Observations concerning the original and various forms of government as described, viz. 1st. Upon Aristotles politiques. 2d. Mr. Hobbs's Laviathan. 3d. Mr. Milton against Salmatius. 4th. Hugo Grotius De jure bello. 5th. Mr. Hunton's Treatise of monarchy, or the nature of a limited or mixed monarchy / by the learned Sir R. Filmer, Barronet ; to which is added the power of kings ; with directions for obedience to government in dangerous and doubtful times.

A DIFFERENCE Between an English and Hebrew WITCH.

THE Point in Question is briefly this; Whether such a Witch as is Condemned by the Laws and Statutes of this Land, be one and the same with the Witch forbidden by the Law of Moses.

The Witch Condemned by our Statute-Law is, 1 Jacob. Cap. 12.

One that shall use, practise, or exercise any In∣vocation or Conjuration of any evil or wicked Spi∣rit, or consult, covenant with, entertain or employ, féed or reward any evil or wicked Spirit, to or for any intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child, out of his, her, or their grave, or any other place, where the dead body resteth; or the skin, bone, or other part of any dead per∣son, to be employed or used in any manner of Witchcraft, Sorcery, Charm or Enchantment;

or shall use, practise, or exercise any Witchcraft, Enchantment, Charm, or Sorcery, whereby any Person shall be killed, destroyed, wasted, consu∣med, pined, or lamed in his or her Body, or any part thereof: such Offenders duly and lawfully Convicted and Attainted, shall suffer death.

If any Person shall take upon him by Witch∣craft▪ Inchantment, Charm or Sorcery, to tell or declare in what place any Treasure of Gold or Silver should or might be found or had in the Earth, or other secret places, or where Goods, or things lost or stoln should be found or become: Or to the intent to provoke any Person to unlaw∣ful love, or whereby any Cattle or Goods of any Person shall be destroyed, wasted, or impaired; or to destroy or hurt any Person, in his, or her Body, though the same be not effected, &c. a years Imprisonment, and Pillory, &c. and the second Conviction Death.

In this Statute these Points are observable.

1. That this Statute was first framed in 5 Eliz. and only the Penalties here a little altered, and the last clause concerning provoking of Persons to love, and destroying of Cattle and Goods, &c. is so changed, that I cannot well make sense of it, except it be rectified according to the words of the former Statute which stands repealed.

2. Although the Statute runs altogether in the disjunctive Or, and so makes every single crime capital, yet the Judges usually by a favourable in∣terpretation, take the disjunctive Or, for the copu∣lative And; and therefore ordinarily they condemn none for Witches, unless they be charged with the Murdering of some persons.

3. This Statute presupposeth that every one knows what a Conjurer, a Witch, an Inchanter, a Charmer, and Sorcerer is, as being to be learned best of Divines; and therefore it hath not described or distinguished between them: and yet the Law is very just in requiring a due and lawful Conviction.

The Definition of Witchcraft.

FOR the better discovery of the qualities of these crimes, I shall spend some discourse upon the Definition of those Arts by Divines: for both those of the Reformed Churches, as well as those of the Roman, in a manner, agree in their definition of the sin of Witchcraft. I shall instance in two late Writers, viz. Mr. William Perkins in his Discourse of Witchcraft, and in Martin Delrio, a Jesuit of Lor∣rain, in his Book of Magical Disquisitions.

Our English word Witch, is derived from the Dutch word Wiechelen, or Wijchelen, which doth pro∣perly signifie whinying or neighing like a Horse, and doth also signifie to foretel or prophesie; and Wei∣cheler signifies a Soothsayer; for that the Germans, from whom our Ancestors the Saxons descended, usually and principally did, as Tacitus tells us, divine and foretel things to come, by the whinying and neighing of their Horses. Hinnitu & fremitu are his words.

For the Definition Mr. Perkins saith, Witchcraft is an Art serving for the work∣ing of Wonders,* 1.1 by the assistance of the Devil, so far as God shall permit.

Delrio defineth it to be an Art, which by the power of a Contract entred into with the Devil,* 1.2 some Wonders are wrought which pass the common understanding of men. Ars quâ vi pacti cum Daemonibus initi mira quaedam communem hominum captum superantia efficiuntur.

In these two Definitions, some Points are worth the noting.

1. They both agree in the main Foundation, which is a Contract with the Devil, and therefore Mr. Perkins thought it most necessary, that this main Point should be proved; to which purpose he promiseth to define a Witch, by opening the nature of Witchcraft,* 1.3 as it is delivered in the Old and New Testament; and yet after he confesseth a manifest Covenant is not so fully set down in Scripture:* 1.4 And out of the New Testament he offers no proof at all, though he promised it; nevertheless, he resolves us that a Covenant is a most evident and certain truth, that may not be called in question.

For proof of a Covenant, he produceth only one Text out of the Old Testament; neither doth he say, that the Text proveth a Contract with the Devil, but only that it intimateth so much: Thus at the first he falls from a proof to an intimation only. The Text is, Psal. 58. v. 5. of which his words are these:* 1.5 Howsoever the common Translation runneth in other terms, yet the words are properly to be read thus: Which hear∣eth

not the voice of the mutterer joyning Societies cun∣ningly—the main foundation of the Charm, Societies or Confederacies cunningly made, not between man and man, but, as the words import, between the Enchanter and the Devil, Deut. 18.11.

Answer. Though there be neither mention of Spirit or Devil in this Psalm, yet Mr. Perkins would have us believe that there can be no conjoyning or consociating but with the Devil: but Mr. Ainsworth, as great a Rabbi as Mr. Perkins, finds other Interpre∣tations of this Text; and though he mentions fel∣lowship with the Devil, yet he puts it in the third and last place, as the newest and latest Interpreta∣tion: for he teacheth us, That the Enchanter had his title both in Psal. 58. and in Deut. 18. either be∣cause he associates Serpents, making them tame and fa∣miliar that they hurt not, or because such persons use to bind and tye bonds, or things about the body, to heal or hurt by Sorcery. Also he teacheth us, That a Charmer doth joyn or speak words of a strange language, and without sense, &c.

