Chapter II: Part 2

2. Mr. _Scot_ and _Wierus_ do not state the Question, _An sint_, Whether there be Witches or not, but _Quomodo sint_, in what manner they act. So that their Question is only, What kind of power supposed Witches have, or do act by, and what the things are that they do or can perform: so that the state of the question is not simply of the Being of Witches, or _de existentia_, but only _de modo existendi_: wherein it is plain, that every Dispute de modo existendi, doth necessarily grant and suppose the certainty of the Existence, otherwise the Dispute of the manner of their Being, Properties, Power, or Acts would have no ground or foundation at all. As if I and another should dispute about the extent, buildings, and situation of the great City _Peking_ in _China_, or about the length, breadth, and height of the great Wall dividing _China_ from _Tartary_; we both do take for granted, that there is such a City, and such a Wall, otherwise our Dispute would be wild, vain, and groundless: like the two Wise-men of _Gotham_, who strove and argued about the driving of sheep over a bridge; the one affirming he would drive his sheep over the bridge, and the other protesting against it, and so begun, one as it were to drive, and the other to stay and stop them, when there were no sheep betwixt them. And this might be a sufficient document to Mr. _Glanvil_, to have been more sober, than to have charged _Scot_ so falsely. And do not the ancient Fathers differ in their opinions _circa Angelorum modum existendi_, some of them holding them to be corporeal, and some incorporeal? yet both these parties did firmly hold their existence: so that this is a false and improper charge, and hath no basis to stand upon at all.

3. What man of reason and judgment could have believed, that Mr. _Glanvil_ or Dr. _Casaubon_, being persons that pretend to a great share of Learning, and to be exact in their ways of arguing, would have committed so pitiful and gross a fault, as is _fallacia consequentis_? For if I deny that a Witch cannot flye in the air, nor be transformed or transsubstantiated into a Cat, a Dog, or an Hare, or that the Witch maketh any visible Covenant with the Devil, or that he sucketh on their bodies, or that the Devil hath carnal Copulation with them; I do not thereby deny either the Being of Witches, nor other properties that they may have, for which they may be so called: no more than if I deny that a Dog hath rugibility (which is only proper to a Lion) doth it follow that I deny the being of a Dog, or that he hath latrability? this is meer inconsequential, and hath no connexion. So if I deny that a man cannot flye by his natural abilities in the air like a Bird, nor live continually in the Sea as a fish, nor in the earth as a Worm or Mole, this doth not at all infer that I deny the existence of man, nor his other properties of risibility, rationality, or the like. But this is the learned Logick, and the clear ways of arguing that these men use.

[Sidenote: _Pag. 76._]

[Sidenote: Of Credul. and Incredul. p. 40.]

3. A third scandal Mr. _Glanvil_ throws upon him is this, where he saith thus: “For the Author doth little but tell odd tales and silly Legends, which he confutes and laughs at, and pretends this to be a confutation of the Being of Witches and Apparitions. In all which, his reasonings are trifling and childish; and when he ventures at Philosophy, he is little better than absurd. Dr. _Casaubon_, though he confesseth he had never read _Scots_ Book, but as he had found it by chance in friends houses, or Book-sellers Shops, yet doth rank him amongst the number of his illiterate Wretches, and tells us how Dr. _Reynolds_ did censure him and some others.” To these, though they be not much material, we shall give positive and convincing answers.

1. There is no greater sign of the weakness of a mans cause, nor his inability to defend it, than when he slips over the substance of the question in hand, and begins to fall foul upon the adverse party, to throw dirt and filth upon him, and to abuse and slander him: this is a thing very usual, but exceeding base, and plainly demonstrates the badness of their cause.

2. If Mr. _Scot_ hath done little but told odd tales and silly Legends, Mr. _Glanvil_ might very well have born with him; for I am sure his story of the Drummer, and his other of Witchcraft are as odd and silly, as any can be told or read, and are as futilous, incredible, ludicrous, and ridiculous as any can be. And if the tales that _Scot_ tells be odd and silly, they are the most of them taken from those pitiful lying Witchmongers, such as _Delrio_, _Bodinus_, _Springerus_, _Remigius_, and the like, the Authors that are most esteemed with Dr. _Casaubon_, and other Witchmongers, of whom we shall say more hereafter.

3. For Mr. _Glanvil_ to give general accusations without particular proofs, as to say _Scots_ reasonings are trifling and childish, and when he ventures at Philosophy, he is little better than absurd, do plainly manifest the mans malice, and discover his weakness: For _dolus versatur in universalibus_, and no man ought to be condemned without particular and punctual proof, as to the time, place, and all other circumstances, which Mr. _Glanvil_ could not do, and therefore he only gives general calumniations without ground; and if _Scot_ were little better than absurd, then he the better agrees with Mr. _Glanvil_, whose Platonical Whimseys are as absurd as any, as we shall sufficiently prove hereafter.

4. Dr. _Casaubon_ must needs have been highly elevated with the desire of censuring, when he would condemn a man without reading his Book, or serious weighing the force of his arguments, this concludes him of vast weakness, and of great perversness of mind, as all rational men may judge; for in effect it is this, _Scot_ is an illiterate Wretch, and his Book full of errors, but I never read it, but as I have looked upon it at a friends house, or a Book-sellers Shop: is not this a wretched ground whereupon to build so wretched a foundation, as thereby to judge him an illiterate Wretch? And to censure him by the report of others, is as unjust, weak, and childish as the former; and though Dr. _Reynolds_ were a learned man, it doth not appear for what particular point or errour he censured Scot, and therefore is but a general and groundless charge, sheltred under the colour of Dr. _Reynolds_ reputation, an evidence, in Reason and Law, of no weight or validity.

