Part 3

Again Mather says, "The enchanted people have talked much of a _white_ spirit from whence they have received marvelous assistances, ... by such a spirit was Margaret Rule now visited. She says she never could see his face, but that she had a frequent view of his bright, shining, and glorious garments; he stood by her bedside continually heartening and comforting her, and counseling her to maintain her faith and hope in God.... He told her that God had permitted her afflictions to befall her for the everlasting and unspeakable good of her own soul, and for the good of many others." Hers was very strange experience to outflow from _delirium tremens_. It seems to us very much more like inflowings of heavenly peace from vision of the blessed. Obviously at times there flashed forth glorious brightness during witchcraft's dismal night.

Mather stated these and some other very significant facts, which Calef omitted to grapple with or to gainsay in his version of the scenes. Omitting to extract more from Mather, we will now look at Calef's account. He commences a letter to Mather in which, referring to his own previous production, he says, "having written '_from the mouths of several persons_,' who affirm they were present with Margaret Rule the 13th instant, her answers, behavior, &c." Calef therefore probably was not himself a witness of the scenes he described; but received his account from the mouths of several other persons. One of them apparently wrote, and Calef, adopting the statement, says, "I found her of a healthy countenance, about seventeen years old, lying very still and speaking but very little." Soon the Mathers (father and son, Increase and Cotton) came in. The son shortly began to question Margaret and get replies. Their colloquy was commonplace mostly, and need not be quoted; but some things then _done_ we shall notice.

Margaret went into a fit, and Cotton Mather "laid his hand upon her face and nose, but, as he said, without perceiving any breath. Then he brushed her on the face with his glove, and rubbed her stomach, and bid others do so too, and said it eased her; then she revived." Shortly again she "was in a fit," and was again rubbed. "Margaret Perd, an attendant, assisted Mather in rubbing her. The afflicted spake angrily to her, saying, 'Don't you meddle with me,' and hastily put away her hand. He then wrought his fingers before her eyes."

Such things, presumably, were stated correctly as matters of fact observed. Were these doings by Mather foolish and useless? Different persons will answer variously. In the eyes of most New England people to-day, they may seem to be so. In part they appear to us ill judged and harmful, though well meant and partially productive of the effect desired. When Mather could perceive no breath, he naturally became solicitous to set her lungs in motion, and by his rubbings probably soon accomplished that. The observations of many moderns have taught them to welcome, at times, stoppage of the external breathings of good mediums, deeming that indicative of free, but imperceptible, breathing by the inner lungs, which process sustains the person physically, while the spirit roams and recreates in spirit-land. Yes, to _welcome_ it, as watchers by the restless sick welcome the advent of sleep to the sufferers. Once we probably should have acted, in like circumstances, much as Mather did; but now we might often leave such a patient unacted upon for a time, even though breathless to our external perception, because of belief that

## action like Mather's might be as unwise as would the awakening of a sick

one immediately after the commencement of a nap. His motions of the fingers around her eyes might tend to produce the same effect; that is, to draw her out of a state of _rest_ and joy, provided the outer breathing was imperceptible. Rubbings and motions of the hands, however, are often very serviceable in removing influences which are distressing, whenever the entranced one is conscious externally, as Margaret probably was in the _second_ fit, but perhaps not in the first. For in the second she detected difference between influences upon her from Mather and those from Miss Perd; the former were agreeable and welcome, the latter annoying and offensive. Systems sensitive enough to detect the qualities and influences of magnetic emanations from all human beings, yes, all animals and most minerals, that come in contact with themselves, are greatly soothed by absorption of unconscious properties from some, and irritated by those from others, though their esteem, respect, or affection for each class be the same. Qualities of emanations are, to considerable extent, independent of either intellectual, moral, or emotional states. A babe or simpleton may be the best of anodynes, while the cultured saint may be an irritant to a sensitive medium.

"He put his hand on the clothes over her breast, and said he felt a living thing." Perhaps he did. In our day we hear of such presentations as semblances of small living animals around mediums; but personally, have not seen or felt such.

"Soon after they" (the ministers) "were gone, the afflicted desired the _women_ to be gone, saying that the company of the _men_ was not offensive to her." There is not general popular knowledge, that the magnetisms of all animals are as distinctly male in one sex and female in the other, as are any of their organs, nor that to very sensitive persons there come times and states when their own magnetisms hunger for food from magnetisms of opposite genders. Some sensitives feel the action of finer laws and forces than men detect in their normal condition.

