CHAPTER 19 The Post-Reformation Challenge to Demonic Possession
Harman Bhogal
In November 1597, a group of about 150 people gathered together in Nottingham to witness the dispossession of a young man named William Sommers at the hands of the Puritan minister, John Darrel.
Sommers had been exhibiting the signs of possession, which included extreme fits and contortions of the body, obscene and blasphemous behaviour, and a lump running up and down the body.[1060] Darrel had been called in because of his involvement in previous well-publicised cases of possession.[1061] Following the words of Jesus in Mark 9:29, where he instructed that ‘This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting', Darrell attempted dispossession by these means. However, the Sommers' case would prove to be deeply controversial.During the course of his possession, Sommers had accused one Alice Freeman of bewitching him. The Freeman family in turn accused Sommers of bewitching an individual called Sterland and in January 1598, Sommers was arrested. During the investigation, Sommers confessed to faking his possession. However, a few months later, he withdrew this confession only to reassert it a few days later. At this point, the central authorities decided to step in. Darrel was summoned to Lambeth by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and imprisoned pending investigations of fraud; in May 1599 he was convicted of the same.
The Darrel controversy has been recognised by historians as a watershed moment in the history of demonic possession. In the period between 1565 and 1600, we know of fourteen cases, whereas in the period 1600-1641, this number reduces significantly to seven. In addition, Canon 72, approved in 1604, forbade the conducting of dispossession by prayer and fasting without an episcopal licence. The fact that no such licences were ever issued indicates the official aversion to the phenomenon.[1062]
There are a variety of explanations for the authorities' reaction to Darrel's activities, most notably the conflict between the establishment and the Puritans.
The political aspect of demonic possession and exorcism has been recognised by historians such as Keith Thomas and D. P. Walker. In his Religion and the Decline of Magic, Thomas discusses how possession was used as a tool of Puritan propaganda, ‘perhaps as an alternative tactic after the failure of their attempts to set up a new system of church government in the 1580s’.[1063] He believes that ‘Darrel’s well-publicized activities’ were intended to portray Puritans as having the ability to work miracles. He further states that the main aim of both Catholic and Puritan exorcisms ‘was to demonstrate that only the representatives of the true faith had the power to cast out the devil.’[1064] On the other hand, Walker also points to the political aspect of exorcisms, but he additionally states that ‘the [Catholic and anti-Protestant] propaganda was more varied and less strong, and the publicity, at least during the exorcisms, less massive’ in England when compared to cases in France.[1065] More recently, in his essay, ‘Demons, Deviance and Defiance:John Darrel and the Politics of Exorcism in late Elizabethan England’ (2000), Thomas Freeman explores the political dimensions of the Darrel controversy. In his book A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrell, Samuel Harsnett, Chaplain to the Bishop of London, clearly expresses concern at the propagandist potential of dispossessions. An unregulated practice, dispossession could be used to bolster the Puritan cause.[1066] Freeman affirms this point of view, arguing that ‘Darrel was not opposed by Whitgift and [Bishop of London Richard] Bancroft because he was an exorcist, but because his exorcisms sanctioned, even sanctified, crucial Puritan practices and dogmas.’[1067]Freeman points to several factors that he sees as evidence of this. He points to Darrel’s connection to several well-known Puritan figures, such as John Ireton and Arthur Hildersham, as well as the apparent incorporation of antiepiscopalian sentiments in Darrel’s dispossessions, specifically the appearance of the devil in a bishop’s hat.