Delrio it seems puts no confidence in this Text of Mr. Perkins, for he doth not cite it to prove a Contract; yet he hath also one Text of his own to that purpose, it is Esay 28.15. where it is said,* 1.6 We have made a Covenant with Death, and with Hell we are at an agreement; Percussimus foedus cum morte, & cum inferno fecimus pactum. And Delrio tells us, That Tho. Aquinas did apply this Text to Witches, magis satis probabili interpretatione.

Answer. If this Text be considered, it proves no∣thing at all: for it doth not charge the proud and drunken Ephraimites, of whom it is spoken that

they had made an agreement with Hell, but it is only a false brag of their own, to justifie their wick∣edness by a lye: for it is not possible to make a Covenant with Death, which in it self is nothing but a meer not being; and whereas it is called an agreement with Hell, it may be translated as well, if not better in this place, an agreement with the Grave; and so the Interlineary Bible hath it; and Tremelius and Junius render it, Pepigimus foedus cum morte, & cum sepulchro egimus cautum; which they term a Thrasonical Hyperbole: and Deodatus his Ita∣lian Bible hath, Habbiamo fatto lega col sepolcro; so likewise the Spanish Bible translates it, Concierto tenemos hecho con la muerte, è con la sepultura hazi∣mos acuerdo.

It may be wondered, that neither Mr. Perkins nor the Jesuit have any other or better Texts to prove this Contract between the Witch and the Devil. But the truth is, it is very little that either of them say of this great point, but pass it over perfunctorily. Perhaps it may be thought that King James hath said, or brought more and bet∣ter proofs in this point; but I do not find that he doth meddle with it at all, but takes it for granted, that if there be Witches, there must needs be a Covenant, and so leaves it without further proof.

A second note is, That the agreement between the Witch and the Devil, they call a Covenant, and yet neither of the parties are any way bound to per∣form their part; and the Devil, without doubt, notwithstanding all his craft, hath far the worst part of the bargain. The bargain runs thus in Mr. Perkins:* 1.7 The Witch as a slave binds

himself by Vow to believe in the Devil, and to give him either Body, or Soul, or both, under his hand-writing, or some part of his Blood. The Devil promiseth to be ready at his vassals command to appear in the likeness of any Creature, to consult, and to aid him for the procuring of Pleasure, Honour, Wealth, or Preferment; to go for him, to carry him any whither, and to do any command. Whereby we see the Devil is not to have benefit of his bargain till the death of the Witch; in the mean time he is to appear always at the Witches command, to go for him, to carry him any whi∣ther, and to do any command: which argues the Devil to be the Witches slave, and not the Witch the Devils.

Though it be true which Delrio affirmeth, That the Devil is at liberty to perform or break his compact, for that no man can compel him to keep his promise; yet on the other side, it is as possible for the Witch to frustrate the Devils Contract, if he or she have so much grace as to repent; the which there may be good cause to do, if the Devil be found not to perform his promise. Besides, a Witch may many times require that to be done by the Devil, which God permits not the Devil to do; thus against his will the Devil may lose his credit, and give occasion of repentance, though he endeavour to the utmost of his power to bring to pass whatso∣ever he hath promised; and so fail of the benefit of his bargain, though he have the Hand-writing, or some part of the blood of the Witch for his security, or the solemnity before Witnesses, as Delrio imagineth.

I am certain they will not say, that Witchcraft is like the sin against the Holy Ghost, unpardona∣ble:

for Mr. Perkins confesseth the contrary, and Delrio denies it not;* 1.8 for he allows the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be admini∣stred to a condemned VVitch, with this limitation, that there may be about four hours space between the Communion and the Exe∣cution, in which time it may be probably thought, that the Sacramental Species (as they call it) may be consumed.

3. Delrio in his second Book, and fourth Questi∣on, gives this Rule, which he saith is common to all Contracts with the Devil, That first they must deny the Faith, and Christianism, and Obedience to God, and reject the Patronage of the Virgin Mary, and revile her. To the same purpose Mr. Perkins affirms, that Witches renounce God and their Baptism. But if this be common to all Contracts with the Devil, it will follow, that none can be VVitches but such as have first been Christians, nay and Roman Catholicks, if Delrio say true; for who else can renounce the Pa∣tronage of the Virgin Mary? And what shall be said then of all those Idolatrous Nations of Lapland, Finland, and of divers parts of Africa, and many other Heathenish Nations, which our Travellers re∣port to be full of VVitches? And indeed, what need or benefit can the Devil gain by contracting with those Idolaters, who are surer his own, than any Covenant can make them?

4. VVhereas it is said, That Witchcraft is an Art working Wonders, it must be understood, that the Art must be the VVitches Art, and not the Devils, otherwise it is no Witchcraft, but Devils-craft. It is confessed on all hands, That the Witch doth not work the wonder, but the Devil only.

