convey it, and in the meanwhile meeting more than once with those that
seemed to have some opinion of Mr. Webster’s criticisms and
interpretations of Scripture, as if he had quitted himself so well
there, that no proof thence can hereafter be expected of the being of a
witch, which is the scope that he earnestly aims at; and I reflecting
upon that passage in my letter, which does not stick to condemn
Webster’s whole book for a weak and impertinent piece, presently thought
fit, (that you might not think that censure over-rash or unjust) it
being an endless task to shew all the weakness and impertinencies of his
discourse, briefly by way of _Postscript_, to hint the weakness and
impertinency of this part which is counted the master-piece of the work,
that thereby you may perceive that my judgment has not been at all rash
touching the whole.
“And in order to this, we are first to take notice what is the real
scope of his book; which if you peruse, you shall certainly find to be
this: That the parties ordinarily deemed witches and wizzards, are only
knaves and queans, to use his phrase, and arrant cheats, or deep
melancholists; but have no more to do with any evil spirit or devil, or
the devil with them, than he has with other sinners or wicked men, or
they with the devil. And secondly, we are impartially to define what is
the true notion of a witch or wizzard, which is necessary for the
detecting of Webster’s impertinencies.
“As for the words witch and wizzard, from the notation of them, they
signify no more than a wise man or a wise woman. In the word wizzard, it
is plain at the very first sight. And I think the most plain and least
operose deduction of the name witch, is from wit, whose derived
adjective might be _wittigh_ or _wittich_, and by contraction afterwards
witch; as the noun wit is from the verb _to weet_, which is, to know. So
that a witch, thus far, is no more than a knowing woman; which answers
exactly to the Latin word _saga_, according to that of Festus, _Sagæ
dictæ anus quæ multa sciunt_. Thus in general: but use questionless had
appropriated the word to such a kind of skill and knowledge, as was out
of the common road, or extraordinary. Nor did this peculiarity imply in
it any unlawfulness. But there was after a further restriction and most
proper of all, and in which alone now-a-days the words _witch_ and
_wizzard_ are used. And that is, for one that has the knowledge or skill
of doing or telling things in an extraordinary way, and that in virtue
of either an express or implicit sociation or confederacy with some evil
spirit. This is a true and adequate definition of a _witch_ or
_wizzard_, which to whomsoever it belongs, is such, _et vice versâ_. But
to prove or defend that there neither are, nor ever were any such, is,
as I said, the main scope of Webster’s book: in order to which, he
endeavours in his sixth and eighth chapters to evacuate all the
testimonies of Scripture; which how weakly and impertinently he has
done, I shall now shew with all possible brevity and perspicuity.
“The words that he descants upon are Deut. c. xviii. v. 10, 11: ‘There
shall not be found among you any one that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a
consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizzard, or a necromancer.’ The
first word in the Hebrew is קוסם קסמים, _kosem kesamim_, a diviner.
Here because קסם _kasam_, sometimes has an indifferent sense, and
signifies to divine by natural knowledge or human prudence or sagacity;
therefore nothing of such a witch as is imagined to make a visible
league with the devil, or to have her body sucked by him, or have carnal
copulation with him, or is really turned into a cat, hare, wolf or dog,
can be deduced from this word. A goodly inference indeed, and hugely to
the purpose, as is apparent from the foregoing definition. But though
that cannot be deduced, yet in that, this divination that is here
forbidden, is plainly declared abominable and execrable, as it is _v._
12, it is manifest that such a divination is understood that really is
so; which cannot well be conceived to be, unless it imply either an
express or implicite inveaglement with some evil invisible powers who
assist any kind of those divinations that may be comprehended under this
general term. So that this is plainly one name of witchcraft, according
to the genuine definition thereof. And the very words of Saul to the
witch of Endor, are, קסומי נא לי באוב; that is to say, ‘Divine to me,
I pray thee, by thy familiar spirit.’ Which is more than by natural
knowledge or human sagacity.
