has also been mentioned above.

^{658}

The first rule is that in all our works the glory of God should be our main end according to the passage, “Whether you are eating or drinking or doing something else, do everything for the glory of God” [ I Corinthians io:31], and therefore in every work relating to the Christian religion, it should be noted | whether the work is for the glory of God 18iD

and in the work the man is principally giving glory to God, so that through this work the man’s mind is also subordinated to God. Indeed, although this rule means that the ceremonial or judicial provisions of the Old Testament are not practiced under the New Testament, since we know that while the former practices were proclaimed in figurative sense,

^{659}

the latter were proclaimed in truth, nonetheless, the carrying of the Sacrament or of relics to calm the wind does not seem to violate this rule.

The second rule is that it should be noted whether the work that is being done is for the purpose of training the body or is conducive to restraining lustful desire or to bodily abstinence, provided that this is in a manner appropriate for virtue, that is, according to the ritual of the Church or according to moral doctrine, since the Apostle says, “Your obedience should be reasoning” (Romans

I 2 [: I]

). Since this second rule means that those who vow not to comb the hair on their heads on Saturday or to fast on Sunday as the better day and the like act foolishly, it again does not seem that the carrying of the Sacrament and so on is superstitious.

The third rule is that it should be noted whether the work is in accor182A dance with a decision of the Universal | Church or with the testimony of Sacred Scripture or at least with the specific ritual of a church or general custom, which according to Augustine should be considered as a law.

^{660}

(This is why, when the Bishop of the Angles

^{661}

complained that the Church had various customs in celebrating the Mass, St. Gregory wrote in response to him, “The decision is that if you have found in the Church of Rome or of the Gauls or in any Church something that could be more pleasing to God, you should select it carefully.” For the

various customs of the Church in the worship of God are in no way repugnant to the truth and should for this reason be maintained, and it is unlawful to neglect them.) Therefore, since the very ancient customs of the Churches of France and of certain Churches of Germany have decided, as was mentioned in the beginning, to carry the Eucharist to calm the wind, it will not be possible for this to be unlawful, though it should not take place in the open but in a concealed and locked chapel.

The fourth rule is that an examination should be made of whether the work that is being done has a natural property leading to the effect that is expected. Otherwise, if it does not, it is considered superstitious. On the basis of

∣

this consideration, unknown characters and suspect names, as well as astrological and nigromantic images, are all rejected as being suspect. Therefore, we cannot say on the basis of this consideration that the carrying of relics or of the Eucharist against harassments at the hands of the Devil is superstitious. Rather, it is very religious, since all our salvation against the Foe

^{662}

is contained in them.

The fifth rule is that care should be taken that the work that is being done should not provide an opportunity for scandal or spiritual ruin, because in that case, even if it was not superstitious, the scandal would still cause it to be omitted or postponed or carried out in secret without scandal. Therefore, if this carrying can be done without scandal or at least secretly, then it should not be neglected. For the result of this rule is often that blessings consisting of devout words, whether said over ill people or intended for tying onto the neck,

^{663}

are neglected (by laymen). I say “neglected” because they are not at any rate performed in public in situations where they could give an opportunity for spiritual ruin among simple people.

^{664}

Let these statements suffice for the topic of remedies against hailstorms through | lawful words and works.
[Note on Sources
Major identified sources for Ch. 7:
Aq. Summa 2/2.93.I, 2
Nider, Ant Hill 5.4
Praec. I.II.9, 23, 26, 28, 34
William of Auvergne, De Legibus 27]

CERTAIN HIDDEN REMEDIES AGAINST CERTAIN HIDDEN VEXATIONS ON THE PART OF DEMONS

Chapter Eight

ONCE again judgment is being suspended in order to describe remedies against certain injuries to the fruits of the earth. These injuries are inflicted sometimes through worms

^{665}

and sometimes through insects that fly in the air over long stretches of the earth in swarms, so that they seem to cover its surface, consuming all the plant matter consisting both of vines and of the crops in the fields and grass down to the roots. Also, remedies for babies exchanged through the work of demons.

As for the first, it should be said that when St. Thomas asked whether it is lawful to adjure an unreasoning creature (Second of Second, Q. 90 [Summa 2/2.90.3.Co.]), he answered that it is, but by way of compelling them. In this case, such compulsion ought to be applied to the Devil, who uses unreasoning creatures to harm us. This is the method of adjuration in the Church’s exorcisms, through which the power of the demons
182 D is debarred from unreasoning creatures. |For if intention were ascribed to the unreasoning creature, such intention would be vain in terms of the creature, since it understands nothing. Hence, one is given to understand that these creatures can be repelled through lawful exorcisms and adjurations (with the assistance of God’s mercy), so that fasts, processions and other acts of devotion should first be enjoined on the congregation. For evils are inflicted on account of acts of adultery and the increase in such crimes, and therefore people should also be encouraged to make confessions. In certain provinces, excommunications are fulminated, but in that case they acquire the force of an adjuration concerning the demons.

There is also another terrifying form of permission granted by God concerning humans. In certain instances, demons remove women’s children and youngsters from them and substitute other people’s. These children are called “changelings” by the common people (“Wechselkinder” in German), and they are divided into three categories. Some are always
183A scrawny wailers, and the milk supply of four women would not suffice | to suckle one. Others are produced through the work of demons, though the children are not theirs but belong to the human male whose seed

they took as succubi or by polluting the men in dreams.

^{666}

With God’s permission they sometimes substitute these suppositious children after removing the real

^{667}

children. There is also a third kind in instances where the demons attach themselves to wet nurses in the guise of small ones. All three kinds share the trait of being very heavy. They are thin and do not grow, and, as has already been stated, no supply of milk can suckle them. It is also frequently said that they have disappeared into thin air.

Why does God’s piety permit such things? It can be said that there are two reasons. The first is that the parents love the children excessively, and so these things are permitted for their benefit. The second is that it is to be presumed that women of the kind to whom such things happen are mostly superstitious and are led astray by the demons in many other regards. Hence, the Lord is truly jealous according to the proper meaning of jealousy, which is the strong love felt for the betrothed. For this reason not only does God not tolerate another man to approach her, | but like 183B a husband He is jealous of the soul that He bought with His precious blood and betrothed through the Faith, being incapable of enduring mere signs of adultery or the suspicion of touching, conversing with or in any way approaching His enemy, the Devil, who is the opponent of Salvation. If a jealous husband does not tolerate any signs of adultery, how much more is He upset when she commits adultery? Hence, it is no wonder if their own children are removed and substituted with adulterous offspring.

Indeed, to emphasize these facts more strongly, the extent to which God is jealous of the soul and is unwilling to tolerate signs that even give rise to suspicion is clear from the Old Law.

^{668}

To remove His people completely from idolatry, in the Old Law He banned not only idolatry but also many things that could provide an opportunity for idolatry. These prohibitions do not seem to have any benefit in themselves, but they retain it miraculously in their mystical meaning. Hence, not only did He say, “You will not tolerate sorcerers to live upon the earth” (Exodus

22 [: 18])

but He also added, “He should not live in your land, in case he might make you sin” [Exodus 23:33], just as a harlot | is killed and not 183 C permitted to wander promiscuously among men. Note the jealousy of

God in Deuteronomy 22 [:6-7]. He ordered that they

^{669}

should not keep both a nest containing eggs or young chicks and the mother brooding above them, but should let the mother fly away, because the gentiles used to interpret this as a sign of fertility or barrenness.

^{670}

In His jealousy, God did not wish to tolerate such a sign of adultery among His People. In this way, old women today judge the finding of a penny to be a sign of a great windfall and judge the opposite when they dream of a treasure trove.

Also, He ordered all vessels to be covered and a jar without a lid to be considered unclean [Numbers 19:15]. There is the erroneous belief that when demons (“die Seligen” [“the blessed ones”], as the old women call them, but these are in fact sorceresses or demons in their guise) come at night, they have to eat everything, so that they will give a greater return later.

^{671}

Some people try to color this by calling them “Schretl” [“fairies”], but they violate the determination of the Doctors that apart from humans and angels there are no other reasoning creatures. Hence, they

^{672}

can only be demons.

Also, Leviticus 19 [:27] says, “Do not cut your hair in a circle or shave 183 D your beard.” For the idol worshippers would perform these acts | in veneration of the idols.

Also, Deuteronomy

22 [: 5]

says that men should not wear women’s clothes or vice versa, because the women would do so in veneration of the goddess Venus and the men in veneration of Mars and the goddess Priapis.

^{673}

Also, for this reason He ordered the altars of the idols to be destroyed, and when the people wished an offering to be made to a bronze snake, Hezekiah destroyed it [2 Kings 18:4], saying, “It is copper.”

^{674}

For the same reason he prohibited the observance of dreams and of augury and instructed that a man or woman in whom there was a pythonic spirit be killed (these are now called “Wahrsagerinnen” [“female soothsayers”]).

All these acts give rise to a suspicion of spiritual adultery, and therefore, as has been said, God was led to prohibit these acts by the jealousy that He feels for the souls betrothed to Him, just as a fiancé feels for his betrothed. In this way we, both as preachers and as curates of souls, ought to note that no sacrifice is more welcome to God than the jealousy

^{675}

of souls, as Jerome bears witness (Commentary On Ezekiel [2.6.1-3]).

Therefore, the extermination of sorceresses in terms of final remedies will next be treated in Part Three of the work. |For this very measure is 184 A the Church’s final refuge, to which it is bound by the instruction of God mentioned before: “Do not tolerate sorcerers to live upon the earth” [Exodus 22:18]. The remedies against sorcerer archers are also included there, since it is also true of this kind that it can only be wiped out through the secular arm.

Remedy when someone vows himself entirely to a demon out of regard for temporal advantage $^{676}$

Experience has often taught through true confession that although such people were freed from the Devil’s power, they were still very severely harassed for a long time afterwards, especially at night-time (God permitted this as a punishment for them). A sign that they had been freed could be recognized in the fact that the money in their purses and strong boxes gave out after confession. Many events could be cited with reference to this, but they are left out for the sake of brevity.
[Note on Sources
Major identified source for Ch. 8:
Nider, Praec. I.II.30]

The third part first contains three questions that the judge ought to consider and from which every definitive sentence ought to proceed. The first

^{97}

is whether sentence can be passed with reference to the examination by white-hot sword. The second

^{98}

is the method by which the sentence is to be passed. The third

^{99}

is which suspicions can serve as the basis on which judgment can be passed, and how he ought to pass sentence with reference to every single suspicion.

Finally, with reference to the last

^{100}

part there is a treatment of the twenty methods of passing sentence.

^{IOI}

Thirteen of these are common to every heresy, and the rest concern the Heresy of Sorceresses specifically.

^{102}

Each will be explained in its place, and hence they are not set out here for the sake of brevity.

QUESTION ONE: THE METHOD OF INITIATING

THE PROCEEDINGS

194C THE first question is what is the appropriate method for initiating proceedings involving the Faith against sorceresses.

Response. The three methods discussed in the Liber Extra (“Accusations”) consist of denunciation and inquisition. The first is when someone accuses someone else before a judge with a charge of heresy or abetting it, offers to prove this, and writes himself down for the penalty of retribution if he does not prove it. The second method is when someone denounces someone else without offering to prove it or being willing to participate, and instead states that he is making a denunciation through his zeal for the Faith or on account of the sentence of

excommunication

^{103}

passed by the ordinary or his official or on account of the temporal penalty that the secular judge imposes on those not making denunciations. The third is the method by inquisition, that is, when there is no accuser or denouncer, but the general rumor in a certain city or place is worked up about there being sorceresses. In that case, the judge has to institute proceedings not at the insistence of some party but by virtue of his office. It should be noted that the judge should not really allow the first method of proceeding, | because this method is not customary in a case involving the Faith or in a case involving sorceresses, who practice their acts of sorcery in secret, because it is quite dangerous for the accuser on account of the penalty of retribution that is imposed when he fails to make good the proof, and because it is quite subject to legal disputation.