Freeman argues that the popular appeal of exorcism was ‘one way in which Puritan ministers tried to bridge the gap between godly culture and popular culture' in order to promote a Puritan agenda. Freeman argues that Darrel's appointment as the preacher at St. Mary's Church in Nottingham after the Sommers' dispossession proves ‘the effectiveness of exorcism as an instrument of Puritan propaganda and proselytization'.[1068] On the other hand, the works produced by Darrell and his supporters protest against the apparent unfair execution of the trial, and express a sense of victimisation of the godly.[1069] [1070] [1071]In Witchcraft and Hysteria in Elizabethan London, Michael MacDonald focuses upon Dr. Edward Jorden's A Briefe Discourse of a disease called the suffocation of the mother (1603), which attempted to attribute the symptoms of the allegedly bewitched Mary Glover to hysteria rather than demonic possession. Jorden had been a witness for the defence during the trial of the accused witch, Elizabeth Jackson, in 1602, but his explanation was not accepted and Jackson was convicted of bewitching Glover. MacDonald wishes to investigate the circumstances under which Jorden was able to express his views, and which gave rise to the publication of the book. MacDonald's main argument is that Jorden's work is primarily ‘a work of religious propaganda.'0 He does not doubt Jorden's sincerity of belief in his theories, but he wishes to place the work within the context of the Darrel controversy. He agrees with Walker's argument that the climate created by the controversy was ‘favourable to the development of early modern science' and ‘unfavourable to witch-hunting and demoniacs'?2
Therefore, MacDonald argues that Jorden’s view was only able to gain expression because the political circumstances allowed it thereby revealing ‘the importance of power politics in shaping beliefs and opinions’.[1072] He argues that Jorden’s views found expression because they served a political function by providing a scientific argument that supported Harsnett’s arguments against possession.1[1073] He believes that Jorden’s ideas would have had lain dormant but for the fact that they were utilised by those in power and that is the only reason Jorden’s influence is apparent.
Essentially, all these works attribute the apparent demise of possession cases after the Darrel controversy to political factors: the campaign against Darrel by Harsnett is seen as effectively discouraging dispossessions, whilst Macdonald’s argument associates the general acceptability of possession to the monarch’s own personal beliefs: once King James demonstrated scepticism and promoted alternative explanations for apparent possession cases, this also led to more general scepticism.
However, there is another explanation for the reduction in possession cases. In 1601 there appeared a work by two preachers, John Deacon and John Walker, entitled Dialogicall Discourses of Spirits and Divels,[1074] [1075] in which the theological and natural aspects of possession as a whole came under great scrutiny. No previous work had considered possession in such detail. In this paper I wish to explore the arguments in order to demonstrate how the work essentially redefined the phenomenon and the way in which it was understood, by challenging the assumptions embedded within possession reports. Deacon and Walker’s work is significant, because it provided the intellectual arguments that contributed towards side-lining possession as a contemporary affliction^6 Deacon and Walker's work has received little attention from historians. In his book, Unclean Spirits, D. P. Walker describes it as ‘prolix and logically weak'. He looks very briefly at their work, concentrating on two strands of their argument: namely that the so-called demoniacs are either frauds or suffering from natural disease; and that dispossession is a miracle, and so, as the age of miracles has passed, possession can no longer occur. Walker does not investigate the rest of Deacon and Walker's arguments, but he admits that the work ‘is very erudite and deserves more space than I can give it'.[1076] Marion Gibson looks at Deacon and Walker in her recent publication, Possession, Puritanism and Print. Brian P. Levack's The Devil Within (2013) refers to Deacon and Walker's work as one of the ‘most effective critiques of the Catholic position' on miracles, and specifically the Catholic promotion of their exorcisms as miracles. He points to their affirmation of Calvin's position that Christ's miracles and those of the early church were sufficient to confirm the truth of the Gospel.1[1078] However, despite his recognition of the significance of their work in analysing the validity of contemporary demonic activity, Levack does not investigate it any further. This paper argues that Deacon and Walker's work indeed ‘deserves more space' because firstly, it challenges the neat delineation over the issue of possession along the lines of Puritan vs. establishment, as Deacon and Walker have been identified as Puritans.