5. For Dr. _Casaubon_ to rank him amongst illiterate Wretches, is against the very Rule of the Law of Nature, that teaches all men, that they should not do that to another, which they would not have another to do unto them. And sure Dr. _Casaubon_ would not have another to judge and condemn him for an illiterate Wretch, and therefore, he ought not to have condemned Mr. _Scot_ to be so. And as it is against the Law of Nature, so it is contrary to the rules of modesty and morality to give a man such stigmatizing titles: nay it is even against the rules of good manners and civil education, but that some men think that it is lawful for them to say any thing, and that nothing what they say doth misbeseem them. And lastly, how far it is against the Rules of Christianity and Piety, let all good Christians judge.

6. The falsity of this foul scandal is manifest in both the particulars therein couched. 1. For Mr. _Scot_ was a learned and diligent person, as the whole Treatise will bear witness; he understood the Latine Tongue, and something of the Greek, and for the Hebrew, if he knew nothing of it, yet he had procured very good helps, as appeareth in his expounding the several words that are used in the Scriptures for supposed Witches and Witchcraft; as also his quoting of divers of the Fathers, the reformed Ministers, and many other Authors besides, which sufficiently prove that he was not illiterate. 2. And that he was no wretched person, is apparent, being a man of a good Family, a considerable Estate, a man of a very commendable government, and a very godly and zealous Protestant, as I have been informed by persons of worth and credit, and is sufficiently proved by his Writing.

I have not been thus tedious to accumulate these instances of men that have been censured, for opposing vulgar opinions, or writing of abstruse Subjects, as circumstantial only, or for a flourish, but meerly as they are introductive, necessary, and pertinent to the purpose I intend in this Treatise, as I shall make manifest in these Rules or Observations following, and shall add sufficient reasons to confirm the same.

[Sidenote: _Rule 1._]

1. That the generality of an opinion, or the numerousness of the persons that hold and maintain it, are not a safe and warrantable ground to receive it, or to adhere unto it: nor that it is safe or rational to reject an opinion, because they are but few that do hold it, or the number but small that maintain it. And this I shall labour to make good by these sure and firm arguments following.

[Sidenote: Exod. 13. 2.]

[Sidenote: Mat. 24. 5.]

[Sidenote: Luke 6. 26.]

[Sidenote: _Lib. de vit. beat. Lactant. Duimar. Instit. l. 2. c. 3._]

1. Because the Scriptures tell us thus much: _Thou shalt not follow the multitude to do evil._ And that there are many deceivers: _For many shall come in my Name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. And woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you: for so did their fathers to the false Prophets._ From whence it is plain, that first we are to consider and be assured, that the matter be not evil; for if it be, we are not at all to be swayed with the multitudes that follow it, or that uphold it: so if the opinion be evil, erroneous, or false, we ought not to receive it, or adhere unto it, though never so many do hold or maintain it. So that in truth and substance, we are not at all to consider, whether there be few or many that hold it, but simply, whether it be true or not. For as _Plato_ tells us: _Neq; id considerandum quid dixerit, sed utrum verè dicatur nec ne_. For the multitude have been by all good Authors and Learned men always esteemed the most erroneous, as _Seneca_ saith: _Quærendum non quod vulgo placet, pessimo veritatis interpreti_. And _Lactantius_ teaches us this: _Vulgus indoctum pompis inanibus gaudet, animisq; puerilibus spectat omnia, oblectatur frivolis, nec ponderare secum unamquamq; rem potest_. And our Saviour gives us a proof and instance of the errour of the multitude, and that in matter of fact. Did not almost all the Jews under divers Kings Raigns applaud and approve of the doctrine and opinions of the false Prophets, though utterly erroneous? insomuch that _Elijah_ said, that he only was left of the true Prophets, though the false ones were many and numerous. So that the Rule is proved to be true, both by the precept and example of the Scriptures.

2. If we consider the generality of Mankind, either in respect of their inclinations and dispositions, or their breeding and education, we shall not find one of an hundred, either by nature inclined, or by education fitted and qualified to search forth and understand the truth. And then if there be an hundred to one drowned in ignorance and errors, and so few fitted to understand the truth of things either divine or natural, then it must needs follow, that it is not safe to embrace or adhere to an opinion, because of the great number of those that hold or maintain it, but rather to stick to the smaller number; though neither simply ought to be regarded, but truth it self.

3. Again, if we consider those numbers, that either by nature are inclined, or by education trained up in Learning, to enable them to judge rightly betwixt truth and truth-likeliness, how few of these that prove any thing excellent in those parts of Learning wherein they are bred, we may easily see the verity of this Rule sufficiently proved, that it is not safe to embrace or adhere to an opinion, because the numbers are great that hold or maintain it.

4. If the multitude that hold the opinions, whether of spiritual or natural things were to be followed, meerly because of the great numbers that hold them: then if we look and consider the Writings of the best Geographers, Travellers, and Navigators, we should either be of the opinions of the Pagans, who are the most numerous part of Mankind, or the Mahumetans, which are many in respect of the paucity of Christians. And then what horrid, blasphemous, idolatrous, impious, and diabolical opinions must we receive and hold, both concerning God, Angels, the Creation, and the most of the operations that are produced by Nature? So that the arguments of Dr. _Casaubon_ and Mr. _Glanvil_, drawn from the universality of the opinion, and the great multitudes of those that hold it, are vain and groundless.

