WITCHES, WITCHCRAFT, WIZARDS, &c.

“What are these,So withered and so wild in their attire,That look not like the inhabitants o’ the Earth,And yet are on’t? Live you? or are you aughtThat men may question? * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * You should be women,And yet your beards forbid me to interpretThat you are so.”—Macbeth.

“What are these,

So withered and so wild in their attire,

That look not like the inhabitants o’ the Earth,

And yet are on’t? Live you? or are you aught

That men may question? * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * You should be women,

And yet your beards forbid me to interpret

That you are so.”—Macbeth.

Witchcraft implies a kind of sorcery, more especially prevalent, and, as supposed, among old women, who, by entering into a social compact with the devil, if such an august personage there be as commonly represented, were enabled, in many instances, to alter the course of nature’s immutable laws;—to raise winds and storms,—to perform actions that require more than human strength,—to ride through the air upon broomsticks,—to transform themselves into various shapes,—to afflict and torment those who might have rendered themselves obnoxious to them, with acute pains and lingering diseases,—in fact, to do whatsoever they wished, through the agency of the devil, who was always supposed to be at their beck and call.

All countries can boast of their witches, sorcerers, &c. they have been genial with every soil, and peculiar with every age. We have the earliest account of them in holy writ, which contains irrefutable proofs, that whether they existed or not,the same superstitious ideas prevailed, and continued to prevail until within the last century. The age of reason has now, however, penetrated the recesses of ignorance, and diffused the lights of the Gospel with good effect among the credulous and uninformed, to the great discomfit of witches and evil spirits.

During the height of this kind of ignorance and superstition, many cruel laws were framed against witchcraft; in consequence of which, numbers of innocent persons, male and female[45], many of them no doubt friendless, and oppressed with age and penury, and disease, were condemned and burnt for powers they never possessed, for crimes they neither premeditated nor committed. Happily for humanity these terrific laws have long since been repealed. An enlightened age viewed with horror the fanaticism of Pagans, and gave proof of its emancipation from the dark and murderous trammels of ignorance and barbarity, by a recantation of creeds that had no other object in view than to stain the dignity of the creation by binding down the human mind to the most abject state of degeneracy and servility.

The deceptions of jugglers, founded on optical illusions, electrical force, and magnetical attraction, have fortunately, in a great measure, gone a great way to remove the veil of pretended supernatural agency. The oracles of old have been detected asmere machinery; the popish miracles, slights of hand; every other supernatural farce has shared the same fate. We hear no more of witches, ghosts, &c. little children go to bed without alarm, and people traverse unfrequented paths at all hours and seasons, without dread of spells or incantations.

In support, however, of the existence of witches, magicians, &c. many advocates have been found; and it is but justice to say, that all who have argued for, have used stronger and more forcible and appropriate reasoning than those who have argued against them. If the bible be the standard of our holy religion, and few there are who doubt it; it must also be the basis of our belief; for whatever is therein written is theWORD OF GOD, and not a parcel ofjeux d’esprits,conundrums, orquidproquos, to puzzle and defeat those who consult that sacred volume for information or instruction. Nor do we believe all the jargon and orthodox canting of priests, who lay constructions on certain passages beyond the comprehension of men more enlightened than themselves, especially when they presume to tell us that such and such a word or sentence must be construed such and such a way, and not another. This party purpose will never effect any good for the cause of religion and truth.

In the course of this article we shall quote the texts of Scripture where witches are mentioned in the same manner as we have done those that allude to apparitions, &c. without offering any very decided comment one way or the other, farther than we shall also in this case give precedence to the standard of the Christian religion, which forms a part of the lawof the land; still maintaining our former opinion, that, doubtless, there have at one time been negotiations carried on between human beings and spirits; and for this assertion we refer to the Bible itself, for proof that there have been witches, sorcerers, magicians, who had the power of doing many wonderful things by means of demoniac agency, but what has become of, or at what precise time, this power or communication became extinct, we may not able to inform our readers, although we can venture to assure them that no such diabolical ascendancy prevails at the present period among the inhabitants of the earth.

That this superstitious dread led to the persecution of many innocent beings, who were supposed to be guilty of witchcraft, there can be no question; our own statute books are loaded with penalties against sorcery; and, as already cited, at no very distant period, our courts of law have been disgraced by criminal trials of that nature, and judges, who are still quoted as models of legal knowledge and discernment, not only permitted such cases to go to a jury, but allowed sentences to be recorded which consigned reputed wizards to capital punishment. In Poland, even so late as the year 1739, a juggler was exposed to the torture, until a confession was extracted from him that he was a sorcerer; upon which, without further proof, he was hanged; and instances in other countries might be multiplied without end. But this, although it exceeds in atrocity, does not equal in absurdity the sanguinary and bigoted infatuation of the Inquisition in Portugal, which actually condemnedto the flames, as being possessed of the devil, a horse belonging to an Englishman who had taught it perform some uncommon tricks; and the poor animal is confidently said to have been publicly burned at Lisbon, in conformity with his sentence, in the year 1601.

The only part of Europe in which the acts of sorcery obtain any great credit, where, in fact, supposed wizards will practice incantations, by which they pretend to obtain the knowledge of future events, and in which the credulity of the people induced them to place the most implicit confidence. On such occasions a magical drum is usually employed. This instrument is formed of a piece of wood of a semi-oval form, hollow on the flat side, and there covered with a skin, on which various uncouth figures are depicted; among which, since the introduction of Christianity into that country, an attempt is usually made to represent the acts of our Saviour and the apostles. On this covering several brass rings of different sizes are laid, while the attendants dispose themselves in many antic postures, in order to facilitate the charm; the drum is then beat with the horn of a rein-deer, which occasioning the skin to vibrate, puts the rings in motion round the figures, and, according to the position which they occupy, the officiating seer pronounces his prediction[46].

“The remedy,” says a late writer[47], “specifically appropriated for these maladies of the mind, is the cultivation of natural knowledge; and it is equally curious and gratifying to observe, that though the lights of science are attained by only a small proportion of the community, the benefits of it diffuse themselves universally; for the belief of ghosts and witches, and judicial astrology, hardly exists, in these days, even amongst the lowest vulgar. This effect of knowledge, in banishing the vain fears of superstition, is finely alluded to in the last words of the following admirable lines quoted from Virgil,e. g.—

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,Atque metus omnes et inexorable fatum,Subjicit pedibus,Strepitumque Acherontes avari.

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,

Atque metus omnes et inexorable fatum,

Subjicit pedibus,Strepitumque Acherontes avari.

But in order to shew with what fervour the belief in witches and apparitions was maintained about a century and a half ago, we lay before our readers, as it is scarce, “Doctor Henry More, his letter, with the postscript to Mr. J. Glanvil[48], minding him of the great expedience and usefulness of his new intended edition of the Dæmon of Tedworth, and briefly representing to him themarvellous weakness and gullerie of Mr. Webster’s[49]display of Witchcraft.”