It is a rare Art for a Witch by her Art to be able to do nothing her self, but to command ano∣ther to practise the Art. In other Arts, Mr. Perkins confesseth, That the Arts Master is able by himself to practise his Art, and to do things belonging thereunto,* 1.9 without the help of another; but in this it is otherwise— the power of effecting strange works doth not flow from the skill of the Witch, but is derived wholly from Satan. To the same purpose he saith,* 1.10 That the means of working wonders are Charms used as a Watch-word to the Devil to cause him to work wonders: so that the Devil is the Worker of the wonder, and the Witch but the Counsellour, Perswader, or Commander of it, and only accessory before the Fact, and the Devil only principal. Now the difficulty will be, how the accessory can be duly and lawfully convicted and attainted according as our Statute requires, unless the Devil, who is the Principal, be first convicted, or at least outlawed; which cannot be, because the Devil can never be lawfully summoned according to the Rules of our Common Law. For further proof that the Devil is the Principal in all such wonders, I shall shew it by the testimony of King James, in a Case of Murder, which is the most capital Crime our Laws look upon. First, he tells us, That the Devil teaches Witches how to make Pictures of Wax and Clay, that by the roasting thereof, the persons that they bear the Name of, may be continually melted, or dried away by continual sickness—not that any of these means which he teacheth them (except poisons, which are composed of things natural) can of themselves help

any thing to these turns they are imployed in. Secondly,* 1.11 King James affirms, That Witches can bewitch, and take the life of men or women by roasting of the Pictures, which is very possible to their Master to perform: for although that instrument of Wax have no vertue in the turn do∣ing, yet may he not very well, by that same measure that his conjured Slave melts that Wax at the fire, may he not, I say, at these same times, subtilly as a Spirit, so weaken and scatter the spirits of life of the Patient, as may make him on the one part for faintness to sweat out the humours of his body; and on the other part, for the not concurring of these spirits which cause his digestion, so debilitate his stomach, that his humour radical continually sweating out on the one part, and no new good Suck being put in the place thereof for lack of digestion on the other, he at last shall vanish away even as his Picture will do at the Fire? Here we see the Picture of Wax, roasted by the Witch, hath no virtue in the Murdering, but the Devil only. It is necessary in the first place that it be duly proved, that the party murdered be murdered by the Devil: for it is a shame to bely the Devil; and it is not possible to be proved, if it be subtilly done as a Spirit.

5. Our Definers of Witchcraft dispute much, whether the Devil can work a Miracle: they re∣solve he can do a Wonder, but not a Miracle; Mirum, but not Miraculum. A Miracle, saith Mr. Perkins, is that which is above or against Nature simply; a Wonder is that which proceeds not from the ordinary course of Nature. Delrio will have a Mira∣cle to be praeter, or supra naturae creatae vires: both seem to agree in this, That he had need be an ad∣mirable

or profound Philosopher, that can distin∣guish between a Wonder and a Miracle; it would pose Aristotle himself, to tell us every thing that can be done by the power of Nature, and what things cannot; for there be daily many things found out, and daily more may be, which our Forefathers never knew to be possible in Nature. Those that were converted by the Miracles of our Saviour, never stayed to inquire of their Philosophers what the power of Nature was; it was sufficient to them, when they saw things done, the like whereof they had neither seen nor heard of, to believe them to be Miracles.

6. It is commonly believed and affirmed by Mr. Perkins, That the cause which moves the De∣vil to bargain with a Witch, is a desire to obtain thereby the Soul and Body of the Witch. But I cannot see how this can agree with another Do∣ctrine of his, where he saith: The Precepts of Witch∣craft are not delivered indifferently to every man, but to his own subjects the wicked; and not to them all, but to special and tryed ones, whom he most betrusteth with his secrets, as being the fittest to serve his turn, both in respect of their willingness to learn and practise, as also for their ability to become Instruments of the mischief he intendeth to others. All this argues the end of the Devils rules of Witchcraft is not to gain Novices for new Subjects, but to make use of old ones to serve his turn.

7. The last clause of Mr. Perkins Definition is, That Witchcraft doth work wonders so far as God shall permit. I should here desire to have known whe∣ther Mr. Perkins had thought that God doth permit farther power to the Devil upon his contracting

with the Witch, than he had before the Contract: for if the Devil had the same permission before the Contract, then he doth no more mischief upon the Contract, then he would have gladly done before, seeing, as Mr. Perkins saith, The Devils malice towards all men is of so high a de∣gree,* 1.12 that he cannot endure they should enjoy the World, or the benefits of this life (if it were possi∣ble) so much as one hour. But yet afterwards I find Mr. Perkins is more favourable to the Devil, where he writes, That if the Devil were not stirred up and provoked by the Witch, he would never do so much hurt as he doth.

Of the Discerning and Discovery of a Witch.

* 1.13A Magistrate, saith Mr. Perkins, may not take upon him to examine whom and how he willeth of any Crime, nor to pro∣ceed upon slight causes, or to shew his Authority, or upon sinister respects, or to revenge his malice, or to bring parties into danger and suspicion; but he must proceed upon special presumptions.

He calls those presumptions, which do at least probably and conjecturally note one to be a Witch,* 1.14 and are certain signs whereby the Witch may be discovered. I cannot but won∣der, that Mr. Perkins should say, That presumpti∣ons do at least probably and conjecturally note, and are certain signs to discover a Witch; when he con∣fesseth, That though presumptions give occasion to exa∣mine, yet they are no sufficient causes of conviction: and though presumptions be never so strong, yet they are not proofs sufficient for Conviction, but only for Exa∣mination.

Therefore no credit is to be given to those presumptions he reckons up. 1. For common same, it falls out many times, saith he, that the innocent may be suspected, and some of the better sort notoriously de∣famed. 2. The testimony of a fellow Witch, he confes∣seth, doth not probably note one to be a Witch. The like may be said of his third and fourth presumption, if after cursing, or quarrelling, or threatning, there follow present mischief. And the fifth presumption is more frivolous, which is, if the party be the Son or Daughter, or Servant, or Friend, near Neighbour, or old Companion of a Witch. The sixth presumption Mr. Perkins dares not, or is loth to own, but saith, Some add, if the par∣ty suspected have the Devils Mark; and yet he resolves, if such a Mark be descried, whereof no evident reason in nature can be given, the Magistrate may cause such to be examined, or take the matter into his own hands, that the truth may appear; but he doth not teach how the truth may be made to appear. The last presumpti∣on he names, is, if the party examined be unconstant, or contrary to himself; here he confesseth, a good man may be fearful in a good cause, sometimes by nature, sometimes in regard of the presence of the Judge, or the greatness of the Audience; some may be suddenly taken, and others want that liberty of speech which other men have.

