THE OPINION OF WITCHCRAFT Vindicated. In an Answer to a Book Entitled the Question of WITCHCRAFT Debated. Being a Letter to a Friend. By R. T. Licenced November 20. 1669. Roger L' Estrange. LONDON, Printed by E. O. for Francis Haley, and are to be sold at his Shop at the corner of Chancery-lane in Holborn, 1670. THE Opinion of Witchcraft VINDICATED. SIR, I Received yours, and with it that little treatise of Witchcraft, which you were pleased to send me: which when I had opened, I found the Author in his Preface, laying about him like a Hercules furens, or an Ajax mastigophorus, and charging his opposers with no less than Paganism, acknowledging a plurality of Gods, and ascribing omnipotency to the Devil. This he doubts not but he shall make good with the same ease as he asserts it, and promises himself and his Reader, to force a surrender at the first assault. But his batteries are not of force enough to effect it, his strongest arguments being little better than an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and his whole Book standing upon no firmer ground than his own Supposals. The vast confidence which he seems to have in the strength of his Arguments, had made me arm myself with a more than ordinary care and circumspection for the sharp encounter I was like to receive from this great Goliath, but I have since found that I may lay aside those heavy Arms, and that a stone and a sling will serve the turn. At the entrance of his Book he lays before you the necessity, in which the Eastern Empire stood, of Juggling tricks and Impostures, to uphold its greatness; and that the heathen Priests were by continual practice arrived to that perfection in cheating, that they stood not in need of the Devil's assistance: from hence he would infer that the answers given at Oracles, were no other than cheats put upon the people, and the Priests inventions. But 'tis very improbable that the Devil, who had the liberty of possessing so many Bodies (as we find he had by several undeniable instances of the New-Testament) should be debarred that of a wicked Idolatrous Priest, or the shrines of the heathen Gods, or, that if he had that freedom, he would not make use of it, for the establishing of his own Kingdom. After this he tells you of the great variety of Impostures used by them, all which he reduces to four heads, viz. Juggling, Enchanting, Conjecturing, and Divining. Of these he gives you definitions, ad arbitrium, and you must take them on his word, as if that were as uncontrollable as the Laws of the Medes and Persians, he says that a Familiar was no Devil, but a confederated person, privy to the plot, and assistant to the performance. I do not deny but some cheats of this Nature have been, and yet are in the World, but he that from hence concludes that all are so, is but a bad Logician. For my part, I cannot be convinced by such an Argument, when I find (as I shall endeavour to prove) both the testimonies of Scripture and History against it. Nor indeed, is there any probability, that the Heathen Priests could so readily give answers to all questions (put to them or the sudden, and ex improvise) as to keep up the credit of their Oracles to that height they were at for many Ages together: neither may we easily suppose that this miraculous Art of cheating could be conveyed from one Priest to another, and not one of so many thousands discover the deceit to the World; and that of so great a number, all should be so ready witted, as to give their answers at a venture, and yet with so much cunning, as that whatever happened, the Oracles should not be taxed with falsehood, which I believe our Author, if he were put to it, would find something harder to perform than he seems to think it. Yet all this he easily believes they did, and by such tricks magnified their Idols, and seduced the common people, for which cause they were so great an abomination before God, as that in the Law given by Moses, he so strictly gave in charge to the Israelites, the rooting them out from among them. To this purpose he quotes the eighteenth Chapter of Deuteronomy, the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth verses. And this he thinks to be as considerable a place as any can be brought from the whole Bible for the proof of Witches. Here therefore he takes occasion to fall foul with our Translatours of the Bible, for that, says he, they have falsely Translated the tenth and eleventh verses, making them more significant to that purpose than they are in the Original. Wherefore I think it will not be much amiss to compare the Author's Translation of those two Verses and ours with the Hebrew so far as they differ one from the other: ours runs thus. There shall not be found among you any that maketh his Son, or his Daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth Divinations, or an observer of times, or an Enchanter, or a Witch. Or a Charmer, or a Consulter with familiar Spirits, or Wizards, or a Necromancer. Now the main difference (for I pass by those of less concernment) is that instead of a Witch, in the tenth verse this Author has put the word miracle-monger; and for a Consulter with familiar Spirits, a seeker of an Oracle. Now in these places he seems much to blame, for having so peremptorily charged the learned Translatours of the Bible with a false interpretation, making himself the only Judge in the sense of the original, and refusing any translation that suits not with his fancy, merely for that reason. Now the original being rightly considered, we shall find but little difference between it and our translation, as in that of a Witch, the Hebrew word is 〈◊〉, coming from the word 〈◊〉, which word, if we may believe the best Hebricians, signifies Witchcraft, or fascination: for so Buxtorfe, and Xantes Pagninus understand it, expounding it by these words, fascinum, maleficium, and Praestigium: and so Pagninus in his translation of the Bible, in which he endeavoured to come as near the sense of the original, as was possible for him, has in this very place expounded the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Maleficus, which is the same with our word Witch; junius and Tremellius render it, Praestigiator, which has the same signification with the other, though our Author takes it for no more than a mere Juggler, or to use his word, a miracle-monger. But the word has more in it than so, for though it be true, that every Praestigiator is a miracle-monger, a Juggler, or a Cozener, yet as we find it always used in Authors, it implies a doing of those deceits by Witchcraft. As for what he says of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint, that it signifies an Impostor, I cannot at all conceive why he should so positively assert it, or at least why I should believe it, except he could prove from good Authors, that the genuine signification of the word is so; for I do not at all find it any otherwise than our word Witch has that signification, for it is certain that Witches are the greatest Impostors of the World: and he were extremely irrational, that would believe that the Devil does really those things which many times he seems to do, and that it is in his power to transform the bodies of men and women into those of Dogs, or Cats, or any other Creatures. Yet as we cannot deny but the Devil, having a greater insight into natural Philosophy than ever yet any man has attained to, may perform those things by natural means, which will yet be beyond the reach of those who are in the highest rank among us, and have gone farthest in the ways of nature, so we may easily believe, that he is more cunning in his tricks, whereby he deceives the senses, and that many times he seems to change the outward forms of bodies, when he only deceives the sight by the interposition of colours, and condensation of air, between the eyes of the beholders and the object, or many other ways which to us are altogether unknown: But for us