During the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries—the height of European demonological interest—England experienced a series of demonic possession cases that gained substantial attention from the clergy and laypeople alike. Reported across sensationalist pamphlets and learned demonological treatises, these cases were presented as extraordinary tokens of God's providence intended to be interpreted and responded to by those involved. English Calvinists during this period were largely interested in demonic possession for three primary reasons: what providential meaning this spiritual affliction offered, what action God was compelling them to carry out, and, more importantly, what profit they could gain in fulfilling their godly duties. The profit cited by these Calvinists was a glimpse into their predestined fate. This article argues that demonic affliction was fashioned as an emblematic phenomenon by English Calvinist communities with dispossession (exorcism) cast as a definitive form of spiritual warfare designed to provide comfort for the faithful and guide them toward a blessed conclusion. In this context, possession functioned as a providential catalyst: a call to carry out dispossession that, once fulfilled, brought the entire act to completion. Examining four possession textual accounts in detail, with a particular focus on the exploits of the controversial Puritan exorcist John Darrell, this article examines the intellectual construction of spirit possession and exorcism within an aligned Calvinist providential and eschatological framework. These cases exemplify many of the prevailing interpretations of spirit possession in the early modern English context and illustrate how this affliction offered individuals a potential salve to the vexed nature of Calvinist predestination.

In 1815 the Vicar Apostolic of the London District, William Poynter, became embroiled in a case of alleged demonic possession. In the face of considerable pressure from the family of Peter Moore, the alleged demoniac, Poynter prevented a proposed exorcism on the grounds that it would bring adverse publicity to the still fragile Catholic Church in England. Drawing on the surviving correspondence between Poynter and his officials and Peter Moore’s family, this article examines the stance adopted by Poynter on the issue of exorcism within the wider context of ‘Catholic Enlightenment’ thought on demonic possession, and argues that the political circumstances of Catholics in England ensured that Poynter’s cautious approach to exorcism ultimately won out against the desire of other Catholics—including another Vicar Apostolic, John Milner—to publicise the rite as a means of promoting the Catholic faith.

Jordan of Saxony's Libellus, first produced in 1233, has struck scholars as an unwieldy combination of hagiography and early Dominican history. Compounding its somewhat awkward nature are its various jumps in chronology and idiosyncratic biographical asides. Perhaps the most idiosyncratic of them all is Jordan's lengthy account of Brother Bernard's demonic possession. While this account provides the setting for the institution of the Dominican custom of chanting the Salve Regina after compline, it is difficult to see at first glance what benefit the story as told would have had for Jordan's audience. Upon closer inspection, however, some method appears in the madness. From a pedagogical point of view – the Libellus is described in the mid-thirteenth-century Vitas fratrum as a journal Jordan read to novices in Paris – the revelation of Jordan's various attempts at identifying the demon's wiles suggests a master willing to allow his students to witness his own doubts about how to proceed. Furthermore, the possessed brother shows a remarkable capacity to imitate ideals central to Dominican identity, in so far as Jordan reveals such ideals in his Libellus: a master of theology, a charismatic preacher and a prospective saint. This essay offers a close analysis of this perplexing narrative, describing the significance of the various demonic phenomena and Jordan's reactions to them, and reflecting on the pedagogical implications of the portrayal of Jordan's uncertainty.