In this Statute these Points are Observable.

1. That this Statute was first framed in 5. Eliz. and onely 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that I cannot well make sense of it, except it be rectified according to the words of the former Sta­tute which stands repealed.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 capitall, yet the Judges usually by a favourable interpretation take the disjunctive Or for the copulative And; and therefore ordinarily they con­demne none for Witches, unlesse they be charged with the Mur­dering of some person.

3. This Statute presupposeth that every one knowes what a Conjurer, a Witch, an Inchanter, a Charmer, and Sorcerer is, as being to be learned best of Divines; and therefore they have not described, or distinguished betweene them: and yet the Law is very just in requiring a due and lawfull conviction.

The definition of Witch-craft.

FOr the better discovery of the qualities of these crimes, I shall spend some discourse upon the Definition of these arts by Divines, for both those of the reformed Churches, as well as these of the Roman in a manner, agree in their Definition of the sinne of Witch-craft. I shall instance in two late Writers, viz. Mr. W. Perkins in his Discourse of Witch-craft, and in Martin Delrie a Jusuit of Loraine in his booke of Magicall dis­quisitions.

Our English word Witch is derived from the Dutch word, Witchelen, or Wijchelen, which doth properly signifie whinying o [...] neying like a Horse, and doth also signifie to foretell, or pro­phecy; and Weicheler signifies a South sayer, for that the Germans from whom our Ancestors the Saxons descended usually, and principally did as Tacitus tells us, Divine and foretell things to come by the whinying, and neying of their horses, Hinitu & fremitu are his words.

Cap. 1.For the Definition Mr. Perkins saith, Witch craft is an Art serving for the working of Wonders, by the assistance of the Devill, so far as God shall permit.

Lib. 1. c. 2. Delrio defineth it to be an Art which by the power of a contract, entred into with the Devill, some wonders are wrought which passe the common understanding of men. Ars qua vi pacti cum Daemoni­bus initi mira quaedam communem hominum captum superantia officiuntur.

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

1. They both agree in the maine Foundation, which is a Con­tract with the Devill, and therefore Mr. Perkins thought it most necessary, that this maine point should be proved, to which pur­pose he promiseth to define a Witch, by opening the nature of Witchcraft, Cap. 2. as it is delivered in the Old and new Testament, and yet after hee confesseth a manifest Covenant is not so fully set down in Scripture; Cap. 2. And out of the New Testament he offers no proofe at all, though he promised it, neverthelesse he resolves us that a Covenant is a most evident and certaine truth, that may not be called in question.

For proofe of a Covenant he produceth onely one Text [Page 4] out of the old Testament, neither doth hee say, that the Text proveth a Contract with the Devill, but onely that it intimateth so much; Thus at the first hee falls from a proofe to an inti­mation onely. Cap. 2. The Text is Psal. 58. ver. 5. of which his words are these, howsoever the common translation runeth in other termes, yet the words are properly to be read thus; which heareth not the voyce of the mutterer ioyning Societies cunningly—the maine Foundation of the Charme Societies or Confederacies cunningly made not between man and man, but as the words import between the En­chanter and the Devil Deuit. 18. 11.

Answer. Though there be neither mention of Spirit, or Devill in this Psalme, yet Mr. Perkins would have us believe that there can be no conjoyning or consociating but with the Devill: But Mr. Ainsworth as great a Rabby as Mr. Perkins, finds other interpretations of this Text, and though hee mentions fellow­ship with the Devill, yet hee puts it in the third and last place as the newest and latest interpretation; for hee teacheth us that the Enchanter had his title both in Psalme 58. and in Deut. 18. either because he associats Serpents, making them tame and familiar that they hurt not, or because such persons use to bind and tye bonds, or things about the body to heale or hurt by Sorcery; also he teach­eth us that a Charmer doth joyne, or speake words of a strange lan­guage, and without sense, &c.

Delrio, it seemes puts no confidence in this Text of Mr. Perkins, for hee doth not cite it to prove a Contract, yet he hath also one Text of his own to that purpose, Lib. 2 Qu. 4. it is Esay 28. 15. where it is said, wee have made a Covenant with Death, and with Hell we are at an agreement, percussimus faedus cum morte, & cum inferno fecimus pactum, and Delrio tells us that Tho Aquinas did apply this Text to Witches▪ magis satis probabili interpretatione.