[1079] This indicates that belief in possession was not a defining feature of Puritanism, and also demonstrates that attitudes towards possession were affected by factors beyond the immediate political concerns, most obviously the Reformation and the consequential reassessment of the role of miracles and other supernatural phenomena. This is the second reason why Deacon and Walker's work is important: because it is the only early modern English work that I can find that systematically lays out the theological, medical and natural reasons for denying the contemporary occurrence of possession. So what is Deacon and Walker's view on possession? They believe that possession has been fundamentally misunderstood because possession is not the internal presence of the demon within the human body or soul. They believe that the word now translated as ‘possession', in the original Hebrew only indicates that the demon possesses the body in the same way that a person possesses or holds an object. In their view, the use of the word ‘possession' was an unfortunate, careless decision by the translator, and has led to erroneous assumptions about the nature of possession. Deacon and Walker aim to correct this problem by laying out the reasons why the internal presence of demon within the human body or soul—what they term ‘real' possession—is impossible. But their argument is twofold: not only do they deny the internal nature of possession, but they also deny the possibility of possession in their own age, maintaining that it was a phenomenon particular to Biblical and Apostolic times. Deacon and Walker's arguments in support of this position are extensive, so I have grouped them into three main categories: medical, natural and theological. Their medical argument basically states that those believed to be possessed are actually suffering from a natural disease such as melancholy, epilepsy, mania and lunacy, lycanthropy, the mother (hysteria), or menstrual obstructions and convulsions. They state that these illnesses can cause the mind to be troubled with ‘noysome fumes, blacke and grosse', which can lead information available about John Walker: he could be one of two John Walkers who matriculated at Oxford, one b.a. 1574 or another b.a. 1584, m.a. 1587. In any case, he seems to have been based in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire (Brampton), which would be in the same locality as Deacon and it not unreasonable to assume he mixed in the same Puritan circles. the individual into truly believing that they are being afflicted by the devil.[1080] [1081] [1082] This argument draws directly on that of the Dutch physician and demonolo- gist,Johann Weyer (1515-1588), who believed that many of those accused of witchcraft were in fact suffering from melancholy, and so were susceptible to the devil's illusions and tricks which made them believe that they were capable of performing various acts of witchcraft.22 However, Deacon and Walker spend a relatively short amount of time on this medical explanation. As we shall see, they still believed in the possibility of spiritual torment, but it was the specific nature and interpretation of this that they wished to clarify. Deacon and Walker's denial of the physical, internal presence of a demon within a demoniac challenged a fundamental trope within possession narratives that implied that demonic possession involved the physical entry of a demon within a person's body. Indeed, this understanding of possession as indicating the internal, physical presence of the demon within the demoniac's body is something that was deeply embedded within the understanding of the phenomenon. Nancy Caciola describes how in medieval descriptions of possession, ‘the possessed body was viewed literally as having incorporated a foreign spirit inside itself.'23 In early modern English cases, symptoms that suggested internal possession, such as swellings and lumps, or strange foreign voices emitting from the apparently possessed, were often seen as proof of possession. For example, in the case of Anne Mylner, the beginning of her possession was marked with her being surrounded by ‘a whyte thynge' and as Anne's possession continued, her body swelled up, which suggests the internal physical presence of the demon.[1083] [1084] [1085] [1086] [1087] Similarly, Alexander Nyndge's symptoms included the swelling of belly and chest and contortions of the body.25 One of Sommers' symptoms was ‘a certain swelling or variable lumpe to a great bignesse swiftly vp and downe between the flesh and the skin.'26 Indeed, in ‘The doctrin of the possession and dispossession of demomakes ovt of the word of God' (included in the True narration), Darrel stated that the symptoms of possession could only occur as a result of the demon being present within the demoniac's body, because ‘satan being without man, can not cause or send forth those effects (which are indeed signes of possession).^7 Deacon and Walker's assertion that the existing understanding of demonic possession was wrong because it did not involve the internal presence of a demon was therefore a revolutionary idea that challenged existing notions of what demonic possession was. What is notable about their argument, however, is that it is based upon existing, and broadly accepted, ideas about the laws of nature and the basic tenets of Protestant theology. Their appeal to the laws of nature is particularly pertinent because it was universally accepted that the devil is bound by the rules of nature and cannot violate or transcend these. Therefore, if they could demonstrate that internal possession would break the laws of nature, they could also prove that it is impossible. Using Aristotle's idea of the perfect world28—in which the world consists of the visible, which are the heavens and the elements, the partly visible and partly invisible, which are human beings, and the invisible, which are the spirits—they establish that demons are purely spiritual beings with no bodies.[1088] This incorporeal nature of demons is important as it undermines the suggestion that the swelling and lumps exhibited by alleged demoniacs indicated the physical presence of demons within the body. They agree with the assertion of the sceptical author of The Discoverie of Witchcraft, Reginald Scot (d. 1599), that spirits cannot be detected by the senses, and that any physical appearances of spirits in the Bible are to be understood metaphorically; any incidents found outside the Bible are merely tricks or illusions of the devil.