"She learned that there were reports about town that she was not afflicted. And some came to her as spies; but during the said time" (of their visit) "she had no fit." Few anti-spiritualistic asseverations are more frequently put forth than this; that manifestations rarely occur in the presence of certain persons deemed specially competent to detect fraud and imposture, and who visit mediums for the purpose of exposing them. Unbelief was once a bar to manifestation of many marvels by Jesus of Nazareth. Also it much obstructs their presentation to-day; and probably, therefore, might have done so when emanating from spies and would-be exposers around Margaret Rule. But "they can't," is perhaps often said of spirits when "they won't," would more accurately describe the fact. As at the Albion in 1857, they would manifest before press reporters, but not before Harvard professors. They know the thoughts of each observer, and are often pleased to bite the biter; the playfully roguish sometimes find it fun to catch rogues. "She had no fit" when spies were present.

"The attendants," September 19, "said that Mr. M. would not go to prayer with her when people were in the room, as they" (he and his father) "did that night he felt the _live creature_." Peter of old knew what was conducive to effectual prayer when, at the side of Dorcas, then entranced to seeming death, he "put the bystanders all forth and kneeled down and prayed." Mather no doubt had acquired similar knowledge; world-wide experience and observation teach that quiet and harmony are needful to the utterance of satisfactory or very helpful prayer.

"Margaret Perd and another said they smelt brimstone. I and others," said Calef's informant, "_said_ we did not smell any." The wording leaves it doubtful, perhaps, whether the reporter and his "others," though smelling brimstone, quizzically said they did _not_, or whether they actually failed to smell it. If they did not smell the article, their natural, frank statement would have been, _we did not_. But the wording is, "_we said_" we did not. Our quotation was not made, however, for the purpose of making such criticism, but as a text to the following paragraph.

Spirits sometimes have power to produce in the olfactory nerves of many persons, precisely the sensations which many familiar odors produce. We have personally been refreshed on several occasions by perception of the fragrance of pinks, while we were reclining drowsily on a couch in our own study, no visible person present with us, and no pinks in the vicinity, or in our thoughts. This has occurred quite as often in dead of winter, as when the garden was odorous with flowers. Probably such presentations may be made to some members of a company, while others in the crowd will be insensible to them. One's non-perception of spirit-born odor, whether coming from above or below, whether pleasurable or offensive, does not argue that mere fancy alone acts upon a neighbor who says he smells such.

On the evening of the 13th some one present, seemingly unacquainted with her habits, put either to a particular person or to the whole company, this question. "What does she eat or drink?" And, from some unnamed source, came this response: "She does not eat at all, but drinks _rum_." Neither the question nor the answer is ascribed to Mather, nor to any one in particular.

We are surprised that S. P. Fowler, the intelligent, just, and charitable editor of Salem Witchcraft, said in a foot note, page 57, that "the affliction of Margaret Rule ... was nothing more than a bad case of _delirium tremens_;" statements indicative of her good morals and habits previous to her affliction were right before his editorial eyes on pages just preceding his note, and nothing is found to her disparagement excepting that annunciation by some unknown body that she drinks _rum_. Statements in her favor, and absence of any against her in the original records, convince us that Fowler's conclusion was rash and not well founded. Mather says that "she was born of sober and honest parents;" also that it "is affirmed that for about half a year before her visitation she was observably _improved in the hopeful symptoms of a new creature_: she was become seriously concerned for the everlasting salvation of her soul, and _careful to avoid the snares of evil company_." Habits of that kind, during six preceding months, were not probable antecedents to _delirium tremens_; Calef's temptations to have charged bad character for temperance, had there been facts to sustain him, were probably very strong; but we have found no evidence that he did so. An informant of his, when reporting conversation which took place around her, furnished the question and response, viz.: "What does she eat or drink? Answer. She does not eat at all, but drinks _rum_." A fact stated by Mather himself naturally might tempt any wag, inclined to create mirth, to say playfully, "She eats nothing, but drinks _rum_." He, Mather, informs us that "once, twice, or so" her "controllers, for her annoyance or distress," allowed her to take a _spoonful_ of rum. What more common than for attendants to offer and urge upon a suffering and agonized person any stimulant or cordial at hand? Nothing. We will allow that Margaret did take "once, twice, or so" a spoonful of rum; but nothing else that we meet with in the account of her, gives the shadow of foundation for the charge of _delirium tremens_. If the charge is true, _delirium tremens_ in that case worked wonders which it is not accustomed to perform; to tell correctly, when lying on a bed on shore at night, that danger of drowning was then about coming upon a particular young man away down the harbor, was an extraordinary operation for that disease to perform; and still more extraordinary was it, that such disease lifted the body on which it was feeding, up in horizontal position to the ceiling overhead, held it there for minutes, and so firmly that it took several men to pull it down. Do such feats bespeak their origin in _delirium tremens_? No. Calling it a case of _delirium tremens_ does nothing toward giving rational explanation of the marvels attendant upon Margaret. _Rum_ is the name of a very unsafe guide, and the name, not the thing, deluded the annotator to inferences useless, entirely useless, as helps to explain such phenomena as he was engaged in elucidating.