to deny that the Devil can do such things, only because we cannot tell how they are done, or to say that he must be omnipotent, to deceive our weak senses, is so far from a rational argument, that nothing but the want of reason can produce such ridiculous fancies. But to proceed, the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says he, in this place signifies an Impostor, not a poisoner, for it is ridiculous to think that King Manasseth, and Queen jezabel, exercised the Art of poisoning. Now I find it not at all necessary to say that they used the Art of poisoning, though we deny that they were mere Jugglers: yet I see nothing so ridiculous in that assertion as he does; for it may with reason enough be supposed, that Witches do, by their confederated Devils, infuse poisonous and noxious humours into those bodies which they desire to hurt: and 'tis likely that Manasseth and jezabel, being practitioners in that Art, were not wanting in any thing that belonged to their profession. Now where he says that these miracle-mongers (as he calls them) were so severely prohibited in the Law of Moses, because they acted strange things in the sight of the people, to confirm them in a false Religion, I can easily grant him that this was one cause, but that it was the only cause I cannot readily believe, since the Art was in itself wicked, and most detestable; and by consequence so displeasing to God, that he would not suffer it among his people: and besides, I do not think that it was the design of all those that professed this Art, to establish a false Religion, but rather that they did it for gain, by foretelling things to come, as 'tis likely the Witch of Endor did. As for what he objects of their being coupled together with soothsayers, many times in those places of Scripture, where mention is made of Idolatry, it is not at all strange, for where should we so reasonable expect to find those wicked Artists, as with an Idolatrous and ungodly people. And we may easily think, that the Devil when he finds a people inclined to Idolatry will not be wanting to the farther deceiving of them, so far as his false miracles and lying wonders can conduce to it: But to conclude from hence, he seems to do, that they were prohibited merely for upholding it, I see no colour of reason. But here I find my Author endeavouring to persuade the World that Pharaoh's Magicians were nothing else but Jugglers, and brought Serpents in their sleeves or pockets to make a fool of Pharaoh, by conveying them into the place of their sticks by some sly trick of Legerdemain. But I find much difficulty in this cheat; for first, I cannot possibly believe, that Moses and Aaron told the Magcians before hand what it was they intended to do, and if not, how it came to pass that they were provided of necessaries for such a cheat; and were so ready at Pharaoh's call, without so much as desiring time to catch the Serpents, and to pull out their stings, for fear of the worst (for otherwise it had been a kind of jesting with edged tools.) But to be so quick at it, was I believe an Art beyond the reach of modern Jugglers, But suppose they were furnished with all things requisite, I cannot see how that could serve their turns, for we read in the Text, they did as Aaron had done, for they cast down every man his Rod, and it became a Serpent; and in the Hebrew it is the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et projacerunt unusquisque, virgam suam, and the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By these I think it plainly appears that the Magicians cast down Rods, which afterwards became, or at least seemed to be turned into Serpents. Now I believe, our Author will have enough to do, to show by what means those miracle-mongers could make their Rods seem to the eyes of Pharaoh, and the other Spectators, after they had thrown them down, to be changed into Serpents, and to think that when they had once cast them out of their hands, they could recover them again, and lay Serpents in their places (except they could have shown Pharaoh and his attendants, some pretty thing upon the Wall, to employ their eyes in the mean time) is a whimsy beyond the reach of imagination. And though we suppose, that Pharaoh and his Nobles were such fools, yet Moses and Aaron were wise men, and one would think, being concerned themselves, might have so carefully observed them as to discover it. But if we could possibly conceive, that notwithstanding all those difficulties, it might be a mere Juggle, the Gordian knot is yet behind, which I will present to our Author to untie (if he can) which is that he would be pleased to tell me by what kind of Legerdemain these men could turn the waters of the Rivers into blood, or if by any pretty slight of hand they could make the Frogs come up from the Waters upon the Land of Egypt: and if they could, why they were to seek at the bringing of Lice, for to humane reason this seems as easy as either of the other two. Here methinks I find mine Author at a stand; and because he has not his answer ready, I would advise him in the mean time to say; that certainly that these Magicians dealt with the Devil, by whose assistance they went thus far in opposition to Moses and Aaron, but that here God (without whose permission the Devil can do nothing) thought good to set his bounds that he might go no farther. And this, 'tis probable, made them say that the finger of God was in it, because they found that power by which they acted, restrained by a greater: for if they had done these things by slight of hand, they would only have thought that Moses and Aaron were more cunning Jugglers than themselves, without acknowledging that it was the finger of God that did it. But I find him yet very unwilling to yield, because, says he, whosoever believes that the Devil could turn these staves into Serpents, ascribes to him an omnipotent creating power: But if this be all he sticks at, I shall quickly remove that obstacle, by showing upon how little reason it is founded; for first let him consider the vast difference which is between creating all things of nothing, and changing one thing into another: for by creating we understand the giving of the first being, and making not only the thing, but the matter also, of which it is composed. Now I see nothing of this ascribed to the Devil by that opinion. Secondly, let him observe that many times such changes are seen in nature, Serpents being bred of the corruption of other bodies, even of rotten Trees and sticks: and the Devil having had time enough to search into the ways of Nature, might probably follow the same steps which she treads in changes of this kind, though he might go faster, and be sooner at his journey's end: and seeing no man has yet attained to that perfection in Natural Philosophy, as to know the thousandth part of what may be done by natural means, it is but vanity in any one to measure the time which is requisite, for such a production being wrought by Supernatural Agents, especially seeing no man knows the means by which it is done (for would not that man make himself extremely ridiculous, that should with an ignorant confidence affirm that 'tis impossible to take the Copy of a Book by any means sooner than by writing, because he never knew the Art of Printing?) Now if he grants that the seed of a Serpent is in a stick, and that the Devil of this seed may produce a Serpent (as he seems to do) and that sooner than they are formed by Nature, for he confesses that Devils may strangely promote the generation of several Creatures, if I say this be granted, I may as well say that he can do it in a minute. For if by his great skill he can find out ways of accelerating generation, why may not he improve those ways, by the greatness of his skill so far as to do that in an hour, which nature does in a year: for to say, that in regard the Devils do these things by application of matter to matter, they