Dr Henry More’s letter, with the postscript, to Mr J. G., part 2 of 3

THE Postscript.

THis Letter lying by me some time before I thought it opportune to conveigh it, and in the mean while 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 weaknesses 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 judgement 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 finde to be this: That the parties ordinarily deemed Witches and Wizzards, are onely 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 desine 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 signifie 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 op[…]rose 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 Latine word Saga, according to that of Festus, Sag[…] dictae anus quae 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 adays 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 vertue of either an express or implicite sociation or consederacy with some evil Spirit. This is a true and adequate definition of a Witch or Wizzard, which to whomsoever it belongs, is such, & 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. ch. 18. 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 or name in the Hebrew is [Hebrew] [Kosem Kesamim] a diviner. Here because [Hebrew] [Kasam] sometimes has an indifferent sen[…]e, and signifies to divine by natural Knowledge or humane Prudence and Sagacity; therefore nothing of such a Witch as is imagined to mak[…] a visible League with the Devil, or to have her Body suckt 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 desinition thereof. And the very words of Saul to the Witch of Endor, are, [non-Latin script] that is to say, Divine to me, I pray thee, by thy familiar Spirit. Which is more than by natural knowledge or humane sagacity.

The next word is [non-Latin script] [Megnonen] which though our English Translation renders (from [non-Latin script] [Gnon] Tempus) an observer of Times; (which should rather be a Declarer of the seasonableness of the time, or unseasonableness as to success; a thing which is enquired of also from Witches) yet the usual sence rendred by the Learned in the Language, is Praestigiator, an Imposer on the sight, Sapientes prisci, says Buxiorf, a [non-Latin script] [Gnajin, Oculus] deduxerunt & [non-Latin script] [Megnonen] esse eum dixerunt, qui tenet & praestringit 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 bystander believe he sees Forms or Transformations of things he sees not. As when Anne Bodenham transformed herself before Anne Styles into the shape of a great Cat; Anne Styles her sight was so imposed upon, that the thing to her seemed to be done, though her eyes were onely deluded. But such a delusion certainly cannot be performed without confederacy with evil Spirits. For to think the word signifies Praestigiator in that sence we translate it in English, Juggler, or an 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 an 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 [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] [Menachesh] here, may very well signifie Enchanters or Charmers; but such properly as kill Serpents by their charming, from [non-Latin script] [Nachash] which signifies a Serpent, from whence comes [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] radix is [non-Latin script] radices cvulsit, from [non-Latin script] Cinis [non-Latin script] removit Cineres, from [non-Latin script] peccavit [non-Latin script] expiavit à peccato; and so lastly from [non-Latin script] Serpens, is made [non-Latin script] liberavit à 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 rendred [non-Latin script] [Menachesh] an Enchanter, especially when that of Augur or South-sayer, which the Septuagint call [non-Latin script] (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 sly 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 Spirits 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, [non-Latin script] [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 sence 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 [non-Latin script] [Mecassephim] qui mutant & 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 sence 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 mens sight, and so are most certainly Witches, is plain from Exod. 22. 18. Thou shalt not suffer [non-Latin script] [Mecassephah] that is, a Witch to live. Which would be a Law of extream severity, or rather cruelty, against a poor Hocus-pocus for his tricks of Legerdemain.

The Fifth name is [non-Latin script] [Chobher Chebher] which our English Translators render Charmer, which is the same with Enchanter. Webster upon this name is very tedious and slat, a many words, and small weight in them. I shall dispatch the meaning briefly thus: This [non-Latin script] [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 Septuagints [non-Latin script]) 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 adde a third, Aben-Ezra, (as Martinius hath noted) who gives this reason of the word [non-Latin script] [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 ake, e're he make one Serpent assemble near him, unless helpt 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: Whenas from the Hebrew, [Hebrew], if you repeat [Hebrew] before [Hebrew] 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 [non-Latin script] [Chobher Chabharim] or [non-Latin script] [Chobher Chebher] will plainly signifie a Witch or a Wizzard according to the true definition of them. But for J. Webster's rendring this verse p. 119. thus, Quae non audiet vocem mussitantium incantationes docti Incantantis, (which he saith is doubtless the most genuine rendring of the place) let any skilful man apply it to the Hebrew Text, and he will presently find it Grammatical Nonsence. If that had been the sence, it should have been [non-Latin script].