Answ. If this Text be considered, it proves nothing at all, for it doth not charge the proud and drunken Ephramites, of whom it is spoken that they had made any agreement with Hell, but it is onely a false brag of their own to justifie their wicked­nesse by a lie; for it is not possible to make a Covenant with Death, which in it selfe is nothing but a meere not being; and whereas it is called an agreement with Hell, it may be transla­ted [Page 5] as well, if not better in this place an agreement with the Grave, and so the interlineary Bible hath it, and Tnemelius and Junius render it pepigimus faedus cum morte, & cum sepulcro egrinus cau­tum, which they terme a thrasonicall hyperbole, and Deodatus his Italian Bible hath habbiamo fatto lega col sepolero, so likewise the Spanish Bible translates it, concierto tenemos hecho con la muerte, è con la sepultura hazimos acuerdo.

It may be wondered that neither Mr. Perkins nor the Jesuit have any other, or better Texts to prove this Contract be­tweene the Witch and the Devill. But the truth is it is very little that either of them say of this great point, but passe it over perfunctorily. Perhaps it may be thought that King James hath said, or brought more and better proofes in this point; but I doe not finde that he doth medle 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 proofe.

A second note is that the agreement betweene the Witch, and the Devill they call a Covenant, and yet neither of the parties are any way bound to performe their part, and the De­vill without doubt notwithstanding all his craft hath far the worst part of the bargaine. Cap. 11. The bargaine runs thus in Mr. P. the Witch as a slave binds himselfe by Vow to believe in the Devill, and to give him either Body, or Soule, or both under his hand Wri­ting, or some part of his Bloud. The Divell promiseth to be ready at his vassals command to appeare in the likenesse of any Creature, to consult, and to aid him for the procuring of Pleasure, Honour, Wealth, or Preferment, to goe for him, to carry him any whither, and doe any command. Whereby we see the Devill is not to have benefit of his bargaine till the Death of the Witch, in the meane time he is to appeare alwayes at the Witches com­mand, to go for him, to carry him any whither, and to doe any command, which argues the Devill to be the Witches slave▪ and not the Witch the Divills.

Though it be true which Delrio affirmeth, that the Devill is at liberty to performe or breake his compact, for that not man can compell him to keepe his promise; yet on the other side it is as possible for the Witch to frustrate the Devills Contract, if hee or shee have so much grace as to repent, the which there may [Page 6] be good cause to do, if the Devill be found not to performe his promise: Besides a Witch may many times require that to be done by the Devill, which God permits not the Devill to do; thus against his will the Devill may lose his credit, and give occasion of repentance though he endeavour to the ut­most of his power to bring to passe whatsoever he hath pro­mised, and so faile of the benefit of his bargaine, though he have the hand-writing, or some part of the bloud of the Witch for his security, or the solemnity before witnesses as Delrio imagineth.

I am certaine they will not say that Witch-craft is like the sinne against the Holy Ghost, unpardonable, for Mr. Perkins confesseth the contrary, Lib. 5. Sect. 18. and Delrio denies it not, for hee allowes the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be administred to a condemned Witch, with this limitation, that there may be about foure houres space betweene the Communion, and the Execution, in which time it may be probably thought that the Sacramentall Species (as they call it) may be con­sumed.

3. Delrio in his second Booke, and fourth Question gives this rule, which he saith, is common to all Contracts with the Devill, that first they must deny the Faith, and Christianisme, and Obedience to God, and reject the patronage of the Virgin Mary, and revile her. To the same purpose Mr. Perkins affirmes that Witches renounce God and their Baptisme. But if this be common to all Contracts with the Devill, it will follow that none can be Witches but such as have first beene Christians, nay and Ro­man Catholiques, if Delrio say true, for who else can renounce the patronage 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 Travailers report to be full of Witches? And in­deed what neede or benefit can the Devill gaine by contract­ing with those Idolaters, who are surer his own, then any Cove­nant can make them?