cannot produce a Creature of its seed without such a space of time as to us seems convenient, is to measure the Devil's knowledge by our own, and to fathom the depth of Nature by the short line of our understandings. But I see no necessity of believing that the Devil changed those Rods into Serpents, neither do I believe it, but rather think that it was a mere illusion and deceit of the Devils, who might either deceive the lookers on with an appearance of what was not really there, or by placing true Serpents instead of the staves. And now I would not have this Author take me up, and say that if I once recede from the letter of the Text, he may as well say 'tis a Juggle of the Magicians, for I have already said that it is not at all conceivable, that it was possible for the Magicians to do it by mere humane Art, in regard that when they threw them down, they were yet staves; but though we deny that it could be done by them, we may yet believe that the Devil has both agility, and subtlety enough to effect it. But if he will, after all this, believe that the Magicians might, by slight of hand, convey away the staves, and lay Serpents in their places, certainly he cannot think that they turned the waters into blood, and brought up Frogs by slight; for I cannot see how they could carry Frogs enough about them to strew the Land with, neither do I believe the Author himself can guests how it might be done, because he silently passed by this place of Scripture. As for the interpretation which he has given to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by their tricks, (thinking from thence to infer that they were no other that the tricks of the Magicians, though such an inference is of small force, it properly signifies by their Enchantments; and so junius and Tremellius, Arias Montanus, and Pagninus expound it, all three in the same words, Incantationibus suis, and in this his exposition of it he differs from most, if not all Translatours. I am of the same opinion with him where he says the Scripture speaks oftentimes according to the deceived apprehensions of men, and I cannot deny but it may be so in this expression of the slaves being turned into Serpents; but that it is so, as he affirms, in that of samuel's being raised when Saul came to consult the Witch of Endor, I cannot say, for the Scripture says not that the Witch raised Samuel, and that he was sent by God, is not so very improbable as he would make it: for though God to show his displeasure against Saul, had refused to answer when he enquired of him, there is no reason from thence to conclude that he did not at this time send Samuel to him, seeing God might do it for many reasons unknown to us: And 'tis probable that if he had at first answered Saul (though he had received the same answer as he did now from the mouth of Samuel) he had not been stricken with so great a sense of his sin, and of God's anger against him, as by being first reduced to the extremity of not knowing what to do, or whither to go for counsel, because God had refused to answer him. And to say that 'tis unlikely that God would answer him when he sought in a forbidden way, is vain, for we see that he did the same, in sending Elijah to meet the Messengers of Ahaziah, when they were going to inquire of Beelzebub, in the first Chapter of the second book of the Kings. But we must not look for a reason of all God's actions; we find that many times his great wisdom sees good to do those things which to us seem very strange, and unaccountable. Besides 'tis no small motive to persuade us that it was Samuel, that the Witch cried out, as at some unexpected accident, being, it may be, frightened at the sight of one whom she so little expected: and this, 'tis probable, made her say that she had seen a God coming up from the Earth, meaning a blessed Spirit. As for his Argument drawn from samuel's words, Why hast thou disquieted me? That he was not sent by God, seeing that could have been no trouble to him, it is of no force at all, for those words were spoken to Saul's capacity, and as being words of course, importing no more than if he had said, why hast thou not suffered my Body to rest? that is, lie still in the grave: and the Hebrew word in this place implies no more than, why hast thou moved me to come up: So this phrase of dead bodies, resting, and being disturbed, is usual with us, though we know that they are not at all sensible of repose, or disquiet. But if it were not Samuel, 'tis very irrational to believe that it was either the Witch, or any confederated person, for two reasons; first, because it is said in the Scripture, that Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed himself; for it is not imaginable that any man could so change his face, as that Saul, (who questionless was well enough acquainted with samuel's countenance) could be deceived by it: and to think that Saul saw him not is as ridiculous, for then why did he bow himself? Secondly, because he foretold Saul's Death; for if, as this Author supposes, it had been said by the Woman at a venture, the more cunning way had been to have told him that he should live, for than if he had died, who could have accused her of falsehood? If he had lived she had told the truth: But to tell him positively that he should die, and not only himself, but his Sons too, and this with a limitation of time, to morrow, was something too much to be spoken at a venture. The second difference between our Translation and the Authors is, where he puts a seeker of an Oracle, for a Consulter with familiar Spirits. Here he tells you that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in Scripture sometimes for the gift of Oracling, sometimes for the person that has such a gift: this is as much, and no more, than if he had told you that he is pleased to understand it so; I confess as an Oracler may be understood, that is, for one that takes and gives answers from the Devil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may have that signification; for ob properly signifies a Daemon, or an evil Spirit, and so the best Hebricians expound it: now this being the true sense of the word ob, I see no reason for blaming our Translatours, who have not at all erred from the Original in this place. But he understands an Oracler otherwise, to wit, for one that gave answers at a venture, and only followed the dictates of his own fancy, counterfeiting strange voices, thereby to deceive the people, etc. And so he interprets the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but how they came by that signification I cannot tell, for I find it no where but in his Book. And from the Scripture I think the contrary may be gathered, viz. That ob and Python, are taken for an evil Spirit that possessed the person Divining, and not for the person himself; we read in Leviticus, the twentieth Chapter, and the twenty seventh verse, and a Man or a Woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there is in them a Python; which words [in them] seem to imply something of this Nature, and that the ob was some distinct being from the person in whom it was, for he could not be in himself. And we find in some old Translations, where mention is made of Saul's turning the Witches out of Israel, 'tis said, Et qui Pythones habebant in ventre. But whosoever reads the sixteenth Chapter of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, will be fully confirmed that this is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except he himself be possessed with a spirit of contradiction, for he there shall find that as St. Paul was walking he met a Maid, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a Spirit of Divination (as our Translation renders it) and in the eighteenth verse, Paul turning himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he said to the Spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her, and it came out that same hour. This