PART II., QUESTION II.The Methods of Destroying and Curing Witchcraft.Introduction, wherein is Set Forth the Difficulty of this Question.
Is it lawful to remove witchcraft
by means of further witchcraft, or by any other forbidden means?
It is argued that it is not; for it
has already been shown that in the Second Book of Sentences, and the
8th Distinction, all the Doctors agree that it is unlawful to use the help of
devils, since to do so involves apostasy from the Faith. And, it is argued, no
witchcraft can be removed without the help of devils. For it is submitted that
it must be cured either by human power, or by diabolic, or by Divine power. It
cannot be by the first; for the lower power cannot counteract the higher,
having no control over that which is outside its own natural capacity. Neither
can it be by Divine power; for this would be a miracle, which God performs
only at His own will, and not at the instance of men. For when His Mother
besought Christ to perform a miracle to supply the need for wine, He answered:
Woman, what have I to do with thee? And the Doctors explain this as meaning,
“What association is there between you and me in the working of a miracle?”
Also it appears that it is very rarely that men are delivered from a
bewitchment by calling on God's help or the prayers of the Saints. Therefore
it follows that they can only be delivered by the help of devils; and it is
unlawful to seek such help.
Again it is pointed out that the
common method in practice of taking off a bewitchment, although it is quite
unlawful, is for the bewitched persons to resort to wise women, by whom they
are very frequently cured, and not by priests or exorcists. So experience
shows that such curses are effected by the help of devils, which it is
unlawful to seek; therefore it cannot be lawful thus to cure a bewitchment,
but it must patiently be borne.
It is further argued that S. Thomas
and S. Bonaventura, in Book IV, dist. 34, have said that a bewitchment must be
permanent because it can have no human remedy; for if there is a remedy, it is
either unknown to men or unlawful. And these words are taken to mean that this
infirmity is incurable and must be regarded as permanent; and they add that,
even if God should provide a remedy by coercing the devil, and the devil
should remove his plague from a man, and the man should be cured, that cure
would not be a human one. Therefore, unless God should cure it, it is not
lawful for a man to himself to try in any way to look for a cure.
In the same place these two Doctors
add that it is unlawful even to seek a remedy by the superadding of another
bewitchment. For they say that, granting this to be possible, and that the
original spell be removed, yet the witchcraft is none the less to be
considered permanent; for it is in no way lawful to invoke the devil's help
through witchcraft.
Further, it is submitted that the
exorcisms of the Church are not always effective in the repression of devils
in the matter of bodily afflictions, since such are cured only at the
discretion of God; but they are effective always against those molestations of
devils against which they are chiefly instituted, as, for example, against men
who are possessed, or in the matter of exorcising children.
Again, it does not follow that,
because the devil has been given power over someone on account of his sins,
that power must come to an end on the cessation of the sin. For very often a
man may cease from sinning, but his sins still remain. So it seems from these
sayings that the two Doctors we have cited were of the opinion that it is
unlawful to remove a bewitchment, but that it must be suffered, just as it is
permitted by the Lord God, Who can remove it when it seems good to Him.
Against this opinion it is argued
that just as God and Nature do not abound in superfluities, so also they are
not deficient in necessities; and it is a necessity that there should be given
to the faithful against such devils' work not only a means of protection (of
which we treat in the beginning of this Second Part), but also curative
remedies. For otherwise the faithful would not be sufficiently provided for by
God, and the works of the devil would seem to be stronger than God's work.
Also there is the gloss on that
text in Job. There is no power on earth, etc. The gloss says that,
although the devil has power over all things human, he is nevertheless subject
to the merits of the Saints, and even to the merits of saintly men in this
life.
Again, S. Augustine (De moribus
Ecclesiae) says: No Angel is more powerful than our mind, when we hold
fast to God. For if power is a virtue in this world, then the mind that keeps
close to God is more sublime than the whole world. Therefore such minds can
undo the works of the devil. Answer. Here are two weighty
opinions which, it seems, are at complete variance with each other.