“The next word is מעונן _megnonen_, which, though our English
translation renders [gnon] (_tempus_,) ‘an observer of times;’ which
should rather be a declarer of the seasonableness of the time, or
unseasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness as to success; a thing
which is inquired of also from witches, yet the usual sense, rendered by
the learned in the language, is _præstigiatur_, an imposer on the sight,
_Sapientes prisci_, says Buxtorf, a עין [gnajin, oculus] _deduxerunt
et_ מעונן [megnonen] _esse eum dixerunt, qui tenet et præstringit
oculos, ut falsum pro vero videant_. Lo, another word that signifies a
witch or a wizzard, which has its name properly from imposing on the
sight, and making the by-stander believe he sees forms or
transformations of things he sees not! As when Anne Bodenham transformed
herself before Anne Styles in the shape of a great cat; Anne Styles’s
sight was so imposed upon, that the thing to her seemed to be done,
though her eyes were only deluded. But such a delusion certainly cannot
be performed without confederacy with evil spirits. For to think the
word signifies _præstigiator_, in that sense we translate in English,
_juggler_, or a _hocus-pocus_, is so fond a conceit, that no man of any
depth of wit can endure it. As if a merry juggler that plays tricks of
legerdemain at a fair or market, were such an abomination to either the
God of Israel, or to his law-giver Moses; or as if a hocus-pocus were so
wise a wight as to be consulted as an oracle: for it is said, v. 14,
‘For the nations which thou shalt possess, they consult,’ מעוננים
_megnonenim_. What, do they consult jugglers and hocus-pocusses? No,
certainly, they consult witches or wizzards, and diviners, as Anne
Styles did Anne Bodenham.’ Wherefore here is evidently a second name of
a witch.
“The third word in the text is מנחש _menachesh_, which our English
translation renders, an enchanter. And, with Mr. Webster’s leave, (who
insulteth so over their supposed ignorance) I think they have translated
it very learnedly and judiciously; for charming and enchanting, as
Webster himself acknowledges, and the words intimate, being all one, the
word, מנחש _menachesh_, here, may very well signify enchanters, or
charmers; but such properly as kill serpents by their charming, from
נחש _nachash_, which signifies a serpent, from whence comes נחש
_nichesh_, to kill serpents, or make away with them. For a verb in
_pihel_, sometimes (especially when it is formed from a noun) has a
contrary signification. Thus from שרש _radix_ is שרש _radices
evulsit_, from דשן _cinis_ דשן _removit cineres_, from חטא
_peccavit_ חטא _expiavit à peccato_; and so lastly from נחש
_serpens_, is made נחש _liberavit â serpentibus, nempe occidendo vel
fugando per incantationem_. And therefore there seems to have been a
great deal of skill and depth of judgment in our English translators
that rendered מנחש _menachesh_, an enchanter, especially when that of
augur or soothsayer, which the Septuagint call Ὀιωνιζόμενον (there being
so many harmless kinds of it) might seem less suitable with this black
list: for there is no such abomination in adventuring to tell, when the
wild geese fly high in great companies, and cackle much, that hard
weather is at hand, but to rid serpents by a charm is above the power of
nature; and therefore an indication of one that has the assistance of
some invisible spirit to help him in this exploit, as it happens in
several others; and therefore this is another name of one that is really
a witch.
“The fourth word is מכשף _mecasseph_, which our English translators
render, a witch; for which I have no quarrel with them, unless they
should so understand it that it must exclude others from being so in
that sense I have defined, which is impossible they should. But this, as
the foregoing, is but another term of the same thing; that is, of a
witch in general, but so called here from the prestigious imposing on
the sight of beholders. Buxtorf tells us, that Aben Ezra defines those
to be מכשפים [mecassephim] _qui mutant et transformant res naturales
ad aspectum oculi_. Not as jugglers and hocus-pocusses, as Webster would
ridiculously insinuate, but so as I understood the thing in the second
name; for these are but several names of a witch, who may have several
more properties than one name intimates. Whence it is no wonder that
translators render not them always alike. But so many names are reckoned
up here in this clause of the law of Moses, that, as in our common law,
the sense may be more sure, and leave no room to evasion. And that here
this name is not from any tricks of legerdemain as in common jugglers
that delude the sight of the people at a market or fair, but that it is
the name of such as raise magical spectres to deceive men’s sight, and
so are most certainly witches, is plain from Exod. chap. xxii, v. 18,
‘Thou shalt not suffer,’ מכשפה _mecassephah_, that is, ‘a witch, to
live.’ Which would be a law of extreme severity, or rather cruelty,
against a poor hocus-pocus for his tricks of legerdemain.