^{.04}

Let him begin the proceedings with a general summons, affixing it to the doors of the parish church or government headquarters in the following manner. “We, the representative of the Bishop Such-and-Such (or judge of Lord Such-and-Such), yearn with all our desires and desire with all our heart that the Christian people entrusted to us should be comforted in the unity and serenity of the Catholic Faith and in their bowels should be removed from every plague of heretical depravity, and it is for the glory and honor of remembrance of the name of Jesus Christ, for the exaltation of the Holy Orthodox Faith and the suppression of heretical depravity, especially in connection with sorceresses, that the office imposed upon us makes us responsible for these matters. Therefore, to each and every person within the territory of this town or within the town or within two miles of the town, of whatever condition or status” (note that | if an ecclesiastical judge is conducting the inquisition, he 195A should add, “of whatever order or religious vow”) “or dignity they may be, to whose notice these commands have reached” (the ecclesiastical judge should add, “by the authority that we enjoy in this regard, by virtue of holy obedience and under penalty of excommunication”) “we order and command and in our command require and advise that within the next twelve days counted from now” (here the secular judge will give the order after his own fashion and with the customary penalties) "whoever knows or has seen or heard that some person is reputed or suspected to be a heretic or sorcerer and in particular follows practices that can

result in harm to humans, domestic animals or the fruits of the earth and in damage to the common good, they should inform us. Of these twelve days, we set the first four as the first deadline, the next four as the second and the final four as the third, fixing these dates in accordance
195B with the triple warning dictated by the Canon.

^{.05} ∣

If someone does not effectively obey our

^{106}

warnings and advice by not providing information about the foregoing within the limit established, let him know that he" (The ecclesiastical judge should add “is stricken with the sword of excommunication,” while the secular judge should add the temporal penalties). “As our admonition according to the Canon dictates and their obedience demands, we pass this sentence of excommunication, now as then and then as now, against each and every person who is contumacious in this way, hereby reserving for ourselves

^{107}

alone the right to give absolution for these sentences.” (The secular judge should conclude after his own fashion.) “Issued …”

In addition, note with reference to the second method that the second method of conducting and starting proceedings involving the Faith is, as has been mentioned,

^{108}

the method of denunciation, in which case the denouncer does not offer to prove the charge himself and is unwilling to participate and instead says that he is making the denunciation by reason of the sentence of excommunication that has been passed or through his zeal for the Faith or for the sake of the common good. For this reason, the secular judge ought to specify in his general summons (admonition, as set out above) | that no one should think that he will become subject to penalty even if he fails in his proof, because he is offering himself not as an accuser but as a denouncer.

Because many people will in that case appear to offer denunciations to the judge, he ought to note that he should proceed in the following manner. First, he should have a notary and two respectable persons, whether clerics or laymen. If a notary cannot be obtained, then in place of the notary there should be two suitable men. Such is the provision

of the Chapter “Ut officio,” §“Verum” (Liber Sextus), where it says, “It is necessary in the case of a serious charge to proceed with great caution, so that there will be no error in pronouncing against the guilty the severity of harsh and due punishment. Therefore it is our wish and command that in the examination of the witnesses whom it will be suitable to accept in connection with the aforementioned charge and the activities connected with it, you should call in two discreet, religious persons” (here the Archdeacon says in the gloss: “Two respectable person, whether clerics or laymen, are understood”).

^{I09 "In their presence the}

depositions of these witnesses are to be written down accurately by an official person, if you can get one conveniently, or by| two suitable men." 195D Note therefore that after these people have been brought in, the judge should order the denouncer to give the denunciation in writing or at least to say it verbally,

^{¹0}

and then the notary or judge should begin the proceedings in the following manner.
“In the name of the Lord. Amen. In the year from the Birth of the Lord (and so on) on such-and-such day of such-and-such month, in the presence of my notary and the witnesses listed below, Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place and of Such-and-Such diocese (as above) appeared in person in Such-and-Such place before the honorable judge and offered to him a complaint to the following effect” (it should be inserted in full). If he does so not by written complaint but verbally, it should be set down in this way: “. . . appeared … and denounced to him that Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place and of Such-andSuch diocese claimed and stated that he knew the following” or “that he committed such-and-such acts of harm against him

^{III}

or his property or to other persons.” Having done this, the judge will immediately make the denouncer swear an oath in the customary way, either by the four Gospels of God or on the Cross, with three fingers raised and two pushed down,

^{112}

by | the testimony of the Holy Trinity and at the risk of the 196A

damnation of his soul and body, with reference to his telling the truth about the acts he denounces.

When the oath has been tendered, the judge will ask him how he knows that the things that he has denounced are true, and whether he saw or heard them. If he says that he saw something, for instance that the accused was found there at such-and-such an hour when there was stormy weather or that he touched a domestic animal or that he entered the barn, the judge will ask him where he saw this and when and how often and in what way and in whose presence. If he says he did not see this but heard about it, the judge will ask him from whom he heard it and where and when and how often and in whose presence. The judge will draw up articles about each of these points individually and separately.

^{113}

The notary (scribe) should put this in its entirety into the records (protocol) directly after the denunciation, continuing as follows. “This denunciation having been made in the way stated above, the inquisitor immediately made the denouncer swear by the four Gospels of God” and so on in the way stated above “about telling the truth about the matters he denounced, and the judge questioned him as to how and in what way 196B he knew the matters that he had denounced | or had a suspicion that they were true. He answered that he had seen (or heard) … The judge asked where he had seen (or heard), and he said that on such-and-such day of such-and-such month of such-and-such year in Such-and-Such place. He asked how many times he had seen (or heard)” and so on. The articles should be drawn up in the manner mentioned above and the whole be placed in the protocol. In particular, the denouncer is asked which people in addition to him have knowledge in connection with this case and which can have any. When all this has been done in this way, he will be asked whether he is making his denunciation as a result of ill-will, hatred or a grudge, or is leaving something out as a result of partiality or love, or is making his denunciation at someone’s request or suborning. Finally, he will be ordered by virtue of the oath he gave to keep secret whatever he said there or the judge said to him.

^{114}

The whole will be placed in the protocol and records, and when this has

been completed, the following should be placed a little bit underneath. “These transactions were conducted in Such-and-Such place on the such-and-such day of such-and-such month and in such-and-such year in the presence of Such-and-Such my notary (or the scribe attached to me for the task of record-keeper) and of Such-and-Such, the witnesses summoned and requested for this purpose.”
The third method of beginning the proceedings, which is also 196C the common and usual method. At the same time this would be a secret method, in a situation where no accuser or denouncer presents himself but the general rumor in some city or place is worked up about a sorceress or even about Such-and-Such, and the judge wishes to institute proceedings on the basis of his office without a general summons (admonition; as above), because this constant clamor has reached his ears. In this case, he can again begin the proceedings in the presence of persons as stated above.
“In the name of the Lord. Amen. In the year from the Birth of the Lord such-and-such in such-and-such month (or months) it came to the ears of the official Such-and-Such (or judge Such-and-Such) through the report of general rumor and the evidence of clamorous notification, that Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place said or did such-andsuch things pertaining to acts of sorcery in violation of the Faith and the common good of the state.” Let the whole be set down in the way reported by the worked-up rumor. Then a little bit below: “These transactions were conducted on such-and-such day of such-and-such month of the year such-and-such in the presence of my notary (or scribe), Such-and-Such, who assisted me in the capacity of record-keeper, and of Such-and-Such, the witnesses summoned and requested for this purpose.”

Before the start of the | second part

^{115}

(how proceedings of this kind 196D should be continued), a few introductory points about the examination of witnesses, and their number and status should be set out.
[Note on Sources [资料来源说明
Major identified sources for Q. i:
Eymeric, Dir. Pt. 3, “Methods I, 2, 3 of proceeding in a case involving the faith, by accusation, by denunciation and by means of inquisition” (modus procedendi in causa fidei per accusationem, per denuntiationem, per viam inquisitionis)]

^{i 15}

As laid out in 194A.

IT was stated in the section on the second method

^{16}

how the statements of the witnesses should be written down, and hence it is necessary to know their number and status.

It is asked whether the judge can, on the basis of the testimony of two lawful, individual witnesses, condemn any woman for the Heresy of Sorceresses or whether more than two are necessarily required. (Witnesses are called “individual” when they are divided in their statements but are concordant about the essence or result of the event. Hence, if one said, “She affected my cow with sorcery,” while the other mentioned a child, they would be concordant about the sorcery. Here, then, the question concerns the situation when the witnesses are not individual but altogether in agreement.) The response is that although two witnesses seem 197A to be sufficient

∣

according to the letter of the law, the rule being that every statement in the mouth of two or three stands, nonetheless, on the basis of legal fairness it seems that two are not enough in connection with this charge, for two reasons.

First, there is the enormity of the charge. In criminal charges the proof should be clearer than daylight (Pandect, “Proofs” “Si autem”),

^{117}

and heresy in particular is counted among the greater charges. If it is stated that in this charge lesser proofs are sufficient on the grounds that someone is revealed in a trivial matter (Chapter of the Code “Heretics,” Law 2: “With a trivial demonstration he makes himself a heretic in deviating from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion” [Code of Justinian I.5.2.I]),

^{18}

the response is that this is true for a presumption but not for condemnation.

The other reason is the abbreviation of the legal procedure in connection with this charge. In it, the judicial procedure is abbreviated in favor of the Faith, in that the accused does not see the witnesses swear their oath and their identity is not revealed to him in a situation where they could be seriously endangered, as is explained in Chapter “Statuta” (Liber Sextus, “Heretics”), and hence the accused cannot guess who they are. Instead, the judge is obligated by virtue of his office to conduct a thorough examination of the enmity of the witnesses himself, since enemies are excluded, as will be explained below.

^{IT}

| If their testimony about the reason for their knowledge is individual,

_{197} B

he will question them a second time, which he can do (Liber Extra, “Witnesses” “Per tuas” and Pandect, “Questionings,” “Repeti” [Digest 48.18.16]). For the more that every path of defense is taken away from the accused, the more it is incumbent upon the judge to conduct a careful inquisition.

Therefore, in a situation where two concordant, lawful witnesses are found against someone,

I^{120}

would still not wish to condemn him for such a crime on that basis. Rather, I would want to impose purgation if he was of bad reputation, or have him make an abjuration because of the strong suspicion that arises from the statements of two witnesses, or to question him under torture, or to postpone sentence. For it does not seem safe to condemn a person of good repute on the words of two witnesses (it is otherwise if the person is of bad reputation).

^{121}

Regarding this the Archdeacon speaks more fully at the beginning of Chapter “Ut officium” § “Verum” (Liber Sextus, “Heretics”) on the word “testium” [“of witnesses”] and Chapter “In fidei” at the end of the gloss on that chapter; so too John Andreae on the same passages. In Chapter “Excommunicamus itaque” (Extra, “Heretics” § “Adiicimus”) it says that the Bishop should make three or more | men of good testimony swear 197C an oath about telling the truth if they know in the parish that there are such heretics there.

On the same topic. If it is asked whether the judge can justly condemn someone for this heresy with only three individual witnesses, at any rate when the defendant has a bad reputation, the answer is no, he can do so neither with three individual witnesses nor when the accused has a bad reputation (Extra, “Witnesses,” “Cum litteris”), especially since in criminal charges the proofs should be clearer than daylight, as was explained above, and in this charge no one is to be condemned on the basis of presumption (Extra, “Presumptions,” “Litteras”).