“Sir,

“When I was at London, I called on your bookseller, to know in what forwardness this new intended impression of the story of the Dæmon of Tedworth (see p.223) was, which will undeceive the world touching that fame spread abroad, as if Mr.Mompessonand yourself had acknowledged the business to have been a meer trick or imposture. But the story, with your ingenious considerations about witchcraft, being so often printed already, he said it behoved him to take care how he ventured on a new impression, unless he had some new matter of that kind to add, which might make this edition the more certainly saleable; and therefore he expected the issue of that noised story of the spectre atExeter, seen so oft for the discovery of a murther committed some thirty years ago. But the event of this business, as to juridical process, not answering expectation, he was discouraged from making use of it, many things being reported to him from thence in favour of the party most concerned. But I am told of one Mrs.Britton, her appearing to her maid after her death, very well attested, though not of such a tragical event as that ofExeter, which he thought considerable. But of discoveries of murther I never met with any story more plain and unexceptionable than that in Mr. John Webster his display of supposed Witchcraft: the book indeed itself, Iconfess, is but a weak and impertinent piece; but that story weighty and convincing, and such as himself, (though otherwise an affected caviller against almost all stories of witchcraft and apparitions,) is constrained to assent to, as you shall see from his own confession. I shall, for your better ease, or because you may not haply have the book, transcribe it out of the writer himself, though it be something, chap. 16, page 298, about the year of our Lord 1632, (as near as I can remember, having lost my notes and the copy of the letters to SerjeantHutton, but I am sure that I do most perfectly remember the substance of the story.)

“Near unto Chester-le-Street, there lived oneWalker, a yeoman of good estate, and a widower, who had a young woman to his kinswoman, that kept his house, who was by the neighbours suspected to be with child, and was towards the dark of the evening one night sent away with one Mark Sharp, who was a collier, or one that digged coals underground, and one that had been born inBlakeburnhundred, inLancashire; and so she was not heard of a long time, and no noise or tittle was made about it. In the winter time after, oneJames Graham, orGrime, (for so in that country they call them) being a miller, and living about 2 miles from the place whereWalkerlived, was one night alone in the mill very late grinding corn, and about 12 or 1 a clock at night, he came down stairs from having been putting corn in the hopper: the mill doors being shut, there stood a woman upon the midst of the floor with her hair about her head hanging down and all bloody, withfive large wounds on her head. He being much affrighted and amazed, began to bless himself, and at last asked her who she was and what she wanted? To which she said,I am the spirit of such a woman who lived with Walker, and being got with child by him, he promised to send me to a private place, where I should be well lookt too till I was brought in bed and well again, and then I should come again and keep his house. And accordingly, said the apparition,I was one night late sent away with one Mark Sharp, who upon a moor, naming a place that the miller knew,slew me with a pick, such as men dig coals withal, and gave me these five wounds, and after threw my body into a coal pit hard by, and hid the pick under a bank; and his shoes and stockings being bloody, he endeavoured to wash ’em; but seeing the blood would not forth, he hid them there. And the apparition further told the miller, that he must be the man to reveal it, or else that she must still appear and haunt him. The miller returned home very sad and heavy, but spoke not one word of what he had seen, but eschewed as much as he could to stay in the mill within night without company, thinking thereby to escape the seeing again of that frightful apparition. But notwithstanding, one night when it began to be dark, the apparition met him again, and seemed very fierce and cruel, and threatened him, that if he did not reveal the murder she would continually pursue and haunt him; yet for all this, he still concealed it untilSt. Thomas’s Eve, beforeChristmas, when being soon after sun-set in his garden, she appeared again, and then so threatenedhim, and affrighted him, that he faithfully promised to reveal it next morning. In the morning he went to a magistrate and made the whole matter known with all the circumstances; and diligent search being made, the body was found in a coal pit, with five wounds in the head, and the pick, and shoes and stockings yet bloody, in every circumstance as the apparition had related to the miller; whereupon Walker and Mark Sharp were both apprehended, but would confess nothing. At the assizes following, I think it was at Durham, they were arraigned, found guilty, condemned, and executed; but I could never hear they confest the fact. There were some that reported the apparition did appear to the judge or the foreman of the jury, who was alive in Chester-le-Street about ten years ago, as I have been credibly informed, but of that I know no certainty: there are many persons yet alive that can remember this strange murder and the discovery of it; for it was, and sometimes yet is, as much discoursed of in the North Country as any that almost has ever been heard of, and the relation printed, though now not to be gotten. I relate this with great confidence, (though I may fail in some of the circumstances) because I saw and read the letter that was sent to sergeantHutton, who then lived atGoldsbrugh, inYorkshire, from the judge before whomWalkerandMark Sharpwere tried, and by whom they were condemned, and had a copy of it until about the year 1658, when I had it, and many other books and papers taken from me; and this I confess to be one of the most convincing stories, being ofundoubted verity, that ever I read, heard, or knew of, and carrieth with it the most evident force to make the most incredulous to be satisfied that there are really sometimes such things as apparitions.” Thus far he.

“This story is so considerable that I make mention of it in my Scholea, on the Immortality of the Soul, in myVolumen Philosophicum, tom. 2, which I acquainting a friend of mine with, a prudent, intelligent person, Dr. J. D. he of his own accord offered me, it being a thing of much consequence, to send to a friend of his in the north for greater assurance of the truth of the narrative, which motion I willingly embracing, he did accordingly. The answer to this letter from his friendMr. Sheperdson, is this:I have donewhat I can to inform myself of the passage ofSharpe and Walker; there are very few men that I could meet that were then men, or at the tryal, saving these two in the inclosed paper, both men at that time, and both at the trial; and for Mr. Lumley, he lived next door to Walker, and what he hath given under his hand, can depose if there were occasion. The other gentleman writ his attestation with his own hand; but I being not there got not his name to it. I could have sent you twenty hands that could have said thus much and more by hearsay, but I thought those most proper that could speak from their own eyes and ears.Thus far (continues Dr. More,) Mr. Sheperdson, the Doctor’s discreet and faithful intelligencer. Now forMr. Lumly, orMr. Lumley. Being an ancient gentleman, and at the trial ofWalkerandSharpupon the murder ofAnne Walker, saith, That he doth very well remember that the said Anne was servant toWalker, and that she was supposed to be with child, but would not disclose by whom; but being removed to her aunt’s in the same town calledDame Caire, told her aunt (Dame Caire) that he that got her with child, would take care both of her and it, and bid her not trouble herself. After some time she had been at her aunt’s, it was observed that Sharp came to Lumley one night, being a sworn brother of the said Walker’s; and they two that night called her forth from her aunt’s house, which night she was murdered; about fourteen days after the murder, there appeared to one Graime, a fuller, at his mill, six miles fromLumley, the likeness of a woman with her hair about her head, and the appearance of five wounds in her head, as the said Graime gave it in evidence; that that appearance bid him go to a justice of peace, and relate to him, how that Walker and Sharp had murthered her in such a place as she was murthered; but he, fearing to disclose a thing of that nature against a person of credit as Walker was, would not have done it; upon which the said Graime did go to a justice of peace and related the whole matter[50]. Whereupon the justice ofpeace granted warrants againstWalkerandSharp,and committed them to a prison; but they found bail to appear at the next assizes, at which they came to their trial, and upon evidence of the circumstances, with that of Graime of the appearance, they were both found guilty and executed.