[1089] [1090] [1091] Deacon and Walker argue that spiritual beings are unable to enter the human soul, mind, and body. They argue that because both the soul and demons are spiritual in nature, neither can enter into the other because ‘Neither is the one by nature, more subtile, more slender, or more thinne then the other: neither yet, of more capabilitie, or more apt to containe then the other.'3i Furthermore, they argue that it is impossible for demons to possess a person internally because if they did, ‘there must be, either a confusion of substances, which to hold were absurd, or else a rending and separation of substances at least, called properly a vacuum, which were follie to imagine, but madnes for any to auouch'.32 It is impossible for two substances to occupy the same place at the same time, and so it is impossible for the demonic spirit to enter into the human spirit. Deacon and Walker argue that a demon cannot enter the mind because it is not a physical place. The mind is a place of thoughts and ideas, and so the only way for the devil to affect it is by influencing these thoughts and ideas through external suggestion and temptation. They further argue that the mind is simply too small to contain a demon. A spirit occupies space ‘imaginably, determinately, or definitiuely’ meaning that although spirits are finite and limited, they do not have fixed dimensions in the same way that corporeal beings do. Therefore, they cannot be contained within the limited confines of an individuals’ mind.[1092] [1093] Deacon and Walker assert that a demon cannot enter into the body, for if the body is occupied by a demonic spirit, what happens to the human soul? They argue that the soul is a spiritual substance, and so must pervade the entire body. It is impossible for it to be bound up to make way for a demonic presence. Furthermore, they point out that if the body was under demonic control, the brain would be unable to perform its role. This includes not only its organic operations, which relate to the senses and bodily functions, but also its animal operations, which are ‘understanding, affection and will’. In this way, Deacon and Walker seek to unravel the inherent assumptions about the nature of demonic possession contained within the possession accounts. The symptoms that had hitherto indicated the internal presence of the demon and thus used to diagnose possession, are refuted and therefore destabilised. By appealing to unbreakable physical laws, Deacon and Walker wish to establish that swellings, lumps and foreign voices cannot be seen as irrefutable evidence of internal possession. Because such physical possession is in fact impossible, there must be an alternative explanation for what was occurring in theses cases. Another fundamental trope that Deacon and Walker challenge is the explanation for possession. The interpretation of demonic possession can again be found embedded within the surviving narratives. A major theme is that possession occurs as the result of sin: either of the individual or the community. In the case of Anne Mylner, Mylner’s sin of a popish reliance upon Mary was exposed during her dispossession when she cried out ‘Lady, Lady’. This sin was corrected by her dispossessor, the godly John Lane, who urged her ‘to cal vpo[n] God, and the bloud of Christ’ instead.34 Once this sin of popish practices and beliefs was exposed and admonished, Mylner was delivered of her affliction. However, Mylner’s possession was also understood as the result of the sins of the nation as a whole. The title page includes a short rhyme, which describes Mylner’s case as ‘a fact most [rare] Shewed forth by God in this thy natiue land sithe by gods woord thou setst so lytle care.’ The nation’s apathetic faith was the cause of Mylner’s possession. In the foreword to the account of Margaret Cooper's possession, the writer states that possession occurred in order to ‘put us in remembrance of our sinnes [...] wherein if we continue, let us undoubtedly looke for the reward thereof, which is everlasting distruction, both of body and soule.'[1094] It was therefore both a punishment for past sins, and a warning against continuing in those sins. During Alexander Nyndge's dispossession, his brother, Edward, prayed that ‘we may acknowledge this affliction, which now so grieuously pierceth our poore brother, to be thy Fatherly correction to put him minde of his duety towards thee', which suggests that Alexander was to serve as an example to all who neglect their spiritual duties[1095] Certainly Darrel made this connection between sin and possession. In his capacity as preacher of St. Mary's, Nottingham, he urged the town to turn from its sinful ways, which had brought the judgment of God upon them in the form of Sommers' possession[1096] Because possession is a result of sin, deliverance from possession comes as a result of the individual successfully acknowledging and overcoming their sinful inclinations. However, Deacon and Walker challenge this theological basis for belief in contemporary possession. They argue that possession only occurred so that God's power could be displayed in the deliverance of demoniac—and not primarily as a punishment for sin. But God's power has been categorically displayed and established by the acts of Jesus and the Apostles as recorded in the Bible. Possession is therefore rendered pointless in their own time; therefore, there is no basis for believing in it. They point out that every created being serves a specific purpose according to the divine