5. If the comparison I use be thought too large, and the rule be put only as to the greater part of the Learned that are in _Europe_, yet it will hold good, that the greatest part of the Learned are not to be adhered to, because of their numerousness; nor that the rest are to be rejected, because of their paucity. For it is known sufficiently, that a Bishop of _Mentz_ was censured and excommunicated for holding that there were _Antipodes_, by some hundreds of those that were accounted learned and wise: so that it is plain, that the greater number may be in the errour, and those that are few be in the right. And did not the greatest number of the Physicians in _Europe_ altogether adhere to the Doctrine of _Galen_, though now in _Germany_, _France_, _England_, and many other Nations the most have exploded it? And was not the _Aristotelian_ Philosophy embraced by the greatest part of all the Learned in _Europe_? And have not the _Cartesians_ and others sufficiently now manifested the errours and imperfections of it, and especially the endeavors of the honourable and learned Members of the Royal Society here in _England_, and the like Societies beyond Seas by their continual labour and vigilancy about Experiments, made the errours and defects of it obvious to all inquisitive persons? So that multitude, as multitude, ought not to lead or sway us, but truth it self.

6. If to all this we add, that truth in it self is but one; for _unum_ and verum are convertibles, and that errour or falsity is various and manifold, and that there may be a thousand errours about one particular thing, and yet but one truth; it will necessarily follow, the greatest number holding an opinion, cannot be safe to be followed because of their multitude, and the reason is errour, is manifold, truth but one.

[Sidenote: _Rule 2._]

2. It is not safe nor rational to receive or adhere to an opinion because of its Antiquity; nor to reject one because of its Novelty. And this we shall make good from and by these following reasons.

1. Because there is no opinion (especially about created things) but it hath once been new; and if an opinion should be rejected meerly because of novelty, then it will follow, that either all opinions might have been rejected for that very reason, or that novelty is no safe ground only, why an opinion should be opposed or rejected.

2. Antiquity and Novelty are but relations _quoad nostrum intellectum, non quoad naturam_; for the truth, as it is fundamentally in things _extra intellectum_, cannot be accounted either old or new. And an opinion, when first found out and divulged, is as much a truth then, as when the current of hundreds or thousands of years have passed since its discovery. For it was no less a truth, when in the infancy of Philosophy it was holden, that there was generation and corruption in Nature, in respect of Individuals, than it is now: so little doth Time, Antiquity, or Novelty alter, change, confirm, or overthrow truth; for _veritas est temporis filia_, in regard of its discovery to us or by us, who must draw it forth _è puteo Democriti_. And the existence of the _West-Indies_ was as well before the discovery made by _Columbus_ as since, and our ignorance of it did not impeach the truth of its being, neither did the novelty of its discovery make it less verity, nor the years since make it more: so that we ought simply to examine, whether an opinion be possible or impossible, probable or improbable, true or false; and if it be false, we ought to reject it, though it seem never so venerable by the white hairs of Antiquity; nor ought we to refuse it, though it seem never so young, or near its birth. For as St. _Cyprian_ said: _Error vetustatis est vetustas erroris_.

[Sidenote: Advanc. of Learn. l. 1. c. 5.]

3. In regard of Natural Philosophy, and the knowledge of the properties of created things, and the knowledge of them, we preposterously reckon former Ages, and the men that lived in them, the Ancients; which in regard of production and generation of the Individuals of their own Species are so; but in respect of knowledge and experience, this Age is to be accounted the most ancient. For as the learned Lord _Bacon_ saith: “Indeed to speak truly, _Antiquitas seculi, juventus mundi_,” Antiquity of time is the youth of the World. Certainly our times are the ancient times, when the World is now ancient, and not those which we count ancient, _ordine retrogrado_, by a computation backward from our own times; and yet so much credit hath been given to old Authors, as to invest them with the power of Dictators, that their words should stand, rather than admit them as Consuls to give advice.

[Sidenote: _Rule 3._]

3. It is not safe nor rational to resolve to stick to our old imbibed opinions, nor wilfully to reject those that seem new, except we be fully satisfied, from indubitable grounds, that what we account old is certainly true, and what we reckon to be new is undoubtedly false. And this will appear to be a truth, partly from the weakness of their arguments, that seem utterly to condemn all recession from ancient opinions, as vain, foolish, and unnecessary; as also from other positive reasons.

1. Some give the reason why they will not recede from an opinion that their Predecessors held; for that their Forefathers were as wise, if not wiser than they. But this, if strictly considered, is very lame and defective; for their Predecessors were but men, and so were liable both to active and passive deception, and were not exempted from the common frailty of Mankind, who are all subject to errours. And therefore, unless they were assured that their Ancestors in former Ages, held the certain and undoubted grounds of truth, it is nothing of reason in them, but meer perversness of will, rather obstinately _errare cum patribus_, than to learn to follow the truth with those that are coetaneous with them, which is foolish and irrational. Further, there are more helps now, and means to attain the knowledge of Verity, than were in the days when their Ancestors lived, and it must be a kind of the greatest madness to shut their eyes, that the light of truth may not appear unto them.

2. This kind of reasoning hath no more of reason in it, than if one should say, that because his Grandfather and great Grandfather were blind or lame, therefore they will be so too: or that their Ancestors never learned the Greek or Latine Tongues, nor to write or read, neither will they learn any more than they did: or that their Predecessors were ill husbands and unthrifts, and that therefore they will continue the same courses: or that because their Forefathers followed drunkenness and luxury, therefore they will continue the same cariere of vices, as many of our debauched persons do now adays, having no better reasons to alledge for their exorbitant and vicious courses, but what the Prophet condemned, _The fathers have eaten sowr grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge_.

3. How far would they run back to state the beginning of their Ancestors? If as far as their first Originals, then they must all be Savages, Barbarians, and Heathens. And if they state it distant from their first Originals, then their Predecessors had the same reason to have continued, as those did that preceded them. But if their Ancestors varied from, and left the steps and opinions of those that went before them, then if they will do as their Ancestors did, they must leave their courses and opinions, as they had done of those that preceded them.