^{122}

Therefore, purgation is imposed on such a person on account of the bad reputation and abjuration on account of the strong suspicion that arises from the statements of the witnesses. But when three individual but concordant

witnesses agree on the essence of the deed and the evidence of the deed, in this case the burden is placed on the judge’s conscience.

^{I23}

In the Directorium is contained the question of how many times the witnesses can be examined.
[Note on Sources [资料来源说明
Major identified sources for Q. 2:
Eymeric, Dir. 3.71, 72]

QUESTION THREE

197 D IF it is asked whether

^{r24}

the judge

∣

can force the witnesses to swear an oath about telling him the truth in a case involving the Faith or sorceresses, and also whether he can examine them several times, the answer is that he can, especially an ecclesiastical judge, as was explained above

^{r25}

regarding Chapter “Ut officium”

§

“Verum,” and that witnesses in ecclesiastical cases are to be forced to give truthful testimony by means of an oath (Extra, “Compelling Witnesses,” Chapter “Pervenit”). Otherwise, the testimony will not be valid. In Extra, “Heretics,” Chapter “Excommunicamus itaque” §“Adiicimus” it says that the archbishop or bishop should go through the parish in which the heretics are rumored to dwell and compel three or more men of good testimony or, if he thinks it useful, the whole vicinity to swear the oath. Below it goes on, “If any of them with damnable obstinacy spurn the religious obligation of the oath and are unwilling to swear, from this very fact they should be considered to be heretics.”

That they can be examined several times is stated by the Archdeacon on the word “testium” [“witnesses”] in the Chapter “Ut officium” § “Verum,” where it says, “The inquisitor” (in this case the judge) “ought | to make sure that if the witnesses have given conflicting testimony and have not been asked fully about the reason for their knowledge, he will renew the inquisition with

^{126}

them.” This can be done legally (Extra, “Compelling Witnesses,”

^{127}

as was discussed above,

^{128}

and Pandect, Title “Questioning,” “Repeti”).

[Note on Sources [资料来源说明
Major identified sources for Q. 3:
第三问的主要确定来源：
Eymeric, Dir. 3.62] 埃梅里克，Dir. 3.62]

QUESTION FOUR: THE STATUS OF THE WITNESSES
问题四：证人的身份
QUESTION about the status of the witnesses. Note that excommunicates are allowed to litigate and give testimony in any case involving the Faith, as are participants and associates in the charges, and the infamous,

^{129}

and criminal serfs against their masters. Also, a sorcerer is allowed to give testimony against a sorcerer in the same way that a heretic is allowed to do so against a heretic, though in default of other proofs and always against and never for. This is also the case with his wife, children and friends (demonstrated by Chapter “Filii,” Liber Sextus, “Heretics”).

^{130}

The reason for this is that their testimony is more effective as proof.

The first group is explained in Chapter “In fidei” (“Heretics” in the same place): “In favor of the Faith We grant that, in the business of the inquisition of heretical depravity, excommunicates and | participants or 198B associates in the charges should be admitted in default of other proofs against heretics and their believers, harborers, abettors and defenders, if, on the basis of plausible conjectures and the number of witnesses or the quality of both the persons deposing and those against whom the case is lodged and the depositions given or on the basis of other circumstances, those giving this testimony are presumed not to be speaking falsehoods.”

When it is presumed that perjurers are deposing through zeal for the Faith is explained in the cited Chapter “Accusatus” § “Licet,” where it says, “Although perjurers are debarred, nonetheless, if those who, in the presence…” and below, “… if on the basis of manifest indications it appears that it is not through fickleness of spirit or the instigation of hatred or corruption by money but through zeal for the Orthodox Faith that these people wish to correct their statement and to reveal now what they previously concealed, then in favor of the faith, unless there is some obstacle, their attestations should be upheld, both against themselves and the others.”

As for the admission of the infamous and of criminals and of serfs against their masters, the Archdeacon says the following on the word

198C “exceptum” in the cited Chapter “Accusatus,” §“Licet.” | “So great is the stain of the charge of heresy, that to prosecute it even serfs are admitted against their masters, and so is any criminal and even the infamous against anyone, as it says in 2, Q. 7 [Decretum 2.2.7.22] § ‘Huic opponitur.’”
[Note on Sources
Major identified sources for Q. 4:
Eymeric, Dir. 3.64, 65, 66]

QUESTION FIVE: WHETHER MORTAL ENEMIES ARE

ALLOWED TO GIVE TESTIMONY

IF it is asked whether the judge can allow mortal enemies of someone denounced in such a case to give testimony or to litigate against him, we respond that he cannot. Hence, the Archdeacon (cited above) says, "You should not, however, understand that in this charge a mortal enemy is allowed to litigate (3, Q. 5, Ch. 2 [Decretum 2.3.5.2] and “Simony,” Chapter “Licet Heli” at the end). Hostiensis also has a note about this in his Summa [5.I.2] (“Accusations” § “Quis posset”).

Who are called mortal enemies? Note that someone is debarred only by reason of enmity, and that not just any enemy but only a mortal one is debarred. Hence, it is understood that a death has in fact been inflicted among them

^{131}

or one was intended or those things that are conducive to death | or a means for it or serious or fatal wounds ensued and similar things that are manifestly indicative of the perversity and ill-will of the perpetrator against the victim. For this reason, it is presumed that just as he intended bodily death against him by that method, that is, by inflicting a wound, he would also intend to do so through this method, that is, by foisting upon him the crime of heresy, and that just as he wished to take away his life, he would wish to take away his reputation. Hence, such mortal enemies are excluded by law from giving testimony.

As for other enmities, especially serious ones, in consideration of the fact that women are in fact easily moved to enmities, although these enmities do not completely debar, nonetheless, they weaken their statements to some extent, so that full faith should not be placed in their attestations. Still, with other supporting evidence and the statements of other witnesses, they can provide full proof, especially when the judge questions the person denounced as to whether he thinks that he has

^{I31}

Presumably, this refers to a murder that resulted in a blood feud.
an enemy who would dare out of enmity to foist upon him such an accusation to cause his death.

^{132}

If he says yes, the judge will ask who that person is, and then he should note whether he has indicated that person|about whom there is a suspicion that he has made his deposition 199A out of enmity. For in the situation where the judge is also informed of the reason for the enmity by respectable third parties and no other supporting evidence or statements of other witnesses come to his notice, he will be able to debar such a witness safely. If, on the other hand, the denounced person will say, “I do not expect that I have some such enemy, although I have sometimes had quarrels with women,” or will say, “I have an enemy” and not mention the witness properly but someone else who perhaps has not given a deposition, then, even if others have said that this witness gave the deposition as a result of enmity, the judge ought not to debar his statements but should keep them for full proof along with other supporting evidence.

Very many insufficiently foresightful and circumspect men are found who seek to refute and invalidate women’s depositions of this kind, saying that they should not be upheld because women, being quarrelsome, commonly make depositions out of enmity. Because these men are ignorant of the cunning tricks and stratagems of judges, they speak like the blind about colors. (These cunning tricks will be explained in Questions Eleven and Twelve.)

[Note on Sources

Major identified sources for Q. 5 :
Eymeric, Dir. 3.67 and “On lines of defense for defendants” (de defensionibus reorum)]

PART TWO:

^{133}

HOW THE PROCEEDINGS | ARE TO BE I99B CONTINUED (QUESTION SIX), AND HOW THE WITNESSES ARE TO BE EXAMINED IN THE PRESENCE OF FOUR OTHER

PERSONS, AND THE TWO WAYS IN WHICH THE DENOUNCED WOMAN IS TO BE QUESTIONED

NOW Question

S_{ix}

is how | proceedings of this kind against sorceresses in a case involving the Faith are to be continued. The first consideration is that in a case involving the Faith the proceeding is summary, straightforward and informal, without the screeching and posturing of advocates in courtrooms, as is explained in Chapter “Statuta”

(Liber Sextus). How these words are to be understood is explained in Extra, “Meaning of Words” and in Chapter “Saepe contingit” in the Clementines, where it says, “It often happens that We delegate cases, and in connection with some of them We order the proceeding to be straightforward and informal, without the screeching and posturing of a courtroom. Many people dispute the meaning of these words, and there is doubt as to how the proceedings should be carried out. Desiring, then, to settle such doubt as far as possible, We ordain by this eternally valid decree that a judge to whom We have delegated a case in this way should 199C be obligated not to demand a petition | or to require a formal joinder of the suit,

^{134}

and should be entitled to carry out lawful proceedings during a holiday indulged to men because of their needs, should cut out delay and curtail as far as possible the subject matter of the suit, debarring the exceptions,

^{135}

appeals and delays that thwart justice, and restraining the disputes and squabbles of the parties’ advocates and legal representatives

^{136}

and the pointlessly large number of witnesses. The judge should not, however, throttle the case by not admitting the necessary proofs. It is also Our understanding that this sort of delegation does not exclude the act of summoning and the presentation of an oath about not making a false accusation and about telling the truth so that the truth will not be concealed.”

As was seen above,

^{137}

the proceedings are to be started in three ways, because of the insistence of an accuser, the zeal of a denouncer or the outcry of worked-up rumor, and the judge ought not to undertake proceedings on this topic at the insistence of an accuser, since deeds of sorceresses are hidden by the working of demons, and the accuser cannot, as is the case with other charges, institute proceedings and defend 199D himself through the evidence of deed.

^{138} ∣

Instead, the judge ought to look after the interests of the accuser by removing the word “accusation” and putting down “denunciation,” because of the serious danger to the accuser. Therefore, in the second method, which is the usual one, and

similarly with the third, in both of which the proceedings are instituted officially and not at the insistence of a party, it should be noted that it was said in the foregoing that the judge ought to ask the denouncer specifically about which people are knowledgeable about this case along with him or can be, and therefore the judge will have those witnesses whom the denouncer has mentioned and who seem to be knowledgeable about the deed summoned.

The scribe will continue the protocol by writing as follows. “After this, the judge noted that the aforementioned heretical acts denounced to him were by their nature such and so great that they cannot and should not be tolerated with conniving eyes, since they result in insult to the majesty of God and damage both to the Catholic Faith and to the common good, and he resorted to informing himself and examining the witnesses in the following manner.”

List of questions for the witnesses

"Witness Such-and-Such, from Such-and-Such place, was sum- 200A moned and put under oath. Questioned as to whether he knew Such-and-Such (the name of the denounced being stated), he said yes.
“Item.

^{139}

Questioned about the reason for this knowledge, he said that he saw and spoke to him several times (or in such-and-such way or otherwise), because they were associates.” (The reasons for the knowledge will be stated.)
"Item. Questioned about the time of the knowledge, he said that it has been ten years (or however many).
"Item. Questioned about the denounced person’s reputation, especially with reference to matters of the Faith, he said that in terms of character he is a man of good (or bad) reputation, but as for matters of the Faith he said that there is a story in Such-and-Such place that he follows certain practices contrary to the Faith as a sorcerer.
"Item. Questioned about what the story is, he said…
"Item. Questioned as to whether he saw or heard Such-and-Such doing such-and-such things, he said…
"Item. Questioned as to where he heard the aforementioned things said, he said, in Such-and-such place.