plan. Demons exist as tempters of humans, with the primary aim of corrupting human beings through sin in order to alienate them from God. However, demons cannot fulfil this purpose through possession because sin can only corrupt if the individual chooses to sin. Yet if internal possession did occur, the mind would be unable to control the body which would mean that it could not be held accountable for its actions. Any sin committed during a possession is done independently of the demoniac's will, and so cannot be held against them: equally, any confession of sin or positive affirmation of faith would be impossible because the demoniac would not be capable of making these if their body and mind were possessed, and therefore under the control of, a demon. In this way, Deacon and Walker wish to show that although real possession is understood to be a spiritual affliction it actually has no spiritual effect, which makes it pointless. For a person to be physically and internally possessed, they would have to become a puppet of the demon, with no active will by which to redeem themselves. In Deacon and Walker's view, demons attempt to corrupt the soul by introducing sinful ideas into the mind through external suggestion, or by affecting the physical body (as in the case of Job) in order to drive people to despair and sin. The fact that demons do not need to enter into the body in order to carry out their prime purpose necessarily means that they cannot enter into the body. Deacon and Walker seek to show that contemporary demonic possession is not possible by again denying the validity of a foundational understanding of possession. Having established that real possession is impossible, Deacon and Walker then seek to establish what was occurring in Biblical accounts of possession. They argue that this was not ‘real' possession, but ‘actual' possession. They define this as ‘some such extraordinarie actual affliction, vexation, or torment, as Satan himselfe (by the speciall appointment of God) doth effectiuely inflict vpon men for a time.'[1097] This actual possession consists of actual mental possession, where the devil deceives the senses through illusions and false miracles. Alternatively, he can assault the senses through illness. Actual mental possession can also lead to the loss of all reason and cause the afflicted party to perform senseless acts such as running into fire. Actual possession can be corporeal, where the demon affects the body directly, leading to the deprivation of senses, or the crippling of the body. Deacon and Walker do not elaborate too much on how this is done, but, drawing on the arguments of Levius Lemnius, they maintain that demons can only carry out these effects naturally, for example by affecting the humours. They acknowledge that demons have a superior understanding of nature, and so they are able to use this ability to effect actions that to humans appear to be supernatural but in actuality are not. In any case, the key characteristic of actual possession is that it is carried out externally, and the demon at no point physically enters into the soul or body. In this way, Deacon and Walker essentially redefine the nature of demonic possession which stands in stark contrast to previously held conceptions of it as the internal physical presence of a demon, aimed at punishing and convicting individuals and communities of their sins. They refute both of these aspects, thereby formulating a completely new way of thinking about demonic possession. Moreover, for Deacon and Walker, possession is restricted to the cases found in the Bible, and to the time of the early Church. This is primarily because they believe the cure of possession to be a miraculous undertaking.[1098] Subscribing to the doctrine of the cessation of miracles, they argue that the age of miracles has now passed. This is because miracles were intended for two main purposes. The first was to confirm the divinity of Christ. The second was to draw people towards the truth of the Gospel and to help establish the early Church. However, both of these aims have now been fulfilled, and Christians now live their lives through faith, without the need for miracles.[1099] They reject Darrel's argument that possession is a natural affliction that can be cured through prayer and fasting, which is non-miraculous. They believe that actual possession was a supernatural affliction and so the cure must always be miraculous[1100] Therefore, they believe that the words in Mark are relevant only to that particular situation and are not a perpetual instruction. In addition, they believe that Jesus' death and resurrection put an end to the devil's power of possession[1101] In this way, they not only use the cessationist doctrine to deny the validity of Catholic exorcisms, but also the reality of Protestant dispossessions and hence contemporary demonic possession. However, they do not deny that the devil still afflicts individuals on an extreme level, although they maintain that he now does so in a much more limited form. This they term obsession, rather than possession. This is when the devil attacks a person ‘either in an outward assaulting and vexing: or in an inward suggesting and tempting at least.' Obsession seems to operate in essentially the same way as possession, through external deception, temptation and suggestion, or bodily assault. But obsession must necessarily be less severe than possession, given their position that Christ's death and resurrection severely curtailed the devil's power. They suggest that those who are ignorant of the word of God are more vulnerable to obsession, and believe that preaching is therefore a powerful tool against it.