A Baptismal Argument Against Inherited Witchcraft
When an elderly woman faced a witchcraft accusation, the case reportedly rested in part on family reputation: her mother was said to have been a witch. Cornelius Agrippa challenged the idea that suspicion could pass from mother to daughter as though it were an inherited stain. He argued that baptism broke such a spiritual bond.
That was more than a theological flourish. In a Catholic courtroom, a claim about baptism could turn the accusers’ religious framework against their case. If baptism marked a person as cleansed and brought into the Christian community, Agrippa could argue that an alleged curse inherited through family ties did not define the woman’s present spiritual condition. The key was not to prove that witchcraft was impossible, but to dispute the chain of reasoning used to implicate this defendant.
Theology as a Legal Tool
Agrippa’s argument treated religious doctrine as a practical defense: it offered the court a reason to separate the woman from the accusation attached to her mother. The account describes the strategy as a loophole, but its force lay in making the prosecution’s own beliefs support a different conclusion. The woman’s ancestry, on this reasoning, could not by itself establish her guilt.
He won the case, but the victory carried personal risk. The inquisitor threatened him, and Agrippa fled. The episode shows how a defense built from theological interpretation could unsettle an accusation—and how challenging the authority behind that accusation could put the advocate in danger.