"Item. Questioned as to in whose presence, he said, in the presence of these.
"Item. Questioned as to whether any of those related to him by blood 200B had in the past been | burned to ashes because of acts of sorcery or been considered suspect, he said …

^{I40}

"Item. Questioned as to whether he maintained familiar relations with suspected sorcerers, he said…
"Item. Questioned about the manner in which and the reason why these statements were made, he said for this reason and in such-and-such way.
"Item. Questioned as to whether he thought that Such-and-Such said or did these things in jest or in mimicry or unwittingly or, on the other hand, assertively and wittingly, he said that he believes that he did the aforementioned things jokingly and jestingly or in mimicry and not in a spirit of holding such beliefs or assertively.
“Item. Questioned about the reason for this belief, he said that he believes this because the man who was making the statements did so laughing.” A very careful investigation about these statements should be made, because sometimes people say the words of others in mimicry or in jesting or in the course of a discussion, so that they can draw others out or urge them on, though sometimes they do in fact do so as assertions or affirmations.
“Item. Questioned as to whether he is making a deposition about these matters through hatred or a grudge or is making any omission 200 C through love or bias, | he said that…”

And so on.
It continues: "He was ordered to keep this secret.
“The transactions were conducted in Such-and-Such place on such-and-such day in the presence of the witnesses Such-and-Such, called and requested, and of my notary (scribe).”

Here it should always be noted that in such an examination at least five persons should be present: the inquisitorial judge, the respondent (the witness or the denouncer or the denounced person, who appears later), the third is the notary (or scribe when a notary is unavailable, in which case the scribe should avail himself of the services of another respectable man and the two of them will fill in for the notary, as was mentioned above,

^{141}

by the Apostolic authority of which they make

use in that act, explained above on the topic of Chapter “Ut Officium” in Liber Sexus, “Heretics”), and two respectable men as witnesses to those giving depositions. It should likewise be noted that a summoned witness should also be under oath, that is, that he should give an oath in the manner mentioned above

^{142}

about telling the truth. Otherwise, the notation “summoned and put under oath” would be false.

The other witnesses should be examined in exactly the same way. After their examination, if the judge sees that the deed has been fully proven, or if it is not fully proven, that there are very great indications and strong suspicions (note that what we are speaking of is not the light suspicion | that arises from light conjectures, but the fact that she

^{143}

has 200 D a very bad reputation concerning the acts of sorcery committed against children, domestic animals and so on), then if the judge has fears about the flight of the denounced man or woman, he should have the person arrested. Whether or not he is arrested, the judge should first have his house searched unexpectedly and all the cabinets opened and the boxes in the corners and all the implements that are found removed.

^{144}

After this has been arranged, the judge should compile all the matters about which the person has been accused and all those about which he has been convicted by witnesses, and then draw up a list of questions about these matters. Then he should conduct the inquisition, having the notary (and so on, as above) with him, after the denounced person has given a bodily oath on the four Gospels of God about telling the truth both about himself and about others (in the following manner). The details should be written down.

List of general questions concerning a sorceress or sorcerer (Step One)

"The denounced Such-and-Such from Such-and-Such place bodily touched the four Gospels of God and swore to tell the truth both about himself and about others, and then, questioned as to where he is from or where he originated from, he answered from Such-and-Such place | of the diocese Such-and-Such.
"Item. Questioned as to who are his parents and whether they are living or dead, he answered, living in Such-and-Such place (or died in Such-and-Such place).

“Item. Questioned as to whether they died by a natural death or were burned to ashes, she

^{145}

said that they died by such-and-such a death.”

^{146}

Note here that this is asked because, as was explained in Part Two

^{I47}

of the work, sorceresses generally offer their own babies to demons or instruct them, and commonly the whole progeny is tainted. In a situation where those giving depositions affirmed this and she denied it, she would now be suspect.
“Item. Questioned as to the place in which he was raised and, as is the case with many, lived, he said in Such-and-Such place or Such-andSuch.” If the judge sees that he left his own area, not perhaps because his mother or anyone from his family was suspect, yet lived in a foreign area, especially in areas where sorceresses generally flourish, he will be asked as follows.
"Item. Questioned as to why he left the area of his birth and moved to stay in Such-and-Such place or places, he said for such-and-such reason.

^{148}

“Item. Questioned as to whether in these areas or elsewhere she heard talk on the subject of sorceresses,” for example that storms were stirred

201 B

up or domestic animals |affected with sorcery or cows deprived of the liquid of milk and so on with reference to the content of the denunciation against her. If she says yes, she should be questioned as follows.
“Item. Questioned as to what she heard said,” and the details that she says should be written down.

If she denies it and says she heard nothing, then as follows.
“Item. Questioned as to whether she believes that sorceresses exist and that such things as are reported can happen” - like stirring up storms, contaminating domestic animals and humans - “she said …”

Note that for the most part sorceresses initially make a denial, and hence a greater suspicion arises than if they responded, “Whether they exist or not I leave to my betters.”

^{149}

Hence, if they say no, then they should be questioned as follows.
"Item. Questioned, ‘What about when they are burned? Are they then condemned though they are innocent?’ she said…"150

List of specific questions concerning these same people

The judge should take care not to put off the following questions, but should set them out without delay.
"Item. Questioned as to why the common people feared her, she said…
"Item. Questioned as to whether she knew that she had a bad reputation and that she was hated, she said…
"Item. Questioned as to why she had cast in his face the words, ‘You will not pass with impunity,’| she said…

^{III} 201 C

“Item. Questioned as to what evil that person had done to her so that she uttered such words to his harm, she said …”

Note that this line of questioning is necessary in order to reach the foundation of the enmity, because in the end the denounced woman will allege enmity. But when the enmity is not mortal but merely the kind stirred up in the female fashion, it forms no hindrance, since it is characteristic of sorceresses to stir up such enmity against themselves either by pointless

^{152}

words or by deeds. For instance, she asks to have something given to her as a present or inflicts some harm on the other woman in her garden and similar acts, for the purpose of gaining an opportunity.

^{153}

They manifest themselves in word or work, being obliged to make this manifestation at the insistence of the demons, in order that in this way the sins of the judges will be aggravated when the sorceresses remain unpunished.

^{154}

Note also that they do this in the absence of

witnesses so that if a person giving a deposition wished to produce witnesses, he would not be able to. Note also that they are egged on by the demons, as we have learned from many sorceresses later burned to ashes, so that they have to cause trouble and inflict harm with sorcery against their own will.

^{155}

20ID "Item. Questioned as to how the effect that the child or domestic animal was so quickly affected with sorcery could have followed after the threats, she said…
"Item. Questioned, ‘And how is it that you said that she would never have a healthy day, and this is what happened?’ she said …

^{156}

"Item. If she denies everything, she should be asked about other acts of sorcery that were inflicted on other witnesses, for instance in their domestic animals or children.
"Item. Questioned as to why she was seen in the fields or in the barn with the domestic animals, touching them in the way that sorceresses do, she said…
"Item. Questioned as to why it was that she touched the child, and later it was not well, she said. . .

^{157}

“Item. Questioned as to what she was doing in the fields at the time of the storm,” and so on about many other events.
"Item. What caused the fact that while she had one cow or two, she had a larger supply of milk than the neighboring women with four or six.

^{P1} 8

“Item. Why does she remain in a state of adultery or as a concubine?”
Although these questions have nothing to do with the issue, they nonetheless generate suspicion more than is the case with denounced women who are upright and respectable.

^{159}

Note that she should be questioned several times about the articles for which she was denounced to see whether or not she maintains her story.

After the confession is completed and transcribed, whether in negative or positive vein or ambiguously, it should state: “These transactions were conducted in Such-and-Such place” and so on (as above).

[Note on Sources

Major identified sources for Q. 6:
Eymeric, Dir. “Methods I, 2, 3 of conducting and continuing the process in a case involving the faith” (de modo prosequendi et continuandi processum in causa fidei)]

QUESTION SEVEN, IN WHICH VARIOUS DOUBTS ARE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE PREVIOUS LISTS OF QUESTIONS AND NEGATIVE ANSWERS, WHETHER THE DENOUNCED WOMAN SHOULD BE IMPRISONED, AND WHEN SHE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE MANIFESTLY CAUGHT IN THE HERESY OF SORCERESSES (STEP TWO)

THE first question raised is what should be done if, as is generally the case, the denounced person denies everything. The response is that the judge has to consider whether or not three things - bad reputation, the indications of the deed, and the statements of the witnesses - all point in the same direction. If they do, this is generally the case because sorceresses are immediately branded with a bad reputation because of crimes in some village or city. Indications of the deed are obvious, for instance in the form of children affected by sorcery or domestic animals, which are quite often diseased or deprived of milk. The number of witnesses is also written down.

^{160}

Although the witnesses are individual, one for instance making a deposition that she affected his son with sorcery, the second saying this of a domestic animal, the third mentioning bad reputation, and so on with other instances, they nonetheless agree on the essence of the deed, that is,

∣

on the subject of 202B acts of sorcery and the fact that the sorceress is suspect. These witnesses are not sufficient for condemnation in the absence of a bad reputation or even with it, as was discussed above in Question Three,

^{161}

but with the addition of indications of the deed she could, on the basis of these

three elements together, be considered to be not a strongly or violently suspected sorceress (about these suspicions there will be an explanation below),

^{162}

but to be manifestly caught in the Heresy of Sorceresses, provided that suitable witnesses (ones not acting on the basis of enmity and sufficient in number, for instance six, eight or ten) coincide under oath. Consequently she would be subject to the penalties in Chapter “Ad abolendam” § “Praesenti” (“Heretics”) and in the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” (whether she has confessed the crime or not).

These statements are proven as follows. When it was said that, in the situation where all of the three elements mentioned before coincide, she ought to be considered as manifestly caught in the Heresy of Sorceresses, it should not be understood that all three must coincide at the same time. This is proven by a fortiori arguments. If either the indication of the deed or the lawful production of witnesses can by itself result in someone 202C | being considered to be manifestly caught in heretical depravity, how much more is this the case when both proofs coincide together? When the jurists ask the number of methods by which someone is by law considered to be caught manifestly in heretical depravity, they answer “three,” as Bernard notes in the Ordinary Gloss on the word “Deprehensi” [“caught”] in Chapter “Ad abolendam,” § “Praesenti” (Extra, “Heretics”), and as was discussed above

^{163}

in Question One in the beginning of the work. The first proof is the evidence of the deed, for instance that he preached heresy publicly. In this category we place the indication of the deed consisting of public threats that she made by saying, “You will never have healthy days” or the like, and the subsequent effect. Next (Bernard continues) comes the method consisting of lawful proof through witnesses, or, third, that of her own confession. Hence, if any of these proofs by itself makes and renders someone manifestly suspect, how much more is this the case when at the same time bad reputation and the indications of the deed are combined with the deposition of the witnesses? Though “evident deed” is mentioned there and “indication of the deed” here, the reason for this is that the Devil does not work manifestly but secretly, and the losses and the devices for sorcery that are found give an indication of the deed. Hence, while the evident deed alone would be sufficient in the other forms of heresy, here we combine three.

^{164}

The second point (that although the person caught makes a denial, 202D he should still be punished according to those chapters) is proven as follows. The person caught by the evidence of the deed or through witnesses either confesses or does not. If he confesses and is penitent, according to Chapter “Ad abolendam” (cited above) he should be handed over to the secular arm to be stricken with the ultimate penalty;

^{165}

according to the second Chapter “Excommunicamus” he should be cast into life imprisonment.

^{166}

If, on the other hand, he does not confess but maintains his denial, he should be handed over as an impenitent to the authority of the secular court to have the due penalty inflicted on him, as Hostiensis notes in Summa, “Heretics,” Chapter “Qualiter deprehendatur.”

In this way, then, it is concluded that if the judge adopts such a procedure concerning the list of questions and the depositions of witnesses, since the proceedings in cases involving the Faith can, as has been stated, be summary, straightforward and informal, and if he remands the denounced woman to prison temporarily or for several years in case she will be worn down by the misery of prison and confess her crimes, his proceeding would be not unjust but just. Yet, to avoid the appearance of anticipating the sentence and to seem rather to be proceeding according to every form of fairness, the question is raised as to what should next be done.