Touching Examination, Mr. Perkins names two kinds of proceedings, either by simple Question, or by Torture: Torture, when besides the enquiry by words, the Magistrate useth the Rack, or some other violent means to urge Confession; this he saith, may be law∣fully used, howbeit not in every case, but only upon strong and great presumptions, and when the party is obstinate. Here it may be noted, that it is not

lawful for any person, but the Judge only, to allow Torture: suspicious Neighbours may not, of their own heads, use either Threats, Terrors, or Tortures. I know not any one of those presumptions before-cited, to be sufficient to warrant a Magistrate to use Torture; or whether when the party constant∣ly denies the Fact, it must be counted obstinacy. In case of Treason sometimes, when the main Fact hath been either confessed, or by some infallible proofs manifested, the Magistrate, for a farther discovery of some circumstance of the Time, the Place, and the Persons, or the like, have made use of the Rack: and yet that kind of torture had not been of ancient usage in this Kingdom; for if my memory fail not, I have read, that the Rack hath been called the Duke of Exeters Daughter, and was first used about Hen. 6. days.

From presumptions, Mr. Perkins proceeds to proofs of a Witch; and here he hath a neat di∣stinction of proofs, less sufficient, or more sufficient; by less sufficient he meaneth insufficient, but gives them this mild and strange phrase of less sufficient, that it may not displease such friends as (I conceive) allow those less sufficient proofs for sufficient, though he reckons them for no better than Witchcraft. Those unsufficient sufficient proofs are weaker and worse than his presumptions, which he confesseth are no proofs at all; yet we must reckon them up. His first less sufficient proof is, The antient trial by taking red hot Irons, or putting the hand in hot scalding water; this, he saith, hath been condemned for Diaboli∣cal and wicked, as in truth it is: for an innocent man may thereby be condemned, and a rank Witch scape un∣punished. A second insufficient proof is, Scratching

of the suspected party, and the present recovery there∣upon. A third is, the burning the thing bewitched, as a Hog, an Ox, or other Creature, it is imagined a forcible means to cause the Witch to discover her self. A fourth, is the burning the Thatch of the suspected parties House. The fifth less sufficient proof is, the binding of the party hand and foot, and casting cross∣ways into the water; if she sinks, she is counted inno∣cent; if she float on the water and sink not, she is ta∣ken for a Witch, convicted, and punished. The Ger∣mans used this Tryal by cold water; and it was imagined, that the Devil being most light, as par∣ticipating more of Air than of Water, would hold them up above the Water, either by putting him∣self under the Witch, and lifting her up, as it were with his back, or by uniting himself, and possessing her whole body.

All these less sufficient proofs, saith Mr. Perkins, are so far from being sufficient, that some of them, if not all, are after a sort practices of Witchcraft, having no power by Gods Ordinance. Hereby he condemns point∣blank King James's judgment, as favouring of Witch∣craft, in allowing of the Tryal of a VVitch by swimming as a principal proof. And as I take it, he condemns himself also, except he can find any Or∣dinance of God, that the having of an incurable and insensible mark or sore, shall be a presumption, or certain sign of a Witch.

A sixth less sufficient proof, is the Testimony of a Wizard, Witch, or cunning man, who is gone or sent unto, and informs that he can shew in a glass the Face of the Witch. This accusation of a Witch by an∣other Witch, Mr. Perkins denies to be sufficient; and he puts this case: If the Devil appear to a Grand Ju∣ry,

in the likeness of some known man, and offer to take his Oath that the person in question is a Witch, should the Enquest receive his Oath or accusation to condemn the party? He answers, Surely no; and yet that is as much as the Testimony of another Witch, who only by the help of the Devil revealeth the Witch: if this should be taken for a sufficient proof, the Devil would not leave one good man alive in the world.

This discrediting of the Testimony of a Witch, takes away the other (for he hath but two) of King James's main proofs for the discovery of a Witch, for he saith, who but Witches can be provers, and so witnesses of the doings of Witches? and to the same purpose Mr. Perkins himself confesseth, that the Precepts of Witchcraft are not delivered, but to the Devils own Sub∣jects, the wicked.

A seventh less sufficient proof is, when a man in o∣pen Court affirms, such a one fell out with me, and cursed me, threatning I should smart for it in my person or goods; upon these threats, such Evils and Losses presently befel me; this is no sure ground for Conviction, saith Mr. Per∣kins, for it pleaseth God many times to lay his Hands up∣on mens persons and goods, without the procurement of Witches; and yet saith Mr. Perkins, Experience shews, that ignorant People will make strong proofs of such pre∣sumptions, whereupon sometimes Jurors do give their Ver∣dict against parties innocent.

The last less sufficient proof is, if a man being sick, upon suspicion will take it on his death, that such a one hath bewitched him, it is of no moment, saith Mr. Perkins; it is but the suspicion of one man for himself, and is of no more force than another mans word against him.

All these proofs, saith Mr. Perkins, which men in place have ordinarily used, be either false or insufficient signs.