[Sidenote: _August. lib. de Liber. Arbitrio._]

4. Some say they cannot recede from the opinions of their Predecessors, because it would be a shame and disgrace unto them. But that which we call shame and disgrace consists in the opinion of others, and we ought not to receive errour, or reject truth, by reason of the censures or opinions of others: _Si de veritate scandalum sumitur, utilius permittitur nasci scandalum, quàm veritas relinquatur_. And to leave an errour to entertain truth, is so far from being a shame and a disgrace, that there cannot be a greater honour or glory: for _errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare belluinum ac diabolicum est_.

[Sidenote: _Rule 4._]

4. Those effects that seem strange and wonderful, either in respect of Art or Nature, require much diligence truly to discover and find out their causes; and we ought not rashly to attribute those effects to the Devil, whose causes are latent or unknown unto us: and that for these grounds.

[Sidenote: _De Inject. mater. pag. 597._]

[Sidenote: _Ibid. pag. 598._]

1. It hath been common almost in all Ages, not only for the vulgar, but also for the whole rabble of Demonographers and Witchmongers to ascribe those strange and wonderful effects, whether arising from Art or Nature, unto the worst of Gods Creatures, if they did not themselves understand their causes, and to censure the Authors that writ of them, as Conjurers and Magicians, as I have made manifest in my former Instances, and might be further made good and illustrated by the effects of healing by the Weapon-salve, the Sympathetick Powder, the Curing of divers Diseases by Appensions, Amulets, or by Transplantation, and many other most admirable effects both of Art and Nature, which by these self-conceited Ignorants are all thrown upon the Devils back, and he made the Author and effector of them, as though he had a kind of omnipotent power: of which the learned Philosopher and Physician _Van Helmont_ gives us this account: “_Credo equidem cum pietate pugnare, si Diabolo tribuatur potestas naturam superans. Verum naturæ ignari præsumunt se naturæ secretarios per librorum lectionem: quicquid autem ipsos latet, vel adynaton, vel falsum, vel præstigiosum, atq; diabolicum esto._” And a little after he adds this: “_Pigritiæ saltem enim immensæ inventum fuit, omnia in Diabolum retulisse quæ non capimus, nec velim Diabolum invocatum, ut nostris satisfaciat quæstionibus per temerariam potestatum attributionem._”

2. Whosoever shall read _Pancirollus de rebus memoralibus noviter repertis_, may easily be satisfied, what strange and stupendious things Art and the Inventions of men have produced in these latter Ages. And no man can rationally doubt, but that many more as strange or far more wonderful, may in Ages to come be found out and discovered; for there is a kind of bottomless depth in Arts, whether Liberal or Mechanical, that yet hath not been founded, but lye hid and unknown unto men. And if these for their wonderfulness should (as former Ages have ignorantly done) be ascribed unto the power of Satan, and their Authors accused of Conjuring and Diabolical Magick, no greater wrong could be done unto Art and Artists, and it would be a kind of blasphemy to attribute these stupendious effects (as the Vulgar and Witchmongers use to do) unto the Devil, the worst of Gods Creatures, and the Enemy of Mankind.

[Sidenote: _Pag. 103._]

[Sidenote: Rom. 1. 20.]

[Sidenote: _De Civit. Dei lib. 10._]

3. The third argument I shall take from Mr. _Glanvil_ (which is the greatest piece of truth in all his Treatise) and convert and retort it against him: and is this (he saith) _We are ignorant of the extent and bounds of Natures Sphere and Possibilities._ Now if we be ignorant of the extent and bounds of Natures Sphere and Possibilities, then it must needs be folly, madness, and derogative against Gods power in Nature, to attribute those effects to wicked, fallen, and degenerated Demons, that we do not know but are produced by the course of Nature. And to ascribe the products of Nature to such wicked Instruments is blasphemous, in depriving Nature of the honour due unto her, and robbing God of the honour and glory belonging unto him, for the wonderful power wherewith he hath endowed his Creatures, who were all made to shew forth his power and Godhead, _and the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-work_: and as one said very well, _Natura creatrix est quædam vis & potentia divinitùs insita, alia ex aliis in suo genere producens_. So that the honour that is due unto the Creator, Conserver, and Orderer of Nature ought not to be ascribed unto the Devils; for in doing this, the Witchmongers become guilty of Idolatry, and are themselves such Witches as are mentioned in the Old Testament, who by their lying Divinations led the people after them to follow Idols; therefore the effects that belong unto Nature, are to be attributed to Nature, and the effects that Devils produce, are to be ascribed unto them, and not one confounded with another. And much to this purpose the learned Father hath a very considerable passage: “_Quicquid igitur mirabile fit in hoc mundo, profectò minus est quàm totus hic mundus, i. e. cœlum & terra, & omnia quæ in eis sunt, quæ certè Deus fecit: nam & omni miraculo quod fit per hominem, majus miraculum est homo. Quamvis igitur miracula visibilium naturarum videndi assiduitate vilescunt, tamen ea quum sapienter intuemur, inusitatissimis rarísq; majora sunt._”

[Sidenote: Job 1. 11. & 2. 5.]

[Sidenote: 2 Pet. 2. 4.]