Any weakness, sin, or crime which was not charged upon Margaret Rule by her cotemporaries, it is uncharitable to allege unqualifiedly against her now, on the sole basis that in her hours of suffering she drank a few spoonfuls of rum; and is especially inapropos, when, as is the case here, the charge gives no help toward accomplishing the very purpose for which alone it should have been made, namely, as an elucidation of the cause of such things as how she sensed the danger threatening the absent man, and how or by whom she was lifted up and sustained.

We shall quote no further from the statements of the two parties, Mather and Calef, made prior to their coming into distinct conflict. Enough has been presented to show that Mather stated several facts which, to the mass of men, must seem astounding--such facts as bespeak performances beyond what embodied men could enact. The wondrous facts, such as her prophecy of danger about to wait upon the impressed sailor--her long fast without pining--her being lifted by invisible force to the ceiling above her, &c., constitute the important parts of Mather's narrative of what he personally witnessed and knew. On the other side, Calef, adopting the account of unnamed witnesses, omits any allusion to the important facts in the case, and presents, in the main, different, and relatively, if not absolutely, trifling accompaniments. Calef was complained of by Mather for _omissions_. To this Calef replied, "My intelligence not giving me any further, I could not insert that I knew not." The doings of the Mathers, and especially of Cotton, much more than the manifestations through and upon Margaret, were detailed to Calef, and caused him to put forth a very meager and one-sided manuscript account of this case. The clergyman at once perceived and felt this, and soon sent his opponent the following affidavits:--

"I do testify that I have seen Margaret Rule in her afflictions from the invisible world, lifted up from her bed, wholly by an invisible force, a great way toward the top of the room where she lay. In her being so lifted she had no assistance from any use of her own arms or hands or any other part of her body, not so much as her heels touching her bed, or resting on any support whatsoever. And I have seen her thus lifted, when not only a strong person hath thrown his whole weight across her to pull her down, but several other persons have endeavored with all their might to hinder her from being so raised up; which I suppose that several others will testify as well as myself when called unto it.

"Witness my hand, "SAMUEL AVIS."

To the substance of the above, Robert Earle, John Wilkins, and Daniel Wilkins did subscribe that they could testify. Also Thomas Thornton and William Hudson testified to having seen Margaret so lifted up "by an invisible force ... as to touch the garret floor, while yet neither her feet nor any other part of her body rested either on the bed or on any other support, ... and all this for a considerable while; we judged it several minutes."--p. 76.

Before presenting the merchant's comments upon such statements of such facts, we will name again the special reason why we draw protracted attention to the two writers, Mather and Calef. They were intelligent and alert cotemporaries, both in the vigor of manhood probably, for Mather was about thirty years of age, and Calef lived more than twenty-five years after the commencement of his controversy; both probably were cognizant of the main facts pertaining to witchcraft; even during or very shortly after their occurrence in the family of John Goodwin of Boston in 1688, in Salem 1692, and around both Mercy Short and Margaret Rule in Boston 1693. Therefore the controversial writings of these two, both well acquainted with the occurring witchcraft events of their day, but differing distinctly on many points of belief and policy, become, when used in connection, our best accessible source for learning what actually occurred in many witchcraft scenes, what beliefs were prevalent then, what kinds of evidence for convicting of witchcraft were admissible, and what rules governed the courts. Because of their value as teachers upon witchcraft, we desire to have these two men, with their agreements and differings, clearly comprehended.

The merchant sent to the clergyman the following comment upon the chief point confirmed by the affidavits of five or six unimpeached witnesses, viz., the lifting of the girl to the top of the room by invisible power:--

"I suppose you expect I should believe it, and if so, the only advantage gained is, that what has so long been controverted between Protestants and Papists, _whether miracles are ceast_, will hereby seem to be decided for the latter; it being, for aught I can see, if so, as true a _miracle_ as for iron to swim; and the devil can work such miracles."

A statement either more aspersive of its author's own candor, or more indicative of his thralldom to prejudice, has rarely been made. Either Calef or some one for him, when treating of the departure of the community from scriptural interpretation and treatment of witchcraft, when scanning rules laid down by accredited authors for its detection, and, generally, when handling creeds, broad principles, and prevalent usages, wielded a clear, pointed, and forceful pen. But Mather's facts blunted its point and baffled its powers. Look at their metamorphosis of the logician; he says, essentially, to his opponent, "If your facts are true, Catholics have the better of us in our controversy with them as to the continuance of miracles down to the present day. Your facts, if facts, are miracles, and we Protestants are wrong. Therefore I will not concede them: if true, they are "as great a miracle as for iron to swim," and prove the Catholics right. I won't grant them."