At the last Mr. Perkins comes to his more suffici∣ent proofs, which are in all but two. The confessi∣on of the Witch, or the proof of two witnesses. Against the confession of a Witch, Mr. Perkins con∣fesseth, it is objected, that one may confess against himself an untruth,* 1.15 being urged by force or threatning, or by desire upon some grief to be out of the World; or at least be∣ing in trouble, and perswaded it is the best course to save their Lives and obtain their Liberty, they may upon simplicity be induced to confess that they never did, even against themselves. The Truth of this Allegation Mr. Perkins doth not deny, but grants it, in that his Answer is, That he doth not say a bare Confession is sufficient, but a Confession after due Examination ta∣ken upon pregnant presumptions. But if a bare con∣fession be not a sufficient proof, a pregnant pre∣sumption can never make it such; or if it could, then it would not be a sufficient proof. For the far∣ther weakning of the Confession of a suspected Witch, we may remember what Mr. Perkins hath formerly answered, when it was alledg∣ed, that upon a melancholy humour,* 1.16 ma∣ny confess of themselves things false and impossible, That they are carried through the Air in a moment, that they pass through key-holes and clefts of Doors; that they be sometimes turn'd in∣to Cats, Hares, and other Creatures, and such like; all which are meer fables, and things impossible. Here Mr. Perkins answers, that when Witches begin to make a League, they are sober and sound in under∣standing; but after they be once in the League, their reason & understanding may be depraved, memory weak∣ned, and all the powers of their Soul blemished; they

are deluded, and so intoxicated, that they will run into a thousand of phantastical imaginations, holding themselves to be transformed into the shapes of other Creatures, to be transported in the Air, to do many strange things which in truth they do not.

Now Mr. Perkins will confess, that the Examinati∣on and confession of a suspected Witch, is always af∣ter such time as her Covenant is made; when she is by his Confession deluded, and not fit to give testi∣mony against her self.

His second more sufficient proof (he saith, if the party will not confess, as commonly it falleth out) is two witnesses avouching upon their own knowledge, either that the party accused hath made League with the Devil, or hath done some known practices of Witchcraft, or hath invocated the Devil, or desired his help. But if every man that hath invocated the Devil, or desired his help, must have formerly made a League with him, then whole Nations are every man of them Witches; which I think none will say.

As for the League, and proof of Witchcraft, Mr. Perkins confesseth, Some may say, If these be the only strong proofs for the Conviction of a Witch, it will be then impossible to put any one to Death; because the League with Satan is closely made, and the practi∣ces of Witchcraft are also very secret, and hardly can a man be brought, which upon his own knowledge can aver such things. To this Mr. Perkins answer is a confession: that howsoever the ground and practice be secret, and be to many unknown, yet there is a way to come to the knowledge thereof.—Satan endeavoureth the discovery, and useth all means to disclose Witches. This means he speaks of should be in the power of the Judge, or else it is no help for the discovery of

a Witch, but only when the Devil pleaseth, I do not find he proves that it is usual with Satan to endea∣vour any such Discovery; neither do I see how it is practicable by the Devil: for either he must do it by his own relation or report; which as it cannot be proved he ever did, so it is vain, and to no purpose if he do it; for Mr. Perkins hath discredited the testi∣mony of the Devil, as invalid, and of no force for conviction: or else the Devil must discover it by some second means; and if there had been any such second means usual, Mr. Perkins would have taught us what they are, and not have left us only to his two more sufficient proofs, which he confesseth are not infallible.

King James tells us,* 1.17 that the Devils first discovering of himself for the gaining of a Witch, is either upon their walking solitari∣ly in the Fields, or else lying pausing in their bed, but always without the company of any other; and at the making of Circles and Conjurations, none of that craft will permit any others to behold; when the Devil and his Subjects are thus close and secret in their actions, it cannot be imagined that he will use all means to discover his most special and trusti∣est Subjects: and though Mr. Perkins tells us, that by nature of the Precontract,* 1.18 the De∣vil is cock-sure of his instruments; yet within a few lines he changeth his note, and saith, Though he have good hope of them, yet he is not certain of their continuance, because some by the mercy of God have been reclaimed and freed from his Covenant. Besides, he confesseth, the Devil suffereth some to live long undisclosed, that they may exercise the greater measure of his malice in the world. It re∣mains,

that if the two true proofs of Mr. Perkins, which are the Witches Confession, or sufficient witnesses, fail, we have not warrant, as he saith, in the word, to put such an one to Death.

I conclude this point in the words of Mr. Perkins; I advise all Jurors, that as they be diligent in the zeal of Gods glory, so they would be careful what they do, and not to condemn any party suspected upon bare presumptions, without sound and sufficient proofs, that they be not guilty through their own rashness, of shedding inno∣cent blood.

Of the Hebrew Witch.

IN Deut. 18. The Witch is named with divers other sorts of such as used the like unlawful Arts; as the Diviner, the Observer of times, an Inchan∣ter, a Charmer, a Consulter with a Familiar Spirit, a Wisard, or a Necromancer. The Text addeth, All that do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth drive them [the Nations] out from before thee. If we desire to know what those abominations of the Nations were, we are told in general in the 14. Verse of the same Chapter: These Nations hearkened unto observers of times, and unto Diviners. There is no other crime in this Chapter laid to the charge of all, or any of these practisers of such unlawful Arts, but of lying Prophecies; and therefore the Text ad∣deth, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy Brethren, like unto me, unto him shall ye hearken, and not to the Diviners, Wi∣sards, Charmers, &c.

Setting aside the case of Job (wherein God gave a special and Extraordinary Commission) I do not find in Scripture that the Devil, or Witch, or any other, had power ordinarily permitted them, either to kill or hurt any man, or to meddle with the Goods of any: for though, for the trial of the hearts of men, God doth permit the De∣vil Ordinarily to tempt them; yet he hath no

Commission to destroy the Lives or Goods of men; it is little less than blasphemy to say any such thing of the admirable providence of God, whereby he preserves all his Creatures.

