manner hinted at in some of the words, especially as they are rendered
sometimes by skilful interpreters: for מכשף (_Mecasseph_,) is
translated by _Vatablus_, and the vulgar Latin _Maleficus_, by the
_Septuagint_ φαρμακός, that is _Veneficus_: which word signifies
mischievously enough both to man and beast. Besides that _Mecasseph_
carries along with it the signification of transformation also; and
haply this may be the difference betwixt מכשף _Mecasseph_, and מעונן
_Megnonen_, that the former uses prestigious transformations to some
great mischief, as where Olaus Magnus tells of those that have
transformed themselves into wolves, to men’s thinking, and have
presently fallen upon worrying of sheep. Others transformed in their
astral spirit, into various shapes, get into houses and do mischief to
men and children, as I remember Remegius reports. And therefore it is
less wonder that that sharp law of Moses is against the מכשפה
_Mecassephah_; such a witch as this is, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live;’ this may be a more peculiar signification of that word. And
now for making a compact with the devil, how naturally does that name
חובר חבר _Chobber Chebber_, signifie that feat also? But for sucking
and copulation, though rightly stated it may be true, yet I confess
there is nothing hinted towards that so far as I see, as indeed it was
neither necessary that the other should be. But these are the very
dregs, the _fex magorum et sagarum_, that sink in those abominations,
against which a sufficient bar is put already by this prohibition in
general by so many names. And the other is filthy, base, and nasty, that
the mention thereof was neither fit for the sacred style of Moses’s law,
nor for the years of the people.
In my passing to the eight chapter I will only take notice by the way of
the shameless impudence of J. Webster, who in favour to his beloved
hags, that they may be never thought to do any thing by the assistance
of the devil, makes the victory of Moses, with whom the mighty hand of
God was, or of Christ, (who was the angel that appeared first to Moses
in the bush, and conducted the children of Israel out of Egypt to the
promised land) to be the victory only over so many hocus-pocusses, so
many jugglers that were, as it seems, old and excellent at the tricks of
Legerdemain; which is the basest derogation to the glory of that
victory, and the vilest reproach against the God of Israel, and the
person of Moses, that either the malicious wit of any devil can invent,
or the dulness of any sunk soul can stumble upon. Assuredly there was a
real conflict here betwixt the kingdom of light and the kingdom of
darkness and the evil spirits thereof, which assisted the חרטמים
_Hartummim_, the Magicians of Egypt; who before that name is named, that
no man may mistake, are called מכשפים, _Mecassaphim_, such kind of
magicians as can exhibit to the sight manifold prestigious
transformations through diabolical assistance, and are rendered
_Malificia_ by good interpreters, as I noted above; that is, they were
wizzards, or he-witches. The self same word being used in that severe
law of Moses, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ Are not these
magicians then examples plain enough that there are witches; that is to
say, such wretched wights as do strange miraculous things by the
assistance or consociation of the evil spirits?
“O no, says Mr. Webster, these are only חכמים _Chacamim_, wise men and
great naturalists, who all what they did, they did בלהטיהם, by their
bright glittering _laminæ_, for so להטם forsooth must signifie. But
what necessity thereof that להט should signifie _lamina_? there is
only the presence of that one place, Gen. iii, 24. להט חרב, where it
is חרב only that signifies the _lamina_, and that of a long form,
scarce usual in those magical _laminæ_ with signatures celestial upon
them, which J. Webster would be at; but הטם signifies merely _flamma_;
so that בלהטיהם by this account must signifie by their flames, if it
be from להט _ardere, flammare_: and therefore Buxtorfius judiciously
places the word under בלהטיהם _abscondit_, _obvolvit_, reading not
בלאטיהם but בלאטיהם, which is as much as to say, _occultis suis
rationibus Magicis_, which is briefly rendered in English, ‘by their
enchantments;’ which agrees marvellously well with מכשפים
_Mecassephim_, which is as much as _Præstigiatores Magici_, or such as
do strange wonderous things in an hidden way, by the help of evil
spirits. But that the Egyptian magicians should do those things that are
there recorded of them in Exodus, by virtue of any lamels, or plates of
metals, with certain sculptures or figures, under such or such a
constellation, is a thing so sottish and foolish that no man that is not
himself bewitched by some old hag or hobgobling, can ever take sanctuary
here to save himself or his old dames from being in a capacity, from
this history in Exodus, of being accounted witches. For if there may be
he-witches, that is magicians, such as these of Egypt were, I leave J.