“The fifth name is חובר חבר _chobher chebher_, which our English
translators render charmer, which is the same with enchanter. Webster
upon this name is very tedious and flat, a many words and small weight
in them. I shall dispatch the meaning briefly thus: this חובר חבר,
_chobher chebher_, that is to say, _socians societatem_, is another name
of a witch, so called specially either from the consociating together
serpents by a charm, which has made men usually turn it (from the
example of the Septuagint, ἐπάδων ἐπαοιδὴν,) a charmer, or an enchanter,
or else from the society or compact of the witch with some evil spirits;
which Webster acknowledges to have been the opinion of two very learned
men, Martin Luther and Perkins, and I will add a third, Aben Ezra, (as
Martinius hath noted,) who gives this reason of the word חובר
_chobher_, an enchanter, which signifies _socians_ or _jungens_, viz.
_Quòd malignos spiritus sibi associat_. And certainly one may charm long
enough, even till his heart aches, ere he make one serpent assemble near
him, unless helped by this confederacy of spirits that drive them to the
charmer. He keeps a pudder with the sixth verse of the fifty-eighth
Psalm to no purpose; whereas from the Hebrew, אשר לא־ישמע לקול מלחשים
חובר חברים מחכם, if you repeat ἀπὸ κοινoῦ לקול before חובר, you may
with ease and exactness render it thus: ‘That hears not the voice of
muttering charmers, no not the voice of a confederate wizzard, or
charmer that is skilful.’ But seeing charms, unless with them that are
very shallow and sillily credulous, can have no such effects of
themselves, there is all the reason in the world (according as the very
word intimates, and as Aben Ezra has declared,) to ascribe the effect to
the assistance, confederacy, and co-operation of evil spirits, and so
חובר חברים, _chobher chabharim_, or חובר חבר _chobher chebher_, will
plainly signify a witch or wizzard according to the true definition of
them. But for J. Webster’s rendering this verse, p. 119, thus, _Quæ non
audiet vocem mussitantium incantationes docti incantantis_, (which he
saith is doubtless the most genuine rendering of the place) let any
skilful man apply it to the Hebrew text, and he will presently find it
grammatical nonsense. If that had been the sense, it should have been
חברי חובר מחכם.
“The sixth word is שואל אוב, _shoel obh_, which our English
translation renders, ‘a consulter with familiar spirits;’ but the
Septuagint Ἐγγαστρίμυθος. Which therefore must needs signifie him that
has this familiar spirit: and therefore שואל אוב _shoel obh_, I
conceive, (considering the rest of the words are so to be understood) is
to be understood of the witch or wizzard himself that asks counsel of
his familiar, and does by virtue of him give answers unto others. The
reason of the name of אוב _obh_, it is likely was taken first from
that spirit that was in the body of the party, and swelled it to a
protuberancy like the side of a bottle. But after, without any relation
to that circumstance, _OBH_ signifies as much as _pytho_; as _pytho_
also, though at first it took its name from the _pythii vates_,
signifies no more than _spiritum divinationis_, in general, a spirit
that tells hidden things, or things to come. And _OBH_ and _pytho_ also
agree in this, that they both signify either the divinatory spirit
itself, or the party that has that spirit. But here in שואל אוב,
_shoel obh_, it being rendered by the Septuagint Ἐγγαςείμυθος, _OBH_ is
necessarily understood of the spirit itself, as _pytho_ is, Acts xvi.
16, if you read πνεῦμα πύδωνα, with Isaac Casaubon; but if πύθωνος, it
may be understood either way. Of this πνεύμα πύθων, it is recorded in
that place, that ‘Paul being grieved, turned and said to that spirit, I
command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her, and he
came out at the same hour;’ which signifies as plainly as any thing can
be signified, that this _pytho_ or spirit of divination, that this _OBH_
was in her: for nothing can come out of the sack that was not in the
sack, as the Spanish proverb has it; nor could this _pytho_ come out of
her unless it was a spirit distinct from her; wherefore I am amazed at
the profane impudence of J. Webster, that makes this _pytho_ in the maid
there mentioned, nothing but a wicked humour of cheating and cozening
divination: and adds, that this spirit was no more cast out of that maid
than the seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, which he would have
understood only of her several vices; which foolish familistical conceit
he puts upon Beza as well as Adie. Wherein as he is most unjust to Beza,
so he is most grossly impious and blasphemous against the spirit of
Christ in St. Paul and St. Luke, who makes them both such fools as to
believe that there was a spirit or divining devil in the maid, when
according to him there is no such thing. Can any thing be more frantic
or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if there was no spirit or
devil in the damsel? But what will this profane shuffler stick to do in
a dear regard to his beloved hags, of whom he is sworn advocate, and
resolved patron right or wrong?