^{167}

some distance from the infliction of harm on the victim and was normally incapable of being seen by any eyewitnesses (apart from the perpetrators). This seemingly insoluble problem is circumvented by equating “indications of the deed” (that is, circumstantial evidence) with the “evidence of the deed” (that is, direct proof) that would normally be needed for conviction.

^{165}

I.e., execution.

^{166}

This passage is a misrepresentation of what Eymeric correctly states about the legal situation. In Eymeric, the topic is whether an inquisitor can release under surety someone who has been “caught” in heresy and arrested for this. The answer Eymeric gives is no: “For he is either caught by his own confession or he is not. If he is and is impenitent, he should be handed over to the secular court to be stricken with the ultimate penalty according to Chapter ‘Ad abolendam’ § ‘Praesenti’; if he is penitent, he is to be cast into life imprisonment according to the second Chapter ‘Excommunicamus.’” Here, in the case of the accused who has confessed, the if-clause that goes with the result consisting of execution is changed to state that he is penitent instead of impenitent, and the removal of the if-clause that introduces the punishment of life imprisonment changes the meaning to indicate that in the case of penitence, two decretals provide for different punishments, one execution, the other life imprisonment. Since the legal situation is correctly reported in 207 B and

224 B -

C, the garbling here, which involves more than simply leaving out a clause, is presumably inadvertent.

^{167}

Note that at this point the accused is considered guilty and worthy of execution, and the rest of the preceding consists of nothing but a lot of legal mummery to give the appearance of fairness.

$^{428}$ Another scholastic aphorism.
429 86B-92D.
430 Here the distinction of “ancient” vs. “modern” is used in its common scholastic sense to refer to the “realist” and “nominalist” schools (while Bonaventure was a nominalist, Aquinas, Albert and Peter de Palude were realists). The thought here is a reworking of the source (Nider); see n. 437.
$^{431}$ Though the general sense of the word is similar to its modern derivative, its medieval meaning is somewhat different. “Frigidity” signifies the inability to function sexually because of a “coldness” or sluggishness in the person’s physique.
432 This sentence is misrepresented here. The original states that the symbol “imposes an end” and the verbal prefix was misread at some point as non (“not”).
433 Interestingly, discussion of this procedure entered into Institoris’s investigation of a sorceress in Innsbruck, as related in his protocols for interrogating suspects (see n. 303). The procedure of the milk pail was mentioned in a deposition given by Cristin Ypfhoferin on September 6, 1484: “Trenlin Rötfelder’s serving girl is suspected of taking milk from cows. For a person from whom the milk was taken learned that she should hang a milk pail over the fire and strike it in the name of the Devil; then the person must come. It then happened that this person came crying and felt ill.”