methinks shows plainly to any body but our Author, that this kind of Divining was done by the help of the Devil. But it may be he will say (for I know no other way that he can answer it) that she did but deceive the people by counterfeiting strange voices, and speaking in a bottle, or some such Juggle, and that where St. Paul bid the Spirit come out of her, it is to be understood, that he bid her Juggling tricks come out of her. But to those that rightly consider this place, it will plainly appear that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was no other than a Devil; and this being true, I see no reason to deny that the Witch of Endor was possessed with the same Spirit; or that the Python's of Manasses were Familiar Spirits. Thus I have almost done with his first Chapter. But I cannot pass by one argument which he uses, without taking notice of it; for I cannot tell, says he, how Witches come in here, no, not how Devils neither, except you believe that the Devils made answer at Heathen Oracles, which if you do, I must crave leave to descent: truly no man can deny him this leave, and he may descent when he pleases, but I do not conceive myself obliged to follow his example; for if they were, as he supposes, only Juggling tricks of the Priests, I cannot imagine how it came to pass that they ceased so suddenly after our Saviour's time: beginning sensibly to fall away at the time of his Birth, and since his Death being wholly extinguished. For the first, we find something considerable in Suidas, who writes that Augustus, who lived at the time of our Saviour's Birth, as he enquired of an Oracle concerning his Successor, had this answer given him. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In English — A Boy Of Hebrew race, whom the blessed Gods obey, Bids me go hence to Hell without delay, In silence from our Altars go thy way. Hereupon Augustus at his return commanded that an Altar should be built in the Capitol, with this inscription. HAEC EST ara primogeniti Dei. Now if this story may be credited, it makes very much for the opinion of the Devils answering at the heathen Oracles, and this answer is not at all like the fancy of a Juggling Priest, it being neither for the Priest's Interest, nor the credit of the Oracle. Thus we see how soon they began to decay upon our Saviour's coming: and we find another story to this purpose, which happened at the time of his Crucifixion, in Plutarch's Morals, that part which is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why Oracles are ceased, where he says, that a certain company sailing from Greece towards Italy, were suddenly becalmed, and heard a voice calling one Thamus, who was an Egyptian, and at that time in the Ship; but he being called twice gave no answer, but at the third time he said here am I; whereupon the voice bid him, when he came at the (Shelves in the Ionian Seas which are called) Palodes, to publish that the great God Pan was dead; then the Ship going forward, he did as he was commanded; for coming to the Palodes, he published it from the poop of the Ship; after which immediately followed a great noise of many shrieking and lamenting together. This being told to Tiberius the Emperor, he enquired of the wise men of his Empire, who this great God Pan should be, but they could give him no better answer, than that he was the Son of Mercury and Penelope. But the circumstances being considered, it was thought by the wiser sort to be our blessed Saviour, this happening just at that time when he died upon the Cross; the Devils making this great lamentation, for that they were from that time to quit those Oracles by which they had so long deceived the World. But however it was, we are certain that from that time they began to decay extremely, and in a short time came to nothing; and the famous Oracle of Delphos was silent in Juvenal's time, as we may see by that expression of his, Delphi Oracula cessant: This their general silence is no small Argument that there was something more in them than our Author supposes; for if they had been no more than such deceits as he speaks of, I see no reason why they might not have been acted as well since our Saviour's time as before, for we do not find that men are debarred the liberty of cheating, or that they are less cunning now than they were then. But it is probable that God would not suffer the Devil to stand in such open opposition to his Son's Kingdom, and to carry on the interest of the Kingdom of darkness, where the Sun of Righteousness was risen, and the light of the Gospel was made manifest. Now by the Title of his second Chapter he would make you believe that he there proves, that the Opinion of Witches had its beginning from the Heathen fables, but when you come to the Chapter itself, there is no such thing; indeed he tells you a story of one Lamia, whose Children were killed by juno, and that she out of spite used to kill those of other Women, and that from thence Witches (being called Lamiaes) had their Original: thus, a man who had never seen a Swan, might dispute against their being, and say that the fancy of Swans had its first rise from Ovid's Metamorphosis, because he there speaks of one Cyenus, who was changed into the first Bird of that name. But the weakness of this Argument is so obvious, that it stands not in need of a confutation: then he tells you how far the folly of men (as he calls it) has proceeded in their belief concerning the Actions of Witches, as if, says he, they could transform Men and Women into Beasts, as if they could destroy the fruits of the Earth, and the fruit of the Womb, etc. I am of opinion that the most rational assertors of Witchcraft are as far from believing that the practisers of it can change the bodies of Men and Women into those of Beasts, as he is, though the common people that search no farther than the outward senses can discover, may believe it. But I see no reason why we should not allow the Devil a little more cunning than Pharaoh's Magicians, for he grants that they by mere humane Art could so far deceive the Spectators, as to make them believe that their Staves were turned into Serpents; and I think the Devil may go far beyond them in the Art of Juggling, as to do the same with the bodies of Men and Women: Besides, the Devil has those advantages which they had not, for being a Spirit, he can take to himself a body of what form he pleases, which he may afterwards transform to any other shape; so that when we think we see the body of a Witch transformed, it may be only the Vehicle of the Devil in her likeness. And that he can destroy the fruits of the Earth, or of the Womb, and enable or disenable in matters venerial, seems not at all hard to be believed, seeing humane Art can reach so far: as for his raising of Winds and Tempests, we need no other Argument than that example we have in the first Chapter of job, to convinee us of it: Besides, that he is called in Scripture the Prince of the Air, is something considerable to this purpose; and 'tis probable that he may as easily cause Lightnings and Thunder, as he could bring down fire in such abundance upon Iob's Servants and cattle, as to consume them: now when we find in Scripture, that Winds and Tempests have been raised by him, I think it is a sufficient warrant for us to believe that he can do it. Then he tells you that examples of this prodigious power are scattered up and down the Roman Poets, and quotes you two whole sides out of Ovid, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, and Lucan, and alas, all this stir to very little (or to speak more truly, to no) purpose; but only to show that these Poets did speak of those things, and that indeed he has very clearly demonstrated: But I will not so much as suppose that he meant from hence to conclude that nothing of this Nature is true, for than I might think that he would say, the World had no beginning, because Ovid writes of it. But