“The other testimony is that ofMr. James Smart and William Lumley, of the city of Durham, who saith, that the trial ofSharpandWalkerwas in the month ofAugust1631, before judgeDavenport. One Mr. Fanhair gave it in evidence upon oath, that he saw the likeness of a child stand upon Walker’s shoulders during the time of the trial, at which time the judge was very much troubled, and gave sentence that night the trial was, which was a thing never used in Durham before nor after; out of which two testimonies several things may be counted or supplied in Mr. Webster’s story, though it be evident enough that in the main they agree; for that is but a small disagreement as to the years, when Mr. Webster says about the year of our Lord 1632, and Mr. Fanhair, 1631. But unless at Durham they have assizes but once in the year, I understand not so well how Sharp and Walker should be apprehended some little time after St. Thomas’s day, as Mr. Webster has, and be tried the next assizes at Durham, and yet that be in August, according to Mr. Smart’s testimony. Out of Mr. Lumley’s testimony the christian name of the young woman is supplied, as also the name of the town near Chester-le-Street, namely, Lumley: the circumstance also of Walker’s sending away his kinswoman with Mark Sharp are supplied out of Mr. Lumley’s narrative, and thetime rectified, by telling it was about fourteen days till the spectre after the murder, when as Mr. Webster makes it a long time.”

We shall not follow the learned Doctor through the whole of his letter, which principally now consists in rectifying some little discrepancies in the account of the murder of Anne Walker, and the execution of the murderers, upon circumstantial evidence, supported by the miller’s story of the apparition, between the account given by Mr. Webster, and that here related by Lumley and Sharp. Mr. Webster’s account, it would appear, was taken from a letter written by Judge Davenport to Sergeant Hutton, giving a detailed narrative of the whole proceeding as far as came within his judicial observation, and the exercise of his functions; which it also appears Dr. More likewise saw; a copy of which, he states, he had in fact by him for some considerable time, but which he unfortunately lost: his account, therefore, is from sheer recollection of the contents of this letter, but as there is very little difference in the material points, unless with respect to the date of the year, between the account given by Webster, and that related from the Doctor’s memory, we shall offer no further observation than that the whole savours so much of other similar stories, the result of superstition and ignorance, that it claims an equal proportion of credit: for if, at the time we allude to, they would hang, burn, or drown a woman for a witch, either upon her own evidence, or that of some of her malignant and less peaceably disposed neighbours, it cannot be matter of surprise,that two individuals, for a crime really committed, should be hanged as murderers upon the testimony of the apparition of a murdered person, given through the organ of a miller, who resided only six miles from the spot.

That Dr. Henry More was not only an enthusiast and a visionary, (both of which united in the same person, constitute a canting madman) but also a humorous kind of fellow when he chose to be jocular, and it would appear he was by no means incapable of relaxing the gravity of his countenance as occasion served him, may be still further inferred from the following extracts of the sequel of his letter to the Reverend Joseph Glanvil:—

“This story of Anne Walker, (says Dr. M.) I think you will do well to put amongst your additions in the new impression of your new edition of your Dæmon of Tedworth, it being so excellently well attested,AND SO UNEXCEPTIONABLE IN EVERY RESPECT; and hasten as fast as you can that impression, to undeceive the half-witted world, who so much exult and triumph in the extinguishing the belief of that narration, as if the crying down the truth of that of the Dæmon of Tedworth, were indeed the very slaying of the devil, and that they may now, with more gaiety and security than ever, sing in a loud note, that mad drunken catch—

Hay ho! the Devil is dead, &c.

Which wild song, though it may seem a piece of levity to mention, yet, believe me, the application thereof bears a sober and weighty intimation alongwith it,viz.that these sort of people are very horribly afraid that there should be any spirit, lest there should be a devil, and an account after this life; and therefore they are impatient of any thing that implies it, that they may with a more full swing, and with all security from an after reckoning, indulge their own lusts and humours; and I know by long experience that nothing rouses them so much out of that dull lethargy of atheism and sadducism, as narrations of this kind, for they being of a thick and gross spirit, the most subtle and solid deductions of reason does little execution upon them; but this sort of sensible experiments cuts them and stings them very sore, and so startles them, that a less considerable story by far than this of the drummer of Tedworth, or of Ann Walker, a Doctor of Physic cryed out presently,if this be true I have been in a wrong box all this time, and must begin my account anew.

“And I remember an old gentleman, in the country, of my acquaintance, an excellent justice of peace, and a piece of a mathematician, but what kind of a philosopher he was you may understand from a rhyme of his own making, which he commended to me at my taking horse in his yard; which rhyme is this:—

Ensis nothing till sense finds out;Sense ends in nothing, so naught goes about.

Ensis nothing till sense finds out;

Sense ends in nothing, so naught goes about.

Which rhyme of his was so rapturous to himself, that at the reciting of the second verse the old man turned himself about upon his toe as nimbly as one may observe a dry leaf whisked round in the cornerof an orchard walk, by some little whirlwind. With this philosopher I have had many discourses concerning the immortality of the soul and its destruction: when I have run him quite down by reason, he would but laugh at me, and say, this is logic, H., calling me by my christian name; to which I replied, this is reason, Father L., (for I used and some others to call him) but it seems you are for the new lights and the immediate inspirations, which I confess he was as little for as for the other; but I said so only in the way of drollery to him in those times, but truth is, nothing but palpable experience would move him, and being a bold man, and fearing nothing, he told me he had used all the magical ceremonies of conjuration he could to raise the devil or a spirit, and had a most earnest desire to meet with one, but never could do it. But this he told me, when he did not so much as think of it, while his servant was pulling off his boots in the hall, some invisible hand gave him such a clap upon the back that it made all ring again; so, thought he, I am invited to converse with a spirit; and therefore so soon as his boots were off and his shoes on, out he goes into the yard and next field to find out the spirit that had given him this familiar slap on the back, but found him neither in the yard nor the next field to it.