For there are certain Theologians
and Canonists who agree that it is lawful to remove witchcraft even by
superstitious and vain means. And of this opinion are Duns Scotus, Henry of
Segusio, and Godfrey, and all the Canonists. But it is the opinion of the
other Theologians, especially the ancient ones, and of some of the modern ones,
such as S. Thomas, S. Bonaventura, Blessed Albert, Peter a Palude, and many
others, that in no case must evil be done that good may result, and that a man
ought rather to die than consent to be cured by superstitious and vain means.
Let us now examine their opinions,
with a view to bringing them as far as possible into agreement. Scotus, in his
Fourth Book, dist. 34, on obstructions and impotence caused by witchcraft,
says that it is foolish to maintain that it is unlawful to remove a
bewitchment even by superstitious and vain means, and that to do so is in no
way contrary to the Faith; for he who destroys the work of the devil is not an
accessory to such works, but believes that the devil has the power and
inclination to help in the infliction of an injury only so long as the outward
token or sign of that injury endures. Therefore when that token is destroyed
he puts an end to the injury. And he adds that it is meritorious to destroy
the works of the devil. But, as he speaks of tokens, we will give an example.
There are women who discover a
witch by the following token. When a cow's supply of milk has been diminished
by witchcraft, they hang a pail of milk over the fire, and uttering certain
superstitious words, beat the pail with a stick. And though it is the pail
that the women beat, yet the devil carries all those blows to the back of the
witch; and in this way both the witch and the devil are made weary. But the
devil does this in order that he may lead on the woman who beats the pail to
worse practices. And so, if it were not for the risk which it entails, there
would be no difficulty in accepting the opinion of this learned Doctor. Many
other examples could be given.
Henry of Segusio, in his eloquent Summa
on genital impotence caused by witchcraft, says that in such cases recourse
must be had to the remedies of physicians; and although some of these remedies
seem to be vain and superstitious cantrips and charms, yet everyone must be
trusted in his own profession, and the Church may well tolerate the
suppression of vanities by means of others vanities.
Ubertinus also, in his Fourth Book,
uses these words: A bewitchment can be removed either by prayer or by the same
art by which it was inflicted.
Godfrey says in his Summa: A
bewitchment cannot always be removed by him who caused it, either because he
is dead, or because he does not know how to cure it, or because the necessary
charm is lost. But if he knows how to effect relief, it is lawful for him to
cure it. Our author is speaking against those who said that an obstruction of
the carnal act could not be caused by witchcraft, and that it could never be
permanent, and therefore did not annul a marriage already contracted.
Besides, those who maintained that
no spell is permanent were moved by the following reasons: they thought that
every bewitchment could be removed either by another magic spell, or by the
exorcisms of the Church which are ordained for the suppression of the devil's
power, or by true penitence, since the devil has power only over sinners. So
in the first respect they agree with the opinion of the others, namely, that a
spell can be removed by superstitious means.
But S. Thomas is of the contrary
opinion when he says: If a spell cannot be revoked except by some unlawful
means, such as the devil's help or anything of that sort, even if it is known
that it can be revoked in that way, it is nevertheless to be considered
permanent; for the remedy is not lawful.
Of the same opinion are S.
Bonaventura, Peter a Palude, Blessed Albert, and all the Theologians. For,
touching briefly on the question of invoking the help of the devil either
tacitly or expressedly, they seem to hold that such spells may only be removed
by lawful exorcism or true penitence (as is set down in the Canon Law
concerning sortilege), being moved, as it seems, by the considerations
mentioned in the beginning of this Question.
But it is expedient to bring these
various opinions of the learned Doctors as far as possible into agreement, and
this can be done in one respect. For this purpose it is to be noted that the
methods by which a spell of witchcraft can be removed are as follows: - either
by the agency of another witch and another spell; or without the agency of a
witch, but by means of magic and unlawful ceremonies. And this last method may
be divided into two; namely, the use of ceremonies which are both unlawful and
vain, or the use of ceremonies which are vain but not unlawful.
