ORDEAL. 
She ufual methods of fire and water ordeal, both parties 
are fometimes expofed to the fury of a tiger, let loofe for 
that purpofe. If the beaft fpares either, that perfon is 
accounted innocent; if neither, both are held to be 
guilty ;' but, if he fpares both, the trial is incomplete, and 
they proceed to a more certain criterion. 
The fuperftitious weaknefs of mankind, when left to 
themfelves, is aftonilhing. There is indeed nothing fo 
abfurd but they may be made molt firmly to believe, nor 
fo impious but they will do. Nor can a more notorious 
inftance of the truth of this aflertion be pofiibly given, 
than that of the trial by ordeal. The grols abfurdity, as 
well as impiety, of pronouncing a man guilty unlefs he 
was cleared by a miracle, and of expelling that all the 
powers of nature fhould be Jufpended by an immediate 
interpofition of Providence to fave the innocent, when¬ 
ever it was prefumptuoufly required, is fell-evident. 
Yet the origin of it may be traced as well to necellity 
as to furperftition. At the time in which it originated 
in England, as well as in other countries of Europe, it 
was no eafy matter for an innocent perfon, when accufed 
of guilt, to get himfelf cleared by the then-eftablilhed 
mode of trial. It was therefore natural for fuperllition 
to fly to Heaven for thole teftimonies of innocence which 
the abfurdity of human laws often prevented men from 
obtaining in the ordinary way ; and in this way, doubtlefs, 
did the trial by ordeal commence; and, thus begun by 
neceflitous fuperftition, it was foftered by impious prieft- 
craft and unjuft power. There was during all the pro- 
cefles great room for collufion and deceit; and there can 
be no quellion but it was often praftifed : it could not 
therefore on any account, or in any cafe, be a fign of in¬ 
nocence or guilt. 
Befides thofe particular methods of trial wdiich we have 
already mentioned, there were fome few more common in 
European countries; as, the ordeal of thecrofs, and the 
ordeal of the corfned. 
III. It was fo much the cuftorw in the middle ages of 
Chriftianity, to refpedl: the crofs even to fuperftition, that 
jt would have been indeed wonderful, if the fame igno¬ 
rant bigotry had not converted it into an ordeal: accor¬ 
dingly, we find it ufed for this purpofe in fo many differ¬ 
ent ways, as almofl: to preclude defcription. We fhall 
liow’ever trahfcrib§, for the fatisfa&ion of our readers, 
Dr. Henry’s account of it, and of the corfned. “In cri¬ 
minal trials, thejudgment of the crofs was commonly thus 
conduced. When the prifoner had declared his inno¬ 
cence upon oath, and appealed to the judgment of the 
crofs, two flicks were prepared exadlly like one another: 
the figure of the crofs was cut on one of thefe flicks, and 
nothing on the other; each of them was then wrapped 
up in a quantity of fine white wool, and laid on the 
altar, or on the relics of the faints; after which a folemn 
prayer was put up to God, that he would be pleafed to 
difcover, by evident figns, whether the prifoner was inno¬ 
cent or guilty. Thefe folemnities being finifhed, a prieft 
approached the altar, and took up one of the flicks, which 
was uncovered with much anxiety. If it was the flick 
marked with the crofs, the prifoner was pronounced in¬ 
nocent: if it was the other, he w'as declared guilty. 
When the judgment of the crofs was appealed to in civil 
caufes, the trial was conduced in this manner: The 
judges, parties, and all concerned, being aflembled in a 
church,’each of the parties chofe a prieft, the youngeft 
and ftoutelt that he could find, to be his reprefentative in 
the trial. Thefe reprefentatives were then placed one on 
each fide of fome famous crucifix ; and, at a fignal given, 
they both at once ftretched their arms at full length, fo 
as to form a crofs with their body. In this painful pof- 
ture they continued to fland while divine fervice was per¬ 
forming ; and the party whofe reprefentative dropped his 
arms firft, loft his caufe. 