The Sixth word is, [non-Latin script] [Shoel Obh] which our English Translation renders, a Consulter with familiar Spirits; but the Septuagint [non-Latin script]. Which therefore must needs signifie him that has this familiar Spirit: And therefore [non-Latin script] [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 vertue of him give Answers unto others. The reason of the name of [non-Latin script] [Obh] 'tis 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 signisies 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 signisie either the divinatory Spirit itself, or the party that has that Spirit. But here in [non-Latin script] [Shool Obh] it being rendred by the Septuagint [non-Latin script], OBH is necessarily understood of the Spirit itself, as Pytho is Acts 16. 16. if you read [non-Latin script] with Isaac Casaubon; but if [non-Latin script], it may be understood either way. Of this [non-Latin script] 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 couzening Divination: and adds, that this Spirit was no more cast out of that Maid, than the seven Devils out of Mary Magdalen, which he would have understood onely 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 grosly 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 srantick or ridiculous than this passage of St. Paul, if there was no Spirit or Devil in the Damsel? But what will this prosane shussler stick to do in a dear regard to his beloved Hags, of whom he is a sworn Advocate and resolved Patron […]ght or wrong?

But to procced, that [non-Latin script] [Obh] signifies the Spirit itself that divines, not onely he that has it, is manifest from Levit. 20. v. 27. Vir autem sive mulier cùm fuerit [[non-Latin script]] in eis Pytho. And 1 Sam. ch. 28. v. 8. Divina quaeso mihi [[non-Latin script]] per Pythonem. In the Septuagint it is [non-Latin script], that is, by that Spirit that sometimes goes into the body of the party, and thence gives answers; but here it onely signifies a Familiar spirit. And lastly, [non-Latin script] [Bagnalath Obh] 1 Sam. 28. v. 7. Quae habet Pythonem; there OBH must needs signifie the Spirit it self, of which she of Endor was the owner or possessor; that is to say, it was her Familiar spirit. But see what brazen and slupid impudence will do, here [non-Latin script] [Bagnalath Obh] with Webster must not signifie one that has a Familiar spirlt, but the Mistriss of the Bottle. Who but the Master of the Bottle, or rather of whom the Bottle had become Master, and by guzling had made his wits excessively muddy and frothy, could ever stumble upon such a foolish Interpretation? But because [non-Latin script] [Obh] in one place of the Scripture signifies a Bottle, it must signifie 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 Neb also into it sometimes, as into a Reed, as it is said of that Bird, and cry like a Butterbump? certainly he might as well have interpreted [non-Latin script] [Bagnalath Obh] of the great Tun of Heydleberg, that Tom. Coriat takes such special notice of, asof 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 [non-Latin script] forsooth, or Oracular AEdifice, for cheating Rogues and Queans to play their couzening tricks in; from that place 2 Chron. 33. 6. [non-Latin script] 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 [non-Latin script], or Oracular AEdifice for cheating Rogues and Queans to play their couzening tricks in. Very wisely argued and out of the very depth of his ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue! whenas if he had lookt but into Buxtorf's Dictionary, he might have understood that [non-Latin script] signifies not onely fecit, but also paravit, comparavit, acquisivit, magnifecit, none of which words imply the making of OBH in his sence, but onely the appointing them to be got, and countenancing them. For in Webster's sence he did not make [non-Latin script] [Jidegnoni] neither, that is Wizzards, and yet Manasses is said to make them both alike. [non-Latin script] Et fecit Pythonem & Magos. So plain is it that [non-Latin script] [Obh] signifies Pytho, and that adequately in the same sence that Pytho does, either a Familiar Spirit, or him that has that spirit of divination. But in [non-Latin script] [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 seigned.