The first remedy is altogether
unlawful, in respect both of the agent and of the remedy itself. But it may be
accomplished in two ways; either with some injury to him who worked the spell,
or without an injury, but with magic and unlawful ceremonies. In the latter
case it can be included with the second method, namely, that by which the
spell is removed not by the agency of a witch, but by magic and unlawful
ceremonies; and in this case it is still to be judged unlawful, though not to
the same extent as the first method.
We may summarize the position as
follows. There are three conditions by which a remedy is rendered unlawful.
First, when a spell is removed through the agency of another witch, and by
further witchcraft, that is, by the power of some devil. Secondly, when it is
not removed by a witch, but by some honest person, in such a way, however,
that the spell is by some magical remedy transferred from one person to
another; and this again is unlawful. Thirdly, when the spell is removed
without imposing it on another person, but some open or tacit invocation of
devils is used; and then again it is unlawful.
And it is with reference to these
methods that the Theologians say that it is better to die than to consent to
them. But there are two other methods by which, according to the Canonists, it
is lawful, or not idle and vain, to remove a spell; and that such methods may
be used when all the remedies of the Church, such as exorcisms and the prayers
of the Saints and true penitence, have been tried and have failed. But for a
clearer understanding of these remedies we will recount some examples known to
our experience.
In the time of Pope Nicolas there
had come to Rome on some business a certain Bishop from Germany, whom it is
charitable not to name although he had now paid the debt of all nature. There
he fell in love with a girl, and sent her to his diocese in charge of two
servants and certain other of his possessions, including some rich jewels,
which were indeed very valuable, and began to think in her heart that, if only
the Bishop were to die through some witchcraft, she would be able to take
possession of the rings, the pendants and carcanets. The next night the Bishop
suddenly fell ill, and the physicians and his servants gravely suspected that
he had been poisoned; for there was such a fire in his breast that he had to
take continual draughts of cold water to assuage it. On the third day, when
there seemed no hope of his life, an old woman came and begged that she might
see him. So they let her in, and she promised the Bishop that she could heal
him if he would agree to her proposals. When the Bishop asked what it was to
which he had to agree in order to regain his health, as he so greatly desired,
the old woman answered: Your illness has ben caused by a spell of witchcraft,
and you can only be healed by another spell, which will transfer the illness
from you to the witch who caused it, so that she will die. The Bishop was
astounded; and seeing that he could be healed in no other way, and not wishing
to come to a rash decision, decided to ask the advice of the Pope. Now the
Holy Father loved him very dearly, and when he learned that he could only be
healed by the death of the witch, he agreed to permit the lesser of two evils,
and signed this permission with his seal. So the old woman was again
approached and told that both he and the Pope had agreed to the death of the
witch, on condition that he was restored to his former health; and the old
woman went away, promising him that he would be healed on the following night.
And behold! when about the middle of the night he felt himself cured and free
from all illness, he sent a messenger to learn what had happened to the girl;
and he came back and reported that she had suddenly been taken ill in the
middle of the night while sleeping by her mother's side.
It is to be understood that at the
very same hour and moment the illness left the Bishop and afflicted the girl
witch, through the agency of the old witch; and so the evil spirit, by ceasing
to plague the Bishop, appeared to restore him to health by chance, whereas it
was not he but God who permitted him to afflict im, and it was God Who
properly speaking restored him; and the devil, by reason of his compact with
the second witch, who envied the fortune of the girl, has to afflict the
Bishop's mistress. And it must be thought that those two evil spells were not
worked by one devil serving two persons, but by two devils serving two
separate witches. For the devils do not work against themselves, but work as
much as possible in agreement for the perdition of souls.