Webster to scratch his head to find out any reason why there may not be
she-witches also.
“And indeed that of the witch of Endor, to pass at length to the eighth
chapter, is as plain a proof thereof as can be desired by any man whose
mind is not blinded with prejudices. But here J. Webster, not
impertinently, I confess, for the general, (abating him the many tedious
particular impertinences that he has clogg’d his discourse with) betakes
himself to these two ways, to shew there was nothing of a witch in all
that whole narration. First, by pretending that all the transaction on
the woman of Endor’s part was nothing but collusion and a cheat, Saul
not being in the same room with her, or at least seeing nothing if he
was. And then in the next place, that Samuel that is said to appear,
could neither be Samuel appearing in his body out of the grave, nor in
his soul; nor that it was a devil that appeared; and therefore it must
be some colluding knave, suborned by the witch. For the discovering the
weakness of his former allegation, we need but appeal to the text, which
is this, 1 Sam. xxviii, v. 8.
‘And Saul said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and
bring me up whom I shall name unto thee,’ קסומי־נא לי that is, do the
office of a divineress, or a wise woman, ‘I pray thee unto me, באוב
_Beobh_, by virtue of the familiar spirit, whose assistance thou hast,
not by virtue of the bottle, as Mr. Webster would have it. Does he think
that damsel in the Acts, which is said to have had πνεῦμα πύθωνος, that
is to have had אוב _Obh_, carried an _aqua-vitæ_ bottle about with
her, hung at her girdle, whereby she might divine and mutter, chirp, or
peep out of it, as a chicken out of an egg-shell, or put her neb into it
to cry like a bittern, or take a dram of the bottle, to make her wits
more quick and divinatory. Who but one who had taken too many drams of
the bottle could ever fall into such a fond conceit? Wherefore אוב
_Obh_, in this place does not, as indeed no where else, signifie an
oracular bottle, or μαντεῖον, into which Saul might desire the woman of
Endor to retire into, and himself expect answers in the next room; but
signifies that familiar spirits by virtue of whose assistance she was
conceived to perform all those wond’rous offices of a wise woman. But we
proceed to verse 11.
“‘Then said the woman, whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said,
bring me up Samuel.’ Surely as yet Saul and the woman are in the same
room, seeing the woman askt, ‘Whom shall I bring up unto thee?’ and he
answering, ‘Bring up unto me Samuel,’ it implies, that Samuel was so
brought up that Saul might see him, and not the witch only. But we go
on, verse 12.
“‘And when the woman saw Samuel, she cryed with a loud voice; and the
woman spake to Saul, saying, why hast thou deceived, for thou art Saul?
Tho’ the woman might have some suspicions before that it was Saul, yet
she now seeing Samuel did appear, and in another kind of way than her
spirits used to do, and in another hue, as it is most likely so holy a
soul did, she presently cryed out with a loud voice, ‘not muttered,
chirpt, and peept as a chicken coming out of the shell,’ that now she
was sure it was Saul, for she was not such a fool, as to think her art
could call up real Samuel, but that the presence of Saul was the cause
thereof: and Josephus writes expressly, Ὅτι θεασάμενον τὸ γύναιον ἄνδρα
σεμνὸν καὶ θεοπρεπῆ ταράττεται, καὶ πρὸς την ὄψίν οὐπλαγέν, οὐ σύ,
φησὶν, ὁ Βασιλεὺς Σαοῦλος; _i. e._ ‘The woman seeing a grave god-like
man is startled at it, and thus astonished at the vision, turned herself
to the king, and said, art not thou king Saul?’ Verse 13.
“‘And the king said unto her, be not afraid; for what sawest thou? And
the woman said unto Saul, I saw Gods ascending out of the earth.’ The
king here assures the woman, that tho’ he was Saul, yet no hurt should
come to her, and therefore bids her not be afraid. But she turning her
face to Saul as she spake to him, and he to her, and so her sight being
off from the object, Saul asked her, ‘What sawest thou?’ and she in like
manner answered, ‘I saw Gods,’ &c. For Gods, I suppose any free
translator in Greek, Latin, and English, would say, δαίμονας, _genios_,
spirits. And אלהים signifies Angels as well as Gods; and it is likely
these wise women take the spirits they converse with to be good angels,
as Ann Bodenham the witch told a worthy and learned friend of mine, that
these spirits, such as she had, were good spirits, and would do a man
all good offices all the days of his life; and ’tis likely this woman of
Endor had the same opinion of hers, and therefore we need not wonder
that she calls them אלהים _Elohim_, especially Samuel appearing among
them, to say nothing of the presence of Saul. And that more than one
spirit appears at a time, there are repeated examples in Ann Bodenham’s
magical evocations of them, whose history, I must confess, I take to be
very true.