[Sidenote: _August. super Psal._]

4. Though these men should believe the power of the Devil to be great by his Creation, and not lessened by his Fall (which is doubtful or false) yet can he not exert, or put this power into execution, but when, where, as oft, and in what manner, as God doth send, order, direct, and command him: and could not enter into the herd of Swine, until that Christ had ordered and commanded him; nor to touch _Job_ or afflict him either in his goods or body, until that God had given him licence and order with express limitation how far he should proceed, and no further. In all which there appeareth nothing at all of his power, but his malice and evil will; and what was effected, was the hand of the Lord, and he but the bare Instrument to execute and perform the command. Therefore to ascribe to the Devil the efficiency of those operations we do not clearly understand, is to allow him a kind of Omnipotency, and both to rob God and Nature of that which belongeth unto them; for the Almighty doth work whatsoever he pleases both in Heaven and Earth, and it is he that worketh all in all. And the Devil is but as Gods Executioner to fulfil his will in tempting men, and punishing the wicked, and can act nothing but as God commands him, except the acts of his wicked and depraved will; for he is with all his Angels delivered into chains of darkness to be reserved unto Judgment. To this purpose there is a very true and Christian saying of St. _Augustine_ in these words: “_Diabolus plerumq; vult nocere, & non potest, quia potestas ista est sub potestate: nam si tantum posset nocere Diabolus quantum vult, aliquis justorum non remaneret._”

[Sidenote: _Rule 5._]

5. The last Rule I shall observe is, That men, if they mean to profit by reading Controversies of this nature, they must prudently and deliberately consider the design that Authors have had in writing. For though it be the general pretence of all, that they write to confute errours, and to maintain truth, yet very few in Disputes of this nature have sincerely performed this pretended end. For some have written (as we shall hereafter make manifest in due place) upon designed purpose, thereby to establish some points in their corrupted and superstitious Religion. Some because of their own lucre and profit arising by the upholding of these opinions of the great power and performances of Witches, as did all the Inquisitors and their Adherents, having a share in the condemned Witches goods. Others have written in these Subjects meerly for ostentation and vain-glory, to get a name that they were learned and able persons: of all which the judicious Readers ought to beware of, and to consider. There is another main scandal that Witchmongers usually (especially of late) cast upon those that oppose their gross, impious, and blasphemous opinions; but I cannot seasonably give answer unto it, untill I have laid down the state of the question, upon which the substance of this Treatise is grounded, and therefore shall proceed to its Explication.

CHAP. II.

_Of the Notion, Conception, and Description of Witches and Witchcraft,
according to divers Authors, and in what sense they may be granted,
and in what sense and respect they are denied._

Those that are Masters in Ethicks teach us, that every Vertue hath on either side one Vice in the extreme, and that Vertue only consists in the mean, which how hard that mean is to be kept in any thing, the Writings and Actions of the most Men do sufficiently inform us. This is manifest, that not many years ago the truth of Philosophy lay inchained in the Prisons of the Schools, who thought there was no proficiency to be made therein, but only in their Logical and Systematical ways: so that (in a manner) all liberty was taken away both in writing and speaking, and nothing was to be allowed of that had not the Seal of Academick Sanction. And now when Philosophy hath gotten its freedom, to expatiate through the whole Sphere of Nature, by all sorts of inquiries and tryals, to compleat a perfect History of Nature, some are on the other hand grown so rigid and peremptory, that they will condemn all things that have not past the test of Experiment, or conduce not directly to that very point, and so would totally demolish that part of Academick and Formal Learning that teacheth men Method and the way of Logical procedure in writing of Controversies, and handling of Disputes. Whereas what is more necessary and commendable for those that treat of any controverted point in Writing or in other Disputations, than a clear and perspicuous Method, a right and exact stating of the Question in doubt, defining or describing the terms that are or may be equivocal, and dividing the whole into its due and genuine parts, distinguishing of things one from another, limiting things that are too general, and explaining of every thing that is doubtful? Those that would totally take away this so profitable and excellent a part of Learning, are not of my judgment, nor can be excused for having run into that extreme that is extremely condemnable. Let Experimental Philosophy have its place and due honour; and let also the Logical, Methodical, and Formal ways of the Academies have its due praise and commendation, as being both exceedingly profitable, though in different respects; otherwise, in writing and arguing, nothing but disorder and confusion will bear sway.

I have premised thus much, because the most of the Authors that have treated about this knotty and thorny Subject of Witches and Witchcraft, have been as confused and immethodical as any. For whereas the learned Orator _Cicero_ tells us, that _omnis discursus à definitione debet proficisci_; and that it is also true, that what is not aptly and fitly defined or described, as far as the Subject will admit of, is never perfectly understood: yet have the most of these Authors (which are numerous) laid down no perfect description of a Witch or Witchcraft, nor explained fully what they meant by that name, notion, or conception. And therefore, lest I become guilty of the same fault, I shall lay down what the most considerable Authors that have treated of this Subject, do mean or intend by this word _Witch_, and _Witchcraft_, and shall fully explain in what notion or sense I either allow or deny them, and their actions, and that in this order, and in these Particulars following.

[Sidenote: _Lib. 14. method. c. 9._]

[Sidenote: _Ibid. c. 1._]

1. Though an argument taken _à denotatione nominis_ be of little weight or validity, and that the industrious and sharp-witted person _Galen_ doth seem to make little account of words, that is, in this respect, when we would only understand the nature of things, yet in another respect he concludeth thus: “_Verùm qui alterum docere volet quæ ipse tenet, huic prorsus nominibus propter res uti est opus._” Now the handling of Controversies is chiefly and principally to inform others, and teach them the truth, and to discover errours; therefore in this respect the explication and denotation of words is exceeding profitable and necessary: and so _Plato in Cratylo_ tells us: “_Nomen itaq; rerum, substantiam docendi discernendiq; instrumentum est._” And it being a manifest truth, that words are but the making forth of those notions that we have of things, and ought to be subjected to things, and not things to words: if our notions do not agree with the things themselves, then we have received false _Idola_ or images of them; but if we have conceived them aright, and do not express them fitly and congruously, then we shall hardly make others understand us aright, nor can clearly open unto them the doctrine that we would teach them.