Finally, the Bishop went out of compassion to visit the girl; but when
he entered the room, she received him with horrible execrations, crying out:
May you and she who wrought your cure be damned for ever! And the Bishop tried
to soften her mind to penitence, and told her that he forgave her all her
wrongs; but she turned her face away and said: I have no hope of pardon, but
commend my soul to all the devils in hell; and died miserably. But the Bishop
returned home with joy and thankfulness.
Here it is to be noted that a
privilege granted to one does not construe a precedent for all, and the
dispensation of the Pope in this case does not argue that it is lawful in all
cases.
Nider in his Formicarius
refers to the same master, for he says: The following method is sometimes
employed for removing or taking vengeance for a spell of witchcraft. Someone
who has been bewitched either in himself or in his possessions comes to a
witch desiring to know how has injured him. Then the witch pours molten lead
into water until, by the work of the devil, some image is formed by the
solidified lead. On this, the witch asks his enemy to be hurt, so that he may
recognize him by that hurt. And when he has chosen, the witch immediately
pierces or wounds with a knife the leaden image in the same part, and shows
him the place by which he can recognize the guilty person. And it is found by
experience that, just in the same way as the leaden image is hurt, so is the
witch hurt who cast the spell.
But of this sort of remedy I say,
and of others like it, that generally they are unlawful; although human
weakness, in the hope of obtaining pardon from God, is very often ensnared in
such practices, being more careful for the health of the body than for that of
the soul.
The second kind of cure which is
wrought by witches who remove a spell again requires an expressed pact with
the devil, but is not accompanied by any injury to another person. And in what
light such witches should be considered, and how they are to be recognized,
will be shown later in the fifteenth method of sentencing witches, for they
are always found at intervals of one or two German miles, and these seem to be
able to cure any who have been bewitched by another witch in their own
district. Some of them claim to be able to effect such cures at all times;
some that they can only cure those bewitched in the neighbouring signiory;
others that they can only perform their cures with the consent of the witch
who cast the original spell.
And it is known that these women
have entered into an open pact with the devil, because they reveal secret
matters to those who come to them to be cured. For they suddenly disclose to
such a person the cause of his calamity, telling him that he has been
bewitched either in his own person or in his possessions because of some
quarrel he has had with a neighbour or with some other woman or man; and at
times, in order to keep their criminal practices secret, they enjoin upon
their clients some pilgrimage or other pious work. But to approach such women
in order to be cured is all the more pernicious because they seem to bring
greater contempt upon the Faith than others who effect their cures by means of
a merely tacit compact with the devil.
For they who resort to such witches
are thinking more of their bodily health than of God, and besides that, God
cuts short their lives to punish them for taking into their own hands the
vengeance for their wrongs. For so the Divine vengeance overtook Saul, because
he first cast out of the land all magicians and wizards, and afterwards
consulted a witch; wherefore he was slain in battle with his sons, I. Samuel
xxviii, and I. Paralipomenon x. And for the same reason the sick
Ochozias had to die, IV. Kings i (Ahaziah; II. Kings i. A.V.).
Also the who consult such witches
are regarded as defamed, and cannot be allowed to bring an accusation, as will
be shown in the Third Part; and they are by law to be sentenced to capital
punishment, as was said in the First Question of this work.
But alas! O Lord God, Who art just
in all Thy judgements, who shall deliver the poor who are bewitched and cry
out in their ceaseless pains? For our sins are so great, and the enemy is so
strong; and where are they who can undo the works of the devil by lawful
exorcisms? This one remedy appears to be left; that judges should, by various
penalties, keep such wickedness as far as possible in check by punishing the
witches who are the cause of it; that so they may deprive the sick of the
opportunity of consulting witches. But, alas! no one understands this in his
heart; but they all seek for their own gain instead of that of JESUS Christ.