The Seventh word is [non-Latin script] [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, [non-Latin script] [Jidegnoni] coming from [non-Latin script] scire, and answering exactly to Wizzard or Wise-man. And does not Witch, from wit and weet, signifie as well a wise woman, as I noted above? And as to the sence of those words from whence they are d[…]rived, there is no hurt therein; and theresore if that were all, [non-Latin script] [Jidegnoni] had not been in this black List. Wherefore it is here understood in that more restrict and worst sence: so as we understand usually now adays Witch and Wizzard, such wise men and women whose skill is from the confed[…]racy of evil Spirits, and therefore are real Wizzards and Witches. In what a bad sence [non-Latin script] [Jidegnoni] is understood, we may learn from Levit. 20. 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 [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] [Hammethim] the Dead, would understand dead Statues; but let him, if he can, any where shew in all the whole Scripture where the word [non-Latin script] [Hammethim] is used of what was not once alive. He thinks he hits the nail on the head in that place of Isaias, ch. 8. v. 19. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto ([non-Latin script], that is, to [non-Latin script], such as the Witch of Endor was) them that have familiar Spirits, and to Wizzards that peep and that mutter; (the Hebrew has it [Hebrew] and [Hebrew]; that is, that 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 peept like a Chicken, ch. 38. 14.) should not a people seek unto their God? for the living, [[non-Latin script]] 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 [non-Latin script] [Bagnalath Obh] the Witch of Endor, could ever have the face to affirm that [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] [Shoel Obh] signisies a Necromancer in this Deuteronomical List of abominable names. And therefore, forsooth, would have it a Tautologie that Doresh Hammethim should signisie so too. But I say it is no Tautologie, this last term 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 intersere 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 sence against the sin. And now therefore what will J. Webster get by this, if Doresh Hammethim will not signific a Witch of Endor, when it must necessarily signifie 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 behalf of his sage Dames, to fence off their reproach of being termed Witches; whenas 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 signifie such a Witch that destroys Men or Beasts, that makes a visible compact with the Devil, or on whose body he suckcth, 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 your self, if you peruse his Book carefully, you shall plainly find that the main drist 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 mere piece of impertinency. And there will be Witches for all this, whether these particularities be noted in them or no: For it was susficient 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 venereous transactions with them, is much more prohibited.

But for some of these particularities also they may seem to be in some manner hinted at in some of the words, especially as they are rendred sometimes by skilful Interpreters: for [non-Latin script] [Mecasseph] is translated by Vatablus and the vulgar Latine Maleficus, by the Septuagint [non-Latin script], that is, Veneficus; which words signifie 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 [non-Latin script] [Mecasseph] and [non-Latin script] [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 mens thinking, and have presently fall'n 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 Remigius reports. And therefore it is less wonder that that sharp Law of Moses is against the [non-Latin script] [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 [non-Latin script] [Chobher Chebher] 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 Foex Magorum & Sagarum that sink into those abominations, against which a sufficient Bar is put already by this prohibition of Witchcraft in general by so many names. And the other is so silthy, base, and nasty, that the mention thereof was neither fit for the sacred Style of Moses his Law, nor for the Ears of the People.

In my passing to the eighth Chapter I will onely take notice by the way of the shameless impudence of J. Webster, who in favour to his beloved Hags, that they may never be 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 AEgypt to the promised Land) to be the victory onely over so many Hocus-pocusses, so many Jugglers that were, as it seems, old 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 [non-Latin script] [Hartummim] the Magicians of AEgypt; who before that name is named, that no man may mistake, are called [non-Latin script] [Mecassephim] such kind of Magicians as can exhibit to the sight manifold prestigious Transformations through diabolical assistance, and are rendred Malesici 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 shall not suffer a Witch to live. Are not these Magicians then examples plain enough that there are Witches; that is to say, such wretc[…]d Wights as do strange miraculous things by the assistance or consociation of evil Spirits.