“But though he did not feel this stroke, albeit he thought it afterwards (finding nothing came of it) a mere delusion; yet not long before his death it had more force with him than all the philosophical arguments I could use to him, though I couldwind him and non-plus him as I pleased; but yet all my arguments, how solid soever, made no impression upon him, wherefore after several reflections of this nature, whereby I would prove to him the soul’s distinction from the body, and its immortality, when nothing of such subtile considerations did any more execution in his mind, than some lightening is said to do, though it melts the sword on the fuzzy consistency of the scabbard:Well, said I, Father L., though none of these things move you, I have something still behind, and what yourself has acknowledged to me to be true, that may do the business: do you remember the clap on your back, when your servant was pulling off your boots in the hall? Assure yourself, said I,Father L., that goblin will be the first that will bid you welcome in the other world. Upon that his countenance changed most sensibly, and he was more confounded with rubbing up of his memory than with all the rational and philosophical argumentations that I could produce.”

How the various commentators on holy writ have reconciled to their minds the existence of spirits, witches, hobgoblins, devils, &c. we are unable to decide, for the want of a folio before us; but, if there are none of this evil-boding fraternity “wandering in air” at the present day, they must be all swamped in the Red sea, ready to be conjured up from the “vasty deep,” by the king of spirits alone; for as sure as the Bible is the word of truth, we find therein such descriptions of spirits, apparitions, witches, and devils, as would make an ordinary man’s hair stand on end. Andit is from this source alone that Dr. More argues for their existence, and which he has fully corroborated by his old hobby, “The Dæmon of Tedworth,” and the unfortunate Anne Walker.

“Indeed (says the learned divine) if there were any modesty left in mankind, the histories of the Bible might abundantly assure men of the existence of angels and spirits.”

In another place he observes, “I look upon it as a special piece of providence that there are ever and anon such fresh examples of apparitions and witchcraft, as may rub up and awaken their benumbed and lethargic minds into a suspicion at least, if not assurance, that there are other intelligent beings besides those that are clothed in heavy earth or clay; in this I say, methinks the divine providence does plainly interest the powers of the dark kingdom, permitting wicked men and women, and vagrant spirits of that kingdom, to make leagues or covenant one with another, the confession of witches against their own lives being so palpable an evidence, besides the miraculous feats they play, that there are bad spirits, which will necessarily open a door to the belief that there are good ones, and lastly that there is a God.” There is beyond a doubt much plausibility, supported by strong and appropriate argument, in this declaration of the Doctor’s. But as it is not our province to confute or explain texts or passages of Scripture, much less to warp them round to particular purposes, we shall reply by observing that, although we do not entirely concur in the belief of the non-existence of witches, apparitions,&c. at an earlier period of the world; we do, from our very souls, sincerely believe that there are no guests of this description, at the present day, either in the water or roaming about at large and invisible, onterra firma; or floating abroad in ether, holding, or capable of holding, converse or communion, either by word, deed, or sign, with the beings of this earth, civilized or uncivilized, beyond those destined by the God of heaven to constitute the different orders, classes, and genera of its accustomed and intended inhabitants. However, as we live in a tolerant mixed age, we have no fault to find with those who may attach faith to the opposite side of our creed.

We shall now, previous to laying before our readers some of those dismal stories of witches, wizards, apparitions, &c. of the days of yore, give the postscript to Dr. More’s letter to the author of “Saducismus Triumphatus;” a postscript, in fact, that might with more propriety be styled a treatise on the subject it relates to; but the rarity of the document, as well as its curiosity and the great learning and ingenuity it betrays, will, we feel assured, be received as an apology for bringing it under their view in this part of our paper, on the subject matter it bears so strongly upon. We give it the more cheerfully as it exemplifies certain passages of Scripture that have never been handled, at least so well, by after-writers who have attempted the illustration.

Witchcraft proved by the following texts of Scripture.

Exodus, c. xxii, v. 18.Thou shalt not suffer aWITCHto live.

2 Chronicles, c. xxxiii, v. 6.And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; also he observed times, and usedENCHANTMENTS,and usedWITCHCRAFT,and dealt with aFAMILIAR SPIRIT,and withWIZARDS:he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.

Galatians, c. v, v. 20.Idolatry,WITCHCRAFT,hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies.

Micah, c. v, v. 12. I will cut offWITCHCRAFTSout of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers.

Acts, c. xiii, v. 6, 8. ¶ And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain Sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose namewasBar-jesus.

But Elymas the Sorcerer, (for so is his name by interpretation,) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

Acts, c. viii, v. 9. ¶ But there was a certain man called Simon, which before time in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one.

Deuteronomy, c. xviii, v. 10, 11. There shall not be found among youany one, that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer.

12. For all that do these things are an abomination: and because of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them from before thee.

The following scarce, curious, and learned document, long since out of print, forms a postscript written by Dr. More, who, it appears, strenuously advocated the existence of preternatural agencies, against the opinion of many eminent men, who wrote, at that time, on the same subject; and however much the belief in witches, &c. may have been depreciated of later years, we will venture to say that few of the present day, layman or divine, could take up his pen, and offer so learned a refutation against, as Dr. More has here done in support of his opinions founded on Scripture.

“This letter lying by me some time before I thought it opportune to convey it, and in the meanwhile meeting more than once with those that seemed to have some opinion of Mr. Webster’s criticisms and interpretations of Scripture, as if he had quitted himself so well there, that no proof thence can hereafter be expected of the being of a witch, which is the scope that he earnestly aims at; and I reflecting upon that passage in my letter, which does not stick to condemn Webster’s whole book for a weak and impertinent piece, presently thought fit, (that you might not think that censure over-rash or unjust) it being an endless task to shew all the weakness and impertinenciesof his discourse, briefly by way ofPostscript, to hint the weakness and impertinency of this part which is counted the master-piece of the work, that thereby you may perceive that my judgment has not been at all rash touching the whole.

“And in order to this, we are first to take notice what is the real scope of his book; which if you peruse, you shall certainly find to be this: That the parties ordinarily deemed witches and wizzards, are only knaves and queans, to use his phrase, and arrant cheats, or deep melancholists; but have no more to do with any evil spirit or devil, or the devil with them, than he has with other sinners or wicked men, or they with the devil. And secondly, we are impartially to define what is the true notion of a witch or wizzard, which is necessary for the detecting of Webster’s impertinencies.