4. Whereas it is said that Witch craft is an Art working won­ders, it must be understood that the art must be the Witches Art, and not the Devills, otherwise it is no Witch-craft, but [Page 7] Devils-craft: It is confessed on all hands that the Witch doth not worke the wonder, but the Devill onely. It is a rare Art for a Witch by her Art to be able to do nothing her selfe, but to command an other to practise the Art. In other Arts Mr. Perkins confesseth, Cap. 1. Sect. 4. that the Arts Master is able by himselfe to practise his Art, and to doe things belonging thereunto without the helpe of an other, but in this it is otherwise—the power of effecting strange workes doth not flow from the skill of the Witch, but is derived wholy from Satan. Cap. 4. Sect. 1. To the same purpose he saith, that the means of working wonders are Charmes used as a Watch-word to the Devill to cause him to worke wonders: so that the Devill is the worker of the wonder, and the Witch but the Counsellor, Perswader, or Commander of it, and onely accessary before the Fact, and the Devill onely principall. Now the difficulty will be how the accessary can be duely and lawfully convicted and attainted according as our Statute requires, unlesse the Devill who is the Principall be first convicted, or at least outlawed, which cannot be, because the Devill can never be lawfully sum­moned according to the rules of our Common-law. For fur­ther proofe that the Devill is the principall in all such wonders, I shall shew it by the testimony of King James, in a case of Murther, which is the most capitall crime our Lawes looke up­on. First he tells that the Devill teaches Witches how to make Pictures of Wax and Clay, that by the resting thereof the persons that they beare the Name of, may be continually melted or dried away by continuall sicknesse—not that any of these meanes which he teacheth them (except poysons which are composed of things na­turall) can of themselves helpe any thing to these turnes they are imployed in. Lib. 2. Cap. 5. Secondly, King James affirmes that Witches can be­witch, and take the life of Men, or Women by rosting of the Pictures, which is very possible to their Master to performe, for although that instrument of Wax have no vertue in the turne doing: yet may be 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 sub­tilely as a spirit, so weaken and scatter the spirits of life of the pa­tient, as may make him on the one part for faintnesse to sweate 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 stomack [Page 8] that his humour radicall 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 doe at the Fire. Here we see the Picture of Wax roasted by the Witch, hath no vertue in the Murdering, but the Devill only. It is necessary in the first place that it be duely proved that the party Murther'd be Murthered by the Devill, for it is a shame to bely the Devill, and it is not possible to be proved if it be Subtilely done as a spirit.

5. Our Definers of Witch-craft dispute much, whether the Devill can worke a Miracle, they resolve 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 Miracle to be Praeter, or supra naturae creatae vires, both seeme to agree in this that he had neede be an ad­mirable or profound Philosopher, that can distinguish between a Wonder and a Miracle; it would pose Aristotle himselfe, to tell us every thing that can be done by the power of Nature, and what things cannot, for there be dayly many things found out, and dayly more may be which our Fore-fathers never knew to be possible in Nature. Those that were converted by the Mi­racles of our Saviour, never stayed to enquire 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 seene, 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 Devill to bargaine with a Witch, is a desire to obtaine thereby the Soule and Body of the Witch. But I cannot see how this can agree with another Doctrine of his, where hee saith, the Precepts of Witch-craft are not delivered indifferently to every Man, but to his owne Subjects the wicked; and not to them all, but to speciall and tried ones, whom hee most be­trusteth with his secrets, as being the fittest to serve his turne, both in respect of their willingnesse to learne and practice; as also for their ability to become Instruments of the mischiefe he intendeth to others. All this argues the end of the Devills rules of Witch-craft [Page 9] is not to gaine Novices for new Subjects, but to make use of old ones to serve his turne.

7. The last clause of Mr. Perkins definition is, that Witch-craft doth worke wonders so far as God shall permit. I should here desire to have known whether Mr. Perkins had thought that God doth permit farther power to the Devill upon his contracting with the Witch, then he had before the Contract; for if the Devill had the same permission before the Contract, then he doth no more mischiefe upon the Contract, then he would have gladly done before, Cap. 7. seeing as Mr. Perkins saith, The Devills malice towards all Men is of so high a degree, that he cannot endure they should enjoy the World, or the benefits of this life (if it were possible) so much as one houre. But yet afterwards I finde Master Perkins is more favourable to the Devill, where he writes, that if the Devill were not stirred up, and provoked by the Witch he would never do so much hu [...]t as he doth.

Of the Discerning, and Discovery of a Witch.

Cap. 7. Sect. 2. A Magistrate, saith Mr. Perkins, may not take upon him to examine whom, and how he willeth of any Crime, nor to pro­ceede upon slight causes, or to shew his Authority, or upon si­nister respects, or to revenge his malice, or to bring parties into danger, and suspition, but hee must proceede upon speciall pre­sumptions.