It was crime sufficient for all those practi∣sers of unlawful Arts, to delude the People with false and lying Prophecies, thereby to make them forget to depend upon God, and to have their Souls turn after such as have Familiar Spirits, and after Wisards, to go a whoring after them, as the Lord saith, Levit. 20.6. This spiritual whoredom is flat Idolatry, in the common phrase of the Old Testa∣ment; and those that be enticers to it, thereby endeavour to destroy the Souls of the People, and are by many degrees more worthy of Death, than those that only destroy the Bodies or Goods of men.

If there were a Law that every one should be put to Death, or punished, that should advisedly endeavour to perswade men that they are skilful in those forbidden Arts, or in foretelling of things to come, or that they have contracted with the Devil, and can thereby murther or destroy mens Goods; I should never deny such a Law to be most consonant and agreeing with the Law of Moses.

But because I may be thought by some a favou∣rer of these forbidden Arts, through want of un∣derstanding the Scripture about the quality of them; I have made choice of a man who is no Friend to Witches, and whose Learning in this

point will not be denied. In his own words I shall set down, what either out of the Hebrew Names of those prohibited Arts, or out of the exposition of the Jewish Doctors can be gathered for the under∣standing of them.

1. A Diviner, in Hebrew, a Foreseer,* 1.19 or Presager, a Foreteller of things to come, as doth a Prophet—The Hebrews take a Diviner to be one that doth things whereby he may foretel things to come, and say, Such a thing shall be, or not be, or say, It is good to do such a thing—The means of Divining; some doing it with Sand, some with Stones, some by lying down on the Ground, some with Iron, some with a Staff—He that asked of a Diviner, is chastised with stripes.

2. An observer of times, or Soothsayer, an Observer of the Clouds, a Planetary, or an ob∣server of the flying of Fowls, an Augur. As the Diviners were carried much by inward and Spiritual Motions, so these by outward Observa∣tions in the Creatures. The Hebrews say, they were such as did set times, for the doing of things, saying, Such a day is good, and such a day is naught.

3. An Observer of Fortunes, one that curiously searcheth signs of good or evil luck, which are Learned by Experience: the Hebrew is, to find out by Experience; Whereupon the word here used is one that too curiously observeth, and a∣buseth things that do fall out, as lucky or un∣lucky,

The Hebrews describe it thus, as if one should say, Because the morsel of Bread is fallen out of my mouth, or my Staff out of my hand, I will not go to such a place: because a Fox passed by on my right hand, I will not go out of my House this day. Our new Translation renders this word an Inchanter.

4. A Witch, a Sorcerer, such as bewitch the Senses or minds of Men, by changing the forms of things to another hew. The Hebrew word for a Witch properly signifies a Jugler, and is derived from a word which signifies changing or turning; and Moses teacheth, Exod. 7. that Witch∣es wrought by Enchantments, that is, by secret Sleights, Juglings, Close conveyance, or of Glistering like the flame of Fire, or a Sword, wherewith Mens Eyes were dazled.

5. A Charmer, or one that conjureth conjura∣tions; the Hebrew signifies conjoyning or consocia∣ting—The Charmer is said to be he, that speaketh words of a strange Language, and without sense; that if one say so or so unto a Serpent, it cannot hurt him; he that whispereth over a wound, or that readeth over an Infant that it may not be frighted, or layeth the Bible upon a Child that it may sleep.

6. A Wisard or cunning Man, in Hebrew named of his knowledge or cunning—The He∣brews describe him thus, That he put in his mouth a bone of a Bird, and burned incense, and did other things until he fell down with shame, and

spake with his mouth things that were to come to pass.

7. A Necromancer, one that seeketh unto the Dead: of him they say, he made himself hungry, and went and lodged among the Graves, that the dead might come unto him in a Dream, and make known unto him that which he asked of him; and others there were that clad themselves with Cloaths for that purpose, and spake certain words, and burned Incense, and slept by themselves; that such a dead person might come and talk with them in a Dream.

8. Lastly, The Consulter with Familiar Spirits, in Hebrew, a Consulter with Ob, applied here to Magi∣cians, who possessed with an evil Spirit, spake with a hollow voice as out of a bottle.—The Hebrews explain it thus, That he which had a Familiar Spi∣rit stood and burned Incense, and held a rod of Mirtle-tree in his hand, and waved it, and spake certain words in secret, until he that enquired did hear one speak unto him, and answer him touch∣ing that he enquired, with words from under the Earth, with a very low voice, &c. Likewise, one took a dead mans Skull and burnt Incense thereto, and inchanted thereby till he heard a very low voice, &c. This Text in our English Translation being expounded a Familiar Spirit, and seconded by the History of the Woman of Endor, may seem a strong evidence that the Devil covenanted with Witches: but if all be granted that can be desired, that this Familiar Spirit signifies a Devil, yet it comes not home to prove the main point; for it is no proof

that the Familiar Spirit enter'd upon Covenant, or had or could give power to others to kill the persons, or destroy the Goods of others. King James confesseth, the Devil can make some to be pos∣sessed, and so become very Daemoniaques; and that she who had the Spirit of Python in Acts 16. where∣by she conquested such gain to her Master; that Spirit was not of her own raising or commanding, as she plea∣sed to appoint, but spake by her Tongue as well privately as publickly. We do not find the Pythonesse con∣demned or reproved, but the unclean Spirit com∣manded in the Name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. The Child which was too young to make a Covenant with the Devil, was possessed with a dumb and deaf Spirit, and the Devil charged to come out, and enter no more into him, Mark 9. A Daughter of Abraham (that is, of the Faith of Abraham) was troubled with a Spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and bowed together that she could not lift her self up, Luke 13.10, 16.