says he, the ingenious Poets themselves, nor the wiser sort of Heathens, did not believe these things; and what then? I hope he will not say that we must believe no more than the wiser sort of Heathens did; for if he does (to use his own words) I must crave leave to descent. He says he could instance in many more of the Ancients (and all, I believe, to as much purpose as these.) But he will conclude with Nero the Emperor, who having studied the Art of Magic, did at last despise it as vain, and promising more than it can perform. But what is this to the purpose, for it is no Argument to say, Nero could not be a Witch, Ergo, there are no Witches; it may be the Devil thought Nero sure enough without a contract, and 'tis likely that he will not engage himself in such bargains when it is no advantage to him. Besides, the Devil will not appear to Atheists, for fear of undeceiving them, and it may be he took this course to confirm Nero in the belief that there was neither God nor Devils; and it may be that if he had made a contract with Nero, he would have required more at his hands than our Witches do, or then he was able to perform; for his ambitious mind could not have contented itself with such petty practices as theirs are; for he had already wherewithal to satisfy himself in the enjoyment of Worldly pleasures, and he stood not in need of the Devils help or any tricks of Witchcraft to wreak his fury upon those that had offended him: But the Devil usually takes advantage of poor silly wretches, overruled by malice and desire of revenge, and wanting means to execute their malicious designs, whom if he can satisfy in this particular, and in the accomplishing of their inordinate lusts and pleasures, they aim no farther. But I need not insist upon this; it is enough to say, that his not being a Witch, is no Argument against the being of Witches in general. His third Chapter is nothing but the story of the first setting up of the inquisition, and of their proceedings; where he tells you what a great number of Witches were then discovered, and supposes them to have been all innocent, having their confessions extorted from them by extremity of torment: truly I cannot say any thing to the contrary, but weak spirits may by torture be brought to confess any thing; and I verily believe that many innocent persons suffered by this cruel way of proceeding, as well as those which were guilty; but I cannot from thence conclude that none were guilty, either there or any where else, no more than I can say that because many at Amboyna were forced by torture to confess that they had conspired against the Governor, there are no Traitors in the World; so that I think I may pass by this Chapter, and come to the fourth, which by the Title seems more considerable; for that tells you that there are Arguments to prove that there is no such thing as a Witch in Scripture, as also to prove that there is no such thing as a Witch at all. Now because he has yet said nothing towards it, I suppose he has reserved his greatest strength for this Chapter; so that if I can come off here without harm, I shall think my business done; wherefore it will not be amiss to take these Arguments into consideration. The first, says he, shall be taken from the difference which is between our vulgarly reputed Witches, and those which our Translatours of the Bible call so; for who be they, but the Kings, Queens, and Princes of this World? Whereas now adays, they are poor, silly, and contemptible persons. Now let any rational person judge if there be any force in this Argument: for supposing this to be true, there will follow nothing from hence to his purpose; for his Argument rightly considered sounds thus, Our Translatours of the Bible call none but Kings, Queens, and Princes, Witch's. Our Witches now adays are poor, contemptible persons. Ergo, there is no such thing as a Witch in Scripture. This is a strange sort of Argument to be brought by a rational man, and stands rather in need of pity than an answer: yet to satisfy him I will say thus much; that he ought to consider that the Scripture mentions the Witchcrafts of Kings and Queens, as being the more considerable, and such as concerned all Israel in general; and also, that in writing their lives, these practices of theirs could not be omitted: Now it was not at all requisite that the Scripture should speak of every old Woman in Israel, that was a Witch, since it was nothing pertinent to the story: this I say might serve to answer him, supposing his assertion to be true, that the Scripture makes mention of no other Witches but Kings and Queens; but that is not apparent; for where the story required it, we find that the Scripture does take notice of meaner persons that practised this Art, as in that passage of the Witch of Endor; as also where it is said that Saul turned them all out of Israel, for we cannot suppose that he turned out so many Kings and Queens; but we may easily think that many of them were poor contemptible persons, as well as some of ours. But seeing there is nothing in this Argument to stop me, I will pass to the second, which is drawn from the Sadduces, who denied Spirits, and the Resurrection of the Dead, yet had the five Books of Moses in great esteem among them; wherefore, says he, either they did not understand Hebrew, or the notion of a Witch does not appear in Scripture. This Argument is as weak as the other, for if he means that there is no mention of Spirits in Scripture, the contrary is easily proved, what ever the Sadduces thought; and it is very manifest from many places of Scripture that there were both good and evil Spirits: in the nineteenth Chapter of Genesis, and the first verse, it is said that two Angels came to Sodom; so in the thirty second Chapter, and the first verse, jacob went on his way, and the Angels of God met him; so we read that jacob, in his dream, saw a Ladder that reached from Earth to Heaven, and the Angels of God ascending and descending on it: many other places there are where mention is made of the Angels of God: Now in the seventeenth of Leviticus, and the seventh verse, it is said, and they shall no more offer their Sacrifices unto Devils; and in the thirty second of Deuteronomy, and the seventeenth, they Sacrificed to Devils, not unto God; and other examples of this kind might be produced; yet by his Argument nothing of all this should be found in Scripture. Now if he once yields (as he must do) that the notion of a Devil appears in Scripture, for what end serves his Argument drawn from the Sadduces, but to show that they were in an error, and misunderstood the Bible: But I cannot be convinced that the Sadduces denied the being of Spirits in general, though we read that they denied the Resurrection, or that there was either Angel or Spirit, for that has reference only to the Spirits of Dead men; for if they had denied all Spirits and Angels, 'tis not likely that our Saviour would have told them, as he did, that men in the Resurrection should be as the Angels of God, for what would such a comparison have signified to those who denied that there were such things as Angels. Now if we believe that they acknowledged any Spirits, whence can we draw an Argument to prove that they denied the being of Devils. But whatever the opinion of the Sadduces was, we are not to be governed by their Judgement, in deciding whether or no the notion of a Witch appears in Scripture, but by our own; neither have we any great reason to rely upon their understanding of the Scriptures, though this Author says much for it; seeing our Saviour tells them that they erred, not knowing the Scriptures. Now for his third and last Argument, which is taken from the different practices of those whom our Translatours call Witches, and those which are vulgarly supposed to be so; for says he, our modern Witches practise an occult and secret Art, and 'tis great Art to discover them, by several strange signs and horrid tortures; but the others practised what they did openly and in the face of the World: I have this to answer, that he is extremely deceived in this point, for that the Witch of Endor practised openly, is not to be imagined, seeing she was so cautious when Saul came to her, that she durst not do any thing till he had sworn to her that she should have no harm, but asked him why he laid a snare for her Life. And since the Law was so strict against them, as it is in the twentieth of Leviticus, and the twenty seventh verse, where it is said, A Man or a Woman that hath a Familiar Spirit thou shalt not suffer to live, but shalt stone him with stones, his blood shall be upon him (I say where such a Law was in force) it is not likely that this Art was practised openly, and in the face of the World, as he says, but that they were as private as ours are, but, says he, if they were so, how impossible was it for Saul to turn them all out of Israel? 