Cap. 7. Sect. 2.He calls those presumptions which doe at least probably, and con­jecturally note one to be a Witch, and are certaine signes whereby the Witch may be discovered. I cannot but wonder that Mr. Perkins should say that presumptions do at least probably, and con­jecturally note, and are certaine signes to discover a Witch; when he confesseth that though presumptions give occasion to exa­mine, yet they are no sufficient causes of conviction: and though presumptions be never so strong, yet they are not proofes sufficient for conviction, but onely for examination. Therefore no credit is to be given to those presumptions hee reckons up. 1. For com­mon fame, it falls out many times, saith he, That the innocent may be suspected, and some of the better sort notoriously defamed. 2. The testimony of a fellow Witch, hee confesseth, doth not pro­bably [Page 10] note one to be a Witch. The like may be said of his third and fourth presumption, if after cursing, or quarreling, or threatning there follow present mischiefe; And the fifth presumption is more frivolous, which is, if the party be the Son, or Daughter, or Ser­vant, or Friend neer Neighbour, or old Companion of a VVitch. The sixt presumption Mr. Perkins dares not, or is loath to owne, but saith, some adde, if the party Suspected have the Devills Marke, and yet he resolves if such a Marke 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 owne hands, that the truth may appeare, but hee doth not teach how the truth may be made to appeare. The last presumption hee names is, if the party examined be unconstant, or contrary to him­selfe, here hee confesseth, a good Man may be fearefull in a good cause, sometimes by Nature, sometimes in regard of the presence of the Judge, or the greatnesse 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 kindes 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 meanes to urge Confession; this he saith, may be lawfully used, howbeit not in every case, but onely upon strong, and great presumptions, and when the party is obstinate. Here it may be noted that it is not lawfull for any person, but the Judge onely to allow Torture, suspitious 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 constantly denies the Fact, it must be counted obstinacy. In case of Treason sometimes, when the maine Fact hath beene either confessed, or by some infallible proofes 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 kinde of torture hath not beene of ancient usage in this Kingdome, for if my memory fail not, I have read that the Rack hath been called the Duke of Exceters Daughter, and was first used about Hen. 6. days.

[Page 11] From presumptions, Mr. Perkins proceeds to proofes of a Witch, and here he hath a neat distinction of proofes, lesse suf­ficient, or more sufficient; by lesse sufficient he meaneth insufficient, but gives them this mild and strange phrase of lesse sufficient, that it may not displease such friends (as I conceive) allow those lesse sufficient proofes for sufficient, though he reckons them for no better then Witch-craft. Those unsufficient suffici­ent proofes are weaker, and worse then his presumptions which hee confesseth are no proofes at all; yet wee must reckon them up, his first lesse sufficient proofe is, The ancient triall by taking red hot Irons, or putting the hand in hot scalding water, this hee saith, hath been condemned for Diabolicall, and wicked, as in truth it is, for an innocent Man may thereby be condemned, and a ranke Witch scape unpunished. A second insufficient proofe is, Scratch­ing of the suspected party, and the present recovery thereupon. A third is the burning the thing bewitched, as a Hog, an Ox, or other Creature, it is imagined a forcible meanes to cause the Witch to discover her selfe. A fourth is the burning the Thatch of the suspected parties House. The fift lesse sufficient proofe is the binding of the party hand and foote, and casting crosse wayes into the water, if shee sinkes shee is counted innocent, if shee floate on the water, and sinke not, she is taken for a Witch, convicted, and punish­ed. The Germans used this triall by cold water, and it was imagi­ned that the Devill being most light, as participating more of Aire then of Water, would hold them up above the Water, either by putting himselfe under the Witch, and lifting her up, as it were with his backe, or by uniting himselfe, and possessing her whole body.

All these lesse sufficient proofes, saith Mr. Perkins, are so far from being sufficient, that some of them, if not all are after a sort practises of witch-craft, having no power by Gods Ordinance. Here­by hee condemnes point blanke King James's judgement as sa­vouring of Witch-craft in allowing of the triall of a Witch by swimming as a principall proofe. And, as I take it, he condemnes himselfe also, except he can finde any ordinance of God, that the having of an incurable, and insensible marke, or sore, shall be a presumption, or certaine signe of a Witch.

A sixt lesse sufficient proofe is the Testimony of a Wisard, [Page 12] Witch, or cunning Man, who is gone or sent unto, and informes that he can shew in a Glasse 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 Devill appeare to a Grand Jury, in the likenesse 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 condemne the party? He answers, Surely No; and yet that is as much as the Testimony of an other Witch, who only by the helpe of the Devill revealeth the Witch: if this should be taken for a sufficient proofe, the Devill would not leave one good Man alive in the World.

This discrediting of the Testimony of a Witch takes away the other (for hee hath but two) of King James maine proofs, for the discovery of a Witch, for hee saith, Who but Witches can be provers, and so witnesses of the doings of Witches? and to the same purpose Mr. Perkins himselfe confesseth, that the Precepts of Witch-craft are not delivered, but to the Devills own subjects, the wicked.