“As for the words witch and wizzard, from the notation of them, they signify no more than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word wizzard, it is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain and least operose deduction of the name witch, is from wit, whose derived adjective might bewittighorwittich, and by contraction afterwards witch; as the noun wit is from the verbto weet, which is, to know. So that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman; which answers exactly to the Latin wordsaga, according to that of Festus,Sagæ dictæ anus quæ multa sciunt. Thus in general: but use questionless had appropriated the word to such a kind of skill and knowledge, as was out of the commonroad, or extraordinary. Nor did this peculiarity imply in it any unlawfulness. But there was after a further restriction and most proper of all, and in which alone now-a-days the wordswitchandwizzardare used. And that is, for one that has the knowledge or skill of doing or telling things in an extraordinary way, and that in virtue of either an express or implicit sociation or confederacy with some evil spirit. This is a true and adequate definition of awitchorwizzard, which to whomsoever it belongs, is such,et vice versâ. But to prove or defend that there neither are, nor ever were any such, is, as I said, the main scope of Webster’s book: in order to which, he endeavours in his sixth and eighth chapters to evacuate all the testimonies of Scripture; which how weakly and impertinently he has done, I shall now shew with all possible brevity and perspicuity.

“The words that he descants upon are Deut. c. xviii. v. 10, 11: ‘There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizzard, or a necromancer.’ The first word in the Hebrew isקוסם קסמים,kosem kesamim, a diviner. Here becauseקסםkasam, sometimes has an indifferent sense, and signifies to divine by natural knowledge or human prudence or sagacity; therefore nothing of such a witch as is imagined to make a visible league with the devil, or to have her body sucked by him, or have carnal copulation with him, or is really turned into a cat, hare, wolf or dog, can be deduced from this word. A goodlyinference indeed, and hugely to the purpose, as is apparent from the foregoing definition. But though that cannot be deduced, yet in that, this divination that is here forbidden, is plainly declared abominable and execrable, as it isv.12, it is manifest that such a divination is understood that really is so; which cannot well be conceived to be, unless it imply either an express or implicite inveaglement with some evil invisible powers who assist any kind of those divinations that may be comprehended under this general term. So that this is plainly one name of witchcraft, according to the genuine definition thereof. And the very words of Saul to the witch of Endor, are,קסומי נא לי באוב;that is to say, ‘Divine to me, I pray thee, by thy familiar spirit.’ Which is more than by natural knowledge or human sagacity.

“The next word isמעונןmegnonen, which, though our English translation renders [gnon] (tempus,) ‘an observer of times;’ which should rather be a declarer of the seasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness as to success; a thing which is inquired of also from witches, yet the usual sense, rendered by the learned in the language, ispræstigiatur, an imposer on the sight,Sapientes prisci, says Buxtorf, aעין[gnajin, oculus]deduxerunt etמעונן[megnonen]esse eum dixerunt, qui tenet et præstringit oculos, ut falsum pro vero videant. Lo, another word that signifies a witch or a wizzard, which has its name properly from imposing on the sight, and making the by-stander believe he sees forms or transformations of things he sees not! Aswhen Anne Bodenham transformed herself before Anne Styles in the shape of a great cat; Anne Styles’s sight was so imposed upon, that the thing to her seemed to be done, though her eyes were only deluded. But such a delusion certainly cannot be performed without confederacy with evil spirits. For to think the word signifiespræstigiator, in that sense we translate in English,juggler, or ahocus-pocus, is so fond a conceit, that no man of any depth of wit can endure it. As if a merry juggler that plays tricks of legerdemain at a fair or market, were such an abomination to either the God of Israel, or to his law-giver Moses; or as if a hocus-pocus were so wise a wight as to be consulted as an oracle: for it is said, v. 14, ‘For the nations which thou shalt possess, they consult,’מעונניםmegnonenim. What, do they consult jugglers and hocus-pocusses? No, certainly, they consult witches or wizzards, and diviners, as Anne Styles did Anne Bodenham.’ Wherefore here is evidently a second name of a witch.

“The third word in the text isמנחשmenachesh, which our English translation renders, an enchanter. And, with Mr. Webster’s leave, (who insulteth so over their supposed ignorance) I think they have translated it very learnedly and judiciously; for charming and enchanting, as Webster himself acknowledges, and the words intimate, being all one, the word,מנחשmenachesh, here, may very well signify enchanters, or charmers; but such properly as kill serpents by their charming, fromנחשnachash, which signifies a serpent, from whence comesנחשnichesh, to killserpents, or make away with them. For a verb inpihel, sometimes (especially when it is formed from a noun) has a contrary signification. Thus fromשרשradixisשרשradices evulsit, fromדשןcinisדשןremovit cineres, fromחטאpeccavitחטאexpiavit à peccato; and so lastly fromנחשserpens, is madeנחשliberavit â serpentibus, nempe occidendo vel fugando per incantationem. And therefore there seems to have been a great deal of skill and depth of judgment in our English translators that renderedמנחשmenachesh, an enchanter, especially when that of augur or soothsayer, which the Septuagint callὈιωνιζόμενον(there being so many harmless kinds of it) might seem less suitable with this black list: for there is no such abomination in adventuring to tell, when the wild geese fly high in great companies, and cackle much, that hard weather is at hand, but to rid serpents by a charm is above the power of nature; and therefore an indication of one that has the assistance of some invisible spirit to help him in this exploit, as it happens in several others; and therefore this is another name of one that is really a witch.

“The fourth word isמכשףmecasseph, which our English translators render, a witch; for which I have no quarrel with them, unless they should so understand it that it must exclude others from being so in that sense I have defined, which is impossible they should. But this, as the foregoing, is but another term of the same thing; that is, of a witch in general, but so called here from the prestigious imposing on the sight of beholders. Buxtorf tells us, that Aben Ezra defines those tobeמכשפים[mecassephim]qui mutant et transformant res naturales ad aspectum oculi. Not as jugglers and hocus-pocusses, as Webster would ridiculously insinuate, but so as I understood the thing in the second name; for these are but several names of a witch, who may have several more properties than one name intimates. Whence it is no wonder that translators render not them always alike. But so many names are reckoned up here in this clause of the law of Moses, that, as in our common law, the sense may be more sure, and leave no room to evasion. And that here this name is not from any tricks of legerdemain as in common jugglers that delude the sight of the people at a market or fair, but that it is the name of such as raise magical spectres to deceive men’s sight, and so are most certainly witches, is plain from Exod. chap. xxii, v. 18, ‘Thou shalt not suffer,’מכשפהmecassephah, that is, ‘a witch, to live.’ Which would be a law of extreme severity, or rather cruelty, against a poor hocus-pocus for his tricks of legerdemain.