For so many people used to go to be
freed from spells to that witch in Reichshofen, whom we have already mentioned,
that the Count of the castle set up a toll-booth, and all who were bewitched
in their own persons or in their possessions had to pay a penny before they
could visit her house; and he boasted that he made a substantial profit by
this means.
We know from experience that there
are many such witches in the diocese of Constance: not that this diocese is
more infected than others, since this form of infidelity is general in all
dioceses; but this diocese has been more thoroughly sifted. It was found that
daily resort was being made to a man named Hengst by a very large concourse of
poor folk who had been bewitched, and with our own eyes we saw such crowds in
the village of Eningen, that certainly the poor never flocked to any shrine of
the Blessed Virgin, or to a Holy Well or a Hermitage, in such numbers as they
went to that sorcerer. For in the very coldest winter weather, when all the
highways and byways were snow-bound, they came to him from two or three miles
round in spite of the greatest difficulties; and some were cured, but others
not. For I suppose that all spells are not equally easy to remove, on account
of various obstacles, as has been said before. And these witches remove spells
by means of an open invocation of devils after the manner of the second kind
of remedies, which are unlawful, but not to the same extent as the first kind.
The third kind of remedy is that
which is wrought by means of certain superstitious ceremonies, but without any
injury to anyone, and not by an overt witch. An example of this method is as
follows:
A certain market merchant in the
town of Spires deposed that the following experience had happened to him. I
was staying, he said, in Swabia in a well-known nobleman's castle, and one day
after dinner I was strolling at my ease with two of the servants in the fields,
when a woman met us. But while she was still a long way off my companions
recognized her, and one of them said to me, “Cross yourself quickly,” and
the other one urged me in like manner. I asked them what they feared, and they
answered, “The most dangerous witch in the whole Province is coming to meet
us, and she can cast a spell on men by only looking at them.” But I
obstinately boasted that I had never been afraid of such; and hardly had I
uttered the words before I felt myself grievously hurt in the left foot, so
that I could not move it from the ground or take a step without the greatest
pain. Whereupon they quickly sent to the castle for a horse for me, and thus
led me back. But the pains went on increasing for three days.
The people of the castle,
understanding that I had been bewitched, related what had happened to a
certain peasant who lived about a mile away, whom they knew to have skill in
removing spells. This man quickly came and, after examining my foot, said, “I
will test whether these pains are due to a natural cause; and if I find that
they are due to witchcraft, I will cure you with the help of God; but if they
are not, you must have recourse to natural remedies.” Whereupon I made reply,
“If I can be cured without any magic, and with the help of God, I will
gladly agree; but I will have nothing to do with the devil, nor do I wish for
his help.” And the peasant promised that he would use none except lawful
means, and that he would cure me by the help of God, provided that he could
make certain that my pains were due to witchcraft. So I consented to his
proposals. Then he took molten lead (in the manner of another witch whom we
have mentioned), and held it in an iron ladle over my foot, and poured it into
a bowl of water; and immediately there appeared the shapes of various things,
as if thorns and hairs and bones and such things had been put into the bowl.
“Now,” he said, “I see that this infirmity is not natural, but certainly
due to witchcraft.” And when I asked him how he could tell this from the
molten lead, he answered, “There are seven metals belonging to the seven
planets; and since Saturn is the Lord of lead, when lead is poured out over
anyone who has been bewitched, it is his property to discover the witchcraft
by his power. And so it has surely proved, and you will soon be cured; yet I
must visit you for as many days as you have been under this spell.” And he
asked me how many days had passed; and when I told him that was the third day,
he came to see me on each of the next three days, and merely by examining and
touching my foot and by saying over to himself certain words, he dissolved the
charm and restored me to complete health.