A seventh lesse sufficient proofe is, when a Man in open Court affirmes, such a one fell out with mee, and cursed me, threatning I should smart for it in my person or goods, upon these threats such Evills and Losses presently befell mee; This is no sure ground for conviction, saith Mr. Perkins, for it pleaseth God many times to lay his Hands upon Mens persons and goods, without the procurement of Witches; and yet saith Mr. Perkins, Experience shewes that ig­norant people will make strong proofes of such presumptions, where­upon sometimes Jurors doe give their Verdict against parties in­nocent.

The last lesse sufficient proofe is, if a Man being sicke, upon suspition, 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 suspition of one Man for himselfe, and is of no more force then an other Mans word against him.

All these proofes, saith Mr. Perkins, which Men in place have ordinarily used, be either false, or insufficient signes.

At the last Mr. Perkins comes to his more sufficient proofes, which in all are but two. The confession of the Witch, or the proofe of two witnesses. Against the Confession of a Witch [Page 13] Mr. Perkins confesseth, Cap. 7. Sect. 2. it is objected that one may confesse against himselfe an untruth being urged by force, or threatning, or by desire upon some griefe to be out of the World or at least being in trouble, and perswaded it is the best course to save their lives, and obtaine their liberty, they may upon simplicity be induced to confesse 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 taken upon pregnant presumptions. But if a bare Confession be not a sufficient proofe, a pregnant presumption can never make it such; or if it could, then it would not be a sufficient proofe. For the farther weakning of the Confession of a suspected Witch, wee may remember what Mr. Perkins hath formerly answered, when it was alleaged that upon a melancholy humor many confesse of themselves things false, Cap 7. Sect. 13 and impossible; that they are carried through the Aire in a moment, that they passe through Keyholes, and cleffs of Doores, that they be sometimes turn'd into Cats, Hares, and other Creatures, and such like, all which are meer Fables and things impossible. Here Master Perkins answers, that when Witches begin to make a league, they are sober and sound in understanding, but after they be once in the league, their reason, and understanding may be depraved, memory weakned and all the powers of their soule blemished, they are delu­ded and so intoxicated that they will run into a thousand of fan­tasticall imaginations, holding themselves to be transformed into the shapes of other Creatures, to be transported in the Aire, to do many strange things, which in truth they do not.

Now Mr. Perkins will confesse that the Examination, and Confession of a suspected Witch is alwayes after such time as her Covenant is made; when shee is by his Confession deluded, and not fit to give testimony against her selfe.

His second more sufficient proofe (hee saith, if the party will not confesse, as commonly it falleth out) is two witnesses avouching up­on their own knowledge, either that the party accused hath made league with the Devill, or hath done some known practises of Witch craft, or hath invocated the Devill, or desired his helpe. But if every Man that hath invocated the Devill, or desired his helpe must have formerly made a league with him, then whole Nations [Page 14] are every Man of them VVitches, which I thinke none will say.

As for the League, and Proofe of VVitch-craft, Mr. Perkins confesseth, Some may say, if these be the only strong proofes 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 Practises of Witch-craft 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 practise be secret, and be to many unknown, yet there is a way to come to the knowledge thereof—Satan endeavoreth the discovery, and useth all meanes to disclose Witches. This meanes he speakes of should be in the power of the Judge, or else it is no helpe for the Discovery of a Witch, but onely when the Devill pleaseth. I do not finde hee proves that it is usuall with Satan to endeavour any such Discovery; neither doe I see how it is practicable by the Devill, for either hee must doe it by his own relation, or report, which as it cannot be proved he ever did, so it is vaine, and to no purpose if hee doe it, for Mr. Perkins hath discredited the testimony of the Devill as invalid, and of no force for conviction, or else the Devill must discover it by some se­cond meanes; and if there had beene any such second meanes usuall, Mr. Perkins would have taught us what they are, and not have left us onely to his two more sufficient proofes, which hee confesseth are not infallible.

Lib. 2. Cap. 2.King James tells us, that the Devills first discovering of himself for the gaining of a Witch, is either upon their walking solitarily in the Fields, or else lying pausing in their Bed, but alwayes 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 Devill and his subjects are thus close, and secret in their Actions, it cannot be imagined that hee will use all meanes to discover his most speciall and trustiest subjects, and though Mr. Perkins tells us, Cap. 7. Sect. 2. that by vertue of the precontract, the Devill 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 certaine of their continuance, because some by the Mercy of God have bin reclaimed, and freed from his Covenant. Besides hee con­fesseth, [Page 15] the Devill suffereth some to live long undisclosed, that they may Exercise the greater measure of his Malice in the World. It remaines that if the two true Proofes of Mr. Perkins, which are the Witches Confession, or sufficient witnesses faile, we have not warrant, as hee 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 carefull what they do, and not condemne any party suspect­ed upon bare presumptions, without sound and sufficient proofes, that they be not guilty through their own rashnes of shedding innocent Bloud.