2. But to come to the signification and acceptation of the words that those Authors, who have magnified and defended the power of Witches, have used to express their notions by, we shall find them to be so far fetcht, so metaphorical, and improperly applied, that no rational or understanding man can tell us what to make of them. And if we take the notion, as they do, of a killing and murthering Witch, with the rest of the adjuncts, which they couple with it, we shall not be able to find a proper and significative word, either in the Hebrew, Greek, Latine, French, Spanish, Italian, or High-Dutch, but a multitude or a _Ferrago_ of words, whereof not one doth properly signifie any such thing, as they would make us believe, by the notion that they maintain of a Witch: of which we shall principally note these.

[Sidenote: Lament. 4. 3.]

1. For the Hebrew words used in the Old Testament we shall not mention them here, but afterward, where we speak of the mistranslation of them, and therefore shall pursue them in the Latine, and other Languages. And first they sometimes use the word _Lamia_ in the Latine, Λάμια in Greek, which _Gesner_ and others tell us doth signifie a terrestrial Creature, or a voracious fish, as also a Spectrum or Phantasm. And this was supposed to be a Creature with a face like a Woman, and feet like a Horse or an Ass, such as (indeed) neither is, nor ever was _in rerum natura_, but was only a figment devised to affright children withal. But if we will believe Poetical Fables, the Romances of _Philostratus_ concerning _Apollonius_, or the lying Diary of his Man _Damis_, we must take it to be a Spirit or Apparition, such as the Greeks called _Empusæ_, that went upon one leg, and had eyes that they could take forth, and set in, when they pleased. And such a monstrous Fable and Lye was a sufficient ground for doting Witchmongers to build their incredible stories of the power and actions of Witches upon, having no proper word for such a Witch as they falsely believe and suppose. Though there be a Text in the Lamentations of _Jeremiah_, that hath given occasion or colour to this vain opinion, especially as the vulgar Latine renders it, which is thus: _Sed & Lamiæ nudaverunt mammam, lactaverunt catulos suos. Filia populi mei crudelis, quasi struthio in deserto._ The French render it, _The Dragons have made bare their breasts_: and so have also the Italians in their Translation retained the words Dragon and Ostrich; and also the Septuagint render the words δράχοντες and στρουθίον. And _Luther_ in his Translation hath kept the same words, though the Germans call =Lamia Ein Rachtsgeist=. But our own Translation hath come more near the truth: _Even the Sea-monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the Daughter of my people are become cruel like the Ostriches in the wilderness._ And _Arias Montanus_ gives it thus: _Etiam draco——תנין Tannin_ (which signifieth a Dragon, Serpent, Whale, or other Sea-creatures) _solverunt mammam, lactaverunt catulos suos: Filia populi mei in crudelem, veluti ululæ in deserto._ But none hath come up close to the mark but _Junius_ and _Tremellius_, who render the place thus: _Etiam Phocæ præbent mammam, lactant catulos suos, quomodo filia populi mei, propter crudelem inimicum, est similis ululis in deserto._ And the Notes upon the place do make it plain: “_Vox quidem Hebræa latè patet, significans serpentes & reptilia magna, sive terrestria sive aquatilia; sed cùm non omnium reptilium sint mammæ, neq; aquaticorum sint ii quos Propheta vocat catulos; necesse fuit hunc locum ad Phocas, id est marinos vitulos accommodari, qui à natura sint quasi Amphibii. Nam Draconibus accommodari non potest, cùm volucrium solus vespertilio mammas habeat: serpentium terrestrium nulla species mammata est, ac proinde hæc ad marinum istud genus referri debent._”

[Sidenote: Isa. 34. 14.]

[Sidenote: _Gesn. de Avib. l. 3. p. 241._]

[Sidenote: _Hist. Anat. Cent. 1. p. 18._]

2. Another far fetcht and improperly applied name to Witches, is _Strix_, and so some Authors call them _Striges_; when as the word _Strix_ doth properly signifie a nocturnal bird, _à stridendo sic dicta_, that do use to suck the dugs of Goats, and also of young children, which we shall shew hereafter to be a Truth, and no Fable, as _Ovid_ saith,

_Nocte volant, puerósq; petunt nutricis egentes,
Et vitiant cunis corpora rapta suis.
Carpere dicuntur lactentia viscera rostris,
Et plenum poto sanguine guttur habent.
Est illis strigilis nomen; sed nominis hujus
Causa, quòd horrendâ stridere nocte solent._

This is that sort of bird that _Gesner_ calleth _Caprimulgus_, and the Greeks Ἀιγαθήλας, the Germans =Rachtvogel= or =Rachtraven=, the Hebrews לילית _Lillith_, as is said in _Isaiah: Quin & ibi subitò quievit strix (seu lamia) & invenit sibi requiem._ It is taken to be a kind of Owl, little bigger than an Ousel, and less than a Cuckow, they are blind upon the day, and flye abroad upon the nights, making an horrible noise, and were to be found about _Rome_, _Helvetia_, and _Crete_ or _Candy_, and do certainly suck the dugs of Goats, that thereby they waste away and become blind. And that they are also sometimes found in _Denmark_, that learned Physician and laborious Anatomist _Bartholinus_ doth make manifest, and that they do suck the breasts or navils of young children. Now what affinity hath this to a Witch or Witchcraft? but that Witchmongers would bring in any allusion or Metaphor, though never so impertinent or incongruous? For if it were transferred to the actions of Witches, yet as _Calepine_ tells us: _Ab hujus avis nocumento striges appellamus mulieres puellulos fascinantes suo contactu, & lactis mammarúmq; oblatione_. So that if the assimulation were proper in any proportion or particular, those Women they do account Witches, do but hurt the little children with the virulent steams of their breath, and the effluviums that issue from their filthy and polluted bodies, and so wrought by contact and contrectation, by which the contagious poyson is conveyed, but not by Witchcraft.