“But to proceed, that אוב, _obh_, signifies the spirit itself that
divines, not only he that has it, is manifest from Levit. xx. 27, _Vir
autem sive mulier cùm fuerit_ [בהם אוב] _in eis pytho_. And 1 Sam.
xxviii. 8, _Divina quæso mihi_ [באוב] _per pythonem_. In the
Septuagint it is ἐν τῶν Ἐγγαστρίμυθῳ, that is, by that spirit that
sometimes goes into the body of the party, and thence gives answers; but
here it only signifies a familiar spirit. And lastly, בעלת אוב,
_bagnalath obh_, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7, _Quæ habit pythonem_; there _OBH_
must needs signify the spirit itself, of which she of Endor was the
owner or possessor; that is to say, it was her familiar spirit. But see
what brazen and stupid impudence will do here, בעלת אוב, _bagnalath
obh_, with Webster must not signify one that has a familiar spirit, but
the mistress of the bottle. Who but the master of the bottle, or rather
of whom the bottle had become master, and by guzzling had made his wits
excessively muddy and frothy, could ever stumble upon such a foolish
interpretation? But because אוב _obh_, in one place of the Scripture
signifies a bottle, it must signify so here, and it must be the
instrument forsooth, out of which this cheating quean of Endor does
‘whisper, peep, or chirp like a chicken coming out of the shell,’ p.
129, 165. And does she not, I beseech you, put her nib also into it
sometimes, as into a reed, as it is said of that bird, and cries like a
butter-bump? certainly he might as well have interpreted בעלת אוב
_bagnalath obh_, of the great tun of Heidelberg, that Tom. Coriat takes
such special notice of, as of the bottle.
“And truly so far as I see, it must be some such huge tun at length
rather than the bottle, that is, such a spacious tub as he in his
deviceful imagination fancies Manasses to have built; a μανείον
forsooth, or oracular edifice for ‘cheating rogues and queans to play
their cozening tricks in;’ from that place 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6, ועשה
אוב, _Et fecit pythonem_. Now, says he, how could Manasses make a
familiar spirit? or make one that had a familiar spirit? Therefore he
made a bottle a tun, or a large tub, a μαντεῖον, or oracular edifice
‘for cheating rogues or queans to play their cozening tricks in.’ Very
wisely argued, and out of the very depth of his ignorance of the Hebrew
tongue, whereas if he had looked into Buxtorf’s Dictionary he might have
understood that עשה signifies not only _fecit_ but also _paravit_,
_comparavit_, _acquisivit_, _magni fecit_, none of which words imply the
making of _OBH_ in his sense, but the only appointing them to be got,
and countenancing them. For in Webster’s sense he did not make ידעני
_jidegnoni_ neither, that is wizzards, and yet Manasses is said to make
them both alike. יעשה אוב וידעני, _Et fecit pythonem et magos_. So
plain is it that אוב, _obh_, signifies _pytho_, and that adequately in
the same sense that _pytho_ does, either a familiar spirit, or him that
has that spirit of divination. But in בעלת אוב, _bagnalath obh_, it
necessarily signifies the familiar spirit itself, which assisted the
witch of Endor; whereby it is manifest she is rightly called a witch. As
for his stories of counterfeit ventriloquists, (and who knows but some
of his counterfeit ventriloquists may prove true ones,) that is but the
threadbare sophistry of Sadducees and Atheists to elude the faith of all
true stories by those that are of counterfeits or feigned.
“The seventh word is ידעוני, _jidegnoni_, which our English
translators render a wizzard. And Webster is so kind as to allow them to
have translated this word aright. Wizzards, then, Webster will allow,
that is to say, he-witches, but not she-witches. How tender the man is
of that sex! But the word invites him to it ידעוני, _jidegnoni_,
coming from _scire_, and answering exactly to wizzard or wise man. And
does not witch from _wit_ and _weet_ signify as well a wise woman, as I
noted above? And as to the sense of those words from whence they are
derived, there is no hurt herein; and therefore if that were all,
ידעוני, _jidegnoni_, had not been in this black list. Wherefore it is
here understood in that more restrict and worse sense: so as we
understand usually now-a-days witch and wizzard, such wise men and women
whose skill is from the confederacy of evil spirits, and therefore are
real wizzards and witches. In what a bad sense ידעוני, _jidegnoni_, is
understood, we may learn, from Levit. xx. 27, ‘A man also or woman that
hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizzard, _jidegnoni_, shall be put
to death, they shall stone them with stones,’ &c.