“The case stands therefore thus: The woman and Saul being in the same
room, she turning her face from Saul, mutters to herself some magical
form of evocation of spirits; where upon they beginning to appear and
rise up, seemingly out of the earth, upon the sight of Samuel’s
countenance, she cryed out to Saul, and turning her face towards him,
spoke to him. Now that Saul hitherto saw nothing, though in the same
room, might be either because the body of the woman was interposed
betwixt his eyes and them, or the vehicles of those spirits were not yet
attempered to that conspissation that they would strike the eyes of
Saul, tho’ they did of the witch. And that some may see an object,
others not seeing it, you have an instance in the child upon Walker’s
shoulders, appearing to Mr. Fairhair, and it may be to the judge, but
invisible to the rest of the Court; and many such examples there are.
But I proceed to verse 14.
“‘And he said unto her, what form is he of? and she said, an old man
cometh up, and is covered with a mantle.’ He asks here in the singular
number, because, his mind was only fixt on Samuel. And the woman’s
answer is exactly according to what the spirit appeared to her, when her
eye was upon it, _viz._ איש זקן עלה ‘an old man coming up;’ for he was
but coming up when she looked upon him, and accordingly describes him:
For עלה there, is a particle of the present tense, and the woman
describes Saul from his age, habit, and motion he was in, while her eye
was upon him. So that the genuine and grammatical sense in this answer
to ‘what form is he of?’ is this, an old man coming up, and the same
covered with a mantle, this is his form and condition I saw him in.
Wherefore Saul being so much concerned herein, either the woman or he
changing their postures or standings, or Samuel by this having
sufficiently conspissated his vehicle, and fitted it to Saul’s sight
also, it follows in the text: ‘And Saul perceived it was Samuel, and he
stooped with his face to the ground and bowed himself.’
“O the impudent profaneness and sottishness of perverse shufflers and
whifflers! that upon the hearing of this passage can have the face to
deny that Saul saw any thing, and meerly because the word ‘perceived’ is
used, and not ‘saw,’ when the word ‘perceived,’ plainly implies that he
saw Samuel, and something more, namely, that by his former familiar
converse with him, he was assured it was he. So exquisitely did he
appear, and over-comingly to his senses, that he could not but
acknowledge (for so the Hebrew word ידע signifies) that it was he, or
else why did he stoop with his face to the very ground to do him honour?
“No, no, says J. Webster, he saw nothing himself, but stood waiting like
a drowned puppet (see of what a base rude spirit this squire of hags is,
to use such language of a prince in his distress,) in another room to
hear what would be the issue; for all that he understood, was from her
cunning and lying relations. That this gallant of witches should dare to
abuse a prince thus, and feign him as much foolisher and sottisher in
his intellectuals, as he was taller in stature than the rest of the
people, even by head and shoulders, and merely forsooth, to secure his
old wives from being so much as in a capacity of ever being suspected
for witches, is a thing extremely coarse and intolerably sordid. And
indeed, upon the consideration of Saul’s being said to bow himself to
Samuel, (which plainly implies, that there was there a Samuel that was
the object of his sight, and of the reverence he made) his own heart
misgives him in this mad adventure, and he shifts off from thence to a
conceit that it was a confederate knave, that the woman of Endor turned
out into the room where Saul was, to act the part of Samuel, having
first put on him her own short cloak, which she used with her maund
under her arm to ride to fairs or markets in. To this countryslouch in
the woman’s mantle, must king Saul, stooping with his face to the very
ground, make his profound obeysance. What was a market-woman’s cloak and
Samuel’s mantle, which Josephus calls διπλοΐδα ἱερατικήν, a ‘sacerdotal
habit,’ so like one another? Or if not, how came this woman, being so
surpriz’d of a sudden, to provide herself of such a sacerdotal habit to
cloak her confederate knave in? Was Saul as well a blind as a drowned
puppet, that he could not discern so gross and bold an impostor as this?
Was it possible that he should not perceive that it was not Samuel, when
they came to confer together, as they did? How could that confederate
knave change his own face into the same figure, look, and mien that
Samuel had, which was exactly known to Saul? How could he imitate his
voice thus of a sudden, and they discoursed a very considerable time
together?