[1102] [1103] This category of obsession fits in with their understanding of the devil's prime role as tempter. So whereas possession occurred primarily with the aim of demonstrating God's truth and glory through dispossession, obsession is portrayed as a spiritual torment aimed at separating an individual from God. Obsession also makes it possible to accept the existence of intense spiritual affliction without the need to believe in contemporary possession and dispossession. There is some evidence of the influence of Deacon and Walker's work, although this was not without modification. For example, the category of obsession was widely adopted, appearing in works by authors such as Thomas Draxe, Thomas Adams,John Cotta, Thomas Cooper. However, these writers redefine obsession to mean only external mental and spiritual affliction, and still retain the possibility of internal physical possession. Obviously this is not the distinction Deacon and Walker were making, but it is notable that the term ‘obsession' only seems to appear consistently in works concerned with demonic affliction after the publication of Deacon and Walker's work. It is also interesting that these writers accept a category that essentially limits the scope of possession and in practical terms, restricts its use as a diagnosis. Whereas before, those suffering from primarily mental and spiritual affliction may have been understood to be possessed, now they would be seen as obsessed instead. Deacon and Walker's effectiveness in destabilising the category of possession is evident in Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy. Burton was clearly aware of the arguments raised by Deacon and Walker, for in the third edition of the book (1628), he states: The last kinde of madness or melancholy, is that demoniacall (if I may so call it) obsession or possession of devills, which Platerus and others would have to bee preternaturall: stupend things are said of them, their actions, gestures, contortions, fasting, prophesying, speaking languages they were never taught, &c. many strange stories are related of them, which because some will not allowe (for Deacon and Darrell have written large volumes on this subject pro and con) I voluntarily omit.44 This demonstrates how the controversy over possession led Burton to choose not to consider it as a type of disease of the mind. It is evident that Deacon and Walker's arguments against the possibility of contemporary possession, and their introduction of the competing category of obsession, was enough to raise uncertainty about the subject for Burton, and for him therefore to side-line possession as a contemporary affliction. There is evidence of a more direct adoption of Deacon and Walker's arguments. For example, in February and March 1603, Henoch Clapham and Dr Giles Thompson, Dean of Windsor, both preached sermons in which they expressed doubt that possession occurred ‘nowe adayes'.[1104] In a sermon published in 1612, Thomas Taylor, a Puritan preacher and former Cambridge fellow, described those who were possessed in the Bible as being ‘most miserably cap- tiuated, tormented, and vexed by the deuil', and that they were ‘oppressed by the deuill'[1105] This echoes Deacon and Walker's assertion that possession only indicated that demons ‘exercise in [demoniacs], the force and effect of their malice by oppressing and vexing them'?7 Like Deacon and Walker, Taylor's description of Biblical demoniacs suggests an external assault by the devil, rather than his internal presence within the demoniac. In a book entitled The Blacke Devil, published in 1615, Thomas Adams asserts that ‘The Deuil dwelleth in a Man, not tanquam corpus locatum in loco, as a bodye seated in a certaine place: for spirits are not contained in any place. Incorporeall created substances doe not dwell in a place locally or circum- scriptiuely, as bodies doe; but definitiuely. Nor dwell these in him, tanquam forma in materia, as the forme in a substance, as the soule in the body. For the Deuill is a simple substance of himselfe, not compounded of any aliene or second matter. But they dwell in him by a secret and spirituall power?8 This is essentially the same reasoning used by Deacon and Walker to disprove internal possession, which again demonstrates how concepts first expounded by them did filter into broader religious thought. The Darrel controversy opened the door for sceptical discussion of possession, but it was Deacon and Walker's work that presented a fundamental argument against possession as a whole. By creating a case that fit plausibly into the accepted doctrine of the cessation of miracles, Deacon and Walker made disbelief in contemporary possession not just politically expedient, but also theologically persuasive. This meant that their arguments could appeal to the broader audience of those not embroiled in the political aspects of the debate. Though ‘prolix and logically weak' it appears that certain arguments were convincing enough to gain some currency, albeit with modifications, within the early modern intellectual fabric. Their work is significant primarily because it is the first work to attempt to comprehensively lay out the nature and mechanics of possession which in turn presents a unique view of possession and a new paradigm in which the phenomenon was to be understood. Their work demands that historians look beyond the political dimensions of the Darrel controversy because it demonstrates that there was also an intellectual discussion about demonic possession that affected how contemporaries thought about the phenomenon and that can further contribute towards our explanation for why demonic possession cases diminished following the Darrel controversy.