'Tis true indeed, it was impossible for him, neither did he, for the Witch of Endor was yet there; and if one remained, there might be as well a hundred, or a thousand, notwithstanding his objection of the first of Samuel, and twenty eighth Chapter, where we read that Saul had put away those that had Familiar Spirits out of the Land, which must of necessity be understood, that he put the Law in Execution against them, putting all those to death which were discovered, so that they durst not practise openly; and so he might well be said to put them out of the Land, though there were hundreds yet remaining, which practised secretly and by stealth, because he used all possible means for the rooting them out of Israel; neither can he certainly say that Manasses practised this Art openly, for the Scripture only says that he used Enchantments, and Divinations, and dealt with Familiar Spirits, which he might do privately, though he was a King: yet I can easily grant that when both King and people were wholly given up to Idolatry, and all other wickedness, any thing might be practised openly; wherefore that hinders not but it might be the same Art which our Witches use now adays, though practised in a different manner. Thus I have done with his Arguments, by which he endeavoured to prove that there is no such thing as a Witch in Scripture, and am now come to those by which he undertakes to prove that there is no such thing as a Witch at all. To his first I perceive I shall not need to say much, it being only this; that seeing there is no such thing in Scripture, it follows there is no such thing at all: therefore I shall only say, that seeing the force of this Argument depends wholly upon those which went before, they being already answered, this may keep them company. Now he objects, that the Law of Moses being so strict against bestial and incestuous Concubinage, it would seem very strange, the Opinion of Witches being true, that it should not so much as mention Diabolical. To this I answer, that it is not at all strange that it should not mention particularities, when the whole Art is forbidden upon pain of Death; for in that Law [thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live;] this and all other their wicked Actions, were included. So that, whether it was Diabolical Copulation, or killing of Men or Beasts by Witchcrafts, or any other Action of this Nature, all was punished when the Witch was stoned to death. His second Argument is taken from the miserable poverty of our vulgarly reputed Witches; for, says he, I am not willing to believe that they have such a power with the Devil, as to make him do wonderful things at their command, when they cannot command him to fetch them money, etc. To this I answer, that certainly the Devil deludes these people with the enjoyment of all sorts of pleasures which they desire, if not in reality, at least in the imagination, which is all one to them, as if they were real. Now riches not being desirable for themselves alone, but only as they conduce to a pleasant life, if they can obtain this without them, I see no reason why they should command the Devil to fetch them money: Besides, as they are people of a base and degenerate spirit, having no aim but malice and revenge, and the satisfying of their beastly lusts, and coming as near as is possible to the Nature of the Devils themselves, such a sordid way of living may be more suitable to their temper; as also they may out of policy choose such an obscure and contemptible life to avoid suspicion, and that they might have the greater freedom to practise their wicked Arts, their Actions not being so much pried into, as those of more considerable persons. These reasons may suffice, though many more might be given for the removing of this objection. In the third place he says, that the opinion of Witchcraft is attended either with irrationality or impiety, for that it is irrational to think that the Devil being so full of malice, and breathing nothing but mischief against men, should suffer any man to live, when he can so easily kill us at the command of a Witch: To this I say, that the Devil cannot go beyond his Commission, and that it is in God's power to stop the course of the Devil's malice, when, and where he pleases. Besides, 'tis very probable, that the Laws by which the Devils are governed, do not allow them that freedom; for by that means the interest of the dark Kingdom would not be carried on, seeing it is the ruin of the Souls of men, not the destruction of their Bodies, by which it is established. So that cunning and sly temptations are more advantageous to this end, than open violence; for if the Devil should take this course to wreak his malice upon men, they would be more sensible of his mischievous practices; and finding themselves too weak to make resistance, it might be a means to draw them from their evil courses, and make them run to God for succour. This I say may be supposed, and it is enough to clear this opinion of irrationality, if we can guests at a reason why the Devil would not take this course, though he had his liberty of hurting whom he pleased; but it is certain that neither Devils nor Witches can hurt us without God's permission. But I see no such impiety in saying that God does many times permit such Actions (as the Author seems to think there is,) for than it were as impious to say that God suffers us to be tempted to sin; yet we are certain that the Devil cannot do it without his permission; as appears by that expression of St. Paul, He will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able, etc. So if we acknowledge that God is omnipotent, we must confess that no wickedness could be done in the World without his permission, seeing it is in his power to prevent it; and there is no impiety in affirming that though God of his great mercy may preserve any man from falling into sin, yet he is not bound to do it, neither does he, as we see by daily experience; and if we once grant that he suffers men to sin, where lies the impiety of saying that he permits Witchcraft? If we do not deny that God suffers one man to murder another, why should we not, without impiety, confess that he suffers Witches to do the same thing? Certainly no reason can be given why it should be more impious to say that he permits one sin, than another; and if not, I see none, why this opinion should be charged with either irrationality or impiety. His last objection is as malicious as it is frivolous; for, says he, the opinion of Witchcraft being true, no man can be able by the light of reason to know if Christ were a Witch or no. But if he had considered the difference between the miracles wrought by the Holy Jesus, and the Impostures of Witches; if he had considered the different ends to which they tend, if he had had any regard to the life and conversation of our Blessed Saviour, and that of an Impostor, the holiness of the one, and the wickedness of the other, if he had weighed