“Besides, knaves do not use to speak what things are true, but what
things are pleasing. And moreover, this woman of Endor, though a
Pythoness, yet she was of a very good nature and benign, which Josephus
takes notice of, and extols her mightily for it, and therefore she could
take no delight to lay further weight on the oppressed spirit of
distressed king Saul; which is another sign that this scene was acted
_bonâ fide_, and that there was no cozening in it. As also that it is
another, that she spoke so magnificently of what appeared to her, that
she saw Gods ascending. Could she then possibly adventure to turn out a
countryslouch with a maund-woman’s cloak to act the part of so God-like
and divine a personage of Samuel, who was Θεῷ τὴν μορφὴν ὅμοιος, as the
woman describes him in Josephus Antiq. Judaic. lib. vii. c. 15, unto all
which you may add, that the Scripture itself, which was written by
inspiration, says expressly, verse 20, that it was Samuel. And the son
of Sirach, chap xlvi. that Samuel himself prophesied after his death,
referring to this story of the woman of Endor. But for our new inspired
seers, or saints, S. Scot, S. Adie, and if you will, S. Webster, sworn
advocate of the witches, who thus madly and boldly, against all sense
and reason, against all antiquity, all interpreters, and against the
inspired scripture itself, will have no Samuel in this scene, but a
cunning confederate knave, whether the inspired scripture, or these
inblown buffoons, puffed up with nothing but ignorance, vanity and
stupid infidelity, are to be believed, let any one judge.
“We come now to his other allegation, wherein we shall be brief, we
having exceeded the measure of a postscript already. ‘It was neither
Samuel’s soul,’ says he, ‘joined with his body, nor his soul out of his
body, nor the devil; and therefore it must be some confederate knave
suborned by that cunning, cheating quean of Endor.’ But I briefly
answer, it was the soul of Samuel himself; and that it is the
fruitfulness of the great ignorance of J. Webster in the sound
principles of theosophy and true divinity, that has enabled him to heap
together no less than ten arguments to disprove this assertion, and all
little to the purpose: so little indeed, that I think it little to the
purpose particularly to answer them, but shall hint only some few truths
which will rout the whole band of them.
“I say therefore that departed souls, as other spirits, have an
ἀυτεξούσιον in them, such as souls have in this life; and have both a
faculty and a right to move of themselves, provided there be no express
law against such or such a design to which their motion tends.
“Again, that they have a power of appearing in their own personal shapes
to whom there is occasion, as Anne Walker’s soul did to the miller; and
that this being a faculty of theirs either natural or acquirable, the
doing so is no miracle. And,
“Thirdly, That it was the strong piercing desire, and deep distress and
agony of mind in Saul, in his perplexed circumstances, and the great
compassion and goodness of spirit in the holy soul of Samuel, that was
the effectual magick that drew him to condescend to converse with Saul
in the woman’s house at Endor, as a keen sense of justice and revenge
made Anne Walker’s soul appear to the miller with her five wounds in her
head.
“The ridged and harsh severity that Webster fancies Samuel’s ghost would
have used against the woman, or sharp reproofs to Saul; as for the
latter, it is somewhat expressed in the text, and Saul had his excuse in
readiness, and the good soul of Samuel was sensible of his perplexed
condition. And as for the former, sith the soul of Samuel might indeed
have terrified the poor woman, and so unhinging her, that she had been
fit for nothing after it, but not converted her, it is no wonder if he
passed her by; goodness and forbearance more befitting an holy angelical
soul than bluster and fury, such as is fancied by that rude goblin that
actuates the body and pen of Webster.
