b. Water-ordeal was performed either by plimging the bare arm up to the elbow in boiling water, and es- caping unhurt thereby, or by casting the person sus- pected into a river or pond of cold water, and if he rioated therein without any action of swimming, it was deemed an evidence of his guilt, but if he sank he was acquitted. In this trial by water, after the three days' fast and other preliminaries, the accused drank a por- tion of holy water, the priest pronouncing an impreca- tion against him in case he were guilty ; then the water into which he was to be thrown was exorcised in the following manner : " By the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and by the Christianity whose name thou bearest, and by the baptism in which thou wert born again, and by all the blessed relics of the saints of God that are preserved in this church, I conjure thee come not unto this altar, nor eat of this body of Christ, if thou beest guilty in the things that are laid to thy charge ; but if thou beest innocent there- in, come, brother, and come freely." After the exor- cism the accused was undressed, ordered to kiss the Gospels and the cross, and sprinkled with holy water, and then, all persons present fasting, the accused under- went the trial. At the close of the adjuration holy water was tasted by all present, and the chamber sprinkled with it.
c. The coisned, or morsel of execration : this was a piece of bread or cheese, about an ounce in weight, which was consecrated in a peculiar form, in which the Almighty was called upon, and it was prayed that the bread might cause convulsions and paleness, and find no passage, if the man were really guilty, but might turn to health and nourishment if he were innocent. The corsned was then given to the suspected person, who received the holy sacrament at the same time: if indeed, as some have suspected, the corsned was not the sacramental bread itself. It is said that Godwin, earl of Kent, in the reign of king Edward the Confessor, on taking his oath that he had not caused the death of the king's brother, appealed to his corsned, "per buc- cellam deglutiondam abjuravit'' (Ingulphus), which stuck in his throat and killed him.
Other kinds of ordeal were practiced in particular cir- cumstances in different parts of Europe. In the ordeal of
the bier, a supposed murderer was required to touch the body of the murdered person, and pronounced guilty if the blood tiowed from his wounds. The ordeal of the Eucharist {Judicium Eucharisti(P, or Purrjatio per Eu- charistiam) especially was in use among the clergy: the accused party took the sacrament in attestation of in- nocence, it being believed that, if guilty, he would be immediately visited with divine punishment for the sacrilege by its choking him : it was a variety of the cors- ned. The trial of the cross {Examen s. ExiJerimentum s. Judicium crucis) consisted in the accused being made to hold up his arms horizontally in the form of a cross. In cases of difficulty, the one who held out longest was deemed to be in the right. The form of trial is thus described by Dr. Mackay in his Memoirs of Extraor- dinary Popular Delusions : " When a person accused of any crime had declared his innocence upon oath, and appealed to the cross for its judgment in his favor, he was brought into the church before the altar. The priests previously prepared two sticks exactly like one another, upon one of which was carved a figure of the cross. Thej^ were both wrapped up, with great care and many ceremonies, in a quantity of fine wool, and laid upon the altar or on the relics of the saints. A solemn prayer was then offered up to God that he would be pleased to discover, by the judgment of his holy cross, whether the accused person were innocent or guilty. A priest then approached the altar and took up one of the sticks, and the assistants unswathed it reverently. If it was marked with the cross, the accused person was innocent; if unmarked, he was guilty. It would be ini- just to assert that the judgments thus delivered were, in all cases, erroneous ; and it would be absurd to be- lieve that they were left altogether to chance. Many true judgments were doubtless given, and, in all prob- ability, most wittingly, for we cannot but believe that the priests endeavored beforehand to convince themselves, by secret inquiry and a strict examination of the circumstances, whether the appellant were inno- cent or guilty, and tliat they took up the crossed or un- crossed stick accordingly. Although to all other ob- servers the sticks, as enfolded in the wool, might ap- pear exactlj' similar, those who unwrapped them could, without any difficulty, tell the one from the other." This ordeal was abolished by Louis le Debonnaire in A.D. 816, on the ground that it betrayed irreverence towards the mystery of the cross. Another very common ordeal was that by lot, dependent on the throw of a pair of dice, one marked with a cross, the other plain. Another very frequent ordeal was that of single combats or duels. It is unlike any other ordeal practiced, for the result de- pended altogether on the personal strength or courage of the accused.