the words of our Saviour, You shall know the Tree by its fruit; can one gather Grapes of Thorns, or Figgs of Thistles? he might have spared this Objection. Who ever believed, of all the rational assertors of Witchcraft, that an Impostor could infallibly cure all diseases by a word of his mouth, or a touch of his hand? That he could raise the dead to life, after they had been so long buried as to stink in their Graves? That he could feed five thousand with five loaves and two fishes; that he could cause the Earth to tremble, and the Sun to be darkened at his death? The graves of dead men to be opened, and their Bodies to arise to accompany him at his Resurrection; finally, that he could raise himself after three day's burial, and converse for some days with men, and at last gloriously to ascend up to Heaven in the sight of several witnesses. Methinks the manner of our Saviour's Birth is enough to satisfy us in this particular, that he was born of a Virgin, that a glorious Star appeared over the place of his birth, that a company of Heavenly Angels were sent to proclaim it, as tidings of joy to the whole World; and that the wise men being led by his Star, which they had seen in the East, came so far to worship him, and bring him presents. Much more might be said to show the great difference between them; but I think it is so visible to those who have read the life of our Saviour in the four Evangelists, that I shall not need to insist upon it; I will only add, that the sweetness of his disposition, the sincerity of his Doctrine, the holiness of his life and conversation, his transcendent knowledge, his zeal for the glory of God, and the Salvation of men, are infallible Testimonies to prove that he was no Imposter: So that, if whatever has been by the common people ascribed to Witches, which seems miraculous, were really true, and that they had done all, or more than has ever been believed of them; yet should we have no reason to doubt of our Blessed Saviour's Divinity; and his faith that thinks so, is but weakly grounded, and in danger of being shaken by every strange Action, which is beyond the reach of his understanding. Our Saviour himself has told us that false Christ's shall come, with signs and wonders able to deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect, which is enough to convince us, notwithstanding this Author's objection, that such miraculous Actions may be performed without a Divine commission, as may carry with them a great show of Divine power; but he is in a deplorable condition that from thence concludes that Christ Jesus might be an Impostor. Thus I have done with his objections; after which he tells you his opinion of the Nature and power of Devils; I believe, says he, that the Devils are aërial Creatures, and though they have more skill, strength, and agility than men, yet they act as men do by applying Natural Agents and Patients, one to the other, in this sublunary World; but as for the World aetherial, or celestial, I suppose they have no power there, but consequently that the wind bloweth when and where it listeth; and that the seasons of the year are neither promoted nor hindered by them, or the fruits of the Earth: To this I answer, that I think it is apparent out of the first Chapter of job, that the Devil may raise winds and Tempests; but I am of his opinion, that he cannot promote or hinder the seasons of the year, or alter the course of the Stars and Planets; as for the last, touching the fruits of the Earth, he himself has said enough against it, in the eleventh page of his Book, where he says that men by their well ordering the seeds of Plants may strangely promote the generation of such Plants, and the ripening of their Fruits; therefore he adds, the Devils being more skilful than men may strangely promote the generation of several Creatures. Thus having answered himself, he has saved me the labour; and I see very little, or no reason that he has, to tax the affirmers of Witchcraft, with approaching to the opinion of the Persians, of two great principles of good and evil, both Almighty; for by the opinion of Witchcraft, nothing of omnipotency is ascribed to the Devil, as he supposes; and by this saying, he seems not to understand what is meant by omnipotency; for any one Action, how strange soever it seems to us, cannot be an Argument to prove an omnipotency in the doer; so to say, if the Devil can raise a wind, he must be omnipotent, is ridiculous, as much as if he said, I can blow with a pair of Bellows, Ergo, I am omnipotent; I can do one thing, Ergo, I can do all things: if the Devil raises a wind, he does but Act upon natural Bodies, and by natural means, which requires nothing of omnipotency. So if he causes Thunders, or Lightnings, or if he changes one Body into another, he has still matter to work upon, and so long we may suppose any thing to be done without omnipotency, b●cause we know not how far the Laws of Nature are intended. Now for what he quotes out of the Ancyran council, it is not much to be regarded, for it seems not to have been intended against the opinion of Witches in general; but to show the folly of those Witches which believed the illusions of the Devil to be realities, and professed that in the night time they conversed with Diana, or some other heathen god, or goddess: for they feared lest by this their folly the common people might be led to the old error of the heathens, in believing a plurality of gods: this seems very plain from the words of the Council;— Quod quaedam sceleratae mulieres retro post sathanam conversae, daemonum illusionibus, & phantasmatibus seductae, se nocturnis horis cum Diana Paganorum Dea, etc. super quasdam bestias equitare; and a little after, nam innumera multitudo hac falsa opinione decepta, haec vera esse credit, & credendo, a recta fide deviat, & in errorem paganorum devolvitur, cum aliquid numinis, an't divinitatis extra unum Deum arbitratur. Now that Witches are deluded by the Devil, and made to believe those things which are many times false, is not to be questioned; but it does not follow, because they are deluded, that they are no Witches; neither can I find one sentence in all this decree to prove it: 'tis true, they have endeavoured to show that these nocturnal pleasures and recreations are only imaginary, and delusions of the Devil, and this seems to be the scope of the whole decree: and the other decree,— Siquis credit quod Diabolus aliquando creaturas in Mundo facerit, et tonitrua, et fulgura, etc. sua authoritate fecerit, sicut dixit Priscillianus, anathema sit; It was made against that error of Priscillian, that the Devil has a power in the things of this World, equal to that of God, and can do these things at his own will and pleasure; wherefore these words, Sua authoritate, are put in; but it does not at all deny that he can do those things with God's permission; and if it had, I think the authority is not so great, but that of the Scripture is to be preferred before it. As for that which he objects that the Devil did no more in the case of job, than Elijah, or any mortal man may do when he receives a commission from God, I think the contrary may be gathered from the Scripture, I mean, that it was wholly Satan's doing, having only obtained leave from God, for, God said to him, all that he has is in thy power; and the same expression is again used in the second Chapter, and the sixth verse; Behold, he is in thy power; by which expressions we may gather, that God left it to him, and acted nothing of it himself; and it immediately follows, Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the head to the foot; it is not said, the Lord smote him; now if this last was done by the Devil, why not all the rest? Besides, if God had been the Actor, the limitation, only upon himself stretch not forth thine hand, had been altogether needless. Thus I have done with his fourth Chapter, and am come to his fifth, which