Of the Hebrew Witch.

IN Deut. 18. The Witch is named with divers other sorts of such as used the like unlawfull Arts, as the Diviner, the Ob­server of times, an Inchanter, a Charmer, a Consulter with a familiar Spirit, a Wisard, or a Necromancer. The Text ad­deth, all that doe 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 wee desire to know what those abominations of the Nations were, wee are told in gene­rall in the 14. Verse of the same Chapter. These Nations hark­ned 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 unlawfull Arts, but of lying Prophecies; and therefore the Text addeth, the Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midest of thee of thy Brethren, like unto me, unto him shall ye harken, and not to the Diviners, Wisards, Char­mers, &c.

Setting aside the case of Job (wherein God gave a speciall and extraordinary Commission) I doe not finde in Scripture that the Devill, or Witch, or any other had power ordinari­ly permitted them, either to kill or hurt any Man, or to medle with the Goods of any: for though for the triall of the hearts of men, God doth permit the Devill ordinarily to tempt them; yet hee hath no Commission to destroy the Lives or Goods of Men, it is little lesse then blasphemy to say any such thing of [Page 16] the admirable Providence of God, whereby he preserves all his Creatures.

It was crime sufficient for all those practicers of unlawfull Arts to delude the people, with false and lying Prophecies, thereby to make them forget to depend upon God, and to have their Soules turne after such as have Familiar Spirits, and after Wisards, to go a whoring after them, as the Lord saith, Levit. 20. 6. This spirituall whoredome is flat Idolatry in the common phrase of the Old Testament; and those that be entisers to it, thereby endeavour to destroy the Soules of the People, and are by ma­ny degrees more worthy of death, then 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 skilfull in those forbidden Arts, or in foretelling of things to come, or that they have contracted with the Devill, and can thereby Murder 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 favourer of these forbidden Arts, through want of understanding 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 downe, 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 understanding of them.

A Diviner in Hebrew, Ainsworth upon Deut. 18. a Foreseer, or Presager, a Foreteller of things to come, as doth a Prophet—the Hebrews take a Diviner to be one that doth things whereby hee may foretell things to come, and say, such a thing shall be, or not be, or say, It is good to doe Such a thing—the meanes of Divi­ning; some doing it with Sand, some with Stones, some by lying downe on the Ground, some with Iron, some with a Staffe—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 observer of the flying of Foules, an Augur. As the Diviners were carried much by inward, and [Page 17] Spirituall Motions, so these by outward Observations 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 signes of good or evill luck, which are learned by Experi­ence: the Hebrew is to finde out by Experience; Whereupon the word here used is one that too curiously observeth, and abuseth things that doe fall out as lucky, or unlucky. The Hebrews describe it thus, as if one should say, because the mor­sell of Bread is fallen out of my mouth, or my Staffe 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 do bewitch the senses, or minds of Men, by changing the formes 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 Witches 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 Conjurations, the Hebrew signifies conjoyning or consociating—the Charmer is said to be hee, that speaketh words of a strange Language, and with­out sense; that if one say, so or so unto a Serpent, it cannot hurt him; hee 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 sleepe.

6. A Wisard, or cunning Man in Hebrew named of his knowledge, or cunning—the Hebrews describe him thus, that he put in his mouth a bone of a Bird, and burned incense, and did other things untill hee fell downe with shame, and spake with his mouth things that were to come to passe.

7. A Necromancer, one that seeketh unto the Dead: of him they say, he made himselfe hungry, and went and lodged among the Graves, that the dead might come unto him in a Dreame, and make known unto him that which he asked of [Page 18] him, and others there were that clad themselves with Cloaths for that purpose, and spake certaine words, and burned In­cense, and slept by themselves, that such a dead person might come and talke with them in a Dream.