This procedure apparently struck Institoris’s imagination, and he used it in his preaching, not to everyone’s satisfaction. The first article against Helena Scheuberin states that she refused to attend his sermons and the second article states that she was rendered suspect of heresy for having claimed publicly that his claims about Catholic doctrine were heretical. She went so far as to state that the Devil had deluded him into preaching nothing but heresy, calling down upon him an attack of epilepsy. She admitted this when arrested, and “when asked why she asserted that Church doctrine was heretical, she responded that I had only preached against ‘unhulen’ [‘witches’] and added that I had given the method of striking a pail of milk in order to gain knowledge of a sorceress who had taken milk from cows. And when I stated that I had cited these things against them by way of censure rather than for instruction, she stated that in the future she would never attend my sermons after release.”
434 Cf . the anecdote about the demonic cats ( $I 23 C - I 25 B$ ).
435 For the idea of gradual corruption, see $93 B, 98 B, D$ .
436 Presumably, the object used in “causing” the sorcery.
437 This notion of a “single distinction” comes from Nider (Ant Hill 5.3), who means something entirely different. According to him, while the ancients denied that it was lawful to break an act of sorcery, the moderns accepted the practice. Nider considers that both groups were correct, so long as the following distinction was borne in mind. If the sorcery was broken through use of a sorcerer’s unlawful rites, this was completely prohibited, but if the sorcery was broken through some sort of motion (for instance, removing from underneath a house’s threshold the remains of a lizard that had been placed there as a means of inflicting sorcery), this was acceptable. Here, Nider’s simple distinction is made rather more complicated (and much less clear).
438 The scheme in this paragraph is poorly conceived, and is not clearly reflected in the four forms of remedy that are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs; see nn. 442 and 462.
$^{439}$ Presumably, Nicholas V, pope 1447-I455.
$^{441}$ Once again, this is a play on the Latin for “evil-doer,” which looks like “caster of sorcery.”
442 The numbering of this and the subsequent remedies does not clearly correspond to the three methods of remedy laid out in 154A-B. In the previous two anecdotes (the German bishop in Rome and the anecdote from Nider) the harm is transferred to the original sorceress, while here in the “second” method the sorcerers who break the sorcery do not harm the original sorceress. This distinction is made towards the end of 154 A , where the latter method is said to be unlawful like the former, but less so.
443 Actually, Method is ( $251 B - 254 C$ ).
449 Reference to Philippians 2:21: “For they all seek their own things and not the things of Christ.” 450 in4D.
$^{451}$ In 799/800, Charlemagne brought to the royal chapel (later the cathedral) in his capital Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) many relics (including numerous items supposedly belonging to the Holy Family) from Rome, Constantinople and Jerusalem (for their miraculous abilities, see Vincent of Beauvais, Mirror of History 24.5). This Church of the Virgin Mary became a popular pilgrimage site after the practice began in 1349 of exhibiting the relics every seven years (for two weeks in July).
452 I.e., the monastery at Einsiedeln (now in Switzerland). In 834 St. Meinrad founded a hermitage here, and after he was clubbed to death by a pair of brigands, a chapel dedicated to Christ the Savior was built on the site of the murder by the remaining hermits. In 934, a Benedictine monastery was founded on the location of the earlier hermitage (and named after it). On September 14, 948, the bishop of Constance was to dedicate the newly rebuilt chapel, but on the previous night he had a vision in which Christ himself dedicated the chapel to his mother. From then on, this day was celebrated as the “Feast of the Miraculous Dedication,” and 130,000 pilgrims are said to have attended the rites for the feast and the preceding vigil in the year I466.
453 The Latin is not clearly composed, but the author seems to mean that the visitors bring their troubles to this man Hengst for him to cure them.
454 153C?
455 See n. 462.
$^{456}$ Presumably, the noblemen.
$459225 D - 227 B$ .
460 158C.
$^{461}_{153}$ B-C.
462 This fourth remedy is not defined, and the way in which the supposed dispute with the canonists is laid out obscures the matter. The difference between the third and fourth remedies appears to be that whereas the former is practiced by respectable people who use superstitious rites to break the sorcery without resort to demons, the latter, according to the theological interpretation, is carried out through the assistance of demons and is thus impermissible. (Note in this regard that the one example in the third category involves a man, but apart from the odd story at the end about keeping sorceresses in church, the fourth seems to be the province of peasant women, who are the principal adherents of the Heresy of Sorceresses.) The view ascribed to theologians conceives of all forms of magic as being dependent upon demons, and thus rules out the possibility of benign magic, but it is grudgingly allowed, for the sake of ecclesiastical harmony, that this fourth sort of remedy may be classified with the third sort, which supposedly does not involve demons. The implicit distinction between the third and fourth sorts of remedies seems not to correspond to the confusing introductory discussion: in 154A remedies performed by non-sorcerers are divided into those that involve vain but unlawful rites and those that involve vain but lawful rites, but in 154 B the distinction concerning remedies performed by respectable people is that while in some remedies the harm is transferred, in others there is no transfer but there is an express or implicit invocation of demons. This last description seems to suit the present fourth remedy, but remedy three in $156 B - 157 B$ does not involve a transfer of harm.
$^{463}$ For “more holy times” that are not specific feasts, note that in 112 D the season of Advent is termed a “more holy time of the year.”
464 I.e., of the Devil.
465 88B-89D.
466 I.e., sorceresses.
$^{467}$ For this word, see section e of the “Notes on the translation.”
$^{468}$ I.e., of the Devil.
$^{469}$ An astonishing statement given the effort expended earlier ( $132 D - I 33 A$ ) to prove the exact opposite, that the Devil could not in fact defame the innocent.
470 On occasion, Aquinas omits a direct refutation of the false arguments if he thinks that they have been dealt with sufficiently in the body of the question, but given the extensive nature of the arguments adduced here, one suspects that the author felt uncomfortable with directly rebutting the great Aquinas (as well as Bonaventure).
$^{471}$ As usual, the Latin word could also be taken to mean “evil-doers.”
473 “Lying under” is something of a pun in that the Latin verb in question (succumbo) is the source of the noun succubus.
474 In fact, the demand that three lawful witnesses or the confession of the accused were necessary for conviction was nothing more than adherence to accepted legal procedure, which was violated by the practice of taking mere suspicion as probative evidence (see 202A-D).
475 159A. 475 159A。
476 I.e., a nun in monastic attire.
477 I.e., the Devil’s.
$^{478}$ The word “fifth” has been inadvertently omitted.
479 Presumably, what fails to help one person will not necessarily fail to help another.
$^{480}$ This numbering is carried over tralaticiously from Nider, though sacramental confession was renumbered as the first item in 160 A .
$^{48 I}$ The memory of the source (Nider) seems to have failed him here, as there appears to be no such story in Caesarius, and in any case one would expect a man to be assailed by a succubus (these bother men, while incubi are assigned to women).
$^{482}$ An “incluse” was a monk (or nun) who had himself permanently locked in his cell to enhance his withdrawal from the secular world.
$^{483}$ I.e., Caesarius.
$^{484}$ Another anecdote not identifiable in Caesarius.
$^{485}$ I.e., “Life.”
$^{486}$ Southwestern France.
$^{487}$ The “power of the keys” is a fundamental justification of papal authority. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus informs Peter that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and that whatever Peter binds or unbinds on earth will be treated the same way in heaven. The theory arose in antiquity and the early Middle Ages that Peter became the first bishop of Rome and that his successors in that capacity likewise inherited possession of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, this “power of the keys” indicating that they too had the right to make pronouncements on earth that would be upheld in heaven. Thus, the bishops of Rome were considered to be Christ’s representative (“vicar”) on earth, and this capacity, which distinguished the “pope” from all other bishops, was the justification for medieval developments in doctrine or practice that created institutions that either deviated from the practices or statements in the New Testament or had no basis in the New Testament at all.
$^{488}$ See Pt. I n. 466.
$^{489}$ This notion forms part of the elaborate system by which the angelic powers were divided into three hierarchies and nine orders: to the angels, archangels, cherubim and seraphim of the Old Testament were added the “principalities, powers, forces and dominions” mentioned by Paul in Ephesians i:2r plus the “thrones” that he tags on in Colossians i:16. (For the absurd lengths to which scholasticism went to define these categories individually and in terms of their relationships to one another, see Aq., Summa 1.108 and Sent. 2.9.1.) “Warding off” is a technical term for the church’s ability to deter demons (e.g., Aq., Summa 1.io8.6.Co.) and “the airy powers” signified the evil fallen angels in the air (e.g., Gregory the Great asserted that in the annunciation to Mary in Luke $I : 26 - 38$ the archangel Gabriel personifies the “fortitude” of God, and that the annunciation was made by God’s fortitude “because the powerful Lord of Virtues was coming to conquer the airy powers in battle,” quoted in Aq., Summa 3.30.2.Ra4.). Thus, these “airy powers” are the demons (“fallen” angels), who inhabit the “misty air” (see n. 187), a suggestive equation given the ability to cause stormy weather attributed to them.
490 The notion that the pope could make rulings with reference to purgatory (the place where, according to medieval theory, souls not pure enough for entry into heaven but likewise not sufficiently evil to merit eternal damnation were cleansed (“purged”) before being allowed into heaven) was topical at this time. Though for some centuries it had been claimed that the pope could grant dispensations to living individuals, it was only with the Bull Salvator Noster issued by Sixtus IV in 1476 that it was overtly claimed officially that the pope (and through him the church) could make decisions affecting souls in purgatory (not by virtue of the “power of the keys” directly but through the personal intervention of the pope). As upholders of papal supremacy, the Dominicans (including the authors) were bound to ward off criticism of this novel doctrine, and perhaps the argument by analogy in defense of the pope’s powers over the nether regions was on the author’s mind at this time, which may explain the decision to use it here as a defense of the church’s power over “powers of the air.”
$^{491}$ In the southern Tyrol (now in northern Italy).
$^{492}$ The distinction between “grace that makes a person gratifying to God” (gratia gratum faciens) and “grace graciously given” (gratia gratis data) is discussed by Aquinas in Summa, I /2.III. I. Basically, the former is the personal grace granted to someone that renders him “saintly,” while the latter is the grace granted to someone that allows him to make others “saintly” in a “supernatural” manner (one might call this “inspirational” grace). For the argument here, see Aquinas, Summa 1.43.3.Ra4: “. . . the working of miracles is indicative of Grace that makes a person gratifying to God, as is the gift of prophesy or any Grace graciously given,” i.e., the performance of miracles or any act whereby someone makes others pleasing to God indicates that that person himself is pleasing to God (“saintly”).
$493170 D - 179 A$ .
494 “Satisfaction” is the third element in the Catholic conception of penance (the other two being contrition and confession) and signifies the penalty undergone by the sinner in recompense for his misdeed.
495 In its theological sense, “charity” (from the Latin for “fondness” and thus used to translate the Greek agape or “love”) is of broader meaning than is usual in normal English. According to Aquinas, it is a gift bestowed on all those possessing “grace that makes one pleasing to God” (Summa 2/2.8.4.Co.), is the virtue by which a person loves God, himself and his neighbors (Summa 2/2. 17.3.Co.), and is the mother of all proper virtues (Summa 1/2. 62.4.Co.). Here, then, the word signifies the full possession of all virtues.
496 Melancholy was one of the four fluids (“humors”) of which the human body was thought to be composed, and an excess of any was considered a cause of ailment.
497 The spurge is also known as “euphorbia,” and its berries have a laxative quality.
498 Also known as the “Austrian pine.”
499 Presumably, men.
500 The sense is not self-evident, but it appears to mean that the men may find this out either in the women’s own beds or when the women are sleeping with these men in a different bed, which may be a coy way of referring to fornication elsewhere.
$^{501}$ The entire final clause is poorly composed, but this seems to be the sense.
$50240 A - 45 A$ .
503 9B.
504 See n. 43 I.
$505_{61 B}$ .
$^{506}$ A clumsy way to indicate the creation and emission of semen.
507 This explanation is not clearly composed. The idea seems to be that the first method can be excluded in the absence of a succubus demon. Presumably the whole point of a demon adopting the wife’s body is to avoid being detected, but perhaps what is meant is that if it is found out that a succubus demon is involved, this procedure falls under the first method (and “by a succubus demon” means “by his involvement”).
508 I.e., cannot get an erection.
509 See n. 495.
$^{sio}$ I.e., the implication would be that there is a lack of grace and charity.
$^{511}$ See n. 513 .
$_{512}$ See n. 23.
$^{513}$ This distinction between “total” and “specific” sorcery has been introduced into the original passage. The source (Nider) states that God generally grants the devil greater power over sinners than over the righteous, but allows that the devil was granted power over the righteous Job. The author of the present passage apparently disliked this concession, and revised it so that the exception now applies to the part of the body over which the devil has power. Thus, those who have been affected only in the power of procreation must not be in a state of grace, the example of Job notwithstanding.
$^{514}$ I.e., an explanation based on logic rather than the authority of scripture previously cited.
$^{515}$ I.e., original sin.
$_{516}$ I.e, to have sex.
$^{517}$ This distinction is not expressed in a logical manner. What is meant is that until three years have passed, the impediment is presumed to be temporary, and if the problem remains after three years of legitimate efforts to cure it, then it is judged to be permanent.
$_{518}$ See 94C, 136A-B.
$^{519}$ Despite references in the gospels to Jesus’ siblings, notions of Mary’s purity led to the development in antiquity of the doctrine that she and Joseph never had sex, even after the birth of Jesus. This basic Catholic tenet was accepted by the mainline leaders of the Reformation (like Luther and Zwingli) but has been abandoned by most Protestants since then.
$^{521}$ In Gen. 20, God becomes angry with King Abimelech for taking Sarah, the wife of Abraham, and makes Abimelech’s women barren. After Sarah is returned, Abraham intercedes on Abimelech’s behalf with God, who restores the women’s fertility.
522 170D-179A.
$_{523}$ See 95A-95C.
$52446 A - 52 B$ .
525 The text says the exact opposite (“very insignificant”), but other passages ( $^{5} C$ C-D, 136A-B) suggest that this motive is far from insignificant, and the requisite emendation (changing minimum to nimium) is easily justified.
526 A predication made in 1888 , according to Vincent, by the female St. Hildegard of Bingen, who is here apparently considered to be a man (presumably, the author knew nothing more about her than was found in the source).
527 Nider, the source for this passage, indicates that the first of these seven remedies is to learn the name of the person for whom the infatuation is felt through the confession of the person infatuated or through a change in the infatuated person’s pulse rate when the name of the infatuator is mentioned. Here, this remedy has been converted into a pre-requisite to the others, which reduces the number of remedies to six.
$_{528}$ Ultimate source unknown.
529 Here, the seven practical remedies borrowed from Nider are reinterpreted in a metaphorical religious sense.
530 I.e., adults; see $165 C - D$ .
$^{531}$ I.e., the Virgin Mary.
$_{532}$ See n. 452 .
533 I.e., the Devil.
534 Another scholastic aphorism.
$^{535}$ The Latin is poorly composed here, but for the sense see 175A.
$_{536} 165 A - B$ .
537 I62C-163D.
538 II5D-116D.
539 I.e., Q. I of Pt. 2.
540 I.e., an “active” delusion played on the senses of a person with reference to himself or a “passive” one played on the senses of others in their perception of him; see $117 C - D$ .
541 irsD.
542 It seems that the distinction of “east” vs. “west” refers to the division of the Mediterranean into a Catholic sphere in the west and an Orthodox one in the east.
543 I.e., westerners.
544 II8D-I2IA. This chapter deals with the method of transforming others into beasts, but there is no treatment of the issue of sorceresses transforming themselves (cf. the bizarre anecdote in 87 C ).
545 The Hospitallers were a military religious order associated with the crusades. They held Cyprus from I291 to 1307.
546 The island was seized from a Byzantine governor during the Third Crusade in II9r and given to the exiled line of the kings of Jerusalem. In 1489, the island passed to the Venetians, from whom it was captured by the Ottoman Turks in 1572.
547 This story, presumably of Genoese origin, is clearly a Christianized version of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, a pagan story composed in the second century after Christ. In the latter, the hero has an altercation with a sorceress, who transforms him into a donkey, though he retains his human mind. He then suffers various indignities as he tries to act like a human in the guise of an animal. In the end, he is restored to his original form through the redemptive powers of the goddess Isis. This tale was popular in the Middle Ages under the title Golden Ass (“golden” referring to its quality as a tale and “ass” to the appearance of the protagonist). This Christian version was to become a popular tale, but it is first attested here.
548 This reference to “some” woman is odd, in that the narrative elsewhere seems to speak as if only a single woman was involved, though at the end of this paragraph there is an isolated mention of “sorceresses” (the Latin form is not gender-specific and could signify “sorcerers”).
549 Presumably, hard-boiled.
550 The difference here is one of style rather than substance; the low-register term caballus (strictly speaking a “nag”) came to replace the standard form equus as the normal word for “horse” in later Latin (and in the Romance languages).
$_{551}$ For these stories, see ir9D-I20A.
552 I20A-B.
553 I20B.
554 I.e., because the island was ruled by a western dynasty, the religious establishment was Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox, as one might expect since the local inhabitants were Greek.
555 I2IA-I30D.
556 An error in the adaptation of the source (Nider); the text should read for “one’s own great crime.”
557 This sentence is a misreading of the source (Nider), who actually said, “I have no recollection that Sacrosanct Communion was forbidden by our elders to those handed over to spirits of evil.” (The change in the Latin is minor, and may simply reflect an error of transcription at some stage.)
558 Here there is a meaningless deviation from the source (Nider) that involves a simple change of one letter (a mistake that could be attributed to the author’s text of Nider, an error of adaptation, or a slip by the compositor). Nider reported that Cassianus said that the spirit would “leap at the offense,” a not entirely pellucid expression.
$^{560}$ Paul begins the letter by saying that when he had gone to Macedonia, he had instructed Timothy to stay in Ephesus and keep an eye on certain people who were spreading what Paul took to be false doctrine. Apparently, Hymenaeus and Alexander had refused to heed Timothy’s warnings, and this “handing over” to Satan is Paul’s response. In typical medieval exegesis, this act is equated with the full procedure of excommunication, which was developed much later.
$_{561}$ Peter Lombard.
$_{562}$ I.e., the Devil.
$^{563}$ I.e., in the days before it became officially recognized by the Roman state under Constantine.
564 The expression ad cautelam seems to refer to the practice of granting absolution conditionally or provisionally. In the later Middle Ages, the practice arose of granting absolution on the condition that some provision had to be fulfilled (with reference either to the past or the future) in order to make it valid. As late as the fifteenth century, the validity of this practice was disputed, but it is now considered acceptable Catholic procedure.
565 The “conjugal debt” is sexual intercourse, and it would seem that the woman considered it inappropriate to engage in sex on the night before the feast but did so anyway. It would seem that lack of scruple on the part of the husband allowed him to indulge in the sex without consequences.
$^{566}$ Apparently, the devil in his capacity as chastiser outranked the priest in his capacity as the shepherd of his flock. Hence, what the priest recognized himself to be was “inferior to the task.”
567 I.e., of Dominicans.
573 The original text of Aquinas actually ends with the passage from Isaiah, and the one from Job has been added, but the passage of Nider adapted here seems to attribute both quotes to Aquinas.
574 This sentence is the authors’ own, being intruded into their quote of Nider’s quotation from Aquinas. The words of Job are interpreted as if they were being spoken by Christ, a procedure typical of medieval biblical exegesis.
575 38C-39D.
576 Peter Comestor.
577 See n. 23.
$^{580} I 30 B - I 45 D$ .
$^{581}$ I.e., someone not ecclesiastically appointed to the post of exorcist, which is ranked among the “minor holy orders” (lesser functionaries) of the church.
582 This is not in fact the second topic in the subsequent discussion (see n. 589 ).
$^{583}$ See n. 492.
584 This is not in fact a direct quotation of Aquinas but an adaptation by the source (Nider).
$^{585}$ Since the second person plural is used in medieval Latin as a form of addressing one person (as in most European languages), it is not clear whether this quotation is meant to apply to all men or the sick man in particular, but the reference to Jesus’ frequent rebuke “O ye of little faith” (Matt. 6:30, 8:26, 16:8; Luke 12:28) suggests the former.
$^{586}$ I.e., the Devil himself.
587 I.e., a priest who was at the same time a monk or friar subject to the rule (regula) of his order. (As the Middle Ages progressed, the celebration of the mass played an increasingly prominent role in monastic life and monks were frequently ordained as priests as well.)
588 I.e., a respectable member of the lower clergy, the presumption here being that the secular clergy were less reliable than monastic priests. (Criticism of the behavior of the lower secular clergy, who often were poorly paid and lacked much education, was a common theme among late-medieval reformers.)
589 These three questions overlap with the three subordinate questions added to the first basic question in $170 D - 17 IA$ , but while the first and third correspond to the earlier scheme, the second has been changed. In I70D, the second additional question concerned the seven criteria for a lawful exorcism, but here this question is replaced with the topic of the valid method of using benedictions, this new scheme being followed in the subsequent discussion. The seven criteria are not marked out as a topic in 172A after the discussion of the lawfulness of exorcism, and the method of using chants as amulets is listed as the second question in 173 D (this is presumably what is meant here by “the method by which they ought to be used”).