“The fifth name isחובר חברchobher chebher, which our English translators render charmer, which is the same with enchanter. Webster upon this name is very tedious and flat, a many words and small weight in them. I shall dispatch the meaning briefly thus: thisחובר חבר,chobher chebher, that is to say,socians societatem, is another name of a witch, so called specially either from the consociating together serpents by a charm, which has made men usually turn it (from the example of the Septuagint,ἐπάδων ἐπαοιδὴν,) acharmer, or an enchanter, or else from the society or compact of the witch with some evil spirits; which Webster acknowledges to have been the opinion of two very learned men, Martin Luther and Perkins, and I will add a third, Aben Ezra, (as Martinius hath noted,) who gives this reason of the wordחוברchobher, an enchanter, which signifiessociansorjungens, viz.Quòd malignos spiritus sibi associat. And certainly one may charm long enough, even till his heart aches, ere he make one serpent assemble near him, unless helped by this confederacy of spirits that drive them to the charmer. He keeps a pudder with the sixth verse of the fifty-eighth Psalm to no purpose; whereas from the Hebrew,אשר לא־ישמע לקול מלחשים חובר חברים מחכם, if you repeatἀπὸκοινoῦלקולbeforeחובר, you may with ease and exactness render it thus: ‘That hears not the voice of muttering charmers, no not the voice of a confederate wizzard, or charmer that is skilful.’ But seeing charms, unless with them that are very shallow and sillily credulous, can have no such effects of themselves, there is all the reason in the world (according as the very word intimates, and as Aben Ezra has declared,) to ascribe the effect to the assistance, confederacy, and co-operation of evil spirits, and soחובר חברים,chobher chabharim, orחובר חברchobher chebher, will plainly signify a witch or wizzard according to the true definition of them. But for J. Webster’s rendering this verse, p. 119, thus,Quæ non audiet vocem mussitantium incantationes docti incantantis, (which he saith is doubtless the most genuine rendering of the place) let any skilful manapply it to the Hebrew text, and he will presently find it grammatical nonsense. If that had been the sense, it should have beenחברי חובר מחכם.

“The sixth word isשואל אוב,shoel obh, which our English translation renders, ‘a consulter with familiar spirits;’ but the SeptuagintἘγγαστρίμυθος. Which therefore must needs signifie him that has this familiar spirit: and thereforeשואל אובshoel obh, I conceive, (considering the rest of the words are so to be understood) is to be understood of the witch or wizzard himself that asks counsel of his familiar, and does by virtue of him give answers unto others. The reason of the name ofאובobh, it is likely was taken first from that spirit that was in the body of the party, and swelled it to a protuberancy like the side of a bottle. But after, without any relation to that circumstance,OBHsignifies as much aspytho; aspythoalso, though at first it took its name from thepythii vates, signifies no more thanspiritum divinationis, in general, a spirit that tells hidden things, or things to come. AndOBHandpythoalso agree in this, that they both signify either the divinatory spirit itself, or the party that has that spirit. But here inשואל אוב,shoel obh, it being rendered by the SeptuagintἘγγαςείμυθος,OBHis necessarily understood of the spirit itself, aspythois, Acts xvi. 16, if you readπνεῦμα πύδωνα, with Isaac Casaubon; but ifπύθωνος, it may be understood either way. Of thisπνεύμα πύθων, it is recorded in that place, that ‘Paul being grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he came out at the same hour;’which signifies as plainly as any thing can be signified, that thispythoor spirit of divination, that thisOBHwas in her: for nothing can come out of the sack that was not in the sack, as the Spanish proverb has it; nor could thispythocome out of her unless it was a spirit distinct from her; wherefore I am amazed at the profane impudence of J. Webster, that makes thispythoin the maid there mentioned, nothing but a wicked humour of cheating and cozening divination: and adds, that this spirit was no more cast out of that maid than the seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, which he would have understood only of her several vices; which foolish familistical conceit he puts upon Beza as well as Adie. Wherein as he is most unjust to Beza, so he is most grossly impious and blasphemous against the spirit of Christ in St. Paul and St. Luke, who makes them both such fools as to believe that there was a spirit or divining devil in the maid, when according to him there is no such thing. Can any thing be more frantic or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if there was no spirit or devil in the damsel? But what will this profane shuffler stick to do in a dear regard to his beloved hags, of whom he is sworn advocate, and resolved patron right or wrong?

“But to proceed, thatאוב,obh, signifies the spirit itself that divines, not only he that has it, is manifest from Levit. xx. 27,Vir autem sive mulier cùm fuerit[בהם אוב]in eis pytho. And 1 Sam. xxviii. 8,Divina quæso mihi[באוב]per pythonem. In the Septuagint it isἐν τῶν Ἐγγαστρίμυθῳ, that is, by that spirit that sometimes goes into thebody of the party, and thence gives answers; but here it only signifies a familiar spirit. And lastly,בעלת אוב,bagnalath obh, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7,Quæ habit pythonem; thereOBHmust needs signify the spirit itself, of which she of Endor was the owner or possessor; that is to say, it was her familiar spirit. But see what brazen and stupid impudence will do here,בעלת אוב,bagnalath obh, with Webster must not signify one that has a familiar spirit, but the mistress of the bottle. Who but the master of the bottle, or rather of whom the bottle had become master, and by guzzling had made his wits excessively muddy and frothy, could ever stumble upon such a foolish interpretation? But becauseאובobh, in one place of the Scripture signifies a bottle, it must signify so here, and it must be the instrument forsooth, out of which this cheating quean of Endor does ‘whisper, peep, or chirp like a chicken coming out of the shell,’ p. 129, 165. And does she not, I beseech you, put her nib also into it sometimes, as into a reed, as it is said of that bird, and cries like a butter-bump? certainly he might as well have interpretedבעלת אובbagnalath obh, of the great tun of Heidelberg, that Tom. Coriat takes such special notice of, as of the bottle.

“And truly so far as I see, it must be some such huge tun at length rather than the bottle, that is, such a spacious tub as he in his deviceful imagination fancies Manasses to have built; aμανείονforsooth, or oracular edifice for ‘cheating rogues and queans to play their cozening tricks in;’ from that place 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6,ועשה אוב,Et fecitpythonem. Now, says he, how could Manasses make a familiar spirit? or make one that had a familiar spirit? Therefore he made a bottle a tun, or a large tub, aμαντεῖον, or oracular edifice ‘for cheating rogues or queans to play their cozening tricks in.’ Very wisely argued, and out of the very depth of his ignorance of the Hebrew tongue, whereas if he had looked into Buxtorf’s Dictionary he might have understood thatעשהsignifies not onlyfecitbut alsoparavit,comparavit,acquisivit,magni fecit, none of which words imply the making ofOBHin his sense, but the only appointing them to be got, and countenancing them. For in Webster’s sense he did not makeידעניjidegnonineither, that is wizzards, and yet Manasses is said to make them both alike.יעשה אוב וידעני,Et fecit pythonem et magos. So plain is it thatאוב,obh, signifiespytho, and that adequately in the same sense thatpythodoes, either a familiar spirit, or him that has that spirit of divination. But inבעלת אוב,bagnalath obh, it necessarily signifies the familiar spirit itself, which assisted the witch of Endor; whereby it is manifest she is rightly called a witch. As for his stories of counterfeit ventriloquists, (and who knows but some of his counterfeit ventriloquists may prove true ones,) that is but the threadbare sophistry of Sadducees and Atheists to elude the faith of all true stories by those that are of counterfeits or feigned.