“As for departed souls, that they never have any care or regard to any
of their fellow souls here upon earth, is expressly against the known
example of that great soul, and universal pastor of all good souls, who
appeared to Stephen at his stoning, and to St. Paul before his
conversion, though then in his glorified body; which is a greater
condescension than this of the soul of Samuel, which was also to a
prince, upon whose shoulders lay the great affairs of the people of
Israel: To omit that other notable example of the angel Raphael so
called (from his office at that time, or from the angelical order he was
adopted into after his death) but was indeed the soul of Azarias, the
son of Ananias the Great, and of Tobit’s brethren, _Tobit_, v. 12. Nor
does that which occurs, _Tob._ xii. 15, at all clash with what we have
said, if rightly understood: for his saying, ‘I am Raphael one of the
seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints, and which go
in and out before the glory of the holy one,’ in the Cabbalistical sense
signifies no more than thus, that he was one of the universal society of
the holy angels, (and a Raphael in the order of the Raphaels) which
minister to the saints, and reinforce the prayers of good and holy men
by joining thereto their own; and as they are moved by God, minister to
their necessities, unprayed to themselves, which would be an abomination
to them, but extreme prone to second the petitions of holy sincere
souls, and forward to engage in the accomplishing of them, as a truly
good man would sooner relieve an indigent creature, over-hearing him
making his moan to God in prayer, than if he begged alms of himself,
though he might do that without sin. This Cabbalistical account, I
think, is infinitely more probable, than that Raphael told a downright
lye to Tobit, in saying he was the son of Ananias when he was not. And
be it so, will J. Webster say, what is all this to the purpose, when the
book of Tobit is apocryphal, and consequently of no authority? What of
no authority? Certainly of infinitely more authority than Mr. Wagstaff,
Mr. Scot, and Mr. Adie, that Mr. Webster so frequently and reverently
quoteth.
“I but, will he farther add, these apparitions were made to good and
holy men, or to elect vessels; but King Saul was a wretched reprobate.
This is the third liberal badge of honour that this ill-bred advocate of
the witches has bestowed on a distressed prince. First, a ‘drowned
puppet,’ p. 170, then a ‘distracted bedlam,’ in the same page, which I
passed by before; and now a ‘wretched reprobate.’ But assuredly Saul was
a brave prince and commander, as Josephus justly describes him, and
reprobate only in type, as Ismael and Esau; which is a mystery it seems,
that J. Webster was not aware of. And therefore no such wonder that the
soul of Samuel had such a kindness for him, as to appear to him in the
depth of his distress, to settle his mind, by telling him plainly the
upshot of the whole business, that he should lose the battel, and he and
his sons be slain, that so he might give a specimen of the bravest
valour that ever was atchieved by any commander, in that he would not
suffer his country to be overrun by the enemy while he was alive without
resistance; but though he knew certainly he should fail of success, and
he and his sons dye in the fight, yet in so just and honourable a cause
as the defence of his crown and his country, would give the enemy battel
in the field, and sacrifice his own life for the safety of his people.
Out of the knowledge of which noble spirit in Saul, and his resolved
valour in this point, those words haply may come from Samuel, ‘To morrow
shalt thou and thy sons be with me,’ (as an auspicious insinuation of
their favourable reception into the other world,) in סחיצחצדקימ, _in
thalamo justorum_, as Munster has noted out of the Rabbins.
“Lastly, as for that weak imputation, that this opinion of its being
Samuel’s soul that appeared is Popish, that is very plebeianly and
idiotically spoken, as if every thing that the Popish party are for,
were Popish. We divide our zeal against so many things that we fancy
Popish, that we scarce reserve a just share of detestation against what
is truly so: Such as are that gross, rank and scandalous impossibility
of ‘transubstantiation,’ the various modes of fulsome idolatry and lying
impostures, the uncertainty of their loyalty to their lawful sovereigns
by their superstitious adhesion to the spiritual tyranny of the Pope,
and that barbarous and ferine cruelty against those that are not either
such fools as to be persuaded to believe such things as they would
obtrude upon men, or are not so false to God and their own consciences,
as knowing better, yet to profess them.
“As for that other opinion, that the greater part of the reformed
divines hold, that it was the devil that appeared in Samuel’s shape; and
though Grotius also seems to be inclined thereto, alleging that passage
of _Porphyrius de abstinentia Animalium_, where he describes one kind of
spirit to be Γένος ἀπατηλῆς φύσεως, παντόμορφόν τε καὶ πολύτροπον,
ὑποκρινόμενον καὶ θεοὺς καὶ δαίμονας καὶ ψυχὰς τεθνηκότων. (which is, I
confess, very apposite to this story; nor do I doubt but that in many of
these necromantick apparitions, they are ludicrous spirits, not the
souls of the deceased that appear,) yet I am clear for the appearing of
the soul of Samuel in this story, from the reasons above alleged, and as
clear that in other necromancies, it may be the devil or such kind of
spirits, as Porphyrius above describes, ‘that change themselves into
omnifarious forms and shapes, and one while act the parts of dæmons,
another while of angels or gods, and another while of the souls of the
deceased.’ And I confess such a spirit as this might personate Samuel
here, for any thing Webster has alleged to the contrary, for his
arguments indeed are wonderfully weak and wooden, as may be understood
out of what I have hinted concerning the former opinion, but I cannot
further particularize now.