What miracle did he concede that the devil can work? Was it causing iron to swim? or was it such lifting of Margaret Rule as had been sworn to? Perhaps we are mistaken, but we think he meant to say that the devil could lift the girl as described; who, if he had done so, wrought as great a miracle as God did when he caused the ax-head to swim where the prophet cast a stick over it. Still such an operation in modern times must not be avowed, because that would give the Catholic advantage over the Protestant! Alas for the clear-headed man when facts force him to abandon the methods of logic, and resort to those of prejudice! Mather's facts completely stultified Calef in this case.

We cannot doubt--and who will venture to?--that he must have known the characters for truth and veracity of Avis and his associate witnesses; must have known the circumstances surrounding, and the state of the public mind in regard to them; and yet we notice no indication that he attempted to impeach any of them even in thought. He leaves them entirely unnoticed. Yes, where even a very slight intimation or covert innuendo in some turn of expression pointing at either credulity or mental weakness on their part would have been an argument in favor of his views, nothing of the kind appears in his writings. He leaves them without characterization--leaves them unnamed. And since he who obviously must have known them, and known too how they were generally esteemed, left their veracity and competency entirely unimpeached, when impeachment would have been his natural resort, if justifiable,--only blinding, rash, very rash, prejudice will prompt any one at this day to doubt their fair claim to be regarded as truthful and competent witnesses. Mather had said that "once her tormentors pulled her up to the ceiling of the chamber, and held her there before a numerous company of spectators, who found it as much as they could all do to pull her down again." Such was the published statement of a learned and able man, much respected by a large portion of the inhabitants of Boston, and whose incredulity was not strong enough to make him distrust the distinct testimony of his own senses. Therefore, though backed by the testimony of six other witnesses, he is deemed so credulous by many moderns that his word has little weight with them. Calef's comments upon the case are jumbled, and not such that we can place much confidence in the accuracy of our own perception of his meaning; but he seems to have conceded that the devil possessed power enough to have lifted the girl, and leaves us privileged to infer his belief in its possible exercise upon her. That generally clear-headed man's illogical and confused statement is not the least among marvels attendant upon witchcraft. He murdered logic when attempting to parry the force of facts sworn to.

He did not impeach the witnesses. Omission to do that, under the circumstances, argues more convincingly to us, in favor of the literal and exact truth of the statement by Mather and six others, that the girl was raised from her bed by invisible powers up to the ceiling at the top of the room, than would Calef's own distinct assent to what they affirmed. He was no _timid_ advocate, and since a man as strong and brave as he, circumstanced as he was, omitted attempt to discredit either the character or competency of Mather's backers, the presumption is, that Calef's own sense of justice and the judgment of the town regarded them as unimpeachable. The girl was lifted, as they affirmed. What they stated is credible.

We, personally, possess lack of incredulity rivalling that of Mather. For, when our own senses testify to us calmly and deliberately, under circumstances which exclude both illusion and delusion, we are accustomed to repose very much confidence in the truth and accuracy of what they say; and, in illustration of our lack of incredulity regarding what our own senses witness, or, if one prefers different phraseology, in illustration of our credulity, that is, of our ability and willingness to believe what is thus learned, we give the following account of one of our own interesting and instructive experiences:--

Several years ago, from fifteen to twenty, in a chamber of the residence of Daniel Farrar, Esq., Hancock Street, Boston, to which he had invited us and several others, we clasped the left hand of Rollin H. Squires in our own right, took position with him in the center of a large room, several feet distant from any other person or any article of furniture, when, promptly upon shutting off the gas-light, his hand began to draw ours up, gently and steadily, till our own right arm, its hand clasping his, was extended to its full length above our head. Then we moved our left hand across our chest, and it came in contact with the young man's boot at rest by our side, and simultaneously we heard a scratch upon the ceiling above, which was at least ten feet from the floor of the room. Soon he began to descend as gently as he had ascended, and when he had reached the floor and light had been let on, we saw a red chalk-mark at least three feet long on the ceiling over the spot on which we had stood up together. The mark was not there previous to the extinguishment of the light, for the whole company present had been informed that he would have chalk in his hand in order that he might give evidence to all present that he had been lifted up. Consequently all of us carefully observed the overhead ceiling up to the extinguishment of the light.