In this case it is clear that the
healer is not a witch, although his method is something superstitious. For in
that he promised a cure by the help of God, and not by devils' work, and that
he alleged the influence of Saturn over lead, he was irreproachable and rather
to be commended. But there remains some small doubt as to the power by which
the witch's spell was removed, and the figures caused in the lead. For no
witchcraft can be removed by any natural power, although it may be assuaged,
as will be proved later where we speak of the remedies for those who are
possessed: therefore it seems that he performed this cure by means of at least
some tacit pact with a devil. And we call such a pact tacit when the
practitioner agrees tacitly, at any rate, to employ the devil's aid. And in
this way many superstitious works are done, but with a varying degree of
offence to the Creator, since there may be far more offence to Him in one
operation than in another.
Yet because this peasant was
certain of effecting a cure, and because he had to visit the patient for as
many days as he had been ill, and although he used no natural remedies, yet
cured him according to the promise made; for these reasons, although he had
entered into no open pact with the devil, he is to be judged not only as a
suspect, but as one plainly guilty of heresy, and must be considered as
convicted and subject at least to the penalties set out below in the second
method of sentencing; but his punishment must be accompanied with a solemn
adjuration, unless he is protected by other laws which seem to be of a
contrary intention; and what the Ordinary should do in such a case will be
shown later in the solution of the arguments.
The fourth class of remedies,
concerning which the Canonists are in partial agreement with some of the
Theologians, is said to be no worse than idle and vain; since it is
superstitious only, and there is no pact either open or tacit with the devil
as regards the intention or purpose of the practitioner. And I say that the
Canonists and some Theologians are only partially agreed that this sort of
remedy is to be tolerated; for their agreement or non-agreement depends upon
whether or not they class this sort of remedies together with the third sort.
But this sort of vain remedy is exemplified above in the case of the women who
beat the pail hung over the fire in order that the witch may be beaten who has
caused a cow to be drained of milk; although this may be done either in the
name of the devil or without any reference to him.
We may adduce other examples of the
same kind. For sometimes when a cow has been injured in this way, and they
wish to discover who has bewitched it, they drive it out into the fields with
a man's trousers, or some unclean thing, upon its head or back. And this they
do chiefly on Feast Days and Holy Days, and possibly with some sort of
invocation of the devil; and they beat the cow with a stick and drive it away.
Then the cow runs straight to the house of the witch, and beats vehemently
upon the door with its horns, lowing loudly all the while; and the devil
causes the cow to go on doing this until it is pacified by some other
witchcraft.
Actually, and according to the
aforesaid Doctors, such remedies can be tolerated, but they are not
meritorious, as some try to maintain. For S. Paul says that everything which
we do, in or deed, must be done in the name of Our Lord JESUS Christ. Now
in this sort of remedy there may be no direct invocation of the devil, and yet
the devil's name may be mentioned: and again there may be no intention to do
such things by means of any open or tacit pact with the devil, yet a man may
say, “I wish to do this, whether the devil has any part in it or not”; and
that very temerity, by putting aside the fear of God, offends God, Who
therefore grants the devil power to accomplish such cures. Therefore they who
use such practices must be led into the way of penitence, and urged to leave
such things and turn rather to the remedies of which we shall speak later,
though we have touched upon them before, namely, the use of Holy Water and
Blessed Salt and exorcisms, etc.
In the same light should be regarded those who use the following method. When
an animal has been killed by witchcraft, and they wish to find out the witch,
or to make certain whether its death was natural or due to witchcraft, they go
to the place where dead animals are skinned, and drag the intestines along the
ground up to their house; not into the house through the main door, but over
the threshold of the back entrance into the kitchen; and then they make a fire
and put the intestines over it on a hurdle. Then, according to what we have
very often been told, just as the intestines get hot and burn, so are the
intestines of the witch afflicted with burning pains. But when they perform
this experiment they take great care that the door is securely locked; because
the witch is compelled by her pains to try to enter the house, and if she can
take a coal from the fire, all her pains will disappear. And we have often
been told that, when she is unable to enter the house, she surrounds it inside
and out with the densest fog, with such horrible shrieks and commotions that
at last all those in the house think the roof is verily going to fall down and
crush them unless they open the door.