“The last word is דורש המתים, _doresh hammethim_, which our
translators rightly render _necromancers_; that is, those that either
upon their own account, or desired by others, do raise the ghosts of the
deceased to consult with; which is a more particular term than בעל
אוב, _bagnal obh_: but he that is _bagnal obh_, may be also _doresh
hammethim_, a necromancer, as appears in the witch of Endor. Here
Webster by המתים, _hammethim_, the dead, would understand dead
statues; but let him, if he can, any where shew in all the Scripture
where the word המתים, _hammethim_, is used of what was not once alive.
He thinks he hits the nail on the head in that place of Isaiah, viii.
19, ‘And when they say unto you, seek unto [האבות, that is, to בעליה
אוב, such as the witch of Endor was,] them that have familiar spirits,
and to wizzards that peep and that mutter; [the Hebrew has it המהגים
and המצפצפים; that is, speak with a querulous murmurant or mussitant
voice, when they either conjure up the spirit, or give responses. If
this be to ‘peep like a chicken,’ Isaiah himself peeped like a chicken,
xxxviii. 14,] should not a people seek unto their God? for the living,
(אל המתים,) to the dead?’ Where _hammethim_ is so far from signifying
dead statues, that it must needs be understood of the ghosts of dead
men, as here in Deuteronomy. None but one that had either stupidly or
wilfully forgot the story of Samuel’s being raised by that בעלת אוב,
_bagnalath obh_, the witch of Endor, could ever have the face to affirm
that המתים, _hammethim_, here in Isaiah, is to be understood of dead
statues, when wizzards or necromancers were so immediately mentioned
before, especially not Webster, who acknowledges that שואל אוב, _shoel
obh_, signifies a necromancer in this Deuteronomical list of names. And
therefore, forsooth, would have it a tautology that _doresh hammethim_
should signify so too. But I say it is no tautology, this last being
more express and restrict. And besides, this enumeration is not intended
as an accurate logical division of witches or witchcraft, into so many
distinct kinds, but a reciting of several names of that ill trade,
though they will interfere one with another, and have no significations
so precisely distinct. But as I said before, this fuller recounting of
them is made that the prohibition in this form might be the surer fence
against the sin. And now therefore what will J. Webster get by this, if
_doresh hammethim_ will not signify a witch of Endor, when it must
necessarily signify a necromancer, which is as much against his tooth as
the other? Nay indeed this necromancer is also a witch or wizzard,
according to the definition produced above.
“The rest of the chapter being so inconsiderable, and I having been so
long already upon it, I shall pass to the next, after I have desired you
to take notice how weak and childish, or wild and impudent, Mr. Webster
has been in the interpretation of Scripture hitherto, in the belief of
his sage dames, to fence off the reproach of being termed witches;
whereas there is scarce one word in this place of Deuteronomy that does
not imply a witch or wizzard, according to the real definition thereof.
And truly he seems himself to be conscious of the weakness of his own
performance, when after all this ado, the sum at last amounts but to
this, that there are no names in all the Old Testament that signifies
such a witch that destroy men or beasts, that make a visible compact
with the devil, or on whose body he sucketh, or with whom he hath carnal
copulation, or that is really changed into a cat, hare, dog, or such
like. And to shew it amounts to no more than so, was the task we
undertook in this chapter.
“But assure yourself, if you peruse his book carefully, you shall
plainly find that the main drift thereof is to prove, as I above noted,
that there is no such witch as with whom the devil has any thing more to
do than with any other sinner, which, notwithstanding this conclusion of
his a little before recited, comes infinitely short of: and therefore
this sixth chapter, consisting of about thirty pages in folio, is a meer
piece of impertinency. And there will be witches for all this, whether
these particulars be noted in them or no; for it was sufficient for
Moses to name those ill sounding terms in general, which imply a witch
according to that general notion I have above delivered; which if it be
prohibited, namely, the having any thing to do with evil spirits, their
being suckt by them, or their having any lustful or venerous
transactions with them, is much more prohibited.