It is observable, that in Deut. 18. where all the unlawful Arts are reckoned up, and most fully pro∣hibited, the crime of them is charged upon the practisers of those Arts; but the crime of having a Familiar Spirit is not there condemned, but the consulter of a Familiar Spirit; so in Levit. 19.31. the prohibition is, Regard not them that have Fami∣liar Spirits; and so in Levit. 20.6. The Soul that turneth after such as have Familiar Spirits; so that it was not the having, but the consulting, was con∣demned.

If we draw nearer to the words of the Text, it

will be found, that these words, a consulter with a Familiar Spirit, are no other than a Consulter with Ob; where the question will be what Ob signifieth. Expositors agree, that originally Ob signifieth a Bottle, and they say is applyed here to one posses∣sed with an evil Spirit, and speaketh with a hol∣low voice as out of a Bottle: but for this I find no proof they bring out of Scripture, that saith, or ex∣poundeth that Ob signifieth one possessed with a Familiar Spirit in the Belly; the only proof is, that the Greek Interpreters of the Bible Translate it Engastromuthi, which is, speaking in the Belly; and the word anciently, and long before the time of the Septuagint Translators, was properly used for one that had the cunning or slight to shut his mouth, and seem to speak with his Belly; which that it can be done without the help of a Familiar Spirit, Experience of this Age sheweth in an Irish∣man. We do not find it said, that the Woman of Endor did foretel any thing to Saul, by the hol∣low voice of a Familiar Spirit in her Belly; neither did Saul require, nor the Woman promise so to answer him; but he required, Bring me him up whom I shall name unto thee, and she undertook to do it; which argues a desire in Saul to consult with the dead, which is called Necromancy, or consulting with the Dead.

But it hath been said, she raised the Devil in Samuel's likeness, yet there is no such thing said in the Text; when the Woman went about her work, the first thing noted is, that when she saw Samuel, she cryed out with a loud voice: An Argument she was frighted with seeing something she did not expect

to see: it is not said, that when she knew Saul, but when she saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; when she knew Saul, she had no reason to be afraid, but rather comforted, for that she had his Oath for her security.

It may well be, that if either she had a Familiar Spirit, or the Art of hollow speaking, her inten∣tion was to deceive Saul, and by her secret voice to have made him believe, that Samuel in another room had answered him; for it appears that Saul was not in the place where she made a shew of raising Sa∣muel: for when she cried out with a loud voice, Saul comforted her, and bid her not be afraid, and asked her what she saw? and what form is he of? which questions need not have been, if Saul had been in the Chamber with the Witch. King James confesseth, that Saul was in another Chamber at the conjuration; and it is likely the Woman had told Saul she had seen some fearful sight, which made him ask her what she saw? and her answer was, she saw gods ascending out of the Earth; and it may be un∣derstood, that Angels waited upon Samuel, who was raised by God, and not any Puppets or Devils that she conjured up; otherwise, the words may be Translated as Deodat in the Margent of his Italian Bible hath it, She saw a Man of Majesty or Divine Authority ascend, un' huomo di Majesta è d' Authorita Divina, which well answers the question, of what form is he of? which is in the singular, not in the plural number.

We find it said in Esay 29.4. Thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground,

and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be as one that hath a Familiar Spirit out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the Earth; which argues, the voice of Ob was out of the Earth, rather than out of the Belly; and so the Hebrew Exposition, which I cited before, affirms. Some Learned have been of Opinion, That a na∣tural reason may be given, why in some places cer∣tain Exhalations out of the Earth may give to some a prophetical Spirit. Add hereunto, That some of the Heathen Oracles were said to speak out of the Earth: and among those five sorts of Necro∣mancy, mentioned by Doctor Reynolds, in his 76. Lecture of his censure of the Apocryphals, not any of them is said to have any Spirit in their Belly. The Romanists, who are all great affirmers of the Power of Witches, agree, That the Soul of Samuel was sent by God to the Woman of Endor: to this not only Delrio, but Bellarmine before him agrees. That true Samuel did appear as sent by God, as he sent Elias to Ochosias King of Israel, who being sick sent to consult with Beelzebub the God of Echron, may appear, for that Samuel is so true and certain in his Prediction to Saul; which no Witch, no Devil could ever have told: for though the Wisdom and Experience of the Devil do enable him to conjecture probably of many Events, yet positively to say, To morrow thou and thy Sons shall dye, is more than naturally the Devil could know.

Mr. Perkins confesseth the Devil could not fore∣tel the exact time of Saul's death; and therefore he answers, That God revealed to the Devil as

his Instrument Saul's overthrow, by which means, and no other, the Devil was enabled to foretel the death of Saul. Here Mr. Perkins proves not that Satan was appointed by God to work Saul's over∣throw, or that it was made known to him when it should be done.

As the rest of the Speech of Samuel is true, so these words of his, Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up? may be also true; which cannot be, if it be spoken by the Devil; or why should the Devil tell truths in all other things else, and lye only in this, I know no reason. Doctor Reynolds presseth these words against the appearing of Sa∣muel, thus: If Samuel had said them, he had lied; but Samuel could not lie, for Samuel could not be dis∣quieted, nor raised by Saul. It is true, God only raised Samuel effectually, but occasionally Saul might raise him. But, saith Doctor Reynolds, Though Saul was the occasion, yet Samuel could not truly say that Saul had disquieted him; for blessed are they that dye in the Lord, saith the Spirit, because they rest from their labours; and Samuel was no more to be disquieted (if he were sent by God) than Moses and Elias were when they appeared to shew the Glory of Christ, Mat. 17. Answer. It did not displease Samuel to be employed in the Office of an Angel, but he obeyed God glad∣ly; yet since the occasion of his appearing displea∣sed God, it might for that cause displease also Sa∣muel. Besides, we need not understand the dis∣quieting of Samuel's mind, but of his body, by not suffering it to rest in peace after death, according to the common and usual condition of Mankind: this sense the Original will well bear. Again, it

cannot be believed that the Devil would ever have preached so Divine and excellent a Sermon to Saul, which was able to have converted, and brought him to Repentance; this was not the way for the Devil to bring either Saul or the Woman to renounce God. Lastly, the Text doth not say that the Wo∣man raised Samuel; yet it calls him Samuel, and saith that Saul perceived or understood that it was Samuel.