8. Lastly, The Consulter with Familiar Spirits, in Hebrew a Consulter with Ob, applied here to Magitians, who possessed with an evill Spirit, spake with a hollow voyce, as out of a Bottle.—The Hebrews explaine it thus, that he which had a Familiar spirit stood and burned Incense, and held a rod of Mirtle-tree in his hand, and waved it, and spake certaine words in secret, untill he that enquired did heare one speak unto him, and answer him touching that hee enquired with words from under the Earth, with a very low voyce, &c. Likewise one tooke a dead Mans Skull, and burnt Incense thereto, and inchanted thereby till hee heard a very low voyce, &c. This Text in our English translation being expounded a Familiar Spirit, and seconded by the History of the Woman of Endor, may seeme a strong evidence that the Devill covenanted with Witches; But if all be granted that can be desired, that this Familiar Spirit signifies a Devill, yet it comes not home to prove the maine point, for it is no proofe 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, Kings James confesseth, the Devill can make some to be possessed, and so become very Demoniaques, and that she who had the spirit of Python in Acts 16. Whereby she conquested such gaine to her Master that spirit was not of her own raising, or commanding as she pleased to appoint but spake by her Tongue as well privately as publiquely. Wee do not finde the Pythonesse condemned or re­proved, but the uncleane Spirit commanded in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. The Child which was too young to make a Covenant with the Devill was possessed with a dumb and deafe Spirit, and the Devill charged to come out, and enter no more into him Marke 9. A Daughter of Abraham (that is, of the Faith of Abraham) was troubled with a spirit of infirmity 18 years, and bowed together, that shee could not lift her selfe up. Luke 13. 10. 16.

It is observable that in Deut. 18. where all the unlawfull Arts [Page 19] are reckoned up, and most fully prohibited, 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 Familiar Spirits, and so in Levit. 20. 6. The Soule that turneth after such as have Familiar Spirits, so that it was not the having, but the consulting was condemned.

If we draw neerer to the words of the Text, it will be found that these words a Consulter with a Familiar Spirit are no other then a Consulter with Ob. Where the question will be what Ob signifieth. Expositors agree that originally Ob signifieth a Bottle, and they say is applied here to one possessed with an evill Spirit, and speaketh with a hollow voyce as out of a Bot­tle; but for this I finde no proofe, they bring out of Scripture that saith, or expoundeth that Ob signifieth one possessed with a Familiar Spirit in the Belly; the onely proofe is that the Greeke 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 seeme to speake with his Belly, which that it can be done without the helpe of a Familiar Spirit, experience of this Age sheweth in an Irish-man; We do not find it said that the Woman of Endo did foretell any thing to Saul, by the hollow voyce of a Familiar Spirit in her Belly; neither did Saul require, nor the Woman promise so to answer him, but hee required, bring me him up who I shall name unto thee, and she undertooke 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 beene said, shee raised the Devill in Samuels like­nesse, yet there is no such thing said in the Text: when the Wo­man went about her worke, the first thing noted is, that when she saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voyce: an Argument shee was frighted with seeing something shee did not expect to see; it is not said that when shee knew Saul, but when shee saw Sa­muel, She cryed out with a loud voyce: when shee knew Saul shee had no reason to be afraid, but rather comforted, for that shee had his Oath for her security.

[Page 20] It may well be that if either shee had a Familiar Spirit, or the Art of hollow-speaking, her intention was to deceive Saul and by her secret voyce to have made him believe that Samuel in another roome had answered him; for it appeares that Saul was not in the place where she made a shew of raising Samuel, for when shee cried out with a loud voyce, Saul comforted her, and bid her not be afraid, and asked her what she saw? and what forme is he of? which questions need not have beene if Saul had beene in the Chamber with the Witch. King James confesseth that Saul was in another chalmer at the conjuration, and it is like­ly the Woman had told Saul shee had seene some fearfull sight, which made him aske her what she saw? and her answer was, She saw Gods ascending out of the Earth, and it may be understood that Angels waited upon Samuel, who was raised by God, and not any Puppets, or Divells that shee 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 forme is he of? which is in the sin­gular, not in the plurall number.

Wee finde it said in Esay 29. 4. thou shalt be brought downe, and shalt speake out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voyce 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 voyce of Ob was out of the Earth, rather then out of the Belly, and so the Hebrew Exposition which I cited be­fore affirmes; some learned have beene of Opinion that a na­turall reason may be given why in some places certaine exhala­tions out of the earth may give to some a propheticall spirit. Adde hereunto that some of the Heathen Oracles were said to speake out of the Earth: and among those five sorts of Necro­mancy, 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 Ronanists who are all great affirmers of the power of Witches agree, that the soule of Samuel was sent by God to the Woman of Endor: to this not onely Delrio, but Bellarmin before him agrees. That true Samuel did appear as sent by God, as hee sent Elias to Ochosias King of Israel. who [Page 21] being sick sent to consult with Belzebub the God of Echron, may appeare, for that Samuel is so true, and certaine in his predicti­on to Saul, which no Witch, no Devill could ever have told; for though the Wisdome, and Experience of the Devill doe enable him to conjecture probably of many events, yet posi­tively to say, to morrow thou and thy Sonnes shall die, is more then naturally the Devill could know.

