Part 15

“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 along with 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:—

Ens _is 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 corner of 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 could wind 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. And it 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, on _terra 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 a_ WITCH _to 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 used_ ENCHANTMENTS, _and used_ WITCHCRAFT, _and dealt with a_ FAMILIAR SPIRIT, _and with_ WIZARDS: _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 off WITCHCRAFTS out 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 name _was_ Bar-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 you _any 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.

_Dr. More’s Postscript._

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 impertinencies of his discourse, briefly by way of _Postscript_, 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 be _wittigh_ or _wittich_, and by contraction afterwards witch; as the noun wit is from the verb _to weet_, which is, to know. So that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman; which answers exactly to the Latin word _saga_, 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 common road, 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 words _witch_ and _wizzard_ are 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 a _witch_ or _wizzard_, 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 is ‏קוסם קסמים‎, _kosem kesamim_, a diviner. Here because ‏קסם‎ _kasam_, 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 goodly inference 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 is _v._ 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 is ‏מעונן‎ _megnonen_, 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, is _præstigiatur_, an imposer on the sight, _Sapientes prisci_, says Buxtorf, a ‏עין‎ [gnajin, oculus] _deduxerunt et_ ‏מעונן‎ [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! As when 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 signifies _præstigiator_, in that sense we translate in English, _juggler_, or a _hocus-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,’ ‏מעוננים‎ _megnonenim_. 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 is ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, 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, ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, here, may very well signify enchanters, or charmers; but such properly as kill serpents by their charming, from ‏נחש‎ _nachash_, which signifies a serpent, from whence comes ‏נחש‎ _nichesh_, to kill serpents, or make away with them. For a verb in _pihel_, sometimes (especially when it is formed from a noun) has a contrary signification. Thus from ‏שרש‎ _radix_ is ‏שרש‎ _radices evulsit_, from ‏דשן‎ _cinis_ ‏דשן‎ _removit cineres_, from ‏חטא‎ _peccavit_ ‏חטא‎ _expiavit à peccato_; and so lastly from ‏נחש‎ _serpens_, is made ‏נחש‎ _liberavit 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 rendered ‏מנחש‎ _menachesh_, an enchanter, especially when that of augur or soothsayer, which the Septuagint call Ὀιωνιζόμενον (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 is ‏מכשף‎ _mecasseph_, 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 to be ‏מכשפים‎ [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,’ ‏מכשפה‎ _mecassephah_, 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.