590 In the later medieval period, the custom arose of interspersing more complicated elaborations of the sung parts of the mass in the midst of traditional Gregorian chant sung in a choir, and the word organum signifies this “descant” style. Apparently, the author objected to such practices and preferred the older, simpler musical style.
$^{591}$ This topic is the second additional question added to the first basic question (170D).
592 For these handbooks, see 15IA, C.
593 I.e., pieces of paper with sacred texts written on them that were tied onto people as amulets.
594 Though not marked as such, this paragraph is apparently the third additional question of the first basic question (170D-171A).
595 Note the shift here from the singular “word of God,” which simply signifies (as a clumsy translation into Latin of the Greek word logos, which means both “word” and “discourse”) the information that comes from God, to the plural “words of God,” which represent the use, in a Christian context, of words associated with God for purposes that can only be characterized as magical from an objective point of view.
596 I.e., the nails in the hands and feet plus the slash to his side.
597 Presumably, Luke (23:46): Pater, in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum. In the Latin version of John, Jesus is quoted twice for a total of seven words: Mulier, ecce filius tuus (19:26) and Omnia consummata sunt (19:28). In Matthew (27:46) and Mark (I5:34) he utters the same eight words in Latin (Deus meus, deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?) as a translation of four words in Aramaic.
598 The placard placed above his head on the cross and bearing the words Jesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, which are cited elsewhere for use in ecclesiastical magic (see n. 36).
599 Only the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary are mentioned explicitly in the source (Nider) and the subsequent details are elaborations on the source’s general expression “or in any other way.”
$^{600}$ For the place of this “second question” in the organization of this section, see n. 589 .
$^{601}_{172} B - C$ .
$^{602}$ This passage is an attempt to reapply the argument of Aquinas to a subject that he does not address directly. In Summa $2 / 2.96 .4$ the issue is whether it is lawful to carry written texts as amulets. The “wrong” position holds that this is absolutely permissible and Aquinas rejects this argument in a very equivocal and narrow manner. In his view, such practices are impermissible if the object in question (e.g., special characters written on an amulet) is thought to have some influence in its own right, but the invocation of God’s name is legitimate so long as the effect is expected from God alone. Aquinas says nothing about the use of written words by illiterates.
$^{603}$ I.e., the third additional question to the first basic question ( $170 D - 17 IA$ ).
604 “Adjuration” is the procedure of persuading or compelling someone to do something through the invocation of God (for the adjuration of demons, which only involves compulsion, see Aq., Summa 2/2.90.2).
$^{605}$ See n. 485.
$^{606}$ In the legendary tale of Bartholomew, the apostle traveled to India to spread the good news there. He entered a temple that had an idol in it named Ascaroth, who had up until then seemed to offer the sick cures, though in fact it was the idol (i.e., pagan god) who had made them sick in the first place and seemed to cure by ceasing to harm. This “idol” was really a demon, who then caused Bartholomew trouble by pretending that his arrival had brought an end to the idol’s ability to cure. See Legenda Aurea no. I23.
$^{607}$ Literally, “act of making holy.”
$^{608}$ Candles played a prominent role in late medieval piety, and on the assumption that bigger was better, these were often of extravagant dimensions.
$^{609}$ There is an untranslatable Latin play on words here, the word membrum signifying both (literally) a limb of the body (this sense giving rise to the English expression “male member”) and (metaphorically) the member of an organization (this sense giving the usual English meaning of the word).
$^{610}$ I.e., laymen.
$^{6 I I}$ I.e., the priest.
$^{612}$ Ps. 70 in traditional English numeration.
$^{613}$ This is just a circumlocution for still being excommunicate.
$^{614}$ For the confessor as the judge of the “forum of penance,” see I5IC.
$^{615}$ For conditional absolution, see n. 564.
$^{616}$ This is a reference to Matt. 16:19 ("… whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"), a passage used to justify the “power of the keys” (see n. 487), which in this case is exemplified by the priest’s authorization to impose penance.
$^{617}$ See $^{172}$ C.
$^{618}$ A Greek phrase borrowed into Latin and literally signifying “worked upon within.”
$^{619}$ Should be ergon, as Aquinas correctly states.
$^{620}$ As laid out in 170D.
$^{621}$ I.e., other than God.
$^{622}$ The source (Nider) has been somewhat garbled here, and the reference should be to the “story of the father… and the presence of the disciples…”
$^{623}$ Taken by itself, the Latin here supports this interpretation, though the parallel in Luke 4:35 suggests that it was the demon whom Jesus rebuked. In any case, Jerome’s explanation has no support in the text.
$^{62}$ Ultimate reference unknown.
$^{625}$ The transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-13), an incident in which God demonstrates in the presence of Peter, James and John his pleasure in Jesus, takes place immediately before the incident involving the possessed son, and there is no suggestion in the text that the three apostles had left Jesus in the interim (and in fact Peter appears in Matt. 17:24 with no indication that he had been anywhere else).
$_{626}$ I6IB.
$^{627}$ I.e., clean water (Aq., Sent. 2.5.2.2.Rar).
$^{628}$ It was an inflexibly upheld tenet of the official church that the efficacy of its rituals did not depend upon the personal integrity of the officiating ecclesiastic (as maintained, for instance, by the Donatists). (From an institutional point of view, allowing the validity of the church’s acts and decisions to be called into question because of the vagaries of those in charge would soon result in paralyzing chaos.) Hence, the author is at pains to avoid the appearance of advocating such a view, which is a natural implication of the claim that the baptizing priest’s ineptitude could undermine the beneficial effects of the baptism.
$^{629}$ For the sense of these requirements, see Aq., Sent. 4.6.I.2a.Ra4 and 2.40.I.5.Ra6.
$^{630}$ See Aq., Sent. 4.6.1.2a.Co.
$^{631}$ I.e., the permanent “impression” made on the soul by the rite.
$_{632}$ The defensiveness of the defense of rebaptism can be explained by the fact that Aquinas rejected the repetition of the rite under any circumstances (Sent. 4.6.2.Ia).
$_{633}$ See io2C.
$^{634}$ I.e., while sleepwalking.
$_{635}_{127 A}$ -B.
$^{636}$ It was part of the medieval conception of hell that the worms that have been consuming the corpses in the period between their death and the resurrection of the dead on the Day of Judgment would continue to do so as part of the eternal punishment of the damned.
637 As laid out in 170D-171A.
$_{638}$ 169D-170C.
639 I.e., Q. 2.
640 These four remedies are discussed in $154 A - 158 C$ .
$^{641}$ I75D-176B.
$^{642}$ For the inquisitors’ preferred procedure, see 157 D .
$^{643}$ 154A.
$^{644}$ The quotation of Augustine is somewhat loose here, and it should read “should make.”
$^{645}$ This argument would seem to represent an equation of the “forming” of matter into objects by human (or demonic) action with the supernatural “forms” (see n. II8) that in an abstract sense were thought to convert the elements into objects of the world.
$^{647}$ William states that there are four methods, which he then illogically lists as material, form, things signified, all of these, and some of these. In adapting this passage, the author apparently correctly counted these items as numbering five, but then failed to list the fifth one!
$^{648}$ This reasoning is entirely different from that of William. He first grants that terrifying sounds like the crack of thunder or the roar of a lion may cause death, but dismisses such effects because they relate to natural phenomena and not words. Next, he denies the relevance of a Jewish sorcerer having killed a bull through an incantation. In adapting this passage, the author apparently decided to summarize the general idea with a scholastic aphorism.
$^{649}$ It is not a very compelling argument to pick explanation A over alternative B simply because it is more convenient.
$^{650}$ See 153A-B.
$_{651}$ 170A-C.
$^{62}$ Presumably a representation of the crucifix.
$_{655}$ I80A.
$_{656}$ See n. 596 .
657 I.e., the consecrated host.
$^{658}$ I71D-172A.
$^{659}$ It was held that the later Christian religion was “prefigured” in the rituals laid down for the Jews by God in the Old Testament, and hence medieval exegesis tended to see (often in a rather far-fetched way) Christian practices being mentioned in a “figurative” way in the Old Testament.
$^{660}$ In one letter (Letter 26 [86], quoted in Decretum 1.II.7), Augustine says that in the absence of apostolic authority, the “ancestral custom of the people of God” should be upheld. While he does say that this should be upheld as law, two other letters make it clear that he refers to universally accepted customs and not to local variants. In one letter (Letter ir8, quoted in Decretum I.12.II), he states that when a custom cannot be attributed to the apostles or to the decision of an ecumenical council and is not contrary to the faith or to morality, it is indifferent whether it is followed, so one may as well do so to fit in with one’s neighbors, but in a second letter (Letter II9, quoted in Decretum I.I2.I2) he asserts that all locally varying customs whose origins cannot be discerned should be ruthlessly abolished. While one may be uncertain as to whether Augustine would have considered the practices discussed here to be consonant with the faith and morality and thus worthy of being followed, he most certainly did not grant blanket legitimacy to such observances.
$^{661}$ I.e., of the newly converted Angles and Saxons in Britain.
662 I.e., the Devil.
$^{663}$ For such amulets, see 173 B-C.
$^{664}$ I.e., laymen.
$^{665}$ In the broader medieval significance of flightless insects and other invertebrate vermin, a sense conveyed by the word “bugs.”
$^{666}$ I.e., through causing men to ejaculate during sleep (so-called “nocturnal emission”) rather than by pretending to be a woman with whom they imagine themselves to be having sex and then ejaculate (cf. ro9D).
$^{667}$ Literally “their own,” it being unclear whether the mothers or the fathers or both are meant.
$^{668}$ I.e., the Law of Jews as laid out in the Old Testament.
$^{669}$ I.e., the Jews.
$^{670}$ Oddly enough, the biblical text actually says that the mother is to be released as an omen of prosperity and longevity. There is no statement there about pagan interpretations, which makes the final clause here a little hard to understand. Since the following sentence clearly indicates that the procedure enjoined upon the Jews is taken as a rejection of idolatrous pagan practice, presumably the final clause is being understood as indicating the rejected practice rather than giving the interpretation of the injunction. (No doubt both the biblical passage and the interpretation are dimly understood borrowings.)
$^{671}$ These “ladies of the night” represent a widespread element in European folklore. Basically, some form of supernatural females were thought to visit homes at night, and would reward good housekeeping, while a slovenly house would rouse their ire. The specific interpretation here is ultimately based on William of Auvergne, Bees 2.3.24. There it is stated that the “ladies of the night” (dominae nocturnae) under the leadership of “Lady Plenty” (Domina Abundia) are said to bestow an abundance of temporal goods on houses that they visit, that their approval of the household is manifested by their consumption of food and drink, and that for this reason superstitious old women leave jars and other containers uncovered to facilitate this consumption. William strongly condemns this practice, believing these beings to be “evil spirits,” and he directly connects this practice with the prohibition in Numbers against leaving jars uncovered. The failure here to mention the practice of leaving jars open for the “ladies of the night” obscures the logic of the paragraph.
672 I.e., the “ladies of the night.”
$^{673}$ Priapus was, of course, a male god of the phallus.
$^{674}$ This quotation does not appear in the Bible.
$^{675}$ This is another untranslatable play on words. In addition to the sense “jealousy,” the Latin zelus also means religious “zeal,” so that the phrase here may mean both the “jealousy for” and the “zeal of” souls.
$^{676}$ In the table of contents (4D) this section is listed as Ch. 9, but there is no indication of the start of a new chapter here.
$^{97}$ Q. 17 (218A-219C).
$^{98}$ Q. 18 (219D-220D).
$^{99}$ Q. 19 (22IA-224D).
$^{100} 224 D - 258 B$ .
$^{101}$ This is a rather misleading characterization of the contents. According to the main table of contents ( $5 C - 6 A$ ), the figure of twenty methods of sentencing is reached by adding the three introductory questions ( $17 - 19$ ) to the seventeen methods that are described there. In fact, there are eighteen methods of sentencing (see 224D-225A), but the last (appeals) is left out of the count in the main table of contents as a separate “conclusion.” These eighteen methods are actually treated in only sixteen questions (20-35), since the next to the last question (34) deals with three methods ( $15 - 17$ ) (see $251 B, 252 C - D, 254 B - C)$ . That question also treats the topic of aiders and abettors, but there is no notice of that topic either here or in the main table of contents.
$^{102}$ The two groups are constituted respectively by Methods I-I3 (cf. “last” in 245 B , and 248 C ) in Qs. 20-32 (224D-245A) and Methods 14-15 (which includes additional methods that are not overtly mentioned there: see $252 C - 254 A$ ) in Qs. $33 - 34$ ( $248 B - 254 C$ ). Q. 35 (on appeals) is a general topic and should belong to the first group, but is apparently left out of account here (it is not counted as one of the twenty methods in 6A).
$^{103}$ I.e., public admonition that anyone who has knowledge or suspicion of heretical activity should report this under penalty of excommunication for failing to do so.
$^{104}$ In Eymeric this is not a separate reason for rejecting the procedure but explains why the procedure is dangerous for the accuser.
$^{105}$ Decretum 2.24.3.6 states, on the basis of the procedure of Roman law, that in order for someone to be declared in contempt of court (“contumacious”) he had to refuse three summonses to appear.
$^{106}$ Eymeric adds “or rather Apostolic” (see next note).
$^{107}$ Eymeric adds “and for our Lord the Pope.” This omission and the one mentioned in the preceding note suggest a conscious effort to remove indications that the inquisitor’s powers are not absolute but depend upon the pope, to whom appeal is possible. The reason for the omission cannot be for the sake of any putative secular judges, since their differing formulas are overtly noted as such.
$^{108}$ 194C.
$^{109}$ This is a misrepresentation of the Archdeacon’s view as reported in Eymeric: “Religious persons’ can be understood here to mean respectable persons, whether clerics or laymen, but it is more likely that it is speaking of religious people [i.e., monks and friars] who have adopted the habit associated with a religious vow.”
$^{no}$ I.e., if he is illiterate.
$^{iII}$ I.e., the denouncer.
$^{112}$ This traditional ecclesiastical gesture for benediction (with the last two fingers folded over the palm) is already attested in Late Antiquity, but its origin is unclear. Elsewhere, Institoris indicates that in his mind the two pressed-down fingers indicate the damnation of body and
soul for perjury while the three raised fingers represent the Trinity. The Constitutio Carolina (the criminal code issued for the Holy Roman Empire in 1532 by the Emperor Charles V) notes (sec. IO7) that “it is the customary practice in the Holy Empire to cut off from perjurers the two fingers by which they swore” (seemingly it was thought that it was the depression of the two last fingers that created the operative gesture).
$^{113}$ “Article” is the technical term for the separate items that constitute an official list.
$^{II4}$ It is worth noting that the oath concerned telling the truth, not concealing the proceedings.
$^{116}$ I.e., of beginning the proceedings; see 195D-196B.
$^{117}$ The reference should be to Code of Justinian 4.19.25 (“Sciant”).
$^{11} 8$ This is actually a paraphrase of the law, which refers to “those who are discovered, even through a trivial demonstration, to deviate from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”
$^{119} Q .12$ (208A-209D).
$^{120}$ This “I” comes from Eymeric.
$^{12I}$ This passage indicates the view that in the case of a person of “bad reputation” the testimony of two people is considered sufficient for condemnation.
$^{122}$ This interpretation is different from the one given in his Memorandum to the bishop of Brixen. There Institoris asserts (466) that someone can be condemned for heresy on the basis of having a bad reputation for this and one witness. This is legally false, and he appears to have realized this in the interim.
$^{123}$ I.e., the judge may condemn, but the responsibility for doing so lies within his own conscience.
$^{124}$ The heading to this question should be: “Whether they can be forced to give an oath,” as indicated by the introductory list (194A).
$^{125}$ This topic has not been discussed before, but perhaps the quotation of this chapter in 195 C is meant.
$^{126}$ I.e., “as the subject of the investigation.”
$^{127}$ Presumably, a reference to Chapter “Per tuas” has been accidentally omitted here (cf. 197B).
$^{128}^{197}$ B.
$^{129}$ A technical term in the law for someone who is debarred from giving testimony because of a disreputable profession or a prior conviction.
$^{130}$ This expansion of the list of those whose testimony can be used against suspects to include family members and friends has been added to Eymeric.
$^{132}$ For this procedure, see also 208C-D.
$_{133}$ As laid out in 193D-194A.
$^{134}$ This phrase is used here to translate the Latin litis contestatio, a term of Roman civil law that signified the procedure by which the litigants of a case thrashed out before a magistrate the terms under which the decision would be reached.
$^{135}$ Another Roman legal term, an “exception” was a clause in a law that exempted certain people from its application.
$^{136}$ This phrase represents the Latin procurator, which is a term from Roman law signifying someone who is authorized by a person to make legally valid decisions on his behalf in his absence.
$^{137}$ 194C-D.
$^{138}$ Cf. the anecdote in $138 D - 139 B$ , in which a man happens to observe satanic rites, but must take extreme measures to compel the culprit to reveal herself in front of witnesses, because he had made his initial discovery alone.
$^{139}$ Though the word item literally means “likewise,” the appearance of the Latin word at the start of each article in interrogatories drawn up in the vernacular shows that the word was used merely as a formulaic way of dividing the individual “items” (hence the meaning of the English derivative).
$^{140}$ This question and the next are added to the source material from Eymeric.
$^{141}$ 195C.
$^{142}$ I95D-196A.
$^{143}$ Here in an addition to Eymeric’s original text, the adjectival agreement makes it clear that a woman is meant, but in this passage Eymeric’s generalizing masculine is retained.
144 For examining the dwelling, see 166A, 175A.
$^{145}$ Eymeric conceived of the accused as a male (the “default” gender for generalizing statements in Latin) since he was writing about heretics in general. The gender of the introductory word “questioned” (interrogatus) makes this clear, but when questions that do not appear in Eymeric are added to the list, an abbreviated form of the word that leaves off the ending (and its indication of gender) is usually used (this sort of word would not normally be abbreviated in the published text of the Malleus). Thus, since Latin verbs do not indicate gender unless the subject is overtly stated or modified by some adjectival form, the Latin does not make it clear what the gender of the accused is conceived to be in these instances, but a few forms and comments later on in the questions indicate that a female is intended in the added questions and I have decided to assume that all questions beginning with the abbreviated form refer to women. This is as confusing in the Latin as it is in the English here, since such questions are intermingled with questions about males deriving from Eymeric.
$^{146}$ This question has been added to the material from Eymeric.
$^{147}$ Pt. II, Q. I, Ch. 13 ( 137 B- 141 D ).
$^{148}$ The point of this question in Eymeric is to determine if the suspect has intentionally moved to an area where heresy is flourishing. Here the questions makes no sense, since the sorceresses supposedly were able to attend the distant assemblies convened by Satan, either through invisible transport of their bodies or through a sort of mental telepathy (Io4A, iosA-B).
$^{149}$ This assumption that those who deny the existence of sorcery must be sorceresses brings to mind the accused sorceress Scheuberin’s rejection of Institoris’s preaching (see Pt. II n. 433).
$^{150}$ Note how expressing doubts about the justice of previous burnings of sorceresses is taken as evidence that the doubter is a sorceress.
$^{151}$ This quote brings to mind the threat of the old sorceress to the rude parish priest (iooA).
$^{152}$ The sense of this is not entirely clear. Perhaps what is meant is that at Satan’s behest sorceresses intentionally make unreasonable (“pointless”) requests in order to cause strife 210A-B, 232B). The expression here may well be a Latin version of the German unnutze Worte (literally, “needless” or “useless words”), which was used to describe speech considered to be impudent, coarse or spiteful.
$^{153}$ Compare the story ( $136 A - D$ ) of a woman whose neighbor supposedly walked carelessly across her garden in order to cause a legal case.
$^{154}$ Here is one of the “fixes” necessary to remedy the internal illogic of the construct of Satanism. If the purpose of the “cult” is to inflict unmotivated harm, then there should be no reason for
the harm-doer to reveal herself. If that were the procedure, however, there would be no way to discover the perpetrator, and since there was often some pre-existing enmity between the accuser and accused that led to the accusation, this fact was seized upon as an indication of the existence of the supposed sorcery, a specious reason being concocted to explain this illogical proceeding, namely that the demons insist that the sorceresses reveal themselves in order to aggravate the sins of the irresponsible judges who let these supposedly obvious crimes go unpunished.
$^{155}$ For demons compelling the sorceresses to act malevolently against their will, see 99A.
$_{156}$ Compare the similar threat made by the jilted girlfriend against the new bride in 94A.
$_{157}$ Compare the anecdote about an abortion caused by mere touch in 114 D .
$^{15} 8$ Such peasant envy is a long-standing custom. The law of the Twelve Tables (a Roman legal code of the fifth century вс) prohibited the use of magical incantations to take away the fertility of one’s neighbors’ fields and put it into one’s own.
$^{159}$ The very practice of asking irrelevant questions about the sexual behavior of the accused sorceresses was one of the legal abuses that led to opposition to Institoris when he conducted his unsuccessful inquisition in Innsbruck in 1484.
$^{160}$ Presumably this refers to Q. 2.
$^{161}_{197 C}$ (in Q. 2).
$^{162}$ Q. 19 (221 $A - 224 D$ ).
163 I2A-B.
164 This paragraph represents an attempt to subvert the normal standards for proof used in contemporary courts because the usual proofs were inapplicable to a crime that took place at