he entitles, An answer to their Arguments which endeavour to prove, that there are Witches, where I find the Arguments which he produces against himself, to be these: first, that Drums and Trumpets have been heard when neither Drummer nor Trumpeter was near. Secondly, that the persons tormented have fallen into their fits upon the sight of the suspected Witches. Thirdly, that immediately upon the threatening, or cursing of this or that person, such an accident has happened to the party threatened or cursed. And lastly, that the Witches themselves have confessed it. The first he yields to be true, being unwilling (as he says) to gainsay the authority of so many in the world, who affirm it to be so, but he denys that from hence the being of Witches may be proved: it is easily thought this Author would not raise a Devil which he could not lay again; and that of so many Arguments as may be brought too for the proof of Witches, he would only make choice of such as he could answer, or at least would so order the matter, as to leave out the most material circumstances, thereby to render the Argument invalid; for it is true (as he says) that only to hear Drums and Trumpets, and to see Chairs and Stools move about a Room, and no body touching the one or the other, proves no more than the being of Spirits; but (because he seems to allude to that story of Mr. Mompesson's house in Wiltshire) I will thus answer him; that if these things shall happen in a Gentleman's house, which was formerly undisturbed, merely upon the taking away of an idle fellows Drum; if the Devil by such and such signs being demanded, shall declare that the Drummer employed him; if upon the Drummers being condemned, and sent to the Islands, shall be quiet, and upon his return these disturbances shall be renewed, these circumstances will render the Argument of no small force to prove contracts with the Devil. Now if he has ever heard the true Relation of the forementioned story, he will find in it all this that I have said. The second Argument, that upon the sight of the Witch the party has fallen into his fit, etc. he answers thus: first, he objects that these stories are different from the former, in this, that those are attested by several persons of Credit, and these are grounded only in the Juggling delusions of Impostors, and the foolish mistakes of the vulgar: to which I answer, that he speaks with too much haste, and considers not that these things have been sworn by innumerable, and many of them persons of credit, before Judges of Assize, and in the face of the Country; and that Judges are not generally so careless of what they do, as to take away the lives of so many hundreds, upon no better ground than the foolish mistakes of the Vulgar. Secondly, he says, that if he grants these things to be true, he yet sees no reason to grant that there are Witches, but rather to conclude that these Spirits, which are so gamesome, in doing us mischiefs, when they perceive that any are suspected to have set them on work, use these tricks to confirm the suspicion, making it their sport to see poor innocent people hanged. Here I will make him the same objection as he made against the being of Witches, which is, that if the Devil could by such tricks as these so easily deprive innocent people of their lives, 'tis irrational to think that he would suffer any body to live, considering his great malice; and if he answers, that he cannot do it without God's permission, I will say, in his own words, that 'tis impious to concern the great God with these designs of the Devil to take away innocent persons lives: thus by denying of Witchcraft, he is fallen himself into the same irrationality, or impiety, of which he accused the assertors of it. But if, as he says, the Devil should by such tricks endeavour the ruin of poor innocent people, 'tis not probable, that he could make those persons Actors in their own ruin, so that all their words and actions should contribute to it; as it happens for the most part, for it is seldom known that people are hanged, because others fell into their fits at the sight of them, without any other evidence against them, but some suspicious actions of their own concurring. To the third, which is, that upon their threatening or cursing such things have happened to the party cursed, he answers, that it is not to be wondered at, if in the World there has often happened a notable concurrence of Events, etc. this I suppose he said, merely for want of something else to say; for it is not at all conceivable (though once in a hundred years such a thing may come to pass, as that upon an Old Woman's cursing a man may immediately fall sick, or die) that it should be so frequently done, and that such events should constantly attend the curses of some particular persons, more than others. The last Argument is from the confession of the Witch; and he answers it thus; that the wisest man in the world may by torture be brought to confess any thing, whether it be true or false: this answer seems very weak, when we consider, that this way of forcing confessions by torture is not in use with us, and by consequence, that can be no reason why our Witches should confess themselves to be so, except it were really true. But that answer not sufficing, he has another, which is, that he believes, that some silly Old Women overgrown with melancholy and dotage, have really believed themselves to be Witches, and to have done those things which not only their foolish Neighbours, but worshipful men in the World, have charged them with. But suppose some one, or two, have been so extremely foolish, as to be persuaded into that belief against their own knowledge, can it be thought that all were so? Or if we could conceive that any persons by being accused could be made to believe that they were Witches, what is that to those who have freely accused themselves without so much as being suspected by others? Or what to those, who after they had past the danger of being persuaded into this folly, and had stood it out to the last with a stiff denial, notwithstanding the clear evidences brought in, and sworn against them, after, I say, that they had past all this, without confession, have afterwards penitently acknowledged all upon the Ladder? To such as these his answer reaches not; yet, that many such have been, is evident to any but those who believe no more than they have seen themselves. Now, to suppose that an Old Man or Woman, sunk in melancholy, may be persuaded to think themselves Witches, is excusable, if that were all; but to believe, that not only the Old man or woman, but the Judge, the Jury, and the whole Assize, should be thus abused, the witnesses forswearing themselves, only to hang poor innocent people that have done them no harm; and that not only one Judge, one Jury, and one Assize, should be so fooled, but thousands of each, and all with nothing; and to imagine that whole Countries, nay, all the Christian world, should be so overspread with folly, as to establish Laws against a sort of people which never were in being, is a madness of which whosoever is guilty, wants but one step more to become a Sceptic, and reject the Testimony of his own senses. Thus, Sir, I have answered, I think, what is most considerable in this Book; I will pass by the sixth Chapter, as having nothing in it which requires an answer, it being little more than what has been said before, and only to show his fancy touching the first entrance of this Opinion of Witchcraft into the world; so that the truth of this assertion being once proved, the ground upon which that Chapter stands is taken away. And now Sir, it is time that I free you from this trouble (if you have had the patience to suffer it thus far) and that I beg your pardon for those many errors, of which either haste or ignorance have made me guilty; which if you grant me, you will abundantly obliedge, SIR, Your most faithful Servant.