[Sidenote: Act. 1. 26.]

[Sidenote: Prov. 16. 33.]

3. There is another word that they apply to Witches, as insignificant and improper as the other, and that is _Sortilegus_, χρησμολόγος, a Teller of Fortunes by Lots or Cuts: and _Lambertus Danæus_, who in other things was a judicious and learned person, yet doted extremely about this opinion, calling a Witch _Sortiarius_, deriving it from _Sortilegus_, which the French call _Sorcier_. Now what affinity or congruity hath casting or using of Lots with that which these men call _Witchcraft_? surely none at all. For though Lots may, like the best things, be abused and wrested to a vain or evil end, yet are they not altogether evil, but that a civil and lawful use may be made of them, as is manifest this day at the famous City of _Venice_, where their chief Officers are chosen by them. And also there hath been a godly and divine use made of them even by the Apostles themselves, in the deciding of the Election of _Barsabas_ and _Matthias_, upon the latter of which the Lot fell, and so he was numbred with the eleven Apostles. And _Solomon_ tells us, _The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord_. And sure these men were at a loss to find a suitable word to fix upon these Creatures, to whom they ascribe such impossible and incredible actions, when they were fain to bring this appellation of _Sortilegus_, that hath no kinship at all with such Witches, as they mean and intend.

4. Sometimes they call them by the name _Saga_, which signifieth no more than a Wife and subtil Woman, being derived _à sagiendo_ to perceive quickly, or to smell a thing quickly forth, which the Germans call =Vnhold=, which is no more than _malevolus_, or evil-willed.

5. They use the word _Veneficus_, _venefica_, and _veneficium_, and this in its proper signification and derivation from the Latine, doth import no more than a Poysoner, or to make poyson, _venenum facere_, and so might perhaps be given unto them, because by Tradition they had learned several ways to poyson secretly and strangely, as doubtless there may be divers hidden and not ordinarily known ways (as we shall shew hereafter) by which either by smelling, tasting, touching (and it may be by sight) they could kill and destroy, though the means they used, and the effects produced, were meerly natural; yet because the manner was very occult and unperceivable, it was through ignorance and want of due inspection into the matters accounted Diabolical; when there was no more of a Devil in the business, than is in a Thief or Murtherer, but only in the Use and Application, which is to steal, kill, or destroy. And this, though now improperly and abusively called Witchcraft, doth but signifie poysoning, and so the French call it _Empoisonnement_, and the Italians _Veneficio_ or _Avenenatione_, and the Germans =Vergifftung=, which all amount to one purpose. And this _Veneficium_ or poysoning the Greeks call Φαρμάκευσις and Φαρμακία from Φάρμακον _Medicamentum v.l. Venenum_; for sometimes it was taken in the better sense for a curing and healing Medicine; and sometimes in the worse for poyson that did kill or destroy. Neither can it be found in any Greek Author to signifie any more, than such men or women that used Charms and Incantations, and were believed by the Vulgar to effect strange things by them, when in truth and indeed they effected nothing at all but by natural means and secret poysons, and from thence had these names. And the Poets spoke of them to adorn and imbellish their Poems withal, according to common opinion; not that either they themselves believed the things to be so done, as the Vulgar believed, nor to give credit to such false Fables and impossibilities; but to make their Poems more delectable and welcome to the common people, who are usually taken with such fond Romantick stories and lyes. But after the year 1300. when the Spanish Inquisitors, the Popish Doctors and Writers had found the sweetness and benefit of the confiscated Goods of those that they had caused to be accused and condemned for Witches, in their sense then these words either in the Greek or Latine were wrested to signifie a Witch that made a visible and corporeal League with the Devil, when in the true sense of them they did but signifie a secret Poysoner. So that all things were hurried, though never so improper and dissonant, to be made serviceable to their filthy lucre and avaritious self-endedness. _Templum venale Deúsq;_.

6. Lastly, For Witchcraft they used the Latine _Fascinum_ and _Fascinatio_, and so they called a Witch _Fascinator_ and _Fascinatrix_, and this the Greeks called Βασκανίον, Βασκανία, _Fascinum_, _Fascinatio_, also _invidia, odium, seu invidentia_, ἀπὸ τοῦ Βασκανεῖν, _à fascinando, seu oculis occidendo_: the Germans call it =Zaubery=, and =Verzauberung=, and sometimes =Hexenwerk=; the French _Ensorcellement_ and _Sorcelerie_; the Italians _Lestrigare & amaliare_, _amaliamento_; the Belgicks =Betoovenge=: the Saxons called them and it Ƿɩcce and Ƿɩcce-cꞃeeꝼꞇ, from whence we have the name Witch and Witchcraft, that signified _Saga_, _Venefica_, _Lamia_, and _Fascinum_, _Magia_, _Incantatio_, _Fascinatio_, _Præstigium_: of which (because we shall have occasion to speak more of it hereafter) we shall here only note these few things.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Alexand. Aphrod. lib. 2. Probl. 53._]

1. It is taken sometimes for Envy and Malice, because those that were supposed to use Fascination, did direct it to one Creature more than another through their envious minds, as may be perceived by some few Authors: And so was accounted a kind of eye-biting whereby (as the Vulgar believed) children did wax lean, and pined away, the original whereof they referred to the crooked and wry looks of malicious persons, never examining the truth of the matter of fact, whether those children that pined away, had any natural disease or not, that caused that macilency or pining away; nor considered, whether or no there was any efficiency in the envy or wry looks of those malicious persons, but vainly ascribed effects to those things that had in them no causality at all to produce such effects.