ECCLESIASTICAL REMEDY AGAINST INCUBUS AND SUCCUBUS DEMONS

Chapter One

Chapter Two

REMEDIES FOR PEOPLE AFFECTED BY SORCERY IN TERMS OF IRREGULAR LOVE OR HATRED

Chapter Three

[Note on Sources

Chapter Four

REMEDIES FOR THOSE UNDER SIEGE AS A RESULT OF SORCERY

Chapter Five

Chapter Six 第六章

Chapter Seven

CERTAIN HIDDEN REMEDIES AGAINST CERTAIN HIDDEN VEXATIONS ON THE PART OF DEMONS

Chapter Eight

Remedy when someone vows himself entirely to a demon out of regard for temporal advantage 676 676 ^(676){ }^{676}

QUESTION ONE: THE METHOD OF INITIATING

THE PROCEEDINGS

QUESTION THREE

QUESTION FIVE: WHETHER MORTAL ENEMIES ARE

[Note on Sources

List of questions for the witnesses

List of general questions concerning a sorceress or sorcerer (Step One)

List of specific questions concerning these same people

[Note on Sources

ECCLESIASTICAL REMEDY AGAINST INCUBUS AND
SUCCUBUS DEMONS

Remedy when someone vows himself entirely to a demon out of regard for temporal advantage $^{676}$