“The seventh word isידעוני,jidegnoni, which our English translators render a wizzard. And Webster is so kind as to allow them to have translated this word aright. Wizzards, then, Websterwill allow, that is to say, he-witches, but not she-witches. How tender the man is of that sex! But the word invites him to itידעוני,jidegnoni, coming fromscire, and answering exactly to wizzard or wise man. And does not witch fromwitandweetsignify as well a wise woman, as I noted above? And as to the sense of those words from whence they are derived, there is no hurt herein; and therefore if that were all,ידעוני,jidegnoni, had not been in this black list. Wherefore it is here understood in that more restrict and worse sense: so as we understand usually now-a-days witch and wizzard, such wise men and women whose skill is from the confederacy of evil spirits, and therefore are real wizzards and witches. In what a bad senseידעוני,jidegnoni, is understood, we may learn, from Levit. xx. 27, ‘A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizzard,jidegnoni, shall be put to death, they shall stone them with stones,’ &c.

“The last word isדורש המתים,doresh hammethim, which our translators rightly rendernecromancers; that is, those that either upon their own account, or desired by others, do raise the ghosts of the deceased to consult with; which is a more particular term thanבעל אוב,bagnal obh: but he that isbagnal obh, may be alsodoresh hammethim, a necromancer, as appears in the witch of Endor. Here Webster byהמתים,hammethim, the dead, would understand dead statues; but let him, if he can, any where shew in all the Scripture where the wordהמתים,hammethim, is used of what was not once alive. He thinks he hits the nail on thehead in that place of Isaiah, viii. 19, ‘And when they say unto you, seek unto [האבות, that is, toבעליה אוב,such as the witch of Endor was,] them that have familiar spirits, and to wizzards that peep and that mutter; [the Hebrew has itהמהגיםandהמצפצפים; that is, speak with a querulous murmurant or mussitant voice, when they either conjure up the spirit, or give responses. If this be to ‘peep like a chicken,’ Isaiah himself peeped like a chicken, xxxviii. 14,] should not a people seek unto their God? for the living, (אל המתים,) to the dead?’ Wherehammethimis so far from signifying dead statues, that it must needs be understood of the ghosts of dead men, as here in Deuteronomy. None but one that had either stupidly or wilfully forgot the story of Samuel’s being raised by thatבעלת אוב,bagnalath obh, the witch of Endor, could ever have the face to affirm thatהמתים,hammethim, here in Isaiah, is to be understood of dead statues, when wizzards or necromancers were so immediately mentioned before, especially not Webster, who acknowledges thatשואל אוב,shoel obh, signifies a necromancer in this Deuteronomical list of names. And therefore, forsooth, would have it a tautology thatdoresh hammethimshould signify so too. But I say it is no tautology, this last being more express and restrict. And besides, this enumeration is not intended as an accurate logical division of witches or witchcraft, into so many distinct kinds, but a reciting of several names of that ill trade, though they will interfere one with another, and have no significations so precisely distinct. But as I saidbefore, this fuller recounting of them is made that the prohibition in this form might be the surer fence against the sin. And now therefore what will J. Webster get by this, ifdoresh hammethimwill not signify a witch of Endor, when it must necessarily signify a necromancer, which is as much against his tooth as the other? Nay indeed this necromancer is also a witch or wizzard, according to the definition produced above.

“The rest of the chapter being so inconsiderable, and I having been so long already upon it, I shall pass to the next, after I have desired you to take notice how weak and childish, or wild and impudent, Mr. Webster has been in the interpretation of Scripture hitherto, in the belief of his sage dames, to fence off the reproach of being termed witches; whereas there is scarce one word in this place of Deuteronomy that does not imply a witch or wizzard, according to the real definition thereof. And truly he seems himself to be conscious of the weakness of his own performance, when after all this ado, the sum at last amounts but to this, that there are no names in all the Old Testament that signifies such a witch that destroy men or beasts, that make a visible compact with the devil, or on whose body he sucketh, or with whom he hath carnal copulation, or that is really changed into a cat, hare, dog, or such like. And to shew it amounts to no more than so, was the task we undertook in this chapter.

“But assure yourself, if you peruse his book carefully, you shall plainly find that the main drift thereof is to prove, as I above noted, that there isno such witch as with whom the devil has any thing more to do than with any other sinner, which, notwithstanding this conclusion of his a little before recited, comes infinitely short of: and therefore this sixth chapter, consisting of about thirty pages in folio, is a meer piece of impertinency. And there will be witches for all this, whether these particulars be noted in them or no; for it was sufficient for Moses to name those ill sounding terms in general, which imply a witch according to that general notion I have above delivered; which if it be prohibited, namely, the having any thing to do with evil spirits, their being suckt by them, or their having any lustful or venerous transactions with them, is much more prohibited.

“But for some of these particularities also they may seem to be in some manner hinted at in some of the words, especially as they are rendered sometimes by skilful interpreters: forמכשף(Mecasseph,) is translated byVatablus, and the vulgar LatinMaleficus, by theSeptuagintφαρμακός, that isVeneficus: which word signifies mischievously enough both to man and beast. Besides thatMecassephcarries along with it the signification of transformation also; and haply this may be the difference betwixtמכשףMecasseph, andמעונןMegnonen, that the former uses prestigious transformations to some great mischief, as where Olaus Magnus tells of those that have transformed themselves into wolves, to men’s thinking, and have presently fallen upon worrying of sheep. Others transformed in their astral spirit, into various shapes, get intohouses and do mischief to men and children, as I remember Remegius reports. And therefore it is less wonder that that sharp law of Moses is against theמכשפהMecassephah; such a witch as this is, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;’ this may be a more peculiar signification of that word. And now for making a compact with the devil, how naturally does that nameחובר חברChobber Chebber, signifie that feat also? But for sucking and copulation, though rightly stated it may be true, yet I confess there is nothing hinted towards that so far as I see, as indeed it was neither necessary that the other should be. But these are the very dregs, thefex magorum et sagarum, that sink in those abominations, against which a sufficient bar is put already by this prohibition in general by so many names. And the other is filthy, base, and nasty, that the mention thereof was neither fit for the sacred style of Moses’s law, nor for the years of the people.