[Sidenote: _Eclog. 3._]

2. Sometimes this kind of Fascination was ascribed to the sore or infected eyes of those that were accounted causers of hurt thereby in others, and in this sense _Virgil_ saith: _Nescio quis teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos_. And by this no more could be understood, but that those that had infected and sore eyes might infect others, and this was nothing but contagion, or corrupt steams issuing from one body to another, which may happen in many diseases, as is manifest by the Writings of divers learned Physicians, as in bodies infected with the Plague, French Pox, Leprosie, Ophthalmies, and such like.

[Sidenote: _Sup. Epist. D. Paul. ad Galat._ _c._ 3.]

3. Sometimes Fascination is taken for some kind of Incantation, that by virtue of Words or Charms doth perform some strange things; but concerning this there is such incertainty of the opinions of the Learned, some flatly denying that Words or Charms have in them any natural efficacy at all; others as strongly affirming it, that of this point it is very difficult to make a clear determination: and therefore we shall say but this of it here, that the Angelical Doctor did conclude well in this particular, in these words: “_Ad sciendum autem quid sit fascinatio, sciendum est quòd secundùm glossam fascinatio propriè dicitur ludificatio sensus, quæ per artes magicas fieri consuevit, puta, cum hominem facit aspectibus aliorum apparere leonem, vel cornutum, & hujusmodi_.”

Having been thus large in considering the names and denomination given to those persons that are esteemed Witches, and finding them to be so improper, impertinent, various, and uncertain, let us now proceed to the notion and acceptation of Witchcraft and Witches, to try if in that we can find any more certainty or consonancy, and herein we shall produce some of the chief descriptions that are given of them by several Authors; for to quote all would be tedious and superfluous. Those that are or may be accounted Witches we rank in these two orders.

1. Those that were and are active deceivers, and are both by practice and purpose notorious Impostors, though they shadow their delusive and cheating knaveries under divers and various pretences; some pretending to do their Feats by Astrology (which is a general Cheat as it is commonly used) some by a pretended gift from God, when they are notoriously drunken, debauched, and blasphemous persons, such as of very late years was the Cobler that lived upon _Ellill_ Moor, named _Richmond_, and divers others that I could name, but that in modesty I would spare their reputations: some by pretending skill in Natural Magick, when indeed they can hardly read English truly; some by pretending a familiar Spirit, as one _Thomas Bolton_ near _Knaresborough_ in _Yorkshire_, when indeed and in truth they have no other Familiar but their own Spirit of lying and deceiving: some by pretending to reveal things in Crystal-glasses or Beryls, as was well known to be pretended by Doctor _Lamb_, and divers others that I have known. And some by pretending to conjure and call up Devils, or the Spirits of men departed; and some by many other ways and means that are not necessary to be named here; for errour and deceit have a numerous train of Followers and Disciples. And the existence of such kind of Witches as these (if you will needs call them by that name, and not by their proper titles, which are, that they truly are Deceivers, Cheaters, Couseners, and Impostors) I willingly acknowledge, as having been, and are to be found in all ages, and these sorts are also acknowledged by _Wierus_, Mr. _Scot_, _Johannes Lazarus Gutierius_, _Tobias Tandlerus_, _Hieronymus Nymannus_, _Martinius Biermannus_, and all the rest, that notwithstanding did with might and main oppose the gross Tenent of the common Witchmongers.

[Sidenote: A Candle in the dark, p. 12, 13.]

[Sidenote: Object. p. 78.]

And of this sort were all those several differences of Diviners, Witches, or Deceivers named in the Scriptures, as Mr. _Ady_ hath sufficiently declared in this passage, which we shall transcribe. “A Witch is a man or woman that practiseth Devillish crafts of seducing the people for gain, from the knowledge and worship of God, and from the truth, to vain credulity (or believing of lyes) or to the worshipping of Idols”. And again he saith: “Witchcraft is a Devillish craft of seducing the people for gain, from the knowledge and worship of God, and from his truth, to vain credulity (or believing of lyes) or to the worshipping of Idols. That it is a Craft truly so called, and likewise that it is for gain, is proved _Act._ 16. 16, 19. The Maid that followed _Paul_ crying, brought in her Master much gain; and that it is a Craft of perverting the people, or seducing them from God and his Truth, is proved _Act._ 6. 7, 8. _Elimas the Sorcerer laboured to pervert Deputy from the Faith._ So likewise _Act._ 8. 9, 10, 11. it doth more plainly prove all these words: _And there was a man before in the City called Simon, which used Witchcraft, and bewitched the people of Samaria, saying, That he himself was some great man, to whom they gave heed from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God, and gave heed unto him, because that of long time he had bewitched them with Sorceries_. How bewitched them with Sorceries? That is, seduced them with Devillish Crafts: (as the Greek and also _Tremelius_ Latine Translation do more plainly illustrate.) In this sense speaketh _Paul_ to the _Galatians_ 3. 1. _O foolish Galathians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth?_ And that a Witch or Witchcraft is taken in no other sense in all the Scripture, it appeareth by the whole current of the Scriptures, as you may see in this Book.” But against this Mr. _Glanvil_ and the rest of his opinion will object and say, that it is hard and severe that Cheaters and Impostors should be ranked with Inchanters, and such as converse with Devils and with Idolaters, and that of this it is hard to give a reason. To this we shall give this full responsion.

[Sidenote: Levit. 20. 10.]

[Sidenote: Deut. 22. 22, 23, 24.]