Mr. Perkins confesseth the Devill could not foretell the exact time of Sauls death; and therefore hee answers that God re­vealed to the Devill as his instrument Sauls overthrow, by which meanes, and no other the Devill was inabled to foretell the death of Saul. Here Mr. Perkins proves not, that Satan was appointed by God to worke Sauls overthrow, 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 Devill; or why should the Devil tell truths in all other things else, and lie on­ly in this, I know no reason. Doctor Reynolds presseth these words against the appearing of Samuel thus, If Samuel I had said to them he had lied, but Samuel could not lie, for Samuel could not be disquieted, 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 truely say that Saul had disquieted him, for blessed are they that die 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) then Moses aad Elias were when they appeared to shew the Glory of Christ. Mat. 17. Answer, it did not displease Samuel to be im­ployed in the Office of an Angell, but hee obeyed God gladly; yet since the occasion of his appearing displeased God, it might for that cause displease also Samuel. Besides wee neede not un­derstand the disquieting of Samuels mind, but of his body by not suffering it to rest in peace after death, according to the common, and usuall condition of Mankinde, this sense the Originall will well beare. Againe, it cannot be believed that the Devill would ever have preached so Divine and excellent a Ser­mon to Saul, which was able to have converted, and brought [Page 22] him to Repentance, this was not the way for the Devill to bring either Saul, or the Woman to renounce God. Lastly, the Text doth not say that the Woman raised Samuel, yet it calls him Samuel, and saith that Saul perceived, or understood that it was Samuel.

Mr. Perkins and many others esteeme Balam to have beene a Witch, or Conjurer, but I finde no such thing in the Text; when hee 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 goe beyond the Word of the Lord my God to do lesse or more, in v. the 20. God commeth 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 hee 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 speake: and in the 23 Chap. v. 18. Balaam saith, how shall I curse whom God hath not cursed? and in v. 12. hee saith, must I not take heed to speake that which the Lord hath put into my Mouth? These places laid together prove Balaam to have beene a true Prophet of the Lord, and hee prophesied no­thing contrary to the Lords command, therefore St. Peter calls him a Prophet.

Neverthelesse it is true that Balaam finned notoriously, though not by being a Witch or Conjurer, or a false Prophet, his faults were, that when God had told him hee should not go to Balak, yet in his covetous heart hee desired to go, being tempted with the rewards of Divination, and promise of pro­motion; so that upon a second Message from Balak hee stayed the Messengers to see if God would suffer him to go, where­fore the Lord in his anger sent Balam. Also when God had told Balam that hee would blesse Israel, yet Balam did strive to tempt God, and by severall Altars and Sacrifices to change the mind of God. Againe when Balam saw God immutable in blessing Israel, hee taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the Sonnes of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to Idolls, and to commit [Page 23] Fornication. Rev. 2. 4. Whereas it is said that Balaam went not up as other times to seek for Enchantments, Num. 24 2. the Originall is to meete Divinations, that is, he did not go seek the Lord by Sa­crifices, as he did, Numb. 23. 3. 15.

An exact difference betweene all those Arts prohibited in Deut. no Man I thinke can give, that in some they did agree, and in others differed, seemes probable. That they were all ly­ing and false Prophets, though in severall wayes, I thinke none can deny; That they differed in their degrees of punishments 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 beene some doubt made of it. The Hebrew Doctors that were skild in the Lawes of Moses, observe that wheresoever one was to die by their Law, the Law alwayes did run in an affirmative precept; as, the the Man shall be stoned, shall die, shall be put to death, or the like; but in this Text, and no where else in Scripture the sentence is onely 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 beene of Opinion that not to suffer a Witch to live, was meant not to re­lieve or maintaine her by running after her, and rewarding her. The Hebrews seeme to have two sorts of Witches, some that did hurt, others that did hold the Eyes, that is, by jugling and sleights 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 Septuagent have translated a Witch, an Apothecary, a Druggister, one that compounds poysons, and so the Latin word for a Witch is venefica, a maker of poysons: if any such there ever were, or be that by the helpe of t [...]e Devill do poyson, such a one is to be put to death, though there be no Covenant with the Devill, because shee is an Actor, and principall her selfe, not by any wonder wrought by the Devill, but by the naturall, 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 faine know of the chiefe Patrons of them, whether [Page 24] those persons possessed with the Devill, and troubled with strange Diseases, whom Christ healed, were not bewitched 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 onely, whether those that were possessed in our Saviours Time were bewitched. The Opposers of Mr. Perkins, say they, were not bewitched, but if hee or any other say they were, the Proofe will rest wholy on him, or them to make good their Af­firmative; it cannot in reason be expected that his Adversaries should prove the Negative, it is against the Rules of Disputation to require it.