Mr. Perkins and many others esteem Balaam to have been a Witch or Conjurer, but I find no such thing in the Text; when he was required to curse the people of Israel, his answer was, I will bring you word as the Lord shall speak unto me, Numb. 22.8. and God came unto Balaam in v. 9. and in v. 13. Balaam saith, The Lord refuseth to give me leave; and when Balak sent a second time, his answer was, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more. In v. 20. God cometh to Balaam, and said, If the men come to call thee, go; but yet the words which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And when Balaam came before Balak, he said, v. 38. Lo I am come unto thee, have I now any power at all to say any thing? The word which God putteth into my mouth, that shall I speak: and in the 23. Chap. v. 18. Balaam saith, How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed? And in v. 12. he saith, Must I not take heed to speak that which the Lord hath put into my mouth? These places laid together, prove Balaam to have been a true Prophet of the Lord; and he prophesied no∣thing contrary to the Lords command, therefore St. Peter calls him a Prophet.

Nevertheless it is true, that Balaam sinned no∣toriously, though not by being a Witch or Con∣jurer, or a false Prophet; his faults were, that when God had told him he should not go to Balak, yet in his covetous heart he desired to go, being tempted with the rewards of Divination, and pro∣mise of promotion; so that upon a second Message from Balak he stayed the Messengers, to see if God would suffer him to go; wherefore the Lord in his anger sent Balaam. Also when God had told Ba∣laam that he would bless Israel, yet Balaam did strive to tempt God, and by several Altars and Sacrifices to change the mind of God. Again, when Balaam saw God immutable in blessing Israel, he taught Balak to lay a stumbling-block before the Sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to Idols, and to commit Forni∣cation, Rev. 2.14. Whereas it is said, That Balaam went not up as at other times to seek for Enchantments, Numb. 24.2. the Original is, to meet Divinations, that is, he did not go seek the Lord by Sacrifices, as he did Numb. 23.3, 15.

An exact difference between all those Arts pro∣hibited in Deut. no man I think can give; that in some they did agree, and in others differed, seems probable. That they were all lying and false Pro∣phets, though in several ways, I think none can deny. That they differed in their degrees of pu∣nishments is possible: there are but three sorts that can be proved were to be put to death, viz. the Witch, the Familiar Spirit, the Wisard. As for the Witch, there hath been some doubt made of it. The Hebrew Doctors that were skill'd in the Laws

of Moses, observe, that wheresoever one was to dye by their Law, the Law always did run in an affirmative Precept; as, the man shall be stoned, shall dye, shall be put to death, or the like; but in this Text, and no where else in Scripture, the sentence is only a Prohibition negative, Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live, and not, Thou shalt put her to death, or stone her, or the like. Hence some have been of opinion, that not to suffer a Witch to live, was meant not to relieve or maintain her by running after her, and rewarding her. The Hebrews seem to have two sorts of Witches, some that did hurt, others that did hold the eyes, that is, by jugling and slights deceived mens senses. The first, they say, was to be stoned; the other, which according to the proper notation of the word was the true Witch, was only to be beaten.

The Septuagint have translated a Witch an Apo∣thecary, a Druggister, one that compounds poisons; and so the Latin word for a Witch is Venefica, a maker of poisons: if any such there ever were, or be, that by the help of the Devil do poison, such a one is to be put to death, though there be no Covenant with the Devil, because she is an Actor and Principal her self, not by any wonder wrought by the Devil, but by the natural or occult property of the Poyson.

For the time of Christ, saith Mr. Perkins, though there be no particular mention made of any such Witch, yet thence it followeth not that there were none, for all things that then happened are not recorded; and I would fain know of the chief Patrons of them, whether those

persons possessed with the Devil, and troubled with strange Diseases, whom Christ healed, were not bewitch∣ed with some such people as our Witches are? If they say no, let them if they can prove the contrary.

Here it may be thought that Mr. Perkins puts his Adversaries to a great pinch; but it doth not prove so: for the Question being only whether those that were possessed in our Saviour's Time were bewitch∣ed: The Opposers of Mr. Perkins say they were not bewitched; but if he or any other say they were, the Proof will rest wholly on him or them to make good their Affirmative; it cannot in reason be ex∣pected that his Adversaries should prove the Nega∣tive; it is against the Rules of Disputation to re∣quire it.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cap. 1.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 1. Cap. 2.
• * 1.3

  Cap. 2.
• * 1.4

  Cap. 2.
• * 1.5

  Cap. 2.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 2. Qu. 4.
• * 1.7

  Cap. 12.
• * 1.8

  Lib. 5. Sect. 18.
• * 1.9

  Cap. 1. Sect. 4.
• * 1.10

  Cap. 4. Sect. 1.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 2. Cap. 5.
• * 1.12

  Cap. 7.
• * 1.13

  Cap. 7. Sect. 1.
• * 1.14

  Cap. 7. Sect. 2.
• * 1.15

  Chap. 7. Sect. 1.
• * 1.16

  Chap. 7. Sect. 1.
• * 1.17

  Lib. 2. Cap. 2.
• * 1.18

  Cap. 7. Sect. 2.
• * 1.19

  Ainsworth upon Deut. 18.