In my passing to the eight chapter I will only take notice by the way of the shameless impudence of J. Webster, who in favour to his beloved hags, that they may be never thought to do any thing by the assistance of the devil, makes the victory of Moses, with whom the mighty hand of God was, or of Christ, (who was the angel that appeared first to Moses in the bush, and conducted the children of Israel out of Egypt to the promised land) to be the victory only over so many hocus-pocusses, so many jugglers that were, as it seems, old and excellent at the tricks of Legerdemain; which is the basest derogation to the glory of thatvictory, and the vilest reproach against the God of Israel, and the person of Moses, that either the malicious wit of any devil can invent, or the dulness of any sunk soul can stumble upon. Assuredly there was a real conflict here betwixt the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness and the evil spirits thereof, which assisted theחרטמיםHartummim, the Magicians of Egypt; who before that name is named, that no man may mistake, are calledמכשפים,Mecassaphim, such kind of magicians as can exhibit to the sight manifold prestigious transformations through diabolical assistance, and are renderedMalificiaby good interpreters, as I noted above; that is, they were wizzards, or he-witches. The self same word being used in that severe law of Moses, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ Are not these magicians then examples plain enough that there are witches; that is to say, such wretched wights as do strange miraculous things by the assistance or consociation of the evil spirits?

“O no, says Mr. Webster, these are onlyחכמיםChacamim, wise men and great naturalists, who all what they did, they didבלהטיהם, by their bright glitteringlaminæ, for soלהטםforsooth must signifie. But what necessity thereof thatלהטshould signifielamina? there is only the presence of that one place, Gen. iii, 24.להט חרב, where it isחרבonly that signifies thelamina, and that of a long form, scarce usual in those magicallaminæwith signatures celestial upon them, which J. Webster would be at; butהטםsignifies merelyflamma; so thatבלהטיהםby this account mustsignifie by their flames, if it be fromלהטardere, flammare: and therefore Buxtorfius judiciously places the word underבלהטיהםabscondit,obvolvit, reading notבלאטיהםbutבלאטיהם, which is as much as to say,occultis suis rationibus Magicis, which is briefly rendered in English, ‘by their enchantments;’ which agrees marvellously well withמכשפיםMecassephim, which is as much asPræstigiatores Magici, or such as do strange wonderous things in an hidden way, by the help of evil spirits. But that the Egyptian magicians should do those things that are there recorded of them in Exodus, by virtue of any lamels, or plates of metals, with certain sculptures or figures, under such or such a constellation, is a thing so sottish and foolish that no man that is not himself bewitched by some old hag or hobgobling, can ever take sanctuary here to save himself or his old dames from being in a capacity, from this history in Exodus, of being accounted witches. For if there may be he-witches, that is magicians, such as these of Egypt were, I leave J. Webster to scratch his head to find out any reason why there may not be she-witches also.

“And indeed that of the witch of Endor, to pass at length to the eighth chapter, is as plain a proof thereof as can be desired by any man whose mind is not blinded with prejudices. But here J. Webster, not impertinently, I confess, for the general, (abating him the many tedious particular impertinences that he has clogg’d his discourse with) betakes himself to these two ways, to shew there was nothing of a witch in all that whole narration. First, by pretending that all the transaction on thewoman of Endor’s part was nothing but collusion and a cheat, Saul not being in the same room with her, or at least seeing nothing if he was. And then in the next place, that Samuel that is said to appear, could neither be Samuel appearing in his body out of the grave, nor in his soul; nor that it was a devil that appeared; and therefore it must be some colluding knave, suborned by the witch. For the discovering the weakness of his former allegation, we need but appeal to the text, which is this, 1 Sam. xxviii, v. 8.

‘And Saul said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me up whom I shall name unto thee,’קסומי־נא ליthat is, do the office of a divineress, or a wise woman, ‘I pray thee unto me,באובBeobh, by virtue of the familiar spirit, whose assistance thou hast, not by virtue of the bottle, as Mr. Webster would have it. Does he think that damsel in the Acts, which is said to have hadπνεῦμα πύθωνος, that is to have hadאובObh, carried anaqua-vitæbottle about with her, hung at her girdle, whereby she might divine and mutter, chirp, or peep out of it, as a chicken out of an egg-shell, or put her neb into it to cry like a bittern, or take a dram of the bottle, to make her wits more quick and divinatory. Who but one who had taken too many drams of the bottle could ever fall into such a fond conceit? WhereforeאובObh, in this place does not, as indeed no where else, signifie an oracular bottle, orμαντεῖον, into which Saul might desire the woman of Endor to retire into, and himself expect answers in the next room; but signifies that familiar spirits by virtue of whoseassistance she was conceived to perform all those wond’rous offices of a wise woman. But we proceed to verse 11.

“‘Then said the woman, whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, bring me up Samuel.’ Surely as yet Saul and the woman are in the same room, seeing the woman askt, ‘Whom shall I bring up unto thee?’ and he answering, ‘Bring up unto me Samuel,’ it implies, that Samuel was so brought up that Saul might see him, and not the witch only. But we go on, verse 12.

“‘And when the woman saw Samuel, she cryed with a loud voice; and the woman spake to Saul, saying, why hast thou deceived, for thou art Saul? Tho’ the woman might have some suspicions before that it was Saul, yet she now seeing Samuel did appear, and in another kind of way than her spirits used to do, and in another hue, as it is most likely so holy a soul did, she presently cryed out with a loud voice, ‘not muttered, chirpt, and peept as a chicken coming out of the shell,’ that now she was sure it was Saul, for she was not such a fool, as to think her art could call up real Samuel, but that the presence of Saul was the cause thereof: and Josephus writes expressly,Ὅτι θεασάμενον τὸ γύναιον ἄνδρα σεμνὸν καὶ θεοπρεπῆ ταράττεται, καὶ πρὸς την ὄψίν οὐπλαγέν, οὐ σύ, φησὶν, ὁΒασιλεὺς Σαοῦλος;i. e.‘The woman seeing a grave god-like man is startled at it, and thus astonished at the vision, turned herself to the king, and said, art not thou king Saul?’ Verse 13.

“‘And the king said unto her, be not afraid; for what sawest thou? And the woman said untoSaul, I saw Gods ascending out of the earth.’ The king here assures the woman, that tho’ he was Saul, yet no hurt should come to her, and therefore bids her not be afraid. But she turning her face to Saul as she spake to him, and he to her, and so her sight being off from the object, Saul asked her, ‘What sawest thou?’ and she in like manner answered, ‘I saw Gods,’ &c. For Gods, I suppose any free translator in Greek, Latin, and English, would say,δαίμονας,genios, spirits. Andאלהיםsignifies Angels as well as Gods; and it is likely these wise women take the spirits they converse with to be good angels, as Ann Bodenham the witch told a worthy and learned friend of mine, that these spirits, such as she had, were good spirits, and would do a man all good offices all the days of his life; and ’tis likely this woman of Endor had the same opinion of hers, and therefore we need not wonder that she calls themאלהיםElohim, especially Samuel appearing among them, to say nothing of the presence of Saul. And that more than one spirit appears at a time, there are repeated examples in Ann Bodenham’s magical evocations of them, whose history, I must confess, I take to be very true.

Back to Index Next