IV. “ The corfned, or the confecrated bread and cheefe, 
was the ordeal to which the clergy commonly appealed 
when they were accufed of any crimes; in which they 
711 
afled a very prudent part, as it was attended with no 
danger or inton venience. This ordeal was performed in 
this manner: A piece of barley-bread and a piece of cheefe 
were laid upon the altar, over which a prieft pronounced 
certain conjurations, and prayed with great fervency that, 
if the perfon accufed was guilty, God would fend his .an¬ 
gel Gabriel to flop his throat, that he might not be able 
to fwallow that bread and cheefe. Thefe prayers being 
ended, the culprit approached the altar, took up the bread 
andcheefe, and began to eat it. If he lwallowed freely, 
he was declared innocent; but, if it ftuckin his throat, and 
lie could not fwallow (which we may prefume feldom or 
never happened), he was pronounced guilty.” 
There were befides thefe a variety of other ordeals 
praftiled in Chriftian countries, many of which retain the 
lame names as among Pagans, and differ only in the mode 
of execution. In all nations of Chriftians where thofe 
trials'were ufed, we find the clergy engaged in them. In¬ 
deed, in England, fo late as king John’s time, we find 
grants to thebifhops and clergy to ufe the judicium ferri, 
aqua, ct ignis. And, both in England and Sweden, the 
clergy prelided at this trial, and it was only performed in 
the churches or in other confecrated ground: for which 
Stiernhook gives the reafon, Nondefuit illis opsraet laboris 
pretium ; femper enim ab cjufmodijuclicio aliquid lucre facer- 
dutibas obveniebat. But, to give it its due praife, wefind the 
canon law very early declaring againft trial by ordeal, as 
being the fabric of the devil, cum fit contra praceptum 
Domini, Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum. Upon this 
authority, though the canons themfelves were of no vali¬ 
dity in England, it was thought proper (as had been done 
in Denmark above a century before), to difufe and abo- 
lifti this trial entirely in our courts of juftice, by an 
act of parliament in 3 Hen. III. according to fir. Edward 
Coke, or rather by an order of the king in council. 
It may ftill perhaps be a pojlulatum with fome of our 
readers how the effects of thefe trials were evaded, and 
how it was poflible to appear to do, what we know could 
not be really done, without material injury to theperfons 
concerned : on this lubjedl, the learned hiftorian whom, 
we have already quoted, obferves, with regard to the or¬ 
deals in ancient Britain, which, mutatis mutandis, will 
anfwer for others, that, “if we fuppofe few or none ef- 
caped conviction who expofed themfelves to thofe fiery 
trials, we fhall be very much miftaken. For the hiftories 
of thofe times contain innumerable examples of perfons 
plunging their naked arms into boiling water, handling 
red-hot balls of iron, and walking upon burning plough- 
fiiares, without receiving the lead injury. Many learned 
men have been much puzzled to account for this, and 
difpofed to think that Providence gracioufly interpofed, 
in a miraculous manner, for the prefervation of injured 
innocence. But, if we examine every circumftance of 
thole fiery ordeals with due attention, we fhall fee fufficient 
reafon to fulpeCl that the whole was agrofs impofition on 
the credulity of mankind. The accufed perfon was com¬ 
mitted wholly to the prieft, who was to perform the ceremo¬ 
ny three days before the trial, in which he had time enough 
to bargain with him for his deliverance, and give himin- 
ftruftions how to a£l his part. On the day of trial, no 
perfon was permitted to enter the church but the prieft 
and the accufed, till after the iron W'as heated, when 
twelve friends of the accufer, and twelve of the accufed, 
and no more, were admitted, and ranged along the wall 
on each fide of the church at a refpeftful diftance. After 
the iron was taken out of the fire, feveral prayers were 
laid ; the accufed drank a cup of holy water, and fprink- 
led his hand with it, which might take a confiderable 
time, if the prieft was indulgent. The fpace of nine feet 
was meafured by the accufed himfelf wfith his own feet, 
and he would probably give but lcantymeafure. He was 
obliged only to toudh one of the marks with the toe of his 
right foot, and allowed to ftretch the other foot as far to¬ 
wards the other mark as he could, fo that the conveyance 
was almofl; inftantaneous